Lefties coming around?

[sandm000]

http://www.motleymoose.com/

I'm not sure about this site.  I took a look at the Same sex marriage and the Ayn Rand article.  They weren't bad, they just weren't from a perspective I was expecting.

I'd appreciate further input, as I'm not sure how to feel about this website.  Current mood: Ambivalent.

[BillKauffman]

Here is a great quote from the site from Clarence Darrow:

"First and last, it's a question of money," Darrow said. "Those men who own the earth make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the world."

[Sam A. Robrin]

Here is a great quote from the site from Clarence Darrow:

"First and last, it's a question of money," Darrow said. "Those men who own the earth make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the world."

Problem with any such analysis that includes the word "money" in the first sentence is, it shifts the blame onto the wealthy, away from its proper place on the government (which most lefties covertly--if not subconsciously--want to be a part of).

[chrisblask]

http://www.motleymoose.com/

I'm not sure about this site.  I took a look at the Same sex marriage and the Ayn Rand article.  They weren't bad, they just weren't from a perspective I was expecting.

I'd appreciate further input, as I'm not sure how to feel about this website.  Current mood: Ambivalent.

As one of the folks behind the Moose, I'd have to say that this is the nicest thing anyone could possibly say about it. :~)

The original purpose of the Moose was to have some place that wasn't as echoy as most political blogs.  While it was founded by a group of "Lefties" (and I use that label loosely) the focus is "Progressive" rather than "Liberal".  As the header says, the only thing Mooses really even agree about the meaning of the word "Progressive" is that whatever your position on a point may be, it will only be proven correct if it actually fosters Progress in an empirical manner.  Ideological litmus tests are left at the door.

For my part, I've argued vociferously for (and against) both "sides" in the notionally linear political spectrum and voted on either side of the Party Line.  I don't think any extremist position stands much chance of being true - or moreover, is capable of surviving in the real world - regardless of which "side" it is claiming to support.   A recent diary by Neef makes this point very well, I believe.

You are welcome to join the conversation, alternate viewpoints are always good.  It is important to note, however, that the site is actively moderated and an adult level conversation is enforced (comments/diaries that use the schoolyard-level discourse common on many blogs are deleted).  Some of the regular posters are quite far to the left, but be polite to them and they'll be polite to you.

-best

-chris blask

[BillKauffman]

There is an ideological litmus test here...

"All taxes are theft!"

[Vitruvian]

I don't think any extremist position stands much chance of being true

Them's fightin' words in these parts.

[sandm000]

http://www.motleymoose.com/

I'm not sure about this site.  I took a look at the Same sex marriage and the Ayn Rand article.  They weren't bad, they just weren't from a perspective I was expecting.

I'd appreciate further input, as I'm not sure how to feel about this website.  Current mood: Ambivalent.

As one of the folks behind the Moose, I'd have to say that this is the nicest thing anyone could possibly say about it. :~)

The original purpose of the Moose was to have some place that wasn't as echoy as most political blogs.  While it was founded by a group of "Lefties" (and I use that label loosely) the focus is "Progressive" rather than "Liberal".  As the header says, the only thing Mooses really even agree about the meaning of the word "Progressive" is that whatever your position on a point may be, it will only be proven correct if it actually fosters Progress in an empirical manner.  Ideological litmus tests are left at the door.

For my part, I've argued vociferously for (and against) both "sides" in the notionally linear political spectrum and voted on either side of the Party Line.  I don't think any extremist position stands much chance of being true - or moreover, is capable of surviving in the real world - regardless of which "side" it is claiming to support.   A recent diary by Neef makes this point very well, I believe.

You are welcome to join the conversation, alternate viewpoints are always good.  It is important to note, however, that the site is actively moderated and an adult level conversation is enforced (comments/diaries that use the schoolyard-level discourse common on many blogs are deleted).  Some of the regular posters are quite far to the left, but be polite to them and they'll be polite to you.

-best

-chris blask

I read the "diary" he suggested, it's about traffic being both conservative and liberal. It's about an individuals goals as they relate to society's goals. It sounds like a centrist plea. And chris is claiming that any change is good change.  I think he might be a centrist reformist. A preserver of the status quo, regardless of how much "Progress" he desires to see, he doesn't want to upset the left or the right, therefor nothing will happen.

[chrisblask]

I don't think any extremist position stands much chance of being true

Them's fightin' words in these parts.

:~)  Certainly not meant to start a fight.  I suppose I could have found this site's basic premise statement before jumping into the middle of the conversation (I'll see if I can find such a thing as soon as I finish putting my other foot in my mouth), but since I'm here let me ask a question or two based on this and the previous comment:

1/  Am I correct in assuming that the user population here promotes a purely non-governmental social structure?

2/  Would the basic premise be that there would be no form of "social assistance" of any definition, or that any such structures simply be voluntarily supported rather than coercively enforced?  Rand's statement in an essay in "The Virtue of Selfishness" comes to mind (I really need to get a new copy and find the exact quote):  <sic>"I'm not saying you should never choose to help anyone, rather that you are best able if no-one is forcing you to."

-thanks

-chris

[chrisblask]

I read the "diary" he suggested, it's about traffic being both conservative and liberal. It's about an individuals goals as they relate to society's goals. It sounds like a centrist plea. And chris is claiming that any change is good change.  I think he might be a centrist reformist. A preserver of the status quo, regardless of how much "Progress" he desires to see, he doesn't want to upset the left or the right, therefor nothing will happen.

I won't try to define myself, but if "preserver of the status quo" means that I don't think radical change is typically best for all involved I'd say that much is correct.  IMO it's only worth burning down everything and starting over if there is a net positive result, and given the amount of suffering involved in revolution things have to be pretty consistently awful to make a clear case for that.

"Centrist" is about as true a single-word-descriptive as could be applied to me, but in saying that it is worth noting that I don't think single-word-descriptives are much use in summing up anything as complex as a person or a political view.  I love the Randian view of personal responsibility and the demotivational aspect on society and individuals of overly coercive social structures.  I also embrace an extremely pragmatic view of how fractally complex systems (like societies and information systems) find productive equilibriums.  As an Information Security geek and capitalist with a great deal of success applying theories to large realities I find views like what Neef described in the aforementioned Moose article about traffic to ring true.

Anyway, I'll try to do a little more homework on this community before I stir things up much more.

-chris

[BillKauffman]

I don't think any extremist position stands much chance of being true

Them's fightin' words in these parts.

:~)  Certainly not meant to start a fight.  I suppose I could have found this site's basic premise statement before jumping into the middle of the conversation (I'll see if I can find such a thing as soon as I finish putting my other foot in my mouth), but since I'm here let me ask a question or two based on this and the previous comment:

1/  Am I correct in assuming that the user population here promotes a purely non-governmental social structure?

2/  Would the basic premise be that there would be no form of "social assistance" of any definition, or that any such structures simply be voluntarily supported rather than coercively enforced?  Rand's statement in an essay in "The Virtue of Selfishness" comes to mind (I really need to get a new copy and find the exact quote):  <sic>"I'm not saying you should never choose to help anyone, rather that you are best able if no-one is forcing you to."

-thanks

-chris

http://www.freestateproject.org/soi


Statement of Intent

I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property.

=======

It breaks down this way...

1. Most on the forum are minarchists (night watchmen state) which is the maximal role.
2. Some are anarchists of the individualist flavor (which is no role for the state).
3. A very, very few are left-libertarians who take two similar but different views that:

a. they are against all forms of hierarchy/authority which includes corporations (privileged by the state) and personal relations (men vs. women)
b. they follow a literal view of Locke (proviso Lockeans) that you can't have absolute property rights to what pre-exists human labor (natural commons) AND have have absolute property rights to self.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

[Russell Kanning]

the truth seems to be found in extreme "positions" to me

non-government society ... has  a certain ring to it.

[dalebert]

If I were alive when 89% of the population supported the ban on inter-racial marriage even as the supreme court decided otherwise, I would have been proud to be an extremist. When slavery was legal and Abraham Lincoln christened his presidency with a speech supporting slavery and white supremacy, I would have been proud to be an abolitionist and extremist. When most of the world has bizarre religious views, I'm proud to defiantly hold my more realist views, extreme as they are. History has taught me that a view can be very broadly held and still be quite wrong. With the word "extremist" being based on believing what you know in your heart to be true and just despite disagreeing with broadly held opinions, then I'm proud to be an extremist.

[chrisblask]

If I were alive when 89% of the population supported the ban on inter-racial marriage even as the supreme court decided otherwise, I would have been proud to be an extremist. When slavery was legal and Abraham Lincoln christened his presidency with a speech supporting slavery and white supremacy, I would have been proud to be an abolitionist and extremist. When most of the world has bizarre religious views, I'm proud to defiantly hold my more realist views, extreme as they are. History has taught me that a view can be very broadly held and still be quite wrong. With the word "extremist" being based on believing what you know in your heart to be true and just despite disagreeing with broadly held opinions, then I'm proud to be an extremist.

You aren't talking about extreme views, you are talking about being in the minority.  Those are very different things.  Belief in slavery - particular based on the binary of skin color - is an extreme view even if everyone subscribed to it.

What I mean, in general, are views that intrinsically include words like "every", "always", "never" and so forth.  Most examples of monotheistic religion are extreme at their core, for example (an individual believer can have their own tolerant version, but as a rule the "religion" itself is all about "all" "every" and "only").  Rand is often (incorrectly, imho) viewed as someone who believed in an ideology where no person would ever help another (which would be a broadly extreme view) when really she was opposed only to compulsion (which is extreme only on a granular point), but I still doubt it's pure implementation would work in the real world (i.e. purely voluntary support for society outside of Self).  The inverse Communist belief in pure compulsion is also something that doesn't work in the real world (and is imo much less desirable, if I had to choose an extreme).   

My view is that there is a balance of "ante-ing up" (iow "paying taxes", or "compulsion" if you like) and controlling your individual destiny and choices that works best in the world the way it is today.  IOW, while I would like to see more individual direction on how each person "antes" into the group fund and where those funds go, I don't think we are anywhere near a place where we could have a viable society where there was no requirement to ante up at all.  It seems that we are in a good position to demonstrably increase the individual control of and visibility into the granular management of the group fund (iow, gov't spending) in this and coming years, and that's a lot of what I will be watching to gauge whether we are in a progression or regression phase by my own metrics.

-best

-chris

[Free libertarian]

  Chris, I'm not real big on "compulsory" anything.  If "group funds" are held by groups of people that want to do that...cool.  Thats called cooperation by free association in my book. If group funds are involutarily extracted that's called tyranny in my book.  The 2nd biggest harm we do to others is thinking we can run their life for them. The biggest harm is actually supporting the implementation of the 2nd biggest harm at the point of a gun.  Live and live.  Fuck forced group funds.     

[Pat McCotter]

Sounds more like Pragmatism to me. If it works it must be right.