[Derek Zeanah]

Don Galt got me thinking, and it's an issue that's been floating around in the back of my mind for a while. At its most basic, where do your political/civil beliefs come from? The best I can tell:
Libertarians begin with the idea of self-ownership -- they're alive, and they own themselves. That means they have a right to self-defense, and the tools to perform the task adequately. If they decide to trade part of their life for salary or to build a business, then the fruits of their labor belong to them. They have the right to consume whatever they want, have intercourse with whoever they want, hang out with people whose company they enjoy, speak their mind, etc. Rights under this model end at the point where they negatively affect someone else. "Your right to swing your fist ends at the end of my nose."
"Religious conservatives." ??
"Liberals." ???
I think a lot of our differences in opinion are based on what we hold most sacred, and I wonder if we wouldn't have more productive discussions if we could identify what those different values are.

(I have my guesses as to the items listed above, but want people to use their own words here.)

[dustind]

I have always been since I was a very young child a believer in the non aggression principal. No one has the right to force others to do anything. We should all be able to do whatever we want with complete freedom and privacy so long as it does not harm anyone else.

Edited after about fifteen replies:

In the version I normally give in a conversation I use an analogy of two factory owners. Both build parts slowly by hand, then one mechanizes and puts the other out of business due to a larger supply at a lower price. That is perfectly ok as you are only moving yourself up, not the other guy down.

To take this belief to its absurd end. If thousands would starve to death unless I pushed a button, and I decided not to push the button they would be sol. (Sorry Out of Luck)

I also have a similar one for self defence. If someone tries to harm me or my property, I can use force to defend myself. Accidental harm being a 100% different matter.

To take this principal to its extreme absurd end if someone conspired to intentionally destroy or steal a blade of grass from my lawn(or property I actually give a hoot about) I could respond with any amount of force necessary to repel them. Accidents are a 100% different matter though. Harming bystandards to defend myself or property being wrong and not allowed.

[Smoke]

Political leanings as with any other beliefs are built around years of experience. It's hard to pin point where ones idealogical slant comes from.

Enviroment
Parents
Friends
Experiences (good and bad)
Region
Education
Employment

all are contributing factors which over time you base your core values around.

[FPrice]

My beliefs pretty much start with a deep belief in God and the dignity of man. I believe that you have a right to live your life but that you also have a responsibility to live it in a moral manner and with the end result that you improve what you can around you rather than make it worse.

Nothing really complicated.

[mantispid]

My beliefs are rooted in one thing - Free will. I believe free will is the most important thing there is in this existence, and anything that violates it is an abomination.

[And yes, I do believe it is acceptable to violate the free will of those who have created said abominations.]

[BrokenPaw]

We should all be able to do whatever we want with complete freedom and privacy so long as it does not harm anyone else.The difficulty with this particular caveat is that it allows a whole lot of interpretation and, eventually, mob-enforced do-goodery.

To wit: I am starving, because I am a layabout slacker. You have money, because you work hard all day. I ask you for money for food. You are free to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't harm anyone, including me. Can you turn me down? Doing so would harm me.

See where that sort of thing can go?

(For what it's worth, I happen to agree with you; I've just seen this argument go this way before, so I thought I'd bring it up. ;))

In Stranger in a Strange Land, Mr. Heinlein (in the character of Jubal Harshaw) writes that, ultimately, every person does exactly what he (or she) wants. And it's true. Even when we obey laws that we hate, it's because we want to obey the law more than we want to face the consequences of defying it.

That about sums up my philosophy on the matter.

-BP

[Sarge]

Responsibility to God, country and family; and the ability to acknowledge absolutes of right and wrong. These often brand one as a religious zealot, but my views on this are that government should simply stay out of the free practice of religion. I believe this is in keeping with the first amendment. Don't tell me to worship, who or what to worship, or what day to do it on (or not). Free will is the foundation of even Christianity, as no one is forced to accept Christ- and free will in matters of worship should be one of the foundation stones of a free society.

Does this mean that a nativity scene has no place on the courthouse lawn, or that a government employee can't display a menorah in their office? I don't think so, so long as there is no requirement by government, expressed or implied, requiring that any individual worship according to governmental dictate.

My view on the right to self-defense is that the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" plainly includes the right not to be raped, robbed, assaulted or murdered- and that the right to pevent these things from happening to you by force, is an inclued element of that right. The second amendment affirms the individual's right to an efficient and portable means for that defense.

[mantispid]

To wit: I am starving, because I am a layabout slacker. You have money, because you work hard all day. I ask you for money for food. You are free to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't harm anyone, including me. Can you turn me down? Doing so would harm me.


Actually, doing so in that example wouldn't harm you. It wouldn't help you either. Lack of help != harm. You are harming yourself by not eating or doing anything about it. If you attempt to force people to provide you food, then you are the initiator of force, and become the one in the wrong.

Though through my 'free will' view of things, people can do anything as long as it doesn't violate the free will of others. Whoever violates will first, forfeits their right to be protected by this doctrine. Applying your example, the starving person would indeed have the will to have food... but using his will to force me to provide food for him would be a violation of my will (assuming I had a problem with being forced to provide food). If he uses his will to convince me to provide him with food, and I agree, there is no violation.

Am I violating his will by not providing him with food? Yes, if his will is that I must give him food no matter what. In such a case, though, he's the one who did the first violation.. so any subsequent violation by me in this matter is perfectly fine.

[dav]

Well put, mantispid.

I was simply going to say his example was invalid, but you explained WHY it was invalid very well.

Thank you.

[BrokenPaw]

Only if you agree that "failing to help" is not equivalent to "harm". There are plenty of people who do not agree with that position.

Very well. I will alter my example: I work very hard to support my wife and 2 kids. I hold two jobs to pay for the family's needs. I was the victim of an armed robbery, and I need extensive physical rehab for me to return to work. My wife, by herself, cannot support the kids, because to do so she would be required to put the kids in daycare, which would cost more than the job she could take as a result.

I cannot pay for my therapy, because my work does not offer sufficient medical insurance, and I could not afford provate insurance. If no one does, I will not be able to support my family. That would harm them.

There. Now you have a productive member of society, working to feed his family.

As I said, I do not believe that it is acceptable to compel someone to help another; if they wish to help, then they are, of course, free to do so.

I was simply mentioning that "do anything except harm others" is not as cut and dried as it sounds. The gray area can be narrowed, but not rendered completely black or white.

-BP

[mantispid]

It is black and white if you do not equate failing to help as harm. I can understand how people who think failing to help is actively causing harm, but unfortunately they are wrong. ;)

Failure to render aid != harm. It is neutral. I think the problem is that people commonly think in dichotomous terms. There aren't always only two options. There isn't just "aid" and "harm".. there is also "neither.. neutrality". Yes, if someone is bleeding to death, and you don't stop their bleeding, they will die. However, you are not obligated to aid them, and by not rendering aid they are not harmed... though again, they are not aided either... that is a neutral situation.

The way you can test if you are doing aid or harm to another, is to see if they would be better or worse off than they are if you didn't exist in that specific situation.

In the case of the bleeding person, if you do something and they get better more so than if you weren't ever there, you have aided them. If you do something and they get worse more so than than if you weren't ever there, you have harmed them.

[Mike Irwin]

Money.

The right to make it, and the right to keep it without having someone tell me how to use it, or telling me that I've made too much, and that I'm a bad man because of that, so a bunch of it is going to be taken and given to the less fortunate, whom I've hurt by my money grubbing ways.

[Khornet]

or G-d as they say on Jewish World Review.

God created each of us an individual, and no two are alike. Our source of existence is a higher power, and therefore no earthly power such as the state has the right to take over our lives. And we individuals do not have the right to take over other individuals. From these points flow the idea of limited government and individual rights, leading directly to my very conservative worldview.

Though it's true that I was conservative before I became a believer....but I was shocked to find that belief in G-d brings freedom, not slavery.

[Graystar]

Reason.

[ahenry]

I believe I can express the underpinnings of my belief system without appealing to the existence of the Supreme Being. I believe that mankind, individually, has the freedom of will. This in turn, provides an individual with the freedom to act in any way desired. Of course all actions have consequences, be they natural laws such as the law of gravity, personal “laws”, societal laws, or religious laws.

[grampster]

I believe that the rule of law is more important and ascendant over the rule of Man. Ie: But because Man makes laws, it should be very difficult to make them and as difficult to change them. Emotion should have very little to do with the making and the changing of laws and this should be constantly and loudly proclaimed and held to.

Free will is a fine thing, but has responsibilities as there is such a thing as cause and effect. This is immutable, I think. Free will does not mean freedom however. Freedom, however, is necessary for the excercise of free will in a beneficial and orderly fashion. Total free will in a totally free society is anarchy, imho, thus the need for the rule of law over the rule of Man.

Smoke presents some articulated traits that fashions a personality, although he leaves out faith, an important ingredient. But perhaps faith or the lack of it comes out of the other ingredients.

[Orthonym]

Been shoved around by various sorts of bullies. Didn't like how I felt about that. Sometimes (rarely, I think/hope) yielded to temptation to shove others around. Didn't like how I felt about that, either.

[Standing Wolf]

I stand with the Libertarians.

[Orthonym]

In my experience, they're a bunch of socially awkward grumps who'd just as soon not have anyone standing anywhere nearby.




I'm one too.

[BHPshooter]

My beliefs are rooted principally in FREEDOM/LIBERTY. I believe in free agency, i.e.: you have a choice in whatever you do.

I believe that people will do what they want to regardless of what the law says (just look at the gun laws!). I mean, don't they know that murder is illegal? :rolleyes:

I believe in Good and Evil.

I believe that self-government can and does work. If you look at the old west, you'll see people that were self-reliant, who didn't have to pay 12% of their earnings to the government in taxes (like I do), and they didn't have volumes of asinine laws written about every little thing that offends them. I believe in "worrying about yourself, and no one else."

I believe that I have a right not to be assaulted, abused, raped, etc., and I believe that I have a right to protect myself from the above with lethal force. I also believe I have a right to protect those things that I have worked for and earned. So yeah, if you break into my house to steal my computer, I'm going to shoot you. If you are trying to steal my car, I'm going to shoot you. Those are MINE. I believe in Life, Liberty, and Property.

I suppose that's enough for now. :D

Wes

[telewinz]

Self-Relience..........Anything else is a poor substitute and too expensive in the long run.

[MicroBalrog]

To take this belief to its absurd end. If thousands would starve to death unless I pushed a button, and I decided not to push the button they would be sol. (Sorry Out of Luck)


You know, under Jewish traditional law, this is murder.

[voilsb]

I'm a conservative Christian. I guess that makes me a 'religious conservative' by your first description. I'm also pretty libertarian, politically.

Anyway, God is the foundation of my beliefs. I'm not perfect at it, though, and I do make mistakes sometimes. But basically we were created by God, and He described what is or is not sin (to include murder, theft, etc). Based on these, it seems easy to figure out that, since murder is wrong, we must have a right to life. Since theft is wrong, we have a right to keep our property. Etc.

That's pretty much the basis for what I believe, in terms of politics and life and such.

[Khornet]

Who says you have free will? And if you do, what's wrong with me overriding it, if I can and it suits me?

[Dashunde]

I try to stand on simple common sense...

[Mr Jody Hudson]

My foundations of beliefs:

First of all; I am not a big advocate of beliefs... I am an advocate of observation, experience and contemplation.

First: Observation under the guidance of a great Father and Grandfather.

Reading all of Jefferson's letters at an early age regarding his learning and observations.

Reason and Comtemplation of OPTIMUM Survival.

Heinlein's great books, which are senior writings by a brilliant philosopher.

Hubbard's books (especially after I found he was a close buddy of Heinlein)

Exhaustive study of Bible and other religious texts.

Dedicated endeavors in politics and with politicians - which have earned me a knowledge that most are full time criminals!

A lifetime of loving people from every walk of life and a love of learning from any and all who are considered tops at what they do.

Contemplation of the ideas and writings of others, such as here on THR and years of public and talk radio listening and debate on many subjects.

Great thread! I'll be back to read more!

[BigG]

Keep eyes and ears open and mouth shut. Follow the money.

[GySgt]

So I don't violate forum rules, I'll just say that I'm a
"Religious Conservative" and leave it at :D

[azthistletoe]

My beliefs come from the basic value of human life and our power to choose. I believe in the basic principle of "If you don't hurt anyone, do what you want." I am still undecided in many of the more complex areas of that basic philosophy, however. Life's not as easy as they advertise it to be.

[ahenry]

Who says you have free will? And if you do, what's wrong with me overriding it, if I can and it suits me? No man can take away another’s freedom of choice, or free will, they can only create greater consequences for a given action. Regardless of the consequences or lack thereof, every single individual must still make the decision to act or not act based on the perceived consequences. I can no more make you do something than I can make the sun rise. The best I can do is to try and structure things in such a way that you will choice to act in the manner I desire. The action remains your own and with it the rewards or consequences.

[MeekandMild]

...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm

[cloudkiller]

First of all, it is interesting to note that we have a pretty consistent set of responses from people (such as freewill, choice, etc), that in many cases lead people to DIFFERENT positions on policy issues, etc. While this board has some homogeneity in terms of specific policy positions (such as Gun Control) there are a lot of different perspectives on other issues. -- Just interesting!


Insofar as my own beliefs go, I guess I am less consistent than I would like to be. I am a firm believer in the quote "where you stand depends on where you sit". -- I don't know where this quote came from, but understand it to mean that a persons specific circumstances in relation to a collective or political entity will more than likely dictate their stance on issues.

I believe that we need a set of absolute principles that we don't violate. The constitution largely outlines these, though they are rampantly abused today by powerful people with ulterior motives. Beyond that, policy and decision making needs to be pragmatic in nature, rather than pre-determined by ideology. You can't adequately address issues of social policy, taxation, expenditures, social morality, foreign policy if all you are going to do is spin data to support a position you had before even examining the issues.

One of my pet peeves is an over-romanticization (sp?) of history. The myth of the 'good old days' really is a myth in most cases. That is not to say that the past didn't offer more security or fairness in many ways but that people often idealize the social justice and self-reliance of a time period based only on accounts of people that benefitted from that particular social order. -- Someone just mentioned the self-reliant world of the frontier West. YES I am a big fan of self reliance, and believe we can draw lessons from that time. On the other hand, being an Indian or a woman in that time period was probably pretty awful for many. Choices were limited by genocide, oppressive social practices, vigilante justice which as often as not favored powerful local interests etc. What freedom was there? What about all the families who went west to find that their newly deeded land had also been sold to 6 other families? Infant mortality of 60%? Yes, people overcame those, but as soon as they had met their basic needs the began to form social and political structures designed to prevent any of what they experienced from happening again in the future!


Lest I seem to be an apologist for socialism or something of the like, let me end by quickly stating where I stand on many issues:

I am rather libertarian on social/moral issues -- goverment get out of the bedroom, the porn video store, the church pulpit. Behavior has consequences. People have become waaaaaaaaaaaay to used to behaving without consequences. This is as obvious in the inner city as it is in corporate America and in our foreign policy.

I am more of a modern day centrist when it comes to the role of government. It can play a significant role in improving the quality of life of the population. Unfortunately it is overbloated, inefficient, abused by interest groups, and used as a political tool by people pursuing their own selfish interests.

I don't own a firearm, but think people should be free to do so. The government regulation of firearms is a political and policy joke, and an infringement on individual rights, and potentially a risk to our political freedoms. -- I am not sure tactical nukes should be in the hands of individuals, but am not willing to base my position on firearm ownership on a constructed scenario. One of the amazing things about people is that they have the ability to come up with scenarios to test any value system. -- It isn't necessary. (One thing the American left has forgotten in their bleeding heart blindness is that YOU DON'T BUILD RULES AROUND VERY LIMITED EXCEPTIONS OR CONSTRUCTED SCENARIOS. -- It is one of the first things you learn if you study applied ethics).

Ok, I have said waaaaaaaaaaay too much!

[BHPshooter]

I don't own a firearm, but think people should be free to do so.

My, my. That is very rare. My hat is off to you, sir.

Wes

[Khornet]

Who says you have free will, Ahenry? Show me. And b) if you do, what's wrong with me overriding it, that is, forcing you to act against your will by use of superior force?

[mantispid]

Khornet:

It is impossible to show that another 'has' free will. You can show that another appears to be sentient, though.. but you can never know for a fact that a person is not being controlled by something (either some mystical place the tinfoil hat crowd fear, or though natural biochemistry and genetics).

But, I believe I have free will, and that is enough. Though through experience it seems to work out fine to assume that others have it too. Ultimately, you have to make basic assumptions in any subject... even mathematics.

So, to point b:

What's wrong with you overriding it? Well, it'll result in harm to you or the person you're trying to override. If you and the other person are sufficiently strong-willed, it will result in the death of one or both of you.

So, if a person with free will is strong enough in their exercising of their will, there can be no violation of will. You'll be dead, or they'll be dead. Either way, the person's will is upheld.

[Derek Zeanah]

Who says you have free will, Ahenry?You get to the point where you just have to make assumptions. "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." You can play semantic games all day, but when it comes down to it you choose whether or not to drive your car into the back of the car that just cut you off. Whether to give money to charity. Whether to get up in the morning.

You choose how to live your life. Now, a more pertinent question might be " do you have the right to exercise your free will as you choose, or are you morally bound to only act the way your King, via his Divine Right, has decreed that you shall act." (Replace "king" and "divine right" with "neighbor" and "need" if you like -- same idea, that you don't own yourself or the product of your labor).

Do you own your own life, or do you live to serve another? Some answer the former, others answer the latter.

Saying "I don't believe that you can choose to plunge an ice pick into your ex's chest" is pointless, because we all know such choices are/have been made. You can question whether such an action is moral -- does her life have greater importance than your desire to watch her bleed to death? Most would say "yes," but the justification is going to be something like God says so/I believe in the sanctity of human life/I'm revulsed by the idea that a rational human being would suggest that his "feelings" outweigh the right to life of another/whatever. Nothing you can prove mathematically without accepting some basic building blocks, like "life is a big deal, and should be protected in most circumstances."

Going further: does your right to live outweigh that deer's right to live? Most would say "yes," but some wouldn't. Those who say "kill it -- I'm hungry" can justify that by saying "God gave us dominion over all creatures," or can reference our omnivorous nature and point ot evolution, or can assert that mankind has a greater right to live than an animal that doesn't demonstrate conscious thought, or whatever. Others assert that all life is sacred, but still choose to eat vegetables, either deciding that that doesn't qualify as "life," or feeling guilty, or whatever.

But in the end, you have to make some assumptions. There's no universal, mathematical, provable code of ethics. That's the realm of religion/reason, and as we can all (hopefully) agree, religion and reason aren't perfect tools for attacking these sorts of problems. But they're the best we've got.

And understanding how others try and resolve these issues can help all of us communicate our ideas.

[ahenry]

Who says you have free will, Ahenry? Show me. And b) if you do, what's wrong with me overriding it, that is, forcing you to act against your will by use of superior force? Let me answer b) first. Nothing is “wrong” with you trying to override my will with your own, except you have your own set of consequences to deal with. If you think of things philosophically (in other words, not necessarily practically) no human being can remove my ability to choose. All that can be done is change the external consequences for a given action. Greater consequences do not force an individual to act a certain way. What they do remains their choice.

Let me see if I can illustrate this with a bit of an example. Back in 1836 a group of people were hanging out at the Alamo looking to make Texas independent from Mexico, when along came Santa Anna. Santa Anna would have liked to have been able to make the Alamo defenders go away but the best he could do was try to increase the consequences if they stayed. As you well know the consequences for each and every defender was death. They knew this as well yet they remained, they retained their freedom of choice despite an entire army doing their best to “force” the defenders will. I could take another example. Look at individuals throughout time that have faced execution for a specific belief. People have faced torture of the worst kind as well as death yet for some, nothing was enough to “force” them to act in a way they did not wish to. For others, the consequences were enough for them to change the way they acted. However, for all, the decision to change was their own. Nobody was ever able to actually make them do anything.

Rather than me try to explain “who says” every human has freedom of choice, why don’t you explain to me how such freedom of choice could be taken away?

I hope this better explains what I’m getting at.

[gburner]

Honor your Creator,
Love your family,
respect your fellow man,
respect yourself,
take responsibility for your actions,
expect everyone else to do the same.

[AnklePocket]

I had two back-to-back experiences that formed my sense of realism. Basically, to get a desired outcome requires the appropriate preparation. Wishful thinking or hope won't get it done, but rather a firm grasp of the truth. Most people kid themselves because often times a desired outcome requires tremendous effort and/or pain (can be physical and/or emotional) that most are unwilling to perform or accept.
My two life altering (for the better) things were:
1. wrestling for a top Div. I college - BS didn't even remotely accomplish anything
2. 4 1/2 years in the Marine Corps - probably self explanatory
Hope that made sense. It might not have.

[Baron Holbach4]

1. The Holy Bible
2. The Magna Carta
3. The English Bill of Rights
4. The American colonies' Declaration of Independence
5. The American Constitution

[gburner]

A backbone always trumps a wishbone.