Any Other Leftists on T-Nation?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Corporations are protected by government regulation. We should not allow laws that give an unfair advantage to groups but rather have a respect for the natural rights of the individual. Theoretically, this is the only purpose of government but government is not a necessary institution to protect natural rights, in my opinion.

The naturally strong and capable will always profit greater than those that are less so. This ultimately benefits society as a whole. There is no way to make it “more fair” without taking the fruits of the naturally strong and capable and giving unfair advantages to the weak and less capable.[/quote]

I pretty much agree with your second point, however, I don’t get your conclusion to the first. If government’s purpose is not necessarily to protect natural rights, what the hell is it for? Why would men risk hanging for treason to write a declaration of independence, or volunteer to fight, and possibly die to preserve their form of government?

So what is the purpose of government, if not to protect the natural rights of Life, Liberty, and Property, as Jefferson wanted to put it? And please, no poli-sci gobble-dee-gook, just a straight answer, where do governments come from, and what is their purpose?

102

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
…
So, if I’d been an American, I’d probably root for Hillary, then Obama in the big elections.
Still, I’d happily campaign and spend money for Ron Paul and for more and fairer media exposure of what he stands for.

Paul and Obama are polar opposites. I just don’t understand this viewpoint.
[/quote]

They are, you are right.
Then again, I’m not a leftist.
I’d support a german Ron Paul fervently. He is just what we’d need here badly. Getting rid of a lot of useless burocratic bulk belly while strengthening the public sense of responsibiblity and work ethic.
When it comes to the reality of the ballots box, however, I’m not out of touch with reality.

I said I’d probably vote for Clinton because I’m not sufficiently into american politics to be sure. If I’d find her program and Obama’s as repulsive as many people here claim, I’d vote for Ron, truth and honest polics. If in five minutes I’d magically become an American and had to vote immediately, I’d go for her. (in short: Obama is too inexperienced; McCain or worse, this religious bigot FFB, no way. The republicans tried to drown liberty in muck for 7 years, so you can call this Karma)

103

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
…
So, if I’d been an American, I’d probably root for Hillary, then Obama in the big elections.
Still, I’d happily campaign and spend money for Ron Paul and for more and fairer media exposure of what he stands for.

Paul and Obama are polar opposites. I just don’t understand this viewpoint.

They are, you are right.
Then again, I’m not a leftist.
I’d support a german Ron Paul fervently. He is just what we’d need here badly. Getting rid of a lot of useless burocratic bulk belly while strengthening the public sense of responsibiblity and work ethic.
When it comes to the reality of the ballots box, however, I’m not out of touch with reality.

…

[/quote]

Kind of funny, people think Paul wants to clear out the laws and let people live freely but what he really wants is to get the federal moderating hand out of the way and let the states pass all sorts of even tougher laws in many areas.

I am not sure I would want to live in Ron Pauls America where California is free to require cars to get 100 mpg and Texas will outlaw homosexuality.

104

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
…where do governments come from, and what is their purpose?[/quote]

That is a great question. Ultimately, governments were born out of anarchic, authoritarian means to control and protect the individual. It was a given that the powerful dominated the weak – as it true of most animal species. The institution of government was born from the typical prehistoric male dominated, familial society.

Clan leaders were men, they gained power by defeating other clans led by men and added to their dominion – breeding, hunting grounds, etc. What resulted over a very long period of time was what we now refer to as the state.

Modern day government struggles with balancing the notions control and protection. I believe these two ideas are diametrically opposed to each other. Since coercion is a means of control and coercion is the only means by which a government can operate then government has no legitimacy to protect the individual.

Liberty is the idea that the individual has the authority to protect himself since he is the owner of his own life. No one else has authority over the individual except the individual.

With a clear understanding of the notion of liberty it is easily understood that government serves no purpose except to control for control’s sake.

105

Hmm, but don’t you think that this’d lead to more discussion and ultimately (in the homosexuality case) more tolerance because Texas prob. couldn’t afford to ban gays?

106

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I have never been well to do but I was taught never to expect that I would have an easy time. I had to work to get where I am today. Being a white male I did not get any free handouts. I joined the military just so I could afford to finish school. I still had to take out loans.
[/quote]

Handouts? Some people may be asking for handouts. But a lot just want a system that is fairer, in which they get to benefit what they feel is their fair share. You want to emphasize the role of the individual. Yes, there are individuals who contribute more than others and I have no problem with those individuals being rewarded; however, there is another set of people who work hard, help produce the wealth of our society and see little in return for their toil.

Of course, the word “fair” is going to be defined by different people in different ways. Its definition is not written in stone or inscribed in the heavens. You either think the present system is “fair” or perhaps you just accept the game and are willing to play by its rules.

We may never agree on “fairness”, what it is and whether we have it right now, because our definitions diverge.
The “fairness” of a system is determined by the ruling ideology and the rulers that happen to be in power.
The ancien regime had plenty of defenders of the rectitude of that system. The slave system did, too. In their eyes, their system was fair.

So, I guess, in a nietzchean sense, the official definition of “fairness” is always devised by those in power. This is similar, in some ways, to the marxist concept of the state which sees the state as an instrument of oppression by one class over another.

[quote]
Capitalism has always existed. It is ownership of the means of production. Feudalism is a form of capitalism where the means of labor are also owned. [/quote]

Well, I think by most anybody’s definition feudalism is not capitalism. Two very different sets of property relations and dynamics. I will defer to the explanation that ZapBranigan gave.

[quote]
This does not mean that we do not require rules to live by. There always has been and always will be societal conventions for behavior and etiquette just as there always has been and will be means to punish those that break those convention. Government is not necessary.[/quote]

How are you going to ajudicate and punish those violations of convention?
Are you suggesting a participatory democracy, a posse comitatus, a militia? I think you are mistaken if you think that we don’t need delegates (elected or appointed) to carry out certain of these tasks. What do most people do when they get a notice for jury duty? They try to get out of it. Sorry, I just don’t see how we can get by without some form of the state.

107

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Corporations are dramatically different than government. They don’t have have the power to tax, pass laws etc. Corporations are people trying to earn a living on a larger scale. No more, no less.
[/quote]

Government is made up of people who are trying to earn a living. They are both powerful systems and, like all systems, they take measures to promote their welfare at the expense of society at large. So we get governmental bureaucracies that give its leaders lots of power and money but that do little for the alleged purpose of government which is to serve the citizenry in some way.

The same kind of bureaucracy can develop in a corporation as well. And a corporation has the power to influence politics and civil socity towards its own interest in a way the individual cannot through political financing, lobbying, commercials, etc.

108

[quote]entheogens wrote:
How are you going to ajudicate and punish those violations of convention?
Are you suggesting a participatory democracy, a posse comitatus, a militia? I think you are mistaken if you think that we don’t need delegates (elected or appointed) to carry out certain of these tasks. What do most people do when they get a notice for jury duty? They try to get out of it. Sorry, I just don’t see how we can get by without some form of the state.

[/quote]

He and I had this discussion not long ago, and he apparently thinks that if it weren’t for government getting in the way, socio-paths would stop to ponder the philosophical ramifications of their actions before they bashed in your head with a rock and took your stuff, and once they realized that acting in such a way would nullify their own natural rights, they would cease and desist immediately.

If that failed, he seemed to be advocating Lynch Law.

109

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Hmm, but don’t you think that this’d lead to more discussion and ultimately (in the homosexuality case) more tolerance because Texas prob. couldn’t afford to ban gays? [/quote]

It wasn’t so long ago our Federal government had to step in and stop systematic oppression of minorities. In many cases state and local governments supported this oppression. It was not a good thing. I don’t want to see Mississippi make blacks ride in the back of the bus again.

If Ron Paul (and his ilk) were in charge for the past 40 years America would be a terrible place for many people.

110

[quote]entheogens wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Corporations are dramatically different than government. They don’t have have the power to tax, pass laws etc. Corporations are people trying to earn a living on a larger scale. No more, no less.

Government is made up of people who are trying to earn a living. They are both powerful systems and, like all systems, they take measures to promote their welfare at the expense of society at large. So we get governmental bureaucracies that give its leaders lots of power and money but that do little for the alleged purpose of government which is to serve the citizenry in some way.

The same kind of bureaucracy can develop in a corporation as well. And a corporation has the power to influence politics and civil socity towards its own interest in a way the individual cannot through political financing, lobbying, commercials, etc.

[/quote]

Corporations cannot tax me, pass laws against me, convict me nor execute me within the law. Dramatically different.

111

[quote]entheogens wrote:
How are you going to ajudicate and punish those violations of convention?
Are you suggesting a participatory democracy, a posse comitatus, a militia? I think you are mistaken if you think that we don’t need delegates (elected or appointed) to carry out certain of these tasks. What do most people do when they get a notice for jury duty? They try to get out of it. Sorry, I just don’t see how we can get by without some form of the state.
[/quote]

That would be up to the citizens that live in particular areas where crimes are committed. In most cases it would just be vigilante justice, like it is now, except people wouldn’t be paid by the state.

112

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
entheogens wrote:
How are you going to ajudicate and punish those violations of convention?
Are you suggesting a participatory democracy, a posse comitatus, a militia? I think you are mistaken if you think that we don’t need delegates (elected or appointed) to carry out certain of these tasks. What do most people do when they get a notice for jury duty? They try to get out of it. Sorry, I just don’t see how we can get by without some form of the state.

That would be up to the citizens that live in particular areas where crimes are committed. In most cases it would just be vigilante justice, like it is now, except people wouldn’t be paid by the state.[/quote]

Lynchings.

113

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
entheogens wrote:
How are you going to ajudicate and punish those violations of convention?
Are you suggesting a participatory democracy, a posse comitatus, a militia? I think you are mistaken if you think that we don’t need delegates (elected or appointed) to carry out certain of these tasks. What do most people do when they get a notice for jury duty? They try to get out of it. Sorry, I just don’t see how we can get by without some form of the state.

That would be up to the citizens that live in particular areas where crimes are committed. In most cases it would just be vigilante justice, like it is now, except people wouldn’t be paid by the state.

Lynchings.[/quote]

I don’t see this happening as long as a person is not being restrained by the government from defending himself.

Government never stopped lynchings before.

114

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
entheogens wrote:
How are you going to ajudicate and punish those violations of convention?
Are you suggesting a participatory democracy, a posse comitatus, a militia? I think you are mistaken if you think that we don’t need delegates (elected or appointed) to carry out certain of these tasks. What do most people do when they get a notice for jury duty? They try to get out of it. Sorry, I just don’t see how we can get by without some form of the state.

That would be up to the citizens that live in particular areas where crimes are committed. In most cases it would just be vigilante justice, like it is now, except people wouldn’t be paid by the state.

Lynchings.

I don’t see this happening as long as a person is not being restrained by the government from defending himself.

Government never stopped lynchings before.[/quote]

If yor require the local citizens to punish the offender I see lynchings and whippings as the main forms of punishment. There won’t be too many prisons but the guilty may be sold into slavery.

115

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
If yor require the local citizens to punish the offender I see lynchings and whippings as the main forms of punishment. There won’t be too many prisons but the guilty may be sold into slavery.[/quote]

The guilty and the unfortunate innocents who run afoul of the mob.

116

[quote]entheogens wrote:
Ok, well, I am on the Left politically. It would seem that a lot of people that post on this political forum are Right of center. And, yes, I know that I am setting myself up to get flamed by those people.

However, I am wondering if there are other people here who consider themselves Left of center by their own definition of what that means. For example, you could be a Catholic who takes Left positons on affirmative action, health care, militarism, etc, but who is against abortion, etc. etc. In other words, I am not looking for Purity, but just a tendancy towards Leftish positions.

BTW, one request. If you are going to flame me, please make it funny. As you should know by now, I like a good joke.

And by the way, I am not trying to set YOU up. This is not a case of "“Let a hundred flowers bloom, let the hundred schools of thought contend.” If you want to, you can PM me.[/quote]

Keep the faith brother. There’s plenty of Lefties around here. Sometimes we just tire of banging our heads against the Texas fascists that love posting here.

117

I believe in extreme social and economic liberty, as well as small government. I accordingly call myself liberatarian if anything, although it really has nothing to do with what is defined as liberal or conservative in American politics, nor does it mean that I believe people are inherently good or any of that bullshit.

From what I’ve seen the ideas about the left and right within the US have no discernible basis in the historical development of either political philosophy outside of the US.