Political Questions

[benji]

This will probably go unreplied...but alas...

Which would you prefer?

Equality: Everyone is equal, even if that equality must be enforced.
v.
Liberty: You have the freedom to fail, but you also have the freedom to succeed.

Rights: The state decides what people can or cannot do. The state grants rights as it sees fit.
v.
Powers: People decide what the state can or cannot do. The people grant the state powers as they see fit.

Requirement: You are required to do things.
v.
Option: You have the option to do things.
Ex: You are required to pay for medical insurance, or you have the option to not have it. You are required to vote, or you have the option to not vote.

Unfettered Political Speech: People are allowed unlimited expression of political speech in all it's forms (including money use).
v.
Managed Political Speech: The state decides what, when and where political speech in all it's forms can be used.

Media controlled by the Market: The media operates independently. If it so desires media outlets can be wrong, lie, make things up, have bias, and determine their own focus.
v.
Media controlled by the State: The state controls or restricts the media to ensure it is not printing anything wrong (as decided by the state). Media is only allowed when certified by the state to avoid causing any problems.

Elimination of harmful speech: If the state determines a form of speech to be harmful, it should be curbed. Hate speech should be restricted or eliminated to protect those groups offended.
v.
Allowance of all speech: Some may be hurt, but all speech, including hate speech, is allowed.

People should possess weapons: It is vital to their defense, so the people should have guns and other weapons.
v.
State should possess weapons: Only the state may possess guns and other weapons, in order to protect the people.

State interests dominate: If the state determines that allowing you to smoke, drink, eat certain foods, etc. is not in your best interests and also not in the states' interests, it should be controlled.
v.
Self interests dominate: Regardless of if something like eating or drinking is bad for you, one should have the freedom to do it.

State Moralism: The state has the power to enforce any morals it so determines necessary. If it decides preferences should be granted on race, that people must accept everyone in all ways (socially, economically, etc.), or that wealth is immorally distributed, it has the power to correct these problems as it sees fit.
v.
Liberalism: The state is granted the power to protect life and property based on social agreements, but beyond that allows unrestricted freedoms.
v.
Anarchism: The state does not exist. There are no protections except those each individual decides upon individually.

Market: Prices and the distribution of goods and capital are determined by the market forces.
v.
State: Prices and the distribution of goods and capital are determined by the state.

Handy Answer Chart...(just copy and paste!)
Equality v. Liberty:
Rights v. Powers:
Requirement v. Option:
Unfettered Political Speech v. Managed Political Speech:
Media/Market v. Media/State:
Eliminate Harmful Speech v. Allow All Speech:
People/weapons v. State/weapons:
State interests v. Self interests:
State Moralism v. Liberalism v. Anarchism:
Market v. State:
And if you could explain a little...that would be totally sexy and hott...

[[Q]]

Equality v. Liberty: Equality (i like it when things are fair)
Rights v. Powers: not really keen on either, but i'd say rights because that's how it's done now
Requirement v. Option: option
Unfettered Political Speech v. Managed Political Speech: Managed (only because of the corruption that comes with your mention of money use)
Media/Market v. Media/State: state. you made it sound better.
Eliminate Harmful Speech v. Allow All Speech: allow all
People/weapons v. State/weapons: people
State interests v. Self interests: self
State Moralism v. Liberalism v. Anarchism: liberalism
Market v. State: market

[benji]

I'm trying to not post to not sway any opinions too much (as if I have that power...) and I'm also wanting to keep answers within the two options presented...but I was wondering on this Qballer:

Rights v. Powers: not really keen on either

If you aren't keen on the "European" (rights) or "American" (powers) systems, what would be your preference?

[[S]Reaver]

Equality v. Liberty:

Liberty. Although success is what all human beings desire, one must realize that if one is to succeed, others will fail. In addition, having the "liberty" to do things usually leads to excess competition, and as teens, many of us experience extended pressure to do well and excel over high standards. This is a hard choice, having a bar of equality would personally make my life much easier. Not to mention extending a couple of years in my lifespan as well . In the end, I prefer for the human race to advance, and I do very much enjoy success. Liberty it is.

Rights v. Powers:

Powers. As they say about the average person... .

On a more serious note, we all see that capitalism is the feasible system for our world. Communism and authoritarianism (did I spell that correctly?) just doesn't seem to be sustainable for a large society, eventually leading to a higher poverty rate. However, as long as the lack of rights aren't as extreme as those of Facism and Maoism, and the state isn't as corrupt as Mao and Hitler was, I'm fine with communism. But I doubt that would ever happen.

Requirement v. Option:

Option. The freedom to do things is important. I'm not a huge fan of censorship.

Unfettered Political Speech v. Managed Political Speech:

Unfettered Political Speech. Again, don't like the sense of censorship in managed politcal speech.

Media/Market v. Media/State:

Media/Market. I would hate to loyally follow under the leadership of a person, then later discover that the person has done much wrong in the past, but hid it from the rest of his followers.

Eliminate Harmful Speech v. Allow All Speech:

Eliminate Harmful Speech. Yes, I know I don't like censorship, but there is a limit to everything. When what you say hurts the beliefs of others, it should not be said at all.

People/weapons v. State/weapons:

State/weapons. As long as the state isn't corrupt and knows what it's doing, I would grant the powers to the state. Crime is rising at an alarming rate nowadays. I would hate to have a friend or a relative get hurt for so-called "self-defence".

State interests v. Self interests:

Self interests. Don't force me to smoke.

State Moralism v. Liberalism v. Anarchism:

Liberalism. The state should follow the needs of the people, but the needs of the people must be also moderated by the state.

Market v. State:

Market. I'm not sure how this works, but seeing how many economies under dictatorship hardly succeed, I would say market over state.


That was long!

[Riot]

Liberty - The lure to succeed is what brings out the best in people. The promise of equality is what brings out the laziness or people.
Powers - People control the state. People are the state.
Option - The biggest issue right now with this is the health care problem but the idea of having an option to pay your way to the front of the line is something I don't have a problem with.
Managed Political Speech - There are some places where politics shouldn't play a part.
Media/Market - The state controlling the media would be nothing but straight propaganda. The media being run independently ensures that the facts and sources are right.
Eliminate Harmful Speech - No reason why we should have awful hate speach. Freedom of speach only goes so far.
People/weapons - Give the people the right to protect themselves and it takes the power away from the government.
State interests - There are some exceptions but I think the state controlling some harmful substances like drugs does more good than harm.
Market - The most effective way to run an economy

[[Q]]

I'm trying to not post to not sway any opinions too much (as if I have that power...) and I'm also wanting to keep answers within the two options presented...but I was wondering on this Qballer:

Rights v. Powers: not really keen on either

If you aren't keen on the "European" (rights) or "American" (powers) systems, what would be your preference?

hmm I guess when i read both statements i didn't agree with either one, but if i turn it into whether I'd have the state or the people have the power, I say more power to the people
that one was kinda confusing for me.

[Christopherson]

Maybe later I'll post my specific feelings on each individual issue but after reading the list I would have to say that ideally we could fall somewhere in the middle on most of these issues. I would probably tend to lean a bit to one side or the other on most of the issues but never completly to one side or the other. Take weapons. I believe people have to the right to possess weapons, just not all shapes and forms of weapons.

[Joe']

Equality v. Liberty: Liberty. Equality isn't a possibility in this world, people are born different and that's the way it is. If you want to be something better, you have the liberty to earn it.

Rights v. Powers: Powers.

Requirement v. Option: Definitely option.

Unfettered Political Speech v. Managed Political Speech: Managed speech.

Media/Market v. Media/State: Media/market. Media/state sounds too much like a dictatorship.

Eliminate Harmful Speech v. Allow All Speech: Eliminate harmful speech.

People/weapons v. State/weapons: I have mixed feelings about this one but I'd say State/weapons.

State interests v. Self interests: Self interests. I think we should be able to determine what is good or bad for ourselves.

State Moralism v. Liberalism v. Anarchism: Liberalism. The other two are way too extreme.

Market v. State: Market.

[cyanide]

My selected ones are in bold

Equality v. Liberty: I was tempted to put both in bold. In a perfect world, I'd like to see a combination of both, but in reality, I'd prefer to see the survival of the fittest over robots.
Rights v. Powers: I rather have the majority rule.
Requirement v. Option: Well, obviously we can't avoid taxes, but it'd be nice to have that as an option
Unfettered Political Speech v. Managed Political Speech: Dictatorship, anyone?
Media/Market v. Media/State: See above, though I'd like to see state regulation that prohibits fabrications, slander and invasion of privacy.
Eliminate Harmful Speech v. Allow All Speech: As with almost anything, there should be a limit for the welfare of the majority.
People/weapons v. State/weapons: If the state is controlled by the majority, then the state (army), not the individuals should have control of guns, weapons and such.
State interests v. Self interests: I had a tough one with this, but assuming the majority rules, the majority should agree what substances should be legal or legal for the overall welfare of the state.
State Moralism v. Liberalism v. Anarchism: Having the most freedom with reasonable limits for the safety and benefit of the majority seems like the best choice.
Market v. State: Based on history, it seems the market does well.

[benji]

Now that there are a few more reponses, I'd like to ask some more questions of the responders...and more in general, I'm trying not to single out the responder personally. Some quick thoughts...

Equality (i like it when things are fair)

As some have noted, are things being "fair" a better situation though? I don't have an Xbox 360, everyone can't have an Xbox 360, so in order for things to be equal, no one would have one. The only way to ensure equality is through the lowest common denominator, so I'm wondering why some people prefer equality to liberty? Is everyone being the same a superior ideal than have and have nots?

Managed (only because of the corruption that comes with your mention of money use)
Eliminate Harmful Speech. Yes, I know I don't like censorship, but there is a limit to everything. When what you say hurts the beliefs of others, it should not be said at all.
Managed Political Speech - There are some places where politics shouldn't play a part.
Eliminate Harmful Speech - No reason why we should have awful hate speach. Freedom of speach only goes so far.
Managed speech.
Eliminate harmful speech.

A number of the above responses came from people who didn't want state control of the media. Why does the media deserve the ability to say anything it wants, but individuals are required to be silent? The media and state can make any political speech they want, but people must be managed.

If we are not allowing hate speech or speech that "hurts the beliefs of others" then there is no speech. Everything could be declared hate speech or "belief hurting speech" by someone, or the state, or the unfettered media. And what is the punishment for hate speech? If I call KevC a twinkie, should I be jailed? fined? What if I call him a fascist? or a jerk? Should I also be punished for those?

If we're saying the state is our servant, and that it cannot control our economy, our bodies, and in some cases our guns, then why should it be allowed to control what we say? Is not allowing citizens to attack someone personally or politically through speech the most pressing state and social interest? Does liberty exist if people cannot speak freely against the state?

State/weapons. As long as the state isn't corrupt and knows what it's doing, I would grant the powers to the state. Crime is rising at an alarming rate nowadays. I would hate to have a friend or a relative get hurt for so-called "self-defence".

Well, if your friends or relatives were attacking someone, should the person they are attacking not be allowed to defend themselves? If they were just attacked by someone possessing a weapon that person would be a criminal and not acting in self defense. And if invalidating the power of self defense, then does that not force the individual to be dependent on the state for their protection, a massive limitation to their liberty?

Also, If the state is the only one to possess arms, then what means of power do the people hold over the state? If the state disagrees with the people exersizing their political power it can simply use it's arms to suppress the people.

State interests - There are some exceptions but I think the state controlling some harmful substances like drugs does more good than harm.

But if the state can determine what is good for you in one regard (drugs, alcohol, smoking) what prevents them from also not telling you what to eat, or how/when/if you can drive or sport? If they're preventing harm to you by restricting/controlling/banning some substances that are bad to you, why are they not allow to prevent harm to you by doing the same to other negative substances?

If the state can decide not allowing drugs is in the overall welfare of the state, then how can it not also decide that not allowing fatty foods, or video games, or minorities is in the overall welfare? Where/how is the line drawn? By whatever the "majority" feels at the current time?

Maybe later I'll post my specific feelings on each individual issue but after reading the list I would have to say that ideally we could fall somewhere in the middle on most of these issues. I would probably tend to lean a bit to one side or the other on most of the issues but never completly to one side or the other. Take weapons. I believe people have to the right to possess weapons, just not all shapes and forms of weapons.

But if we're restricting some speech and not others, requiring some things and allowing options on others, allowing some weapons but no others, where is the line decided? And by who?

If people can have knives or handguns, why can they not have rifles or machine guns? Because the state or society determines the latter to be more dangerous? But handguns and knives are also dangerous, what level of dangerousness is allowed and why?

If we're desiring some sort of balance between extremes we need to have a rational reason for drawing distinctions. If some speech, activities, media, weapons are bad but some is not. How are we deciding why it is better than others? If we don't want speech that hurts people, what prevents the elimination of all speech because it could potentially hurt someone somewhere, and so on. Are we again going with whatever the majority desires? If the majority again thinks blacks should be slaves or Jews should be dealt with, but only them, is that good because it's a balance decided by the majority?

Eliminate Harmful Speech v. Allow All Speech: As with almost anything, there should be a limit for the welfare of the majority.

Again, do we want the state to protect the majority or the minority? If the majority decides that insulting minorities is good, but that any speech against the majority is harmful, should that be what is eliminated?

I'm not trying to argue on these things, thus my attempt at all the open questions in the above, but instead explore these questions and concepts. There isn't a right answer and it's quite individual, as we know. I just want to keep saying this, as I doubt anyone so far would take issue, but some kids might venture in and start crap.

[cyanide]

Damn, those are some excellent points, benji. You were able to show some pros and cons, and to be honest, I can't answer some of those questions. Especially with the "If the state can decide not allowing drugs is in the overall welfare of the state, then how can it not also decide that not allowing fatty foods, or video games, or minorities is in the overall welfare?" and "If the majority decides that insulting minorities is good, but that any speech against the majority is harmful, should that be what is eliminated?"

I can't answer that. I really don't know, and I don't think anybody can give a correct answer. Maybe it's a combination of many issues, but who are we to decide what should be included or excluded? Really thought provoking questions, though. Sorry if I couldn't give an answer.

[benji]

That's perfectly all right, cyanide.

I never intended for us to answer the great questions, just to discuss and ponder about things. Something different from normal threads. I was just interested in discussing these things with some different people and picking their brains about the topics.

[[S]Reaver]

Managed (only because of the corruption that comes with your mention of money use)
Eliminate Harmful Speech. Yes, I know I don't like censorship, but there is a limit to everything. When what you say hurts the beliefs of others, it should not be said at all.
Managed Political Speech - There are some places where politics shouldn't play a part.
Eliminate Harmful Speech - No reason why we should have awful hate speach. Freedom of speach only goes so far.
Managed speech.
Eliminate harmful speech.

A number of the above responses came from people who didn't want state control of the media. Why does the media deserve the ability to say anything it wants, but individuals are required to be silent? The media and state can make any political speech they want, but people must be managed.

Of course, there's never a distinct line between two subjects.

Let's look at it this way:

The media deserve the ability to say what it wants, as long as it does not conflict with the specifications of "harmful speech".

Meanwhile, eliminating harmful speech does not necessarily mean eliminating speech that is deemed "harmful" by the state alone. But rather, it should be agreed on a consensus of both the majority and those running the state. The state needs to cater to the needs of the people, yet the state also needs to moderate the people.

We're assuming, of course, the state is not corrupt.

Again, there are no clear-cut answers. The more correct responses always come with an "if" or an "and". There are exceptions and extremes, we just need to look at the right ones.

It's like comparing Live 07 to 2K7. Many can (and probably will) argue that 2K7 kills Live because of gameplay, but I can argue that Live, with a pretty sophisticated dynasty system and above par graphics (next-gen), is not a bad game, if patched.

Okay, bad example.

[benji]

Meanwhile, eliminating harmful speech does not necessarily mean eliminating speech that is deemed "harmful" by the state alone. But rather, it should be agreed on a consensus of both the majority and those running the state.

But again, why protections for the majority? As I asked before "If the majority decides that insulting minorities is good, but that any speech against the majority is harmful, should that be what is eliminated?"

The elimination of speech the majority wants denies the minority of speech. And if speech can be denied by the choice of the majority, what can't be? Do we have protections for minorities, or absolute dominance of majorites? I consider NBA Live 07 to be hate speech, if I can convince a majority to support my opinion, Live 07 would be banned. The only check on this peversion of the idea is the hope that a majority won't support that prospect. A hope that blacks and Jews in Nazi Germany, would probably not count very strongly on. (Do I lose for going to slavery and the Holocaust twice now? I'd use other examples, but I think everybody knows about these so I don't have to explain them? They're good examples of a majority making bad decisions...)

And I don't think we should keep saying "assuming the state is not corrupt" as it's going to be run by people.

Also, if the media has their speech also controlled along with the individual, where is the speech against the state/majority going to come from?

[[S]Reaver]

State/weapons. As long as the state isn't corrupt and knows what it's doing, I would grant the powers to the state. Crime is rising at an alarming rate nowadays. I would hate to have a friend or a relative get hurt for so-called "self-defence".

Well, if your friends or relatives were attacking someone, should the person they are attacking not be allowed to defend themselves? If they were just attacked by someone possessing a weapon that person would be a criminal and not acting in self defense. And if invalidating the power of self defense, then does that not force the individual to be dependent on the state for their protection, a massive limitation to their liberty?

Also, If the state is the only one to possess arms, then what means of power do the people hold over the state? If the state disagrees with the people exersizing their political power it can simply use it's arms to suppress the people.

Ahh...here's a more difficult one. I guess I was being pretty ambiguous by saying "so-called self-defence". What I actually meant (this may sound a bit dumb) was, if there was a gang fight, and one gang initiated the fight, the opposition "fired back" in "self-defence" and my friends just happened to be there (as bystanders), that would suck. I didn't mean it in the sense that "my friends are the offenders".

But anyway, assuming I have violent friends, if they were to attack others first, and get hurt in the process, I wouldn't feel half bad. Well, maybe I would, but what's been done is done, and the consequences must be faced.

As for the limiting the liberty, it would be similar to "harmful speech". We're not taking away the people's ability to self-defend. Fights will still occur, but with bare hands and fists instead (I know, I know, weak point). This should (unless you have a country full of heavyweight fighters) at least decrease the number of deaths per year.

In addition, when speaking of the state suppressing the people, I stated "As long as the state isn't corrupt and knows what it's doing", another condition. Again, I shouldn't have been so vague, I am, of course, assuming that the government does have a sense of morality and will not use fear tactics to withhold an entire population and forcefully bend them (the population) to agree to unreasonable terms.

The situation at hand, the possible outcomes and consequences, and many other factors affect each of these different options/responses. Again, no clear-cut answers here. Just a bunch of "if"s and "or"s.

Great thread, btw! Excellent exercise to get the noodles running!

[[S]Reaver]

But again, why protections for the majority? As I asked before "If the majority decides that insulting minorities is good, but that any speech against the majority is harmful, should that be what is eliminated?"

Ahh...that is a good one. The way our government works, the minority are always getting suckered. Difficult to get around, but that's simply how the world works. And considering...

And I don't think we should keep saying "assuming the state is not corrupt" as it's going to be run by people.

it's difficult to say that whether the state does have a sense of morality or not. If the latter, then the minority gets the short end of the stick. If the former, then there could be be a total disagreement between the majority and the state. Acchh...my loss here. But good points there though, it sounds as if you created these questions in hope of having others contradict themselves.

Also, if the media has their speech also controlled along with the individual, where is the speech against the state/majority going to come from?

Can't seem to answer...or my brain's not spinning correctly. I'll come back tomorrow morning to see if I have any luck.

[BigKaboom2]

Equality v. Liberty: Liberty
Rights v. Powers: Powers
Requirement v. Option: Option
Unfettered Political Speech v. Managed Political Speech: Unfettered
Media/Market v. Media/State: Market
Eliminate Harmful Speech v. Allow All Speech: Allow All
People/weapons v. State/weapons: People/weapons
State interests v. Self interests: Self
State Moralism v. Liberalism v. Anarchism: Liberalism
Market v. State: Market

Individuality > Uniformity pretty much explains my thought process on all of those.

tl;dr - I'm a libertarian.

[Patr1ck]

Equality v. Liberty: Liberty. Human's may be created equally, but we are all different and we need the liberty to be human and not some organic program that follows it's instructions on how to be equal.
Rights v. Powers: Powers. Times change and in order for a society to continue functioning properly for its population it needs to give that population the power to change things. However, there are some things that the state might have to have power over, in order to protect people.
Requirement v. Option: Option. This looks like it falls under Equality/Liberty.
Unfettered Political Speech v. Managed Political Speech:Freedom of Speech over censorship.
Media/Market v. Media/State: Market. Because this could effect multimedia like movies and entertainment. Right now in America I think we have a bit of both.
Eliminate Harmful Speech v. Allow All Speech: Allow all speech. Stop sugar coating life.
People/weapons v. State/weapons: People.
State interests v. Self interests: A bit of both. I need to be able to make a decision, but the state should be able to step in if something gets out of hand.
State Moralism v. Liberalism v. Anarchism: I guess liberalism because it sounds like Liberty.
Market v. State: Market. Who would need to go to a different store if you knew what you were getting is the same price? Matter of fact, why would there be a need of more than one type of store?

[[Q]]

hmm I'm still the only one that has answered equality for the first one. It might be because of the way Ben worded the liberty part with the word "freedom". (bias?)

i'm tempted to think that my decision to pick equality was perhaps because I'm a [slightly pessimistic] minority?

[Riot]

I think it's because you are a fuckin' commie.

[JT_55]

Wow, benji. You thought there were going to be no replies and now look...

Boy, these are really tough questions.

Equality v. Liberty: Liberty. If everyone is too equal things will be boring...also I think that people who don't try should not be equal to the people who put effort into making the world (as well as their own pockets) better.
Rights v. Powers: Rights.
Requirement v. Option: Option. People should not be forced to do certain things.
Unfettered Political Speech v. Managed Political Speech: Unfettered. Freedom of speech will limit corruption.
Media/Market v. Media/State: Media/Market. Again, freedom of speech.
Eliminate Harmful Speech v. Allow All Speech: Eliminate Harmful Speech.
People/weapons v. State/weapons: State weapons. People posseing weapons will lead to some taking advantage of the situation and cause harm.
State interests v. Self interests: State interests. Smoking, for example, is not only bad for you but for others, so the state should eliminate it not only to protect the smokers' health, but to protect the second-hand smokers.
State Moralism v. Liberalism v. Anarchism: Liberalism. The state should protect people but not to tell people what morals they should/should not have.
Market v. State: Market. Competition and demand and supply should dictate prices.

EDIT:

I think it's because you are a fuckin' commie.

I second that.

[Joe']

Nah, Q's too cool to be a commie. Plus, every commie on the internet has a Che Guevara avatar or something like that lol, so I doubt it.

[Dro]

i'm tempted to think that my decision to pick equality was perhaps because I'm a [slightly pessimistic] minority?

Aren't you Asian? Not trying to stereotype here, but aren't Asians usually pretty educated and well off?

I'll post my choices later...just got Forza Motorsport 2 and it's quite possible the best game ever. I can't put down the controller.

[magius]

I had a pretty long post ready, but then when i clicked reply, i don't know if its because of the forum, but my internet crashed big time. I'll take that as a sign. all i'll say is that for most of my answers I had a hard time distinguishing between the options. nice thread though.

[[Q]]

in a way, I guess i have the fuckin' commies to thank for being here in america. if it weren't for the vietnam war, my family would've never moved here with nothing but the clothes on their back and i wouldn't be here typing this post to you guys today.

and Dro, it depends on how the family is set up. because like i said my family came here with nothing and turned it into something, and i'm thankful for that. ive complained plenty about my life, but i know it could be a lot worse. some asian families adjust to american lifestyle better or are able to get better jobs (my family couldn't speak english when they got here and worked at a Taco Bell) and as a result, are more successful.

Im just saying with the whole equality thing, what makes someone like Paris Hilton that much better than me that i can't live my life without worrying about money or getting a good-paying job? I remember seeing a thing about Warren Buffet's kids on tv and they didn't live a lavish lifestyle growing up unlike most rich kids and that was surprising. mad respect for warren here.