Liberal Right Vs. Regressive Left And Religious Right

[Vigile]

Hey look, the government is stealing in the name of capitalism:

 

http://filmingcops.com/cops-kick-family-off-property-oil-companies-can-drill/

 

Cops Kick Family Off Their OWN PROPERTY So Oil Companies Can Drill

[Vigile]

Never met a capitalist system that didn't do that. It's been going on before the Romans raided nations for slaves and resources and continues right up to this day. It's the rule, not the exception. 

[Vigile]

 

 

Hey look, the government is stealing in the name of capitalism:

 

http://filmingcops.com/cops-kick-family-off-property-oil-companies-can-drill/

 

Cops Kick Family Off Their OWN PROPERTY So Oil Companies Can Drill

 

 

 

I am against that.  I agree with you on that, they should not kick them off, or at the very least, should pay them DEARLY for that land, as in higher than market value, and if they have to take it for say, something like a road or airport, power plant, etc, then that is the ONLY reason in my estimation.  I never said our system is perfect, not even close.  What is sad, it could be made better by getting rid of much of the government's power. 

 

 

Legally, that's all they are allowed to do. But the law apparently is for we suckers down here in the lower 99%. 

[florduh]

And who gave it to them?  GOVERNMENT.  That is another example of government stealing and giving the stolen goods to another group. 

 

The wealthy capitalists create and own government. Government is not a separate entity, it is the enforcement arm of big business. The worship of wealthy corporations as examples of freedom is killing us. Wake the fuck up.

[florduh]

So the answer is a bunch of leftists who want to use government to stick a gun to the head of ALL business and tell them what they can or cannot produce even if it is harming nobody is the answer?  Not for me.

 

Jesus. It's the RIGHT and their wealthy gods who owns government. Just look at the tax code.

[florduh]

I HATE the tax code and would abolish it.

 

All but the 1% would likely agree. Who is responsible? Be honest. Hint: It ain't the middle class, and it ain't a Republican or Democrat.

[Joshpantera]

 

 

Anybody who wants to read and comment on the article in my OP, feel free...

It seems to me that the article is promoting Libertarianism under cloak.

 

A Libertarian is socially liberal but financially conservative. It amounts to Liberal minded Republicans. Ron and Rand Paul, are such. Gary Johnson is such, if you were paying attention during the election.

 

I never really looked into Libertarianism until a couple years ago. But I realized very quickly that I find more agreement there than anywhere else. I come from a long line of Christian, southern Republicans. When I turned 18 I registered Republican. I have always had problems with the left as a whole as I don't agree with much of the logic. However, as an ex-christian I grew very distant from the conservative right over time. I found myself exploring Pantheistic philosophy and Atheism, which lean more to the left and are the domain of liberals. I've come to oppose the Christian right and their insistence on social domination. But I also oppose the same from the left. I never quite fit in to any one group.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)

 

If you read the above link you'll see the correspondences between your article and Libertarianism.

 

I find myself in much agreement. The government needs to back way off and get way the hell out of everyone's personal liberty. Gary Johnson didn't really have much of chance this time around. I knew it. But I hold out hope that the 3rd largest party will persevere long enough to where society catches up to these ideals on small government, personal liberty and such...

Josh, thanks for reading the article and for sharing your thoughts. You are right, there is a lot of overlap between the philosophy in the article (which the writer has elsewhere described as 'Objectivism') and Libertarianism or 'Classical Liberalism'. Although I have not studied Objectivism (the philosophy of Ayn Rand) at length, it seems to be a more all-encompassing approach to life than Libertarianism. It specifically rejects the role of religion as a basis for morality, so while there are plenty of Libertarians who consider themselves Christian, you'll be hard-pressed to find any Objectivists who are Christian or even theists!

 

Like you, I have found myself somewhat homeless politically since my deconversion. I did closely follow Gary Johnson in 2016, and would certainly prefer him to either Trump or Clinton. However I REALLY like Austin Petersen, who ran for the Libertarian nomination and seems like a future candidate. Interestingly Petersen, who had previously referred to himself as atheist, downplayed his unbelief in 2016 and at most referred to himself as 'agnostic', so anathema is atheism in the political arena even today.

 

Anyway, thanks again for commenting. By the way, have you read any Ayn Rand? I want to, if I ever find the time...

 

There was something about Ayn Rand on another thread. That was my introduction. And I haven't revisited any of it since. 

 

I'll post a link on Objectivism here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

 

 

 

Academic philosophers have mostly ignored or rejected Rand's philosophy.^[4] Nonetheless, Objectivism has been a significant influence among libertarians and American conservatives.^[5] The Objectivist movement, which Rand founded, attempts to spread her ideas to the public and in academic settings.^[6]

 

I wasn't considering Libertarianism when the discussion was going on, but I can see how Objectivism was an influence on at least some Libertarians. 

 

The philosophy itself is interesting because it goes into areas that I had figured out on my own, as self evident before ever hearing of Rand or Objectivism: 

 

 

 

Rand held that existence is the perceptually self-evident fact at the base of all other knowledge, i.e., that "existence exists." She further held that to be is to be something, that "existence is identity." That is, to be is to be "an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes." That which has no nature or attributes does not and cannot exist. The axiom of existence is grasped in differentiating something from nothing, while the law of identity is grasped in differentiating one thing from another, i.e., one's first awareness of the law of non-contradiction, another crucial base for the rest of knowledge. As Rand wrote, "A leaf ... cannot be all red and green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time... A is A."^[14] Objectivism rejects belief in anything alleged to transcend existence.^[15]

 

That last part is something that I once argued with an apologist to the bitter end. I was pushing the apologist into a corner on the topic of God and existence. The point was that his God could only refer to existence itself. Only existence itself can be omni-present. And there's no such thing as transcending existence itself. Doing so equals not-existence. Therefore his God either exists as simply existence itself, which means that it's everyone and everything including good and evil all at once, or the God simply doesn't exist at all. 

 

Backed into this corner I asked the apologist once again, "Does God exist?" 

 

He answered, "No." 

 

The freethinking folks watching it unfold went wild! The apologist would rather say that God doesn't exist than to admit that his God must be a symbolic place holder created by ancient peoples, in their mythologizing, in order to try and grasp at the question of absolute ultimate's, which is the deepest question of existence. Mere existence must have always existed in one way or another with no fixed beginning, in order for anything to exist now. Hence the human mind while creating a mythological supreme deity produces an absolute God who has no beginning or end, omni-present, and basically parallels what mere existence is in reality, etc. etc.

 

Then the apologist tried to double down and say that what he means is that God is "self-existent," thinking that he'd dodged the bullet and somehow differentiated God from existence itself. I came back and said that self-existent means something that exists, hence existence itself and we're back to square one. Then he quietly backed out of the discussion as the atheists went on about what an idiot the apologist had been.

 

I did this to demonstrate to myself and others what would happen if a Christian apologist were pushed into admitting that their God is either the totality of existence itself, or not all. Because that eliminates fundamentalism in one fell swoop. There's no us verse them, no battle between good and evil, just God interacting with God all the time and everywhere. There's no enemy. There's no real devil separate from the God. There's just one interconnected expanse of existence which encompasses everything. And to transcend the universe, for instance, can only mean moving from region of existence to another. The natural world, the natural universe, and greater "naturalistic" existence is then deprived of any leg up for supernaturalist philosophy.

 

I had no idea that I was utilizing aspects of Objectivism while this was going on. 

[florduh]

 

 

I HATE the tax code and would abolish it.

 

All but the 1% would likely agree. Who is responsible? Be honest. Hint: It ain't the middle class, and it ain't a Republican or Democrat.

 

I don't care WHO is responsible.  I want it GONE. 

 

How do you fight a thing if you refuse to even identify the responsible parties? Another Hint: They are the big business interests you always shill for. You seem to be under the impression that Liberals/Democrats invented the tax code to feed the poor. 

[TABA]

 

"I had no idea that I was utilizing aspects of Objectivism while this was going on."

 

See, Eccesliastes is right: there IS nothing new under the sun!

 

I'm not ready to label myself as either Libertarian or Objectivist, but as a heathen for whom individual liberties are all-important, these ideas certainly appeal to me. I need to do more reading...

[Joshpantera]

"I had no idea that I was utilizing aspects of Objectivism while this was going on."

 

See, Eccesliastes is right: there IS nothing new under the sun!

 

I'm not ready to label myself as either Libertarian or Objectivist, but as a heathen for whom individual liberties are all-important, these ideas certainly appeal to me. I need to do more reading...

 

I've not joined the Libertarian party, but it's an ongoing consideration. My disdain for run of the mill right and left wing politics has left me politically flaccid. I see some things that would keep me away from going full bore with Objectivism. But to the point of the liberal right, that's the only area that I seem to fit into. 

[midniterider]

Keyboard battles. Sweet.