How do you form your political opinion?

[hanimmal]

After hearing TheBrutalTruth talk about Austrian Economics, I did do some research on it. Although this is not the point of this post I did find this intersting: http://economics.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

The only thing that I don't like as much about it is that it really seems more of a quasi blend of politics and economics. And a couple times it seems to disregard things that have been developed in regular economics. I am just on the side of economics not being swayed by a persons beliefs, it should just be a tool to measure and extrapolate, and leaving the idealisms to the people that talk about what those measurments mean after they are figured out for all political sides.

Anyway very interesting to see how we all come about our ideals and how we research them.

 

[ilkhan]

Economics and politics are interconected.
You can not have personal freedom without economic freedom.
Simple as that.

 

[hanimmal]

I am just saying the study of economics. Not the impact that it has on the nation. With economics you are simply taking the numbers at hand, applying the change/changes that you are looking to see how it would affect the economy.

After you have those numbers, which the only real debate should be "did you include this data" (Most economists disagreements come from using different data inputs), then you can apply how your outlook on the world and what political beliefs you have to chose the 'best (debatable)' path to chose.

For example, if I close this plant down and take it to china it would save the economy $100m amount of money (price of lower priced cars over the entire economy) then you take the difference of the actual money lost (salaries).

You can then look at this data and say if the company moves the economy would stand to gain 100million dollars over the next ten years. But at the cost of 50million in salaries.

So how would you decide? That comes down to personal beliefs. If you think that it is better to make the economy 50million, or save the jobs of that factory? 1. You could just pay the 50m to the people losing their jobs, making the economy an extra 50m (I like this way, mixed socialism(what we have now)), 2. you could just close it down and not help the people at all (pure capitalism), 3. or keep it open because only the people matter (pure socialism).

Every thing will have a consequence (btw unintentional consequences is a garbage idea since it is known, just not told to the public).



Either way people will suffer, and people will benefit.
1. Economy benefits as a whole, city is hurt, and the people that get the unemployment may not get off of it costing the society money.
2. Economy benefits more as a whole, but the city is devastated.
3. Economy is hurt, but the city and people are most helped.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

I am just saying the study of economics. Not the impact that it has on the nation. With economics you are simply taking the numbers at hand, applying the change/changes that you are looking to see how it would affect the economy.

After you have those numbers, which the only real debate should be "did you include this data" (Most economists disagreements come from using different data inputs), then you can apply how your outlook on the world and what political beliefs you have to chose the 'best (debatable)' path to chose.

For example, if I close this plant down and take it to china it would save the economy $100m amount of money (price of lower priced cars over the entire economy) then you take the difference of the actual money lost (salaries).

You can then look at this data and say if the company moves the economy would stand to gain 100million dollars over the next ten years. But at the cost of 50million in salaries.

So how would you decide? That comes down to personal beliefs. If you think that it is better to make the economy 50million, or save the jobs of that factory? 1. You could just pay the 50m to the people losing their jobs, making the economy an extra 50m (I like this way, mixed socialism(what we have now)), 2. you could just close it down and not help the people at all (pure capitalism), 3. or keep it open because only the people matter (pure socialism).

Every thing will have a consequence (btw unintentional consequences is a garbage idea since it is known, just not told to the public).



Either way people will suffer, and people will benefit.
1. Economy benefits as a whole, city is hurt, and the people that get the unemployment may not get off of it costing the society money.
2. Economy benefits more as a whole, but the city is devastated.
3. Economy is hurt, but the city and people are most helped.

You can not tax yourself into prosperity

and as taxes are collected under the threat of force they are the equivalent of theft, except for income taxes which are equivalent of slavery.


As far as how I make up my political decisions,

Any one that desires power is not worthy of it

Any one that doesn't want power, should probably have it, but it should not be forced upon them.

If the benefits cause other people to be forced to sacrifice then the ends are immoral, because the means are immoral. It is not noble to kill one to help ten. It is not moral to enslave the few to help the many. No man deserves to be enslaved.

Those that can are not willing to help themselves should be left to fend for themselves. It is EASY to succeed in the United States.

There are no barriers of caste like in India, no pompous imbeciles who believe their straight family trees make them any better than any one else (in general.)

This is a country where those that have drive, and a willingness to work succeed. That idea saw the United States become the most prosperous, strongest, and wealthiest nation in the World, and all of History.

It is a unique position that policies that punish hardwork and diligence are going to throw away.

The few, the proud, the free, to paraphrase the advertising line of the Marines. If we throw away our freedoms, we sacrifice the principles that lead to the creation of this nation.

 

[hanimmal]

You can not tax yourself into prosperity

and as taxes are collected under the threat of force they are the equivalent of theft, except for income taxes which are equivalent of slavery.

So how can you help people to understand that things our society has to offer costs money? If you take away the tax on them which noone wants to pay, you cannot get anything done.

People may like the highways and roads, but nobody would pay for all the ones we need. and every neighborhood would have dirt roads, and every main street would have to be a toll meaning we are paying the same anyway. At least with a the power of pooling the money thigns can be done far more efficient in theory.

Not that this happens (If I don't always add in these disclaimers I get labeled a idiot) the way it should due to corruption and government bloat.

 

[hom36rown]

You can not tax yourself into prosperity

A society cannot prosper without the state, and the state cannot exist without taxation, so taxes are essential to prosperity.

and as taxes are collected under the threat of force they are the equivalent of theft, except for income taxes which are equivalent of slavery.

I think that is a rather simplistic, and well, distorted interpretation. Theft implies that something is being taken wrongfully. As to whether or not taxation is wrong, well, most people are able to be objective regarding the matter, and believe that taxation is necessary to preserve order and maximize liberty, and this is what I believe as well. As for income tax being slavery, well, I am not quite sure what your definition of slavery is...but I assure you, it is not.

What is mind numbing though, is that either you have deluded yourself into believing that a system(or lack thereof) without taxation would work, or you are willing to sacrifice civilization because you perceive it as the moral thing to do. There is a very good reason why anarchism if a fringe ideology.

If the benefits cause other people to be forced to sacrifice then the ends are immoral, because the means are immoral. It is not noble to kill one to help ten. It is not moral to enslave the few to help the many. No man deserves to be enslaved.

Again, no one is being enslaved...Anyway, morality is not black and white. You bring up killing one person to help ten, what about killing one man to save ten from being killed? Here I'll give you a hypothetical: Let's say you're in Africa, your village has been invaded by some rebel military group that is going through village murdering everyone in it. You and 9 other people are hiding in a hut. The group has overlooked the hut and is leaving. You have a baby in your arms, it starts to cry and you quickly cover it's mouth. If you move your hand, the soldiers will discover the hut, and everyone will be murdered, including you and the baby. If you do not, you will smother the baby.(Please remember this is a hypothetical situation, these are your only choices...don't tell me you would try to muffle the cries or something) Now you can either say to yourself, "killing another human is wrong" and sacrifice everyone including yourself for what you perceive to be the moral thing to do, or you can be objective and realize that the baby will die either way and smother the baby, saving yourself and the other people. Me, I would be objective, and smother the baby, and I do not believe I would be doing so immorally.

This situation is analogous to anarchy; either we can do what you perceive to be the "moral" thing, and everyone suffers(well, except maybe for a very few rich elite, who would then posses a great amount of power over the rest of the population), or we can be objective and do what is best for everyone. And taxation does benefit everyone, the roads you drove to work on today, police, courts, prisons, even the money you are so desperate not to be 'coerced' out of, were paid for through taxation. Either people can sacrifice a little money, or we can abolish taxation and sacrifice civilization...it's a no brainer for most people.

You characterize this logic as the ends justifying the means, and that is not the case. In the end, morality comes down to values. In the hypothetical situation, it comes down to whether you value an axiomatic belief that killing another human being is wrong, or you value the lives of yourself and the other people. With taxation, it comes down to whether you value an axiomatic belief that "theft" is wrong, or you value civilization.

If we throw away our freedoms, we sacrifice the principles that lead to the creation of this nation.

Again, you can either value "the principles that lead to the creation of the nation," or you can value, well, the nation. But, the founding father supported taxation so you must be referring to something else?

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

A society cannot prosper without the state, and the state cannot exist without taxation, so taxes are essential to prosperity.

Not true at all. Your arguments are simplistic, and stupid. The state is not necessary for the benefit of society. Society functions through voluntary exchanges, not through one party holding a proverbial gun up to another group and demanding that they do this or that against their will.

I think that is a rather simplistic, and well, distorted interpretation. Theft implies that something is being taken wrongfully. As to whether or not taxation is wrong, well, most people are able to be objective regarding the matter, and believe that taxation is necessary to preserve order and maximize liberty, and this is what I believe as well. As for income tax being slavery, well, I am not quite sure what your definition of slavery is...but I assure you, it is not.

If you don't even understand what I am saying then you should shut your mouth and think a bit longer.

What is mind numbing though, is that either you have deluded yourself into believing that a system(or lack thereof) without taxation would work, or you are willing to sacrifice civilization because you perceive it as the moral thing to do. There is a very good reason why anarchism if a fringe ideology.

Again, no one is being enslaved...Anyway, morality is not black and white. You bring up killing one person to help ten, what about killing one man to save ten from being killed? Here I'll give you a hypothetical: Let's say you're in Africa, your village has been invaded by some rebel military group that is going through village murdering everyone in it. You and 9 other people are hiding in a hut. The group has overlooked the hut and is leaving. You have a baby in your arms, it starts to cry and you quickly cover it's mouth. If you move your hand, the soldiers will discover the hut, and everyone will be murdered, including you and the baby. If you do not, you will smother the baby.(Please remember this is a hypothetical situation, these are your only choices...don't tell me you would try to muffle the cries or something) Now you can either say to yourself, "killing another human is wrong" and sacrifice everyone including yourself for what you perceive to be the moral thing to do, or you can be objective and realize that the baby will die either way and smother the baby, saving yourself and the other people. Me, I would be objective, and smother the baby, and I do not believe I would be doing so immorally.

It would still be an immoral action.

Would it be the correct action to take... possibly, of course, you're assuming in your example that there is not a way to quiet the infant with out killing it, and there probably would be.

This situation is analogous to anarchy; either we can do what you perceive to be the "moral" thing, and everyone suffers(well, except maybe for a very few rich elite, who would then posses a great amount of power over the rest of the population), or we can be objective and do what is best for everyone. And taxation does benefit everyone, the roads you drove to work on today, police, courts, prisons, even the money you are so desperate not to be 'coerced' out of, were paid for through taxation. Either people can sacrifice a little money, or we can abolish taxation and sacrifice civilization...it's a no brainer for most people.

There is no issue with local taxation. The issue is with federal taxation that is used for the benefit of a few individuals instead of for the benefit of all of society.

You characterize this logic as the ends justifying the means, and that is not the case. In the end, morality comes down to values. In the hypothetical situation, it comes down to whether you value an axiomatic belief that killing another human being is wrong, or you value the lives of yourself and the other people. With taxation, it comes down to whether you value an axiomatic belief that "theft" is wrong, or you value civilization.

Again, you can either value "the principles that lead to the creation of the nation," or you can value, well, the nation. But, the founding father supported taxation so you must be referring to something else?

The founding fathers would probably be urging on a revolution right now, because they opposed excessive taxation, and taxation with out representation.

The transmogrification of the United States into a democracy routinely deprives a minority of their representation and voice in government, and exposes the totalitarian rule of the mob for everyone to see.

The gross expansion of government power is not efficient, nor is it the best way to accomplish what needs to be done.

Besides, it routinely flows directly against the Constitution, which is the document that defines and delineates the powers that the federal government has, and does not, and the limitations placed upon the government to intrude into the lives of the citizens.

If you are so ignorant of the document as to believe that the Federal Government is really helping you, or so callous in your disregard of your freedoms as to be willingly turned into a slave, then there a myriad of nations that would probably gladly welcome you into them.

If you want to voluntarily pay for all these programs, then that is up to you. If you are going to force everyone else to, then it is not a just or moral system that you are proposing.

If a town needs roads, then it should be up to each area to ensure that everyone agrees that the roads need to be paved.

Of course, you're assuming that there are not trade offs, between wasteful spending that benefits just a few individuals and generally useful spending such as intrastructure that more or less benefits everyone, and is primarily funded at local levels with the federal government routinely giving back to the states what they took from them to begin with, and thus making it look like they are doing something useful.

The power should be more at the local level where people can demand more accountability than at the federal level where people are distant from their representatives, and can not see exactly what they are doing with their power.

Oh, and killing one to save ten isn't an issue of morality, that's a cost-benefit trade off. It's still immoral to kill the one.

 

[hom36rown]

Not true at all. Your arguments are simplistic, and stupid. The state is not necessary for the benefit of society. Society functions through voluntary exchanges, not through one party holding a proverbial gun up to another group and demanding that they do this or that against their will.

I see, so then you have deluded yourself into believing anarchy would work.

It would still be an immoral action.

Would it be the correct action to take...possibly

So then the moral thing to do, is not always the right thing to do?

of course, you're assuming in your example that there is not a way to quiet the infant with out killing it, and there probably would be.

ITS A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION.

There is no issue with local taxation. The issue is with federal taxation that is used for the benefit of a few individuals instead of for the benefit of all of society.

Oh, so local taxation is not theft? Even if it is not voluntary?

Oh, and killing one to save ten isn't an issue of morality, that's a cost-benefit trade off. It's still immoral to kill the one.

Oh I see it's a cost trade benefit...so morality does not come into play if there is a cost trade benefit? Sort of like, the ends justifying the means?

 

[hom36rown]

Ayn Rand says it pretty well:
"All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement."

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

I see, so then you have deluded yourself into believing anarchy would work.


So then the moral thing to do, is not always the right thing to do?


ITS A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION.


Oh, so local taxation is not theft? Even if it is not voluntary?

Oh I see it's a cost trade benefit...so morality does not come into play if there is a cost trade benefit? Sort of like, the ends justifying the means?

Local Taxation is still theft, but is more likely to be more closely monitored and watched by the effected parties, and to be more efficient.

Not to mention that it does not lead to the creation of a vast bureaucracy that routinely is unanswerable to the very people it is supposedly trying to help.



It is still immoral to kill the one, that doesn't change regardless of how many you are supposedly saving.

What you are examining is whether eleven dying (through the immoral actions of other people) is better than one dying (through the immoral actions of another.)

And the answer of course depends on the person that is stuck doing the killing.

I don't actually know what I would do in that situation...

 

[jfgordon1]

Ayn Rand says it pretty well:
"All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement."

Wow, what a great quote haha

 

[ViRedd]

Ayn Rand says it pretty well:
"All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement."

I don't disagree with Ayn Rand on very many things, but this is one of them.

The Libertarian Party, and Libertarians in general do not espouse anarchy, we espouse limited government. We realize that SOME government is necessary, albeit, a necessary evil. One of the few legitimate functions of the federal government is to protect the rights of the citizens.

Even a limited government needs income in order to carry out it's duties. Libertarians realize that that income involves taxes. The Constitution gives Congress the power to lay taxes. So, its not the taxes we disagree with ... its the method of collection and enforcement.

Vi