Party of Principle

[shanek]

Back when I used to enjoy discussing politics in here and defending libertarianism I used to make the argument (well, it's really the Libertarian argument) that unlike virtually every other political party the Libertarians based their positions on principle (and God knows I don't want to debate libertarianism right now) and in fact the Libertarians have the principles on which their positions are based all very clearly spelled out. Someone countered that the Democratic Party was also a party of principle and I'm sure others would argue that the Republican Party is also (and probably every other party). But honestly, if I either the Reps or the Dems base their positions on principles, I have not been able to decipher what they are. I really would like to know from someone who feels they can answer what those principles are, because I honestly don't know and I do not see any pattern of positions and policy which would signal any sort of underlying and governing set of principles. This is an honest inquiry because I really don't know what are supposed to be the underlying principles of the two major parties.

Money talks?

(apologies to Berkeley Breathed)

 

[shanek]

Dems: hate god, hate America, hate personal responsibility.

Repubs: fundamentalist Christian fascisms where only corporations are free to do as they like.

Libs: remove government and all anti-social behavior will magically disappear.

Green: only the planet has rights.

• FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes the milk.
• SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs as the regulations say you should need.
• FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.
• COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.
• CAMBODIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.
• POLICE STATE: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.
• MEDIA-DRIVEN STATE: You have two cows. Oprah says they're bad and you go broke.
• PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.
• REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.
• TOTALITARIANISM: You have two cows. The government takes them, denies that they ever existed, and bans milk.
• LIBERAL STATE: You have two cows. The government takes all your milk and gives it to the poor. It spoils by the time they get it.
• CONSERVATIVE STATE: You have two cows. The government declares hamburger a vegetable and gives you a subsidy.
• ENVIRONMENTALIST STATE: You have two cows. The government claims their farts are causing Global Warming and bans them.
• RELIGIOUS STATE: You have two cows. The government says they're Hindu symbols and therefore heretical, and shoots you.
• BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.
• LIBERTARIANISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
• SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires that you take harmonica lessons.

 

[fishbob]

That last one is looking better all the time.

 

[Michael Redman]

I think GWB is a perfect example of why having principles, and sticking to them, is not necessarily a formula for success. No principle is universally appropriate, and if you refuse to be pragmatic when the situation dictates reconsideration, you'll drive headlong into disaster.

 

[Kerberos]

I really have to disagree here. By their nature principles are broad and intended to cover a broad spectrum of (maybe all) practicalities. One of the most famous statements of principle is the Declaration of Independence. "All men are created equal." As a general statement of principle I can't see any circumstances where that principle can legitimately be forsaken. Or the principle that the people have a right to a just government and that when government becomes unjust people are under no obligation to support it or endure.
This is one version of the libertarian principles:
That all people possess certain unalienable natural rights, and that among these are rights to life, liberty, justly acquired property, and self-governance.

I said clear principles. The principles you've just listed are far from clear. Some appear clear at first glance such as an inalienable right to life, but think about it for a bit. For any normal definition of "life and "inalienable" that principle prohibits not just the death penalty, which you might oppose, but in fact any form of killing whether in self-defence. If you recognize that self-defence is ever legitimate, which I suspect you do, then you recognize that the inalienable right to life is in fact not quite inalienable. Still self-defence is an easy case because the culprit arguably deserves to die or is at least not innocent.

War is somewhat more problematic. Realistically no war can be executed without collateral damage that is killing people who must be described as innocent. In other words an inalienable right to life would entail total pacifism and possibly rejecting the legitimacy of self-defence.

Of cause no one (or at least very few) mean that when they cite that principle, more likely they mean that something along the lines of human life being valuable and that we should not kill people, particularly innocent people, without good reason. That is certainly a splendid principle, but it’s not really that clear and uncompromising principle. Similar arguments could be made for most of not all of the principles you listed.

 

[shanek]

I said clear principles. The principles you've just listed are far from clear. Some appear clear at first glance such as an inalienable right to life, but think about it for a bit. For any normal definition of "life and "inalienable" that principle prohibits not just the death penalty, which you might oppose, but in fact any form of killing whether in self-defence. If you recognize that self-defence is ever legitimate, which I suspect you do, then you recognize that the inalienable right to life is in fact not quite inalienable. Still self-defence is an easy case because the culprit arguably deserves to die or is at least not innocent.

It's not that he "deserves to die." It's that the would-be victim deserves to live. Self-defense, and defense of others, is part of the right to life, and the perpetrator is just facing the consequences of his own actions.

 

[billydkid]

I think GWB is a perfect example of why having principles, and sticking to them, is not necessarily a formula for success. No principle is universally appropriate, and if you refuse to be pragmatic when the situation dictates reconsideration, you'll drive headlong into disaster.

Being stubborn is not the same thing as having principles. I don't think Dubya could remotely be described as being principled. If you think he is, I would very much like to hear what are those principles on which his policies are based.

 

[Michael Redman]

Being stubborn is not the same thing as having principles. I don't Dubya could remotely be described as being principled. If you think he is, I would very much like to hear what are those principles on which his policies are based.

1. America is a Christian nation, and destined to lead the world.
2. Bush was chosen by God to lead the nation in a battle against evil.
3. His decisions are divinely inspired, and so infallible.
4. Because he is divinely inspired (with help of like-minded aides), he doesn't require the counsel of those with varying opinions.
5. In fact, those who disagree with him are under the influence of evil, and should not only be ignored, but silenced.

 

[AgingYoung]

There was a lot of fluff in this OP. I assumed my Libertarian right to shear it:

Back when I used to enjoy discussing politics in here and defending libertarianism I used to make the argument (well, it's really the Libertarian argument) that unlike virtually every other political party the Libertarians based their positions on principle (and God knows I don't want to debate libertarianism right now) and in fact the Libertarians have the principles on which their positions are based all very clearly spelled out. Someone countered that the Democratic Party was also a party of principle and I'm sure others would argue that the Republican Party is also (and probably every other party). But honestly, if I either the Reps or the Dems base their positions on principles, I have not been able to decipher what they are. I really would like to know from someone who feels they can answer what those principles are, because I honestly don't know and I do not see any pattern of positions and policy which would signal any sort of underlying and governing set of principles. This is an honest inquiry because I really don't know what are supposed to be the underlying principles of the two major parties.

.
.
There are very few idealists in politics at any meaningful level in any party.

Gene

 

[Admiral]

1. America is a Christian nation, and destined to lead the world.
2. Bush was chosen by God to lead the nation in a battle against evil.
3. His decisions are divinely inspired, and so infallible.
4. Because he is divinely inspired (with help of like-minded aides), he doesn't require the counsel of those with varying opinions.
5. In fact, those who disagree with him are under the influence of evil, and should not only be ignored, but silenced.

There's an enormous difference between the principle of "force is a bad thing" and the principle of "I'm always right."

Even the most situtational consequentialist has unshakable principles. I'm guessing you're a skeptic, which means you make assumptions along the lines of "truth is a good thing" and "faith does not imply something is true." In most arguments, you're not arguing over whether these axioms are true, you're arguing how they apply. You might change your mind on various positions (like in last month's thread about marriage privatization), but that doesn't mean you're questioning your basic principles.

Bush is used as an example of someone who isn't willing to change his mind because he doesn't change his position once he's made a decision (and he ridicules those who do). That is NOT the same thing as being principled.

I've changed my mind on many, MANY positions. (In fact, since I used to be a hardcore liberal, most of the positions I currently hold ARE the result of changing my mind). But theres a difference between changing your mind and changing your principles.

What's more, some principles are just plain better than others. "I'm always right" is a terrible principle. "The initiation of force is bad and should be avoided whenever possible" is considerably better. If you disagree with my principles, I'm prepared to discuss them. Convince me!

 

[billydkid]

There was a lot of fluff in this OP. I assumed my Libertarian right to shear it:


.
.
There are very few idealists in politics at any meaningful level in any party.

Gene

I have not a clue what editing my post has to do with libertarian principles, but I do think it is remarkably pointless and rude.

 

[UserGoogol]

It's not that he "deserves to die." It's that the would-be victim deserves to live. Self-defense, and defense of others, is part of the right to life, and the perpetrator is just facing the consequences of his own actions.

Two wrongs don't make a right. If life is inalienable, life is inalienable. Of course, a very standard formulation of liberatarian ideals is to explicitly say "initiating force is wrong, but defensive force is okay!" And when you phrase things that way, the ambiguity goes away. (I think the distinction between defensive force and initiating force is overrated, but that's a topic for a different thread.)

And furthermore, since only the most pedantically legalistic weirdoes base their principles on phrases, it could be argued that it's more of a contradiction in language than it is an actual contradiction in principle.

 

[AgingYoung]

billy,

Without a doubt you’re entitled to think what you would like to within your ability. The point of editing your post was to refine it to the actual question you posed.

You will note I eliminated some of the redundancy you restated at several points along the way to asking the actual question you asked; and I might add asked several times and in several different ways. I could point out the redundant repetitions if you would like.

If you consider it rude of me to take the liberty to do that so that I might address that question I'm a bit speechless. This is a rare moment. It shouldn't last.

Gene

I have not a clue what editing my post has to do with libertarian principles, but I do think it is remarkably pointless and rude.

 

[shanek]

Two wrongs don't make a right. If life is inalienable, life is inalienable. Of course, a very standard formulation of liberatarian ideals is to explicitly say "initiating force is wrong, but defensive force is okay!" And when you phrase things that way, the ambiguity goes away.

I don't see how it's an ambiguity at all! How can you possibly have a right to life if you don't have a right to defend that life from people trying to take it away?

 

[UserGoogol]

I don't see how it's an ambiguity at all! How can you possibly have a right to life if you don't have a right to defend that life from people trying to take it away?

To have a right to something merely means that you deserve to have that thing. The ability to defend that right is logically distinct from that, although perhaps it is necessary for the concept of rights to have any teeth. But if we consider the concept of defense to be a unnecessary part of rights, there are many ways to defend a right. I imagine you would say that it is not okay to steal medicine if you're dying, since that violates a person's right to property, for instance. I imagine you would also say it is wrong to just kill anybody who you find vaguely threatening to your life. The libertarian philosophy and as far as I can tell your philosophy is that force should only be used when someone attacks you first or when you're pretty sure they're about to attack you. But there is nothing in the words "right to life" that draws that line. It only comes a broader system of principles. Without that additional principle, you can have weaker forms of defense (you can't hurt anyone, but feel free to run like hell from enemies) or stronger forms of defense (do whatever the hell you want so as to keep on living) but no way to obviously distinguish between them.

Of course, the word right is a bit ambiguous. It may be that you define right in a way which implicitly includes the "initiating force/defensive force" distinction in it.

 

[AgingYoung]

I'd like to address the point of the OP:
.
.

But honestly, if I either the Reps or the Dems base their positions on principles, I have not been able to decipher what they are. I really would like to know from someone who feels they can answer what those principles are....

.
.
The principle of any political party is to remain gainfully employed and hold on to power. Party planks are for the consumption of the idealistic neophytes that are used to keep politicians out of the unemployment line.

Presently there is a demonstration of that point (it's about the power, dummy) in the constitutional crisis unfolding between the executive and legislative branches. Prior to that there was the example of the republican's inability to seat federal judges in the face of democrat resistance.

The attempt to control the multi-billion dollar federal budget is an ongoing saga. That is readily seen in the soon-to-be vetoed funding legislation for the troops with all the attached pork along with the condition of a dead line for the war in Iraq. Yes, it's about the power and money regardless of the party.

Gene

 

[billydkid]

billy,

Without a doubt you’re entitled to think what you would like to within your ability. The point of editing your post was to refine it to the actual question you posed.

You will note I eliminated some of the redundancy you restated at several points along the way to asking the actual question you asked; and I might add asked several times and in several different ways. I could point out the redundant repetitions if you would like.

If you consider it rude of me to take the liberty to do that so that I might address that question I'm a bit speechless. This is a rare moment. It shouldn't last.

Gene

First, allow me to say sincerely, bite me. Second, in response to your last post in this thread - I do not see how the desire remain gainfully employed and to stay in power can in any way, shape or form be construed to be a principle. Here is a simple definition: a basic generalization that is accepted as true and that can be used as a basis for reasoning or conduct
My guess is you were trying to make the point that political parties do not have any principles. In fact, some do.

I think it is the epitome of bad manners to edit another person's post, particularly when the edit is intended, however inanely, to disparage the original post. And, please, don't add to the insult by claiming it was for the purpose of clarity. It may make you feel all smug and clever and superior, but I can assure you, one thing it does not make you is classy.