Your political views

[Jazzy]

How have your political views changed as you've aged?

 

[1689Dave]

How have your political views changed as you've aged?

I try to keep politics out of view since it polarizes some of the people we should be witnessing to. And no matter how the vote goes, it is God who determines who wins. Or who rules in other forms of government.

“This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.” Daniel 4:17 (KJV 1900)

 

[Lamb]

I used to be very liberal in my thinking (except on abortion) but as I grew, I changed because some of my wishes for mankind were way out of touch with reality.

 

[tango]

How have your political views changed as you've aged?

In my younger years I was much further to the right. The most recent assessment I took labelled me a "libertarian anarchist". It was very clear that an anarchist isn't someone who necessarily seeks to bring down governments, just someone who wants less government.

A key measure of both aspects of that is that before we ask "how should government....?" we need to lose the how and ask "should government....?". Maybe the best solution isn't to get the government involved.

 

[Albion]

In my younger years I was much further to the right. The most recent assessment I took labelled me a "libertarian anarchist". It was very clear that an anarchist isn't someone who necessarily seeks to bring down governments, just someone who wants less government.

That doesn't seem to be the idea that is held by either Libertarian anarchists OR Left-wing anarchists. Both of them talk about working towards having no government. However, mainstream libertarians and conservatives both want less government.

 

[tango]

That doesn't seem to be the idea that is held by either Libertarian anarchists OR Left-wing anarchists. Both of them talk about working towards having no government. However, mainstream libertarians and conservatives both want less government.

Certainly some anarchists want no government at all but realistically speaking having no government at all simply leads to the tyranny of whoever has the biggest stick who effectively becomes the government because they can. At absolute government there's tyranny, at at zero government there's tyranny. The ideal is to have enough government to protect the fabric of society without having endless government interventions where they aren't needed.

With any system it's good to see the weaknesses as well as the strengths. Anarchism isn't a good system to run a retail outlet or a railway - customers need to know when the store will be open and roughly what time the train will show up. You can't expect people to pay for a ticket based on nothing more than the hope that the train will show up some time in the next few days, when the driver feels like driving it.

 

[Albion]

Certainly some anarchists want no government at all but realistically speaking having no government at all simply leads to the tyranny of whoever has the biggest stick who effectively becomes the government because they can.

That's what I think, too, but Libertarian anarchists and Marxist anarchists imagine other scenarios in which social order survives thanks to something about how human nature will operate in the absence of government coercion. (on that point they obviously differ).

With any system it's good to see the weaknesses as well as the strengths. Anarchism isn't a good system to run a retail outlet or a railway - customers need to know when the store will be open and roughly what time the train will show up. You can't expect people to pay for a ticket based on nothing more than the hope that the train will show up some time in the next few days, when the driver feels like driving it.

Well, the presumption is that retail stores and railways will be in private hands and they will operate them just fine, setting schedules and prices, etc. I don't see that as absurd or ridiculous. After all, it did exist in the past.

However, when it comes to preventing predatory crime, citizens hurting each other, that's another matter.

 

[Josiah]

I tend to lean increasingly to the conservative..... although I'm certainly no Trumper.

But voting is often simple: I won't vote for anyone who is pro-abortion and that typically eliminates every Democrat (and occasionally a Republican). In the primaries, I often need to choose between pro-life Republicans, however and then other issues come into play.



.

 

[Castle Church]

I used to be very conservative as a child, then Marxist as a post college graduate, then broadly libertarian....now pretty conservative on all fronts since around 2018, although I did not vote for Trump in either election.

 

[prism]

I was a yippie communist anarchist until I came to Christ where I became conservative. It had nothing to do with age.

 

[Fritz Kobus]

I was a yippie communist anarchist until I came to Christ where I became conservative. It had nothing to do with age.

Similar for me, but I was not active in political causes, just a liberal. When I was born again (in college at the age of 27) I instantly became a conservative.

 

[prism]

Similar for me, but I was not active in political causes, just a liberal. When I was born again (in college at the age of 27) I instantly became a conservative.

Wow a rarity, ...a conservative AND in college.
Or better yet, finding Jesus while in college!

 

[tango]

That's what I think, too, but Libertarian anarchists and Marxist anarchists imagine other scenarios in which social order survives thanks to something about how human nature will operate in the absence of government coercion. (on that point they obviously differ).

I imagine different people within those groups think different things.

Certainly some people think that if we took away government we'd all sit around campfires singing kumbaya and life would magically develop into utopia with no external guidance. I can't say I've come across very many of those people. The assorted tests I've taken have generally defined an anarchist as someone who wants fewer rules, not necessarily no rules at all.

Well, the presumption is that retail stores and railways will be in private hands and they will operate them just fine, setting schedules and prices, etc. I don't see that as absurd or ridiculous. After all, it did exist in the past.

However, when it comes to preventing predatory crime, citizens hurting each other, that's another matter.

None of the above are really suited to a no-rules scenario. The simple reality is that no-rules-at-all doesn't work, unless you're strong enough to impose your will on others by some combination of reward and punishment. That typically means the rich and the strong become untouchable, at least until they cease to be rich or strong and lose their top spot.

Where preventing crime is concerned a key question has to be what is considered a crime. Where there is a clearly identifiable victim, someone who didn't consent to whatever arrangement is going on, things are easy. Where there isn't a clearly identifiable victim things become thornier. The obvious example that often comes to the surface is attempts to legislate morality - it's one thing to legislate against rape because it requires one party to the act to not consent but trying to legislate what consenting adults do in private is absurd. But then come issues of environmental pollution - the company dumping toxic waste into the ocean isn't creating a clearly identifiable victim, at least not right away. The victims will appear in time.

If there were no rules at all then things like murder and rape would no longer be illegal, although disrespecting the warlord's partner (using whatever definition of "disrespect" suited the warlord at the time) could result in a painful death. Dumping toxic waste in the ocean would not be prosecuted, and so on. It's really hard to see anyone assuming that taking away all the rules would result in the worst environmental offenders suddenly seeing the light and mending their ways.

 

[Albion]

I imagine different people within those groups think different things.

Sightly so, yes. But anarchism is anarchism, so there's not much room for variations when saying you favor having no government at all. But as I said, there are differences between anarchists on how to get there.

Certainly some people think that if we took away government we'd all sit around campfires singing kumbaya and life would magically develop into utopia with no external guidance. I can't say I've come across very many of those people.

Well, I'd guess that there aren't "very many" when compared with all the other political POVs out there, but they do exist and aren't as rare as you might assume.

The assorted tests I've taken have generally defined an anarchist as someone who wants fewer rules, not necessarily no rules at all.

Then that wouldn't be anarchism, but I agree that there are people who say they favor almost no government and yet still call themselves anarchists. Or else, when you say "rules" you are speaking of something else, because anarchists do believe that there would be rules, all right, but just not ones imposed by or enforced by government.

None of the above are really suited to a no-rules scenario. The simple reality is that no-rules-at-all doesn't work, unless you're strong enough to impose your will on others by some combination of reward and punishment.

I would agree. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't people -- some very nice and non-violent ones included -- who do imagine that some self-regulating behavior among the citizens would achieve order without the long arm of government.

 

[tango]

Well, slightly so, I'd agree. But anarchism is anarchism, so there's not much room for variations when saying you favor having no government at all. But as I said, there are differences between anarchists on how to get there.

I guess the question is the scope of "no government". We can argue that there's no need for government to be involved in regulating whether I'm allowed to go for a hike while accepting there's a need for some form of government to regulate environmental pollution, for example. We can argue that rules aren't needed for as long as I'm not harming anyone else while accepting rules are needed to prevent me from harming others.

Then that wouldn't be anarchism, but I agree that there are people who say they favor almost no government and yet still call themselves anarchists. Or else, when you say "rules" you are speaking of something else, because anarchists do believe that there would be rules, all right, but just not ones imposed by or enforced by government.

Perhaps, although this seems to be arguing over finer semantic points that are arguably down to interpretation rather than outright definition. The issue with rules is that if there is no government enforcing their rules then sooner or later there will be a warlord or similar enforcing theirs.

I would agree. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't people -- some very nice and non-violent ones included -- who do imagine that some self-regulating behavior among the citizens would achieve order without the long arm of government.

In smaller communities there certainly can be a lot of self-regulating behavior. In a stable community where people know people there can be a degree of peer pressure to not rock the boat too badly, not to steal and cheat and do all the bad stuff most people agree we'd be better off without. Being invested in your own community to at least some extent can bring that about. The trouble is that visitors to the community, newcomers, members of transient communities etc don't have any of this and without any investment in the community there's much less future benefit to them to play by the rules.

For an example look at how AirBnB has become notorious for hosts buying up residential properties and leasing them to people who show no regard at all for the local community because all they want is a loud wild party somewhere they can just walk away from with no consequences. Self-regulating behavior does exist but it's not universal.

The key trouble with so much of the more utopian thinking is the eternal problem - it only takes one. You might live in a sleepy small town and not need to lock your doors because you trust the community but it only takes one bad guy coming through to steal your stuff. You might not worry about who can access the internet through your unsecured wifi but it only takes one idiot to download something illegal for the FBI to come knocking on your door. Unless there's a way of reining in that one bad actor or, as an alternative, a viable probability they will be caught and punished after the fact, the utopian vision fails and with it the dream of no externally imposed rules at all.

 

[1689Dave]

I always go with the party that sheds the least amount of innocent blood.

 

[Albion]

I guess the question is the scope of "no government". We can argue that there's no need for government to be involved in regulating whether I'm allowed to go for a hike while accepting there's a need for some form of government to regulate environmental pollution, for example. We can argue that rules aren't needed for as long as I'm not harming anyone else while accepting rules are needed to prevent me from harming others.

That approach would not satisfy an anarchist, however, It would describe a conservative, of course, but not an anarchist. I do know of self-described anarchists who believe that there would still be government but limited to preventing the use of force or fraud against other people, so I guess we'd have to decide if that qualifies as anarchism or not.

The issue with rules is that if there is no government enforcing their rules then sooner or later there will be a warlord or similar enforcing theirs.

What you are addressing here is whether or not anarchism is practical, or even possible. Most people, including you and I, would insist that it's not. Nevertheless, there are people who think it is.

 

[Albion]

I always go with the party that sheds the least amount of innocent blood.

When casting your vote, do you mean?

 

[1689Dave]

When casting your vote, do you mean?

I no longer vote. But when I did I voted my conscience. This would involve the least amount of innocent bloodshed. I'm consistently pro-life, and Anti-war.

 

[Albion]

I no longer vote. But when I did I voted my conscience. This would involve the least amount of innocent bloodshed. I'm consistently pro-life, and Anti-war.

It's just a theoretical issue, then, but in order to adhere to your standards you'd have two possible choices on Election Day--Libertarian Party or Constitution Party.