Post: #1

There's a question that's been bothering me,
Often, when debating politics, you come across people that claim to be
individualist on personal freedom and collectivist on economic freedom.
How's that possible?
1.What we do in our personal life IS dependent on our economic choices, where you live, where you work, what you eat, your entertainment, etc.
And what you do in your personal life, get knocked up with 5-8 kids.
That does have an impact on your economic choices, you would then need to spend less, on entertainment, vacations, etc.
2.When you elect someone that is totalitarian on economic issues, you ARE, in effect, picking someone that believes that certain human actions must be controlled and policed, how can someone with such a mindset be trusted to leave the non economic actions alone.
3.How is the government not going to use control over your economic life, as leverage when they blackmail you on personal freedom.
For eg, the same male French voters that vote in Leftists, that set ridiculous rules for private businesses such as, 2 month vacation, 35 hr work week, have banned parental testing for THOSE voters.
That's all I have, for NOW.

Post: #2

(03-21-2013 09:30 PM)Quintus Flaminius Wrote:  There's a question that's been bothering me,
Often, when debating politics, you come across people that claim to be
individualist on personal freedom and collectivist on economic freedom.
How's that possible?

personal freedoms, of lack therefof, are about choice and agency.

economic freedoms, or lack thereof, are about resources.

Ultimately they can not diverge perpetually, as economics, is politics is economics.

Quote:1.What we do in our personal life IS dependent on our economic choices, where you live, where you work, what you eat, your entertainment, etc.

The gender we marry isn't necessarily reliant on alternative economic conditions. It costs the same.

The toxins (drugs) we wish to consume isn't necessarily.

You have framed it too narrow, and that may block your ability to reconcile this.

Quote:And what you do in your personal life, get knocked up with 5-8 kids.
That does have an impact on your economic choices, you would then need to spend less, on entertainment, vacations, etc.

yes, and from what I said above, the resources available to you may offer incentives or disincentives.

They are overalapping circles ina venn diagram.

Quote:2.When you elect someone that is totalitarian on economic issues, you ARE, in effect, picking someone that believes that certain human actions must be controlled and policed, how can someone with such a mindset be trusted to leave the non economic actions alone.

Very few school of economic though believe humans are rational fiscal decision makers, and that some degree of persuasion must be put in place.

Property rights are a form of control, and I don't think anyone would dispute its validity.

You are right, this persuasion can not be regarded as having zero impact on non-economic issues. However, as an individual, it shouldn't be consider rational to expect as much. If you expect as much, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

People in control are humans, and they make human decisions. How we countenance power is to seperate them with appropriate checks and balances. Your vigilance should be about ensuring these checks and balances aren't eroded.

That doesn't appear to be happening in many places in the world right now. it seems like suttfing our faces with KFC and not wanting to miss American idol on at 8pm tonight prevent us from protesting.

Post: #3

(03-21-2013 09:42 PM)T and A Man Wrote:  

(03-21-2013 09:30 PM)Quintus Flaminius Wrote:  There's a question that's been bothering me,
Often, when debating politics, you come across people that claim to be
individualist on personal freedom and collectivist on economic freedom.
How's that possible?

personal freedoms, of lack therefof, are about choice and agency.

economic freedoms, or lack thereof, are about resources.

Ultimately they can not diverge perpetually, as economics, is politics is economics.

Quote:1.What we do in our personal life IS dependent on our economic choices, where you live, where you work, what you eat, your entertainment, etc.

The gender we marry isn't necessarily reliant on alternative economic conditions. It costs the same.

The toxins (drugs) we wish to consume isn't necessarily.

You have framed it too narrow, and that may block your ability to reconcile this.

Quote:And what you do in your personal life, get knocked up with 5-8 kids.
That does have an impact on your economic choices, you would then need to spend less, on entertainment, vacations, etc.

yes, and from what I said above, the resources available to you may offer incentives or disincentives.

They are overalapping circles ina venn diagram.

Quote:2.When you elect someone that is totalitarian on economic issues, you ARE, in effect, picking someone that believes that certain human actions must be controlled and policed, how can someone with such a mindset be trusted to leave the non economic actions alone.

Very few school of economic though believe humans are rational fiscal decision makers, and that some degree of persuasion must be put in place.

Property rights are a form of control, and I don't think anyone would dispute its validity.

You are right, this persuasion can not be regarded as having zero impact on non-economic issues. However, as an individual, it shouldn't be consider rational to expect as much. If you expect as much, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

People in control are humans, and they make human decisions. How we countenance power is to seperate them with appropriate checks and balances. Your vigilance should be about ensuring these checks and balances aren't eroded.

That doesn't appear to be happening in many places in the world right now. it seems like suttfing our faces with KFC and not wanting to miss American idol on at 8pm tonight prevent us from protesting.

1. Your sexual preferences ARE largely independent from your economic choices, but keep in min, that there would be no such thing as internet dating, if the US government had decided to protect the typewriter industry by enabling regulations on PC use.
but a lot of personal choices(the majority of them) are.
2.A ban on drugs IS a restriction(not unjustifiable) on economic freedom.

Post: #4

Quote:1. Your sexual preferences ARE largely independent from your economic choices, but keep in min, that there would be no such thing as internet dating, if the US government had decided to protect the typewriter industry by enabling regulations on PC use.
but a lot of personal choices(the majority of them) are.

I didn't say they weren't. I am saying there are so that are indepedent, and are its these many social libertarians rail behind

Quote:2.A ban on drugs IS a restriction(not unjustifiable) on economic freedom.

There isn't a great deal of economy in growing marijuana in your own backyard.

Post: #5

(03-21-2013 09:30 PM)Quintus Flaminius Wrote:  There's a question that's been bothering me,
Often, when debating politics, you come across people that claim to be
individualist on personal freedom and collectivist on economic freedom.
How's that possible?

It's perfectly posible when one is willing to cognitive dissonance-away one's intellectual contradictions.

Freedom is about absence from coercion.

Collectivism is an antagonist to freedom. Economic collectivism is about taking stuff from you to give to others, and social collectivism is about making you do what others want. Either way, it's the state pointing a gun to your head.

If you like freedom, then it is intellectually consistent to be both individualist economically and socially.

Post: #6

(03-21-2013 10:11 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

(03-21-2013 09:30 PM)Quintus Flaminius Wrote:  There's a question that's been bothering me,
Often, when debating politics, you come across people that claim to be
individualist on personal freedom and collectivist on economic freedom.
How's that possible?

It's perfectly posible when one is willing to cognitive dissonance-away one's intellectual contradictions.

Freedom is about absence from coercion.

Collectivism is an antagonist to freedom. Economic collectivism is about taking stuff from you to give to others, and social collectivism is about making you do what others want. Either way, it's the state pointing a gun to your head.

If you like freedom, then it is intellectually consistent to be both individualist economically and socially.

Economic and personal choices consume the same raw material, time.
The atheistkult leftists, that are so vehemently opposed to religion, citing oppression in the middle ages, forget that Feudalism was a TOTALITARIAN economy, the serfs had no freedom over their lives.
They're not real atheists, it's the same religion, irrational humanism, the only difference lies in the heaven promised by the two.
Clouds and angels in the middle ages, post scarcity utopia today.

Post: #7

(03-21-2013 09:30 PM)Quintus Flaminius Wrote:  1.What we do in our personal life IS dependent on our economic choices, where you live, where you work, what you eat, your entertainment, etc.
And what you do in your personal life, get knocked up with 5-8 kids.
That does have an impact on your economic choices, you would then need to spend less, on entertainment, vacations, etc. true. but personal choices also reflect standing economic choices. At one time I had someone who I would have probably had kids with eventually. I didn't because it was 2007, and I was a blue collar worker. And that didnt play out well. So this is a constantly-mirroring concept, and doesn't apply to economic policy. Different economic policy -> different climate -> different personal choices.
2.When you elect someone that is totalitarian on economic issues, you ARE, in effect, picking someone that believes that certain human actions must be controlled and policed, how can someone with such a mindset be trusted to leave the non economic actions alone. We have a bill of rights. Laws against just that. Checks and balances. It's also hoped that those in power would be somehow incentivized to benefit the masses, and not have any incentive to control non-economic interests
3.How is the government not going to use control over your economic life, as leverage when they blackmail you on personal freedom.
For eg, the same male French voters that vote in Leftists, that set ridiculous rules for private businesses such as, 2 month vacation, 35 hr work week, have banned parental testing for THOSE voters. Because the french fucked up in one area and not another. It's a personal right to have parental testing in most peoples' eyes. That has nothing to do with business. Also, France's businesses are not particularly bad off. You overestimate the effect a productivity drop has--the French have realized the truth we in America don't see, that the only reason the corporate world exists is to benefit society as a whole.

I'm personally in favor of a heavily regulated economy which is more labor-centric and some social welfare, albeit social welfare that is more gender neutral and not as exploited, but traditional family structures at the same time. If you want to see that in action, look at the American 1950s-1970s, before the fucktarded politicians ruined it.

Post: #8

Quote:Often, when debating politics, you come across people that claim to be
individualist on personal freedom and collectivist on economic freedom.
How's that possible?

Immanuel Kant made a pretty articulate case for regulating the boardroom but not the bedroom in his discussion of public versus private reason.

Post: #9

Quote:true. but personal choices also reflect standing economic choices. At one time I had someone who I would have probably had kids with eventually. I didn't because it was 2007, and I was a blue collar worker. And that didnt play out well. So this is a constantly-mirroring concept, and doesn't apply to economic policy. Different economic policy -> different climate -> different personal choices.

You're a conservative communitarian, you are only vindicating my position, that is the relationship between personal and economic freedoms.

Quote: We have a bill of rights. Laws against just that. Checks and balances. It's also hoped that those in power would be somehow incentivized to benefit the masses, and not have any incentive to control non-economic interests

When pandering to a particular votebank, politicians DO curb personal freedoms.
For eg, proposing blasphemy laws for the Muslims.

Quote: Because the french fucked up in one area and not another. It's a personal right to have parental testing in most peoples' eyes. That has nothing to do with business. Also, France's businesses are not particularly bad off. You overestimate the effect a productivity drop has--the French have realized the truth we in America don't see, that the only reason the corporate world exists is to benefit society as a whole.

Yes, traditionalist communitarians WOULD protect the nuclear family while, at the same time protecting workers' rights, but these guys are as rare as platinum deposits.

Post: #10

What I'm trying to say, is this, political parties promoting collectivist interests need to be more specific, what freedoms need to be curbed, and what should not.
What they really do, is reward their kingmakers.
Sex negative feminists and Christian conservatives share a lot of views on sexual morality.