Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

[Seth]

Both left and right stake a claim to the normative ground of freedom and liberty but ultimately what we characterise as left and right are two polarised perspectives on life. Like a couple who are constantly taking issue and falling out with each other the rhetoric of both the left and the right boils down to each one criticising the other for not being more like themselves.

Absolutely true. But of course the question is which normative ground is the moral one, and history proves it's not collectivism. This demonstrated by the fact that every single time I ask a collectivist to formulate a detailed rational argument in support of collectivism not only can they not do so, they flatly refuse to even try and literally always immediately turn to person attacks, Alinsky style, to derail the debate because they know that collectivism is simply morally unsupportable.

But the serious problems with both perspectives stem from each hardening their positions to the extent of citing the difference in perspectives as justifying claims for the truth, reasonableness, wholesomeness, or righteousness of 'our' views over 'your' views,

This is a vague iteration of a moral equivalency argument that presumes that both sides are equally moral or "good" and that the dispute is simply a difference of opinion. This is not the case.

This is when political perspectives stop responding to society and become the self-sustaining memes of an ideology, where an ideology is fixed view essentially expressed with the dogmatism typical of religious fanaticism. Fanatics shouting about how justified they are to be fanatical is not only boring, add no meaningful information to political discourse, but also dangerous because, as with all ideologues, ultimately the prime justification for their ideas is that they are 'their ideas' and are asserted on that basis.

Again this is a moral equivalency argument that falsely presumes that both arguments are equally valid and moral. They aren't. Socialism is quite simply and indisputably immoral. There is no rational moral justification that has ever been stated for the socialist principle that members of the community do not own themselves and the fruits of their labor, but rather both they and their labor are the property of others (the collective), which may dispose of their labor and their property at will and without consent, which is a fundamental premise of all socialist systems from Marx on down. The presumption of collectivism that all individuals inherently owe a duty of labor and property to the collective in excess of that debt they owe as a result of the consumption of public goods and services is the very basis and foundation of socialism.

Socialism presumes ownership of the individual by the collective, in the interests of the collective, even when the individual does not consent to being made the property of the collective.

Basically, if you think politics is about being right then you've missed the point.

So, in your view, what is politics about?

If you think political activity is about securing the rightness of your perspective and aligning society with it then basically you're engaged in a program with fundamentally theocratic aims - and once that is under way then the ends will always be brought to bear to justify the means.

This falsely presumes that "theocratic aims" are inherently wrong. And what else is political activity about if it's not to "align society" with some sort of common ideals and practices?

[Brian Peacock]

Your error is in forcing a dichotomy between the asserted normative morality of your own view while denigrating differing views as immoral 'collectivism'. In effect, your rhetoric undermines your own claims by marking you out as a fanatical, self-authorising ideologue.

"The right man is certain; the honest man sceptical." -- Alexander Hamilton

[Seth]

Your error is in forcing a dichotomy between the asserted normative morality of your own view while denigrating differing views as immoral 'collectivism'. In effect, your rhetoric undermines your own claims by marking you out as a fanatical, self-authorising ideologue.

"The right man is certain; the honest man sceptical." -- Alexander Hamilton

So rationally morally justify collectivism and prove me wrong. Saying that collectivism is moral is like saying that apples fall upwards off the tree, it's simply not factual and that is obvious to anyone with any sort of wit or intelligence. You're just doing exactly what I said all socialists do when their ideology is challenged: you resorted to ad hominem rather than providing rational arguments supporting the morality of collectivism.

[pErvinalia]

I've never claimed that libertarians call for total freedom. I'm saying it is a canard erected by the right side of politics to denigrate the left side. The reality is that both sides restrict freedom, just in different ways.

[Brian Peacock]

I said the same thing as well, therefore I'm a anarcho-syndicalist-totalitarian-Marxist-collectivist enemy or reason, truth, and Mom's apple pie - or something

[pErvinalia]

You forgot Stalinist.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

...While conservatives might be "authoritarian" about preserving useful social institutions and moderating change to avoid the failings of revolutionary change...

In a society like most western democracies, the political base of conservatives is always going to be the people with money, and the political power that money can buy. Their motivation in setting political and economic policies is not just to preserve institutions in general, but to preserve (and increase if possible) their own power base and wealth.

[laklak]

Whereas the political base of leftists are those without money and the power it buys. Their motivation is to take money and power for themselves, usually from the ones who currently have it, and if successful they become the next generation of conservatives. It has always been thus, my son.

To the youngsters out there manning the barricades and Feeling The Bern, remember that your Republican parents were voting for McGovern and chanting Hell no! We won't go!

Prepare for assimilation. Resistance is futile.

[pErvinalia]

I hope the Bern somehow manages to win. That would throw the cat in amongst the pigeons!

[Brian Peacock]

Your error is in forcing a dichotomy between the asserted normative morality of your own view while denigrating differing views as immoral 'collectivism'. In effect, your rhetoric undermines your own claims by marking you out as a fanatical, self-authorising ideologue.

"The right man is certain; the honest man sceptical." -- Alexander Hamilton

So rationally morally justify collectivism and prove me wrong. Saying that collectivism is moral is like saying that apples fall upwards off the tree, it's simply not factual and that is obvious to anyone with any sort of wit or intelligence. You're just doing exactly what I said all socialists do when their ideology is challenged: you resorted to ad hominem rather than providing rational arguments supporting the morality of collectivism.

First, I didn't say that collectivism is moral, nor did I say it represents a normative moral standard, or even advocate collectivism - so there's nothing for me to 'rationally morally justify' in that regard.

Second, I did say that you force a dichotomy by categorising views differing from your own as immoral 'collectivism' and then charging people to defend that categorisation - a point which is not an ad hominem and which you've just demonstrated once again.

[Seth]

I've never claimed that libertarians call for total freedom.

You have quite consistently and routinely done exactly that by clear and evasive implication, for two decades now.

I'm saying it is a canard erected by the right side of politics to denigrate the left side. The reality is that both sides restrict freedom, just in different ways.

It's the differences in the ways and means, and the justifications for those differences that are important to the question of which of those differences in ways and means are moral and which are immoral.

Your typical argument consists of denigrating Libertarianism as being implicitly rule-free and therefore "insane" when this is not the case and you have been thoroughly educated and informed of how regulations on the exercise of individual freedoms works under Libertarianism by me, and then studiously evading and avoiding discussing the magnitude and failings of collectivist restrictions on freedoms and their roots and intentions and replacing critical examination of left-wing policies by substituting vicious and interminable personal attacks and attempts to derail a critical look at your own beliefs and motivations as well as the failings of socialism in this regard.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

...While conservatives might be "authoritarian" about preserving useful social institutions and moderating change to avoid the failings of revolutionary change...

In a society like most western democracies, the political base of conservatives is always going to be the people with money, and the political power that money can buy.

Unfounded assertion that claims that the top-tier wealth holders are the "base" while ignoring the documented fact that just about exactly 50 percent of the voting public, which comprises a much larger segment of society than the top-tier wealthy, also support the "conservative" notions of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Their motivation in setting political and economic policies is not just to preserve institutions in general, but to preserve (and increase if possible) their own power base and wealth.

Well, yes, but that's absolutely no different from every left-wing socialist politician that has ever existed. What part of "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" is unclear to you.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Government is a necessary evil which, like fire, must be very carefully controlled and kept under close observation by those who are equipped to extinguish it if it threatens to rage out of control. This is as true of socialist governments as it is conservative ones.

Anyone who is willing to spend a BILLION dollars to win the office of President of the United States, as Barack Obama did, is absolutely and categorically the LAST person on earth who should be holding that, or any other public office.

[JimC]

Your error is in forcing a dichotomy between the asserted normative morality of your own view while denigrating differing views as immoral 'collectivism'. In effect, your rhetoric undermines your own claims by marking you out as a fanatical, self-authorising ideologue.

"The right man is certain; the honest man sceptical." -- Alexander Hamilton

So rationally morally justify collectivism and prove me wrong. Saying that collectivism is moral is like saying that apples fall upwards off the tree, it's simply not factual and that is obvious to anyone with any sort of wit or intelligence. You're just doing exactly what I said all socialists do when their ideology is challenged: you resorted to ad hominem rather than providing rational arguments supporting the morality of collectivism.

First, I didn't say that collectivism is moral, nor did I say it represents a normative moral standard, or even advocate collectivism - so there's nothing for me to 'rationally morally justify' in that regard.

Second, I did say that you force a dichotomy by categorising views differing from your own as immoral 'collectivism' and then charging people to defend that categorisation - a point which is not an ad hominem and which you've just demonstrated once again.

There is very much a spectrum here. It goes from an ant-like uber Marxist view at one end, where all individual concerns are totally subsumed to the power of the collective; almost a parody, really, since even the most dedicated of Marxist states in the past never managed to achieve this pure vision. It is this version of collectivism that Seth uses to castigate socialists of even the most delicate shade of pink...

The other end is almost as mythical, uber Libertarianism where it is literally every man for himself...

All existing societies are much closer to the middle of this spectrum than they are to the extremes; many individual rights are protected, but economic, environmental and political policies will be there to moderate those rights in the interest of the whole community. Political movements and groupings will push for relatively small changes in either direction, and a democratic system will muddle through until the position is at least roughly in concordance with the wishes of most citizens.

[Seth]

I hope the Bern somehow manages to win. That would throw the cat in amongst the pigeons!

Not really. The President doesn't control the budget, the Congress does. Nor does the President make law, Congress does. It's FAR more important to take Congress away from the Progressives, which is exactly what we've done. Now all we have to do is put in place a veto-proof majority in both houses and we can out-democrat the democrats and fuck them, and Bernie (God forbid) right up the ass with their own tactics and feel zero remorse for doing so because they've earned it.

[Seth]

Your error is in forcing a dichotomy between the asserted normative morality of your own view while denigrating differing views as immoral 'collectivism'. In effect, your rhetoric undermines your own claims by marking you out as a fanatical, self-authorising ideologue.

"The right man is certain; the honest man sceptical." -- Alexander Hamilton

So rationally morally justify collectivism and prove me wrong. Saying that collectivism is moral is like saying that apples fall upwards off the tree, it's simply not factual and that is obvious to anyone with any sort of wit or intelligence. You're just doing exactly what I said all socialists do when their ideology is challenged: you resorted to ad hominem rather than providing rational arguments supporting the morality of collectivism.

First, I didn't say that collectivism is moral, nor did I say it represents a normative moral standard, or even advocate collectivism - so there's nothing for me to 'rationally morally justify' in that regard.

The implication of your support for collectivism and denigration of individualism is perfectly clear in your characterization of me as "a fanatical, self-authorising ideologue." You wouldn't say that if I were arguing for socialism.

Second, I did say that you force a dichotomy by categorising views differing from your own as immoral 'collectivism' and then charging people to defend that categorisation - a point which is not an ad hominem and which you've just demonstrated once again.

What part of "[You are] a fanatical, self-authorising ideologue" is not ad hominem?

Now get on with your defenses of collectivism or admit that you have none.