What is Your Political Philosophy? There are Only TWO

Good morning class! Lets begin, shall we?

Contrary to what you may have been taught to the contrary, there are really only two political ideologies. That's right, only two.

youtu.be...

One is either a libertarian
or an authoritarian

lib·er·tar·i·an
1: an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2 :a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty

au·thor·i·tar·i·an
1:favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom
2: a political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state
3:exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others

A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.

An authoritarian is a person who believes it is acceptable for a political entity to use force over their own and their neighbors' lives, as long as it is for the greater good of "society". An authoritarian relies on force, and politics becomes the process of deciding who gets to use it on whom. Those who act consistently with this principle are authoritarian, whether they realize it or not.

Now class, your homework is to tell me if you believe you are an authoritarian or a libertarian, and to discuss the merits of the ideology that holds true to you.

For all you teachers pets out there, you may take this test for extra credit.
politicalcompass.org...

Class dismissed.

All I will say is that you need to go read some political science books. I just had school all day and don't want to spend the night teaching you how wrong you are.

Good luck with your thread

This is an interesting (if unorthodx) way to look at politics...you aren't using the "traditional" definitions of libertarianism and authoritarianism...but if you want to define your terms on those grounds, OK. Let's take it as a thought exercise. Thus taken, it can be a very helpful antidote to the linearity of the traditional left-right paradigm. But to demand that we make this choice is perhaps even more repressive than crushing complex opinions down to fit the demands of left-right polemics. Sorry, but I won't play that game.

If I absolutely had to label myself, I would choose something like "pagmatist" or "historical realist".Do what needs to be done...just get 'er done. The rest is detail.

Originally posted by silent thunder
But to demand that we make this choice is perhaps even more repressive than crushing complex opinions down to fit the demands of left-right polemics. Sorry, but I won't play that game.

You are making it out to be more complicated than it really is.

If you believe in the philosophy which says that you can run your life better than someone else can, and you have the right to be left alone in order to do so, you are a libertarian.

If you don't believe that, you are inherently an authoritarian, as you believe that "the public interest" takes precedence over the interests and rights of others.

Originally posted by kro32
All I will say is that you need to go read some political science books. I just had school all day and don't want to spend the night teaching you how wrong you are.

Good luck with your thread

If I'm wrong, and you are so schooled, than it should be easy to point out the flaws of my iron-clad statement.

The problem is that everyone wants personal freedom to do as they choose, they just do not want to suffer the consequences of their decisions.

So, basically, I either believe in letting people do whatever they want or I want 100% slavery. Why can it not be that either one should be applied depending upon the situation?

Whether the person in this video likes it or not, human beings are a social species. The concept of embracing total libertarianism flies in the face of this very basic biological fact. That said, humans are also individuals to some degree, so embracing the authoritarian viewpoint 100% is also insanity.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
The problem is that everyone wants personal freedom to do as they choose, they just do not want to suffer the consequences of their decisions.

Probably the most intelligent thing that I have heard all day.

Let me guess that the OP is a flaming liberal and is setting this up to be an US vs. THEM type of thread?

Originally posted by TheThirdAdam

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
The problem is that everyone wants personal freedom to do as they choose, they just do not want to suffer the consequences of their decisions.

Probably the most intelligent thing that I have heard all day.

And this is why human beings can not be trusted to make the right decisions. Anarchy would never work, people need rules and guidelines or most of them would go ape sh*t. Well at least here in the good old USA they would.

I'm not sure I would agree that there are two. It seems to me there is only control, whether it be absence or excess. Libertarian and authoritarian are just the extremes. In a perfect world I'm a libertarian. In a wicked world I'm an authoritarian. I don't believe libertarian principles work while people are not compassionate and I don't believe authoritarian principles work when they are.

Originally posted by METACOMET
Good morning class! Lets begin, shall we?

Contrary to what you may have been taught to the contrary, there are really only two political ideologies. That's right, only two.

youtu.be...

One is either a libertarian
or an authoritarian

lib·er·tar·i·an
1: an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2 :a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty

au·thor·i·tar·i·an
1:favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom
2: a political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state
3:exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others

A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.

An authoritarian is a person who believes it is acceptable for a political entity to use force over their own and their neighbors' lives, as long as it is for the greater good of "society". An authoritarian relies on force, and politics becomes the process of deciding who gets to use it on whom. Those who act consistently with this principle are authoritarian, whether they realize it or not.

Now class, your homework is to tell me if you believe you are an authoritarian or a libertarian, and to discuss the merits of the ideology that holds true to you.

For all you teachers pets out there, you may take this test for extra credit.
politicalcompass.org...

Class dismissed.

edit on 30-8-2011 by METACOMET because: fxlnk

Epic fail.
Between two extremes is the middle.
Anarchy-Socialism-Slavery
Socialism (not state communism) when run by non psychopaths works.

Originally posted by discharged77

Originally posted by TheThirdAdam

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
The problem is that everyone wants personal freedom to do as they choose, they just do not want to suffer the consequences of their decisions.

Probably the most intelligent thing that I have heard all day.

And this is why human beings can not be trusted to make the right decisions. Anarchy would never work, people need rules and guidelines or most of them would go ape sh*t. Well at least here in the good old USA they would.

My girlfriend and I were just having a conversation about this that started when we saw a car on the side of the highway stopped by a cop. There are things that should be legal which are not, however, if cops didn't enforce speed limits the roads would be more dangerous right?

Perhaps...

Let's take a look at Germany.

The German autobahns are the nationally coordinated motorway system in Germany. In German, they are officially called Bundesautobahn (plural Bundesautobahnen, abbreviated BAB), which translates as federal expressways. German autobahns have no general speed limit (though about 47% of the total length is subject to local and/or conditional limits), but the advisory speed limit (Richtgeschwindigkeit) is 130 kilometres per hour (81 mph).

Source


Here's a table I've assembled:



Source

Germany: 1 in 22,380 people died on the road in a year

U.S.: 1 in 9081 people dies on the road in a year


As you can see, there is no direct correlation between police enforcing speed limits and roads being safer. Of course this is just a rough example and does not take into account many variables, such as safer vehicles in Germany and more SUVs in the U.S.. Nevertheless Germany seems to have safer roads.

Draw your own conclusions.

OP, many people will have problems with the way you have drawn your lines in the sand. It's an interesting way of looking at things but unfortunately I think life is more messy than that. I consider myself a libertarian but various libertarians differ on which acts are causing harm, once again making things messy.

Unfortunately class, the instructor for this course is taking the authoritarian approach by limiting you and your options in this subject. By their own definitions placing them within the authoritarian sector of this limited spectrum;

Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.

I prefer the Moral Politics graph.

As you can see, there are far more than two political philosophies at hand in this graph, we have, at minimum, four. Indicated here.

Feel free to take their quiz here.

reply to post by OrganicAnagram33


Simply saying that allowing people to drive as fast or as slow as they want make the roads 'safer' ignores numerous other factors that are at play here, which you mentioned, to name a few:

There are over 254.4 million cars in the US, while Germany has 53.6 million cars.

It costs upwards of $2000 plus extensive professional training on driving to obtain a license in Germany, here in the US it usually doesn't cost more than $30 and any licensed person over 21 can train you to drive.

One could argue that German roads are safer because of these limitations imposed by the government, a very authoritarian approach, as it would relate to the thread.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
The problem is that everyone wants personal freedom to do as they choose, they just do not want to suffer the consequences of their decisions.

or of other people's decisions. The main problem with all of this is people don't agree on where one person's freedom ends and another's begins. It would be all well and good if we lived in our own totally isolated world where our freedom had no risk of interfering with another person's freedom.

//double post. Sorry.

Originally posted by kro32
All I will say is that you need to go read some political science books. I just had school all day and don't want to spend the night teaching you how wrong you are.

Good luck with your thread

Are you smarter than a 5th grader? Love that show!
Fact is they aren't wrong. Political science books will only corrupt the basic premise which is correct. If you study politics and the law you will know in their original form laws were not designed for either royalty or the papacy, not for the Church or the King.

Laws are designed and used to manage and control the freemen and the slaves in the Kings population.

Libertarians want more liberty which is freedom and Authoritarians want more authority which is power over them or power to rule and more laws restricting liberty.

Today although the names have changed we have an extension of that battle of wills and philosophy. Just because you might not have been aware of it and suspected something else entirely does not make it essentially untrue.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
The problem is that everyone wants personal freedom to do as they choose, they just do not want to suffer the consequences of their decisions.

Those consequences you are speaking of...we call those penalty of law.

Personal freedom is great and everybody wants to do as they choose. Problem lies in the fact that we are not living in a golden age of kindness and people are effed up.

If people could figure a way to both do as they choose and live their life as they see fit AND do it without harming another person or infringing on their rights to live freely and as they wish,,,it should work.

No laws necessary. However like I said before, we can't depend on this to work smoothly and flawlessly because people are effed up. There are always a handful who want to make slaves out of people who do not want to be slaves, others who do not want to share but rather want to confiscate resources and hold them for ransom or form the beginnings of "capitalism" and still other who are just plain mean and enjoy witnessing suffering and want to see people miserable if they have to force the issue themselves.
This is in the beginning how Paradise got started going down hill. Capitalism, slavery, meanness and greed. All that stands between us and Utopia.

Originally posted by Tearman

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
The problem is that everyone wants personal freedom to do as they choose, they just do not want to suffer the consequences of their decisions.

or of other people's decisions. The main problem with all of this is people don't agree on where one person's freedom ends and another's begins. It would be all well and good if we lived in our own totally isolated world where our freedom had no risk of interfering with another person's freedom.

edit on 31-8-2011 by Tearman because: (no reason given)

This is where treating people how you would want to be treated yourself comes in. If you considered that you would make allowances for almost everything. We would have peace. We would not need laws. Laws are necessary to govern commerce but if everyone did as they TRULY want others to do for them...what a great place this could be.

Contrary to what you may have been taught to the contrary, there are really only two political ideologies. That's right, only two.

MMmmm???? This is a puzzler.... But i love a good riddle...
There are only two, and they are contrary to what i've been taught... Then you followed with two definitions of what i've been taught... So i am trying to figure out what the "two" might be and i am stumped.
They can't be libertarian or authoritarian because i've been taught both of those... So it has to be two others which i would not have been taught. But how would i know what i haven't been taught????? i have to say i'll be working on this riddle for awhile... It's some kind of paradox i guess because for me to know it i would have to have learned it or have been taught it. Is this really a question involving the meaning of learned and taught????


Will you eventually give us the answer?