Politically correct people stay out of my threads

Post Reply New Topic

I did not mean to come across as writing you off as a human being or anything, and clearly I have issues with snake321 anyway. Could you elaborate on your philosophy of "choice?" Obviously we have free will, but actions have consequences. Of course people operating in a different ethical system to mine can be using some form of reason at least equally valid, and I myself have been wrong several times (given my changes of opinion on some issues, it is at least reasonably certain that I have been wrong several times in the course of my twenty five years).

How much is twisted humour, how much from convictions actually held by you?

Well, I mean, free choice in that people should be the ones to choose how to act and such unless it conflicts with the freedom of others. Succinctly, my ideas tend to be sort of libertarianish, what might be considered liberal in Australia. I only value human choices though.
Well, I will admit I am not a proponent of animal rights, I do not care to have them abolished but I do think that they are meant to be used for our purposes. I do not remember ever wanting any removal of female free will. I do defend sweatshops but partially because I view them as essential for starting up economic growth. In the beginning we all had sweatshops.

People already do make decisions as to how they act; laws are needed because human nature includes a capacity for evil. The Liberal Party in Australia is paradoxically by and large the more conservative of the two main parties (it is of course more complicated than this) the other being Labor (spelt in American English fashion unlike British equivalent Labour). The term "small l liberal" is sometimes used for someone more or less left leaning on many issues regardless of party affiliation, possibly though not necessarily what you intend. Or are you speaking specifically civil libertarianism, the defence of the rights of the individual? Just provided I do not confuse what you speak of with libertinism (or is that in fact what you mean?)

Interestingly the associations of Democrat (curiously the Democrats and the Democratic Labor Party are minor parties here as are the Greens and a few others) and Republican have changed over the past century or more. The situation in Britain, with Whigs (Liberals) and Tories (Conservatives) and later Radicals and still later Labour, given the twentieth century merger of the Liberals with the Social Democrats to become the Liberal Democrats with Labor and Conservatives remaining as two main parties, both of which have dramatically reinvented themselves in order to appeal to a wider demographic, is also interesting, not to mention various, though far from all, continental European parties having Christian Democrats (more or less conservative) and Social Democrats (more or less left-leaning) or similar variants. And we have not touched the politics of various Asian countries yet, nor the other continents.

Would you put some limitations/regulations on a system of sweatshops as an economic stage?

I do not argue for the abolishment of laws. Few do. I only knew that the Liberal party is not left wing. I am not a left winger. I am more like a libertarian in the American sense, and one that is more liable to lean right. I do mean libertarian, I was referring more towards the right wing party the Liberal party, partially because I did not know how to phrase everything as I knew that libertarian is a stolen term, and that liberal is a stolen term.


What kind of restrictions or limitations? We are talking about the third world here. They can put their own limits at their own risk or benefit. Really, I do not think that it will be a permanent thing. Wages will rise as demands for labor change with the changing of the economic structure and as growth continues. The sweatshop will die out naturally. As for regulation, the question really ends up being when are we paternalistic and forcing our beliefs upon that of the worker and employer combo and when are we dealing with an actual issue. I will tend more towards an idea that less does more and would prefer to inform people than coerce.

Who owns the terms, that they can be described as "stolen"? Maybe colonies should invent a new language on self-government. I figured you were more right-leaning. So do you mean you support small government and laissez-faire capitalism, or what precisely? I do not fully identify with either wing of politics on all issues (hardly alone in this I suspect).

Stolen? Well, liberal originally meant what we consider libertarian in that original scholars worked with the idea of individualism and individual, natural rights which is why some libertarians call themselves classical liberals. Libertarian originally meant anarchist too, and was used by their scholars. It was stolen by US classical liberals because they needed a term. I call them stolen because they were re-engineered for an ideology that they did not originally belong to.

Why did you figure I was more right-leaning? A distrust of democracy? Or is it because of the view of right wingers as more callous than left wingers? I support smaller government and principles based more on laissez-faire capitalism, this does not mean that I do not think that improvement upon actions by government is impossible, I do recognize that governments should necessarily intervene to deal with certain externalities and some market imperfections, I just think that even that should be done in a manner to maintain market processes as best possible and that we must recognize that political solutions often are imperfect and can be a danger in the long run, especially given the fact that politicians do not win for being correct but rather for acting.

Who said anything about coercion? Either you believe that people will honour principles if reasoned to, concede some sanctions are necessary, or do not care. Injustices in the world have been going on for some time, and are hardly going to be sorted out solely by market forces, the product of relations between actual human beings with free will and a capacity for good and evil, as well as for deceiving and being deceived. Your lassez faire capitalism is really fully as naively optimistic about human nature as orthodox Marxist socialism or Buddhism, the latter at least having a more insightful diagnosis of the human problem as opposed to its solution than either of the two alternatives.

Apologies, I am getting too aggressive; I do not intend to hurt anyone's feelings, particularly as I have shared aspects of some such views in the past; the imprint of past impressions is part of who I am today. (Now snake321 can accuse me with justice of political correctness, on the basis of this last paragraph at least!)

No, callous disregard is completely non-partisan. Or bipartisan. Whichever you prefer. Did you really used to believe in a dictatorship? And do you really consider my hypothetical system sounder than complete autocracy? How gratifying. What is with this whole left and right thing any way?

I said coercion because I recognize that laws are enforced by penalties. I believe that enforcement of contracts is necessary. Injustices in the world do exist and market forces are not perfect. Political forces are imperfect either unless you think that the politician is not motivated by his own gain as well and if you think his incentives and information aren't imperfect. Everything fails, I think my ideas will fail less than others but I do not think we will get utopia. Buddhism is not an economic system to my knowledge though. As I went over in my previous post, I do recognize that markets fail, however, governments can do a lot worse in my mind.
I do not find you that aggressive. My feelings are not hurt on this issue either. You did not slander me at all. Frankly I do not mind suffering some of your critique, however, it must be recognized that I might not want to go at this for long considering that I do get into many economics debates.

Well, yeah, that is true. However, in terms of stereotype the right is often considered more cold hearted. Yes, I did, I believed if we had our lives run by experts it would be perfect. It is better than complete autocracy. Left and right represent different political beliefs and are usually the common divide often times because of how they represent the different perspectives in the world.

Personally, the greed of sweatshop owners disgusts me. It would take so little expenditure on the part of the companies who own sweatshops to dramatically improve the lives of the workers.

When we are so clearly and overtly exploitative, what are they to think? What message does this send regarding western culture in general, and America in specific?

Why do you think I'm gonna bite your head off? You've said nothing to anger me.... I would question what marxism and buddhism have in common though? I'm not really buddhist but I share alot of common beliefs with buddhism (and to a degree the other religions including atheism). If anything western society needs discipline very badly, our nation is starving for and crying out for discipline (Mtv seems to be a factor here).

I think we could use tougher laws, I'm not saying chopping fingers off for stealing or anything but I do think some laws need to be enforced alittle tougher..... And some laws they should lighten up on, like marijuana or prostitution (the non-exploitative kind)
I think that old people should be made to take a quarter annually test on their eye-site, hearing, mental alertness, and driving ability in order to keep their liscense too. My grampa had gotten lost in his own neighborhood, and most of them don't seem to be able to keep up with the speed limits. I'd also say that if they get into an accident theyr liable to have their liscense indefinately suspended (until they can pass another driver's test). I dunno why that came to mind lol, I'm on the rings of saturn right now;) 420 has been good to me.
But I'll be around again I hafta get to bed because I have work tommarrow.

I am not going to say that there is no greed, but greed is why they go in there, and typically the conditions do end up being better than these people would get otherwise. Really, I think that our paternalism, even in sweatshops can end up being bad as workers do end up being hurt if we do try to put in higher standards because of the fact that trade-offs still end up being made. The job of the company is to hire on labor to create stuff for us to buy, that is what sweatshops often do.

I did not consider a sweatshop an embassy, I still do not. I consider a step better than whatever hole they previously had to deal with as shown by their tendency to work there rather than work where they previously did. If you care about the workers then you can give them your money but not enslaving people is all I really need to see. I mean heck, all nations essentially built up from sweatshops anyway. I suppose it all falls down to personal beliefs and all though.

We indeed need discipline very badly indeed. I only meant that I felt that Buddhism (which I have my self been influenced by in the past) and Marxism, (to some of the objectives of which I have at times been sympathetic) while sharing the fact of having a reasonably clear assessment of some of the problems (different views and emphases of course) of the human condition, also share an overly optimistic view of human nature in their prescriptions for two quite different solutions. Then again Christianity (my current faith) could be accused of optimism, or conversely of an unhealthy pessimism at times. I am happy to debate all three and more at length. The specific apology above was directed more at your nemesis Awesomelyglorious (obviously neither a Buddhist nor a Marxist) whose lassez-faire anarchocapitalist (unusual to associate anarchism with the right though it might be) libertarianism, with its assumption that such evils as sweatshops would be cured by market forces alone. My apology to you (snake321), if I actually made a proper one, was earlier after I had just accused you of being a fanatic and felt that perhaps this was a trifle harsh. And Awesomelyglorious, I am aware that Buddhism is not a system of economics. I was talking philosophies. And of course you are not going to bite my head off, snake321. You are too far away for starters (I am jesting of course).

Last edited by AlexandertheSolitary on 21 Feb 2007, 1:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

What is this about Saturn? It sounds intriguing. And is there a non-exploitative form of prostitution? I thought that the elderly generally did have to have tests to retain their licence, thoughn obviously laws can differ between nations and even states. Are not the young, upon the whole, a greater danger traffic accident wise?