Daily Anarchist Forum
October 16, 2021, 07:50:27 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
  Print  
Author Topic: Are you conservative or progressive?  (Read 38347 times)
dpalme
Solder Monkey
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 798



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: January 20, 2012, 12:13:18 PM »

Considering ancap is about non-aggression and all, I would expect most people to at least take a live and let live kind of attitude about this. 

Yup, as long as other peoples activities aren't harming anyone else (against their will) I don't care what they want to do.
Logged

http://cur.lv/fgf0 <--- Accepting bitcoins!
Freya
Tranarchist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 353



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: January 20, 2012, 01:14:01 PM »

Quote
Your right, I have not faced the same social marginalization others undoubtedly have.  I was just thinking the best bet for acceptance is those who don't believe they have the right to say what others do.  What is the alternative, living where people think they should tell you what to do?  The worst of one still seems better than the best of the other.  That said, I am not sure NH is there yet.

That depends, if I had to live in a conservative but anarchist community I think I would much prefer a state which is progressive. It's both really important for me and I can't put a priority on either one. They are somewhat linked though and clearly libertarians are fairly progressive in general.

American conservatism worries me. Coming from a fairly tolerant and progressive country myself. Our biggest "Christian" party has several openly gay members. We do have some hardcore christians but they get pretty much no votes.

Rothbardian's response makes me believe that I would not get along with him in real life and our relations would be uneasy or strained at best.

I'm sorry! I did not mean to come across as a dick or anything. Keep in mind that my feelings on most of those matters is not hate (except in a few instances like pedophilia, bestiality, etc.) but rather distaste. It is not like I am going to act like a jerk to any homosexual I meet, nor will I even bring the matter up for discussion. It is more that homosexuals discomfit me (to a certain limited extent) and that does not mean I actively want to discomfit them. Also, where I was using "tolerance," I did not mean that friendship/association is out of the question. I simply meant that I would not try to initiate such relationships, and that I find the activity distasteful.

In most instances where I used "avoidance," I simply found that the activities were distasteful and deserving counter-advocacy. I'd also be willing to ostracize some people in those groups.

But, especially where I answered more with "tolerance," it's not like I am going to be actively going around denouncing the activity. Just a distaste, that's all.

Someone being a "dick" is subjective and an opinion. Certainly you seem like a nice enough person, but your conservatism is clearly in conflict with my cultural progressivism. In fact, it is even somewhat offensive to me, but that probably wasn't intended.  Several things that you find "distasteful" are genetic/biological and not choices. I fall in several categories that you find distasteful.

My guess it is primarily a lack of understanding and education. Did you grow up in a very conservative environment?   
Logged
Rothbardian
Radical Libertarian
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 272


Abolish the State!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: January 20, 2012, 03:14:31 PM »

Well, the first thing to note is that I absolutely do not judge an entire person's character based on the aspect(s) of them which I find distasteful. Well, unless it's one of the really bad characteristics, e.g., pedophilia/bestiality. Such would be a very shallow view, indeed. I do believe in specific character judgements, but why would that overtake my entire view of a person? So, in that sense, I think you and I would find very much agreement. I do not believe in dehumanizing people because of their flaws. (Which I understand - sadly - is exactly what some people who share my views do). I also full well understand that some of those things can be genetic; yet I nonetheless regard them as flaws, perversions of the ideal human being. Note that I say "ideal."

By the way, I'd probably change my view on transgenders/gender bending to more of a tolerance. Not sure why I put down avoidance. I refuse, however, to consider them the "new role" they have switched to, e.g., I'd refuse to call Bob by his new name of Susan.

Quote
My guess it is primarily a lack of understanding and education. Did you grow up in a very conservative environment?
Actually, no. My father was an atheist and quite liberal; my mother a Christian with probably what you'd describe as a more "culturally progressive" view. I'm simply more of a traditionalist and Old Rightist, so to speak.
Logged

braindead0
Guest
« Reply #18 on: January 20, 2012, 04:40:28 PM »

I was going to respond in detail, however my answer to all of it is the same.  I find the question(s) irrelevant.  I don't belong to any 'culture' to care about it changing, and as far as the specific behaviours listed.. don't care as long as it doesn't interfere with me.. knock yourself out.
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: January 20, 2012, 05:00:52 PM »

I took participant as also being an activist or actively advocating. So a participant could be a doctor who performs euthanasia.

Well perhaps I didn't specify that category enough. Participance also means being actively trying to get it accepted. For example petitioning for legal drugs, being a politician and proposing bills etc. It goes further then just accepting it, you actively want to bring about this change.

This is why I amended my definitions.  I don't go political, and I am not a doctor, etc.  I don't have a way to actively support these issues, but I more than just say "okay."  I passively support a lot of things. 
Logged

JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: January 20, 2012, 05:22:28 PM »

Feminism: I consider the goals "not possible." I'm not sure where I fit in the categories given. Equality between men and women is a non concept. Men and women are different. It's like saying I want dogs and cats to be "equal." I don't know what that means. I'm fine with women going against old norms/stereotypes (like the expectation of marriage, expectation of quitting work to raise families). I guess I have similar thoughts on race. Overall, my attitude is that we are all humans, and need to respect one another's life and property as such. However, there are differences between humans that I will not "ignore" to satisfy someone else. For example, on average, West Africans are more likely to be elite sprinters, and East Africans are more likely to be elite distance runners. Men are more likely to be able to bench 1.5X their bodyweight, and women are less likely to die of heart disease. People with different heritages/sexes are genetically different and likely to have different strengths. I don't know what it means to call them equal. Some people are better at different things than others. Is a geneticist "equal" to a botanist? The thing that all groups considered have in common is that they are human, and so I respect them as such. If that's what you mean by equality, then yes, I agree. But the way it's phrased, you included "shaming"... which isn't a violation of someone's freedom, so even though I wouldn't necessarily partake in the shaming, I'm not going to go on a moral crusade to tell people they can't. Lol, long response, does that make sense?

So if you apply this same reasoning down the line, it's almost all acceptance.

There are only a few more topics worth mentioning from me.

Pedophilia: If someone has not physically, biologically reached the point where they are sexually mature (regardless of when that happens), then I'm not okay with a sexually mature adult doing anything with them (some people never sexually develop, but that's a different issue). It's a biological fact that until you are sexually mature you can't know or comprehend what sex is or means. You might know physically what happens, but without a sex drive one cannot truly understand it. So I don't think a 5-year old can consent anymore than an infant. However, people are sexually maturing at earlier and earlier ages, and once someone has reached that point, whether it's 13 or 18, then they can "own" their sexuality and can consent to using it. I would use the "avoidance" classification, because I still wouldn't use force against anyone (unless it was my child or family member being abused).

Gene modification is an avoidance thing for me, and I don't know why. Actually I do. It's because I saw GATTACA. But I'm not willing to use force to stop it.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
derick
Full Member
***
Posts: 160


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: January 20, 2012, 08:08:38 PM »

I am neither conservative or progressive. I do not really care for that question because it implies that all people can be lumped into one group or the other. If you believe in the principal of non-aggression how could you be conservative or progressive? as both of them are based in coercion and aggression.

Murray Rothbard did an excellent job of defining conservatism and progressivism in, Left and Right: The prospects for liberty
Logged
Freya
Tranarchist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 353



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: January 20, 2012, 09:53:51 PM »

I am neither conservative or progressive. I do not really care for that question because it implies that all people can be lumped into one group or the other. If you believe in the principal of non-aggression how could you be conservative or progressive? as both of them are based in coercion and aggression.

Murray Rothbard did an excellent job of defining conservatism and progressivism in, Left and Right: The prospects for liberty

You clearly do not understand my post. I'm talking cultural progressivism. There is still social ostracism that can limit the freedom of people.
Logged
Rothbardian
Radical Libertarian
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 272


Abolish the State!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 20, 2012, 09:57:06 PM »

^Eddy, derick is right. The proper terms would be more like "traditionalism" and, like you said, "cultural progressivism." Libertarians are radicals, not conservatives.

I really hope I didn't hurt your feelings? Did you read my last post?

PS- How is someone like myself "limiting your freedom"?
Logged

Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: January 20, 2012, 09:59:32 PM »

PS- How is someone like myself "limiting your freedom"?

He wants to avoid social ostracism.  He is just looking for people with similar social values.  

My own mother cussed me out when I told her I didn't share her religious values.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 10:01:22 PM by Syock » Logged

derick
Full Member
***
Posts: 160


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: January 20, 2012, 10:08:19 PM »

Well in a free society that would be their right as long as they didnt use aggression against another person. Maybe you think we need some sort of authority to make society fair? If I dont like someone, for whatever reason (and I believe that that is my right), I can refuse to do business with that someone. That may not be nice or fair or whatever but that is my right.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 10:11:32 PM by derick » Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: January 20, 2012, 10:11:00 PM »

He didn't say it wasn't your right.  He stated his list of priorities was social acceptance over a "free" society that would ostracize him.  He also seemed to say it is not freedom to face social ostracism.  

Personally I disagree with that.  I think it can be an unfortunate thing, but unavoidable even in non-free societies.  Ancap is not some magic wonderland that makes everyone like everyone.  It is just the best solution to the issues we face in my opinion.  

I've been ostracized plenty of times, usually in very rude ways that I still to this day do not understand the reasoning for. 
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 10:20:43 PM by Syock » Logged

derick
Full Member
***
Posts: 160


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: January 20, 2012, 10:19:00 PM »

He didn't say it wasn't your right.  He stated his list of priorities was social acceptance over a "free" society that would ostracize him.  He also seemed to say it is not freedom to face social ostracism. 

Personally I disagree with that.  I think it can be an unfortunate thing, but unavoidable even in non-free societies.  Ancap is not some magic wonderland that makes everyone like everyone.  It is just the best solution to the issues we face in my opinion. 

That was my point. I guess I dont understand how you could be an Ancap and put social acceptance over a free society.
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 20, 2012, 10:24:14 PM »

That was my point. I guess I dont understand how you could be an Ancap and put social acceptance over a free society.

I am still not convinced EddyK is ancap.  hehe   He puts up very spirited arguments against it.

I can understand the desire to have acceptance, especially when looking at the world we live in.  There isn't a thriving ancap country to go to or anything.  We're basically looking at slavery A here, and slavery B there, with one of them liking you and the other hating you.  
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 10:28:25 PM by Syock » Logged

Rothbardian
Radical Libertarian
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 272


Abolish the State!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #29 on: January 20, 2012, 10:36:41 PM »

He wants to avoid social ostracism.  He is just looking for people with similar social values.

True, good point. It's really no issue to me. I just feel a bit sad that he said we couldn't hypothetically be good friends, in real life. Are such petty issues worth the dismissal of a whole person?

Plus, to me, if you're an Anarcho-Capitalist, that trumps (almost) any other flaws which I would find in you. We're comrades, does that not matter most?
Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!