Family and politics and growing pains

[Guest]

And yes, I'm still young and idealogical in some things.

Do you mean "idealistic"?  Being "idealogical" only means that one consciously holds to a set of principles, for good or ill.

... Hmm, I wonder how many more things I can get wrong?

 (1) it was my responsibility to vote for the best, err, least distasteful candidate and not just parrot my parents' views.

 (2) I really had to put a lot of work into learning about those candidates and just American politics in general.    

[Sindawe]

I am not familiar with "rational anarchist". What qualification does the "rational " prefix impart?

Briefly, and from the text wherein I first learned of the concept at the tender age of nine.

“A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame . . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else.  But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world . . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.”

Source: The Moon is a Harsh Mistress - Robert A. Heinlein

Taken from this short article: http://dwrighsr.tripod.com/heinlein/RatAnarch/  See also: http://folk.uio.no/thomas/po/rational-anarchism.html

[cosine]

And yes, I'm still young and idealogical in some things.

Do you mean "idealistic"?  Being "idealogical" only means that one consciously holds to a set of principles, for good or ill.

... Hmm, I wonder how many more things I can get wrong?

 (1) it was my responsibility to vote for the best, err, least distasteful candidate and not just parrot my parents' views.

 (2) I really had to put a lot of work into learning about those candidates and just American politics in general.   

[Daffy Duck] Nehh. [/Daffy Duck]

 

[Guest]

I am not familiar with "rational anarchist". What qualification does the "rational " prefix impart?

Briefly, and from the text wherein I first learned of the concept at the tender age of nine.

A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as state and society and government have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame . . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else.  But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world . . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.

Source: The Moon is a Harsh Mistress - Robert A. Heinlein

Taken from this short article: http://dwrighsr.tripod.com/heinlein/RatAnarch/  See also: http://folk.uio.no/thomas/po/rational-anarchism.html

 Thanks for the response and links! 

"As I have said before, we must ultimately choose between state-sovereignty and self-sovereignty, between absolutism and anarchy, between subjective decree and objective justice." - G. H. Smith

 I guess I could be described as a "rational anarchist", but it would not be necessary to do so; "anarchist" is sufficient.

[roo_ster]

mercedesrule:

A "False Dichotomy" warning would have been appropriate for GH Smith's bit of fauxk wisdom.

His statement is proved false every election (local, state, federale).  Folks end up choosing a muddle of state action and individual responsibility, often leavened with traditional values and practices.

[Strings]

jfruser, I'd have to disagree there: most peole are choosing which form of nannystatism they prefer, not between nannystatism and freedom. Both parties want to take your freedoms, they just difer on which they want to hit first...

[Guest]

mercedesrule:

A "False Dichotomy" warning would have been appropriate for GH Smith's bit of fauxk wisdom.

His statement is proved false every election (local, state, federale).  Folks end up choosing a muddle of state action and individual responsibility, often leavened with traditional values and practices.

But if there is any state sovereignty in the results, self-sovereignty doesn't exist. He is saying that there is no rational middle ground between each of these three opposing concepts: between state-sovereignty and self-sovereignty, between absolutism and anarchy, between subjective decree and objective justice. These things are totally mutually exclusive. Either you decide what is right and wrong for you...or someone else does. Even if the only thing the state didn't allow you to do was hop on one foot, you still aren't sovereign.

[meinbruder]

mercedes is a anarchist, but that doesn't explain why he thinks your parents are also anarchists.  Jumping to conclusions there. 

 You are right; I have no way of knowing why they don't vote.

Actually, the reason they dont is easy to explain, just not easy to understand.  Mother is completely apathetic; there isnt an ounce of activist in her, despite her mother being a political junkie.  Nothing strange about that, right?  Wait for it. 

Dad, my stepfather, genuinely believes that every vote is watched and recorded by them, or they, whoever they are, and at some nebulous point in the future revenge will be meted out for every vote not found in compliance with the grand plan for humanity.

Perhaps I should have posted this under the Conspiracy and Strange Belief thread.
}:)>

[meinbruder]

As a voter, you know ahead of time that if your candidate wins he will attempt to forcibly take money from some citizens and send it your way. As a libertarian anarchist, you shouldn't be now learning this for the first time.

You do have a strange take on things, dont you?  I know no such thing.

I know that I pay taxes into a general fund and from there it is dispersed to a variety of programs.  Do I approve of ALL those programs?  That is a question which can only be answered on a case by case basis.
}:)>

[meinbruder]

Source: The Moon is a Harsh Mistress - Robert A. Heinlein

Taken from this short article: http://dwrighsr.tripod.com/heinlein/RatAnarch/  See also: http://folk.uio.no/thomas/po/rational-anarchism.html
[/quote]

Sindawe, you are living proof that there are scholars among the forum.  Thank you for the links, I will need to read them at length.  I was planning to compliment Ron on his quick uptake of the idea; its lost on most people.  I prefer a passage from the Lazarus Long notebook, I cant quote it correctly but the gist is the rational anarchist obeys all laws with which he completely agrees and ignores the rest.

It is of course intelligent of the individual to be aware of the laws one is ignoring and the penalties for doing so.  Something else to consider, most laws which govern society are merely social convention codified, traffic laws are a prime example.
}:)>

[meinbruder]

But if there is any state sovereignty in the results, self-sovereignty doesn't exist. He is saying that there is no rational middle ground between each of these three opposing concepts: between state-sovereignty and self-sovereignty, between absolutism and anarchy, between subjective decree and objective justice. These things are totally mutually exclusive. Either you decide what is right and wrong for you...or someone else does. Even if the only thing the state didn't allow you to do was hop on one foot, you still aren't sovereign.

You do like to talk in circles, don't you?  Do everyone a favor, pick a side of the street and then we can open a dialog.
}:)>

[280plus]

My father is dead and I only talk to my mother when it's unavoidable. If you knew her you'd know why. First off she's always pretty much been a deadbeat. It goes downhill from there. 'Nuff said... 

[Perd Hapley]

I think the purpose of third parties right now in America is to draw off votes from the big parties when they go too far to the center, thereby teaching them a lesson.  Hopefully. 

Hmm, the way you phrased that it almost like it belongs in this thread. 

Sorry. Just had to. 

What I mean is that the Republican Party miscalculated in 96, by running the moderate Bob Dole, even though conservativism had proven to be a winning hand in 94.  One reason for Dole's defeat was that small-govt. Republicans defected to smaller parties like the Libertarians and Constitutionalists.  In my opinion, the lesson of 96 kept the Republican Leadership from going even farther left.  Bush is no conservative, it's true, but he's no Gulianni, either. 

[roo_ster]

mercedesrule:

A "False Dichotomy" warning would have been appropriate for GH Smith's bit of fauxk wisdom.

His statement is proved false every election (local, state, federale).  Folks end up choosing a muddle of state action and individual responsibility, often leavened with traditional values and practices.

But if there is any state sovereignty in the results, self-sovereignty doesn't exist. He is saying that there is no rational middle ground between each of these three opposing concepts: between state-sovereignty and self-sovereignty, between absolutism and anarchy, between subjective decree and objective justice. These things are totally mutually exclusive. Either you decide what is right and wrong for you...or someone else does. Even if the only thing the state didn't allow you to do was hop on one foot, you still aren't sovereign.

Ahh, "faith-based" political philosophy.  Is this the anarchist's imitation of the Apostle's Creed?.

Contrary to ivory-tower bean dreams, state power and individual liberty can exist simultaneously.  If one were to step outside the ivory tower, one would understand that it is more of a continuum than a binary reality.