Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Logically consistent political views

  1. #1

    Logically consistent political views

    I have been mulling this topic over for awhile, and almost started breaking it down in another thread, but decided it was off topic, so I'm going to do it here.

    To my knowledge, there are only five consistent positions that it is possible to hold in politics. There may be others, but to my knowledge:

    1. Anarchism/voluntarism/whatever else you want to call it, which rejects the legitimacy of rulers entirely. It does NOT reject the legitimacy or law, only the legitimacy of coercive violence against peaceful people, ever. No social contract. Thus, no compulsory taxes or monopolistic legal systems. This is the position that I take.

    2. Theonomy. Government strictly limited by Old Testament Law. More or less what Gary North and Joel McDurmon hold, and what Rushdoony used to hold. This is a fairly, though not ideologically, libertarian viewpoint, especially when the postmillennial view of progress that almost always accompanies this view is factored in. I respect this viewpoint, but I don't agree with it. I don't know of any statist viewpoint other than this one that has any degree of coherence and yet doesn't at least theoretically lead to tyranny.

    3. Strict Utilitarianism. Individual rights don't matter, only the good of the collective. The only relevant policy consideration is how a policy affects utility. No strictly moral considerations. One can come to a variety of different viewpoints on government structure, even stumbling upon a different internally consistent system perhaps. No individual rights. No moral principles binding government other than utility. Its possible to consistently hold this position. In reality the VAST majority of people who believe something like this do not realize its implications.

    4. Divine Right of Kings. God ordained rulers and they have an absolute right to rule. Note that this position is VERY different than the theonomy of #2. Theonomy does say that God ordains rulers in a positive sense, but it also puts strict limits on what they are allowed to do. By contrast, this viewpoint simply asserts that what the king does is inherently just because God ordained him. This viewpoint strikes me as sickening (as does view #3) but it is internally consistent.

    5. Absolute democracy. The collective has all the rights. The collective right of the majority to decide is supreme. No moral considerations, no individual rights. I find this view repulsive, but it is theoretically consistent. I haven't ever met anyone who is actually consistent about this view (or #3-4) though. Most people when pressed will eventually admit to a limit to their collectivism. Most people, for instance, will not claim that slavery or the Holocaust would have been justified were the majority to vote for it, but this is the logical conclusion of this view (A proponent to #3 could argue that such an arrangement is un-utilitarian, but that's not particularly satisfying to most.)

    Note that other religions could have their versions of theonomy. Sharia Law is perhaps an Islamic version of "theonomy" (although far less libertarian) and may be logically consistent with the presupposition that Islam is true. I don't know enough about any such systems to comment on them or discuss them, but I am aware that they probably exist.

    Other than that though, I'm not sure how any other position can be justified with internal consistency. It seems that to be a minarchist or a constitutionalist, one would have to accept one of the views between 3-5, or else be inconsistent. And it seems to me that most are consistent.

    I don't know of any logically consistent system that doesn't fit with one of these 5. I appreciate any thoughts or debate on this.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    It seems that to be a minarchist or a constitutionalist,
    it is necessary to understand the words one uses.
    I wish to live as close to pure Anarchy as possible. that makes me a "minarchist"
    I also wish for the gubbermint to abide by the Rule of Law.
    is that what our "Constitution" is?
    and if that is not what it is.. what is it?
    please enlighten me.

    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

    "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by HVACTech View Post
    it is necessary to understand the words one uses.
    I wish to live as close to pure Anarchy as possible. that makes me a "minarchist"
    I also wish for the gubbermint to abide by the Rule of Law.
    is that what our "Constitution" is?
    and if that is not what it is.. what is it?
    please enlighten me.

    I'm defining "minarchism" here as a philosophical position which considers a limited State to be morally legitimate.

    "constitutionalism" means accepting that the state has the right to do those things that are in the constitution (this is inconsistent in part because nobody claims the Constitution is an inspired document, except Mormons. Come to think of it for a Mormon a strict constructionist position could be logically and ideologically consistent.)

    I ally myself with minarchists and constitutionalists, but I don't see how either is actually a consistent position.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  5. #4
    That thread title is a pretty good oxymoron,

  6. #5
    A political philosophy which denies the sovereignty of the individual cannot be logically consistent. Individuals own their lives. This is an observable, undeniable fact. Adopting a political philosophy which is not founded upon this fact is by definition logically consistent, and doomed to produce a perverted and eventually failed order of society... as we have seen time and time again.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    Other than that though, I'm not sure how any other position can be justified with internal consistency. It seems that to be a minarchist or a constitutionalist, one would have to accept one of the views between 3-5, or else be inconsistent. And it seems to me that most are consistent.
    A minarchist has to believe individual rights don't matter, kings are ordained by God, and/or the majority can run over the minority at will?

    I think it's possible to operate a republic without believing any of those things. Tell me how I'm doing it wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    A minarchist has to believe individual rights don't matter, kings are ordained by God, and/or the majority can run over the minority at will?

    I think it's possible to operate a republic without believing any of those things. Tell me how I'm doing it wrong.
    What logically consistent basis do you have to allow for that little bit of control without allowing for more?

    I'm not saying its impossible. I'm saying its not philosophically consistent.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  9. #8
    If you believe that someone is allowed to tax you at 2% maximum (or some other "minimal" figure), what is the logical argument that they are not allowed to tax you at 98% (or some other very large figure)?


    Either you own yourself, or someone else owns you.
    "Sorry, fellows, the rebellion is off. We couldn't get a rebellion permit."



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    A minarchist has to believe individual rights don't matter, kings are ordained by God, and/or the majority can run over the minority at will?

    I think it's possible to operate a republic without believing any of those things. Tell me how I'm doing it wrong.
    Propose a "republic" which every individual who's governed by it agrees to its scope. EVERY. Individual.

    You propose just such a republic, and you'll get no complaints from any anti-statist.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    Propose a "republic" which every individual who's governed by it agrees to its scope. EVERY. Individual.

    You propose just such a republic, and you'll get no complaints from any anti-statist.
    The problem is that most statists have a wrong view of "tacit consent" in which everyone does consent to the government just by living here.

    Assuming we're talking about actual consent, a "statist" who agrees that everyone should consent, and an an-cap... is merely one of terminology.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    What logically consistent basis do you have to allow for that little bit of control without allowing for more?

    I'm not saying its impossible. I'm saying its not philosophically consistent.
    It's impossible.

    Even if you manage to gain the consent of every individual at some point in time, new individuals would constantly be moving in and out of your territory... unless of course you want to implement guarded "borders", which requires you again to violate the rights of individuals.

    There are nearly an infinite number of scenarios which make it impossible.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    The problem is that most statists have a wrong view of "tacit consent" in which everyone does consent to the government just by living here.

    Assuming we're talking about actual consent, a "statist" who agrees that everyone should consent, and an an-cap... is merely one of terminology.
    A statist who agrees that everyone should consent isn't a statist.

    Minarchist-statists, who approve of tacit consent, either fail to truly acknowledge the fact of individual sovereignty, or are fascists-in-waiting.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    Assuming we're talking about actual consent, a "statist" who agrees that everyone should consent, and an an-cap... is merely one of terminology.
    There you go.

    Local control is more than some kind of interim step, and more than some lesser evil. It's the very principle upon which free society is built. Most of the self-styled ancaps around here are actually firm believers in republics. A voluntayist who doesn't approve of calling the group's 'private police force' police instead of 'security guards' gets to make a choice. He or she can decide to go along with the rest, or can leave.

    The problem is centralized control like we have growing like a cancer out of Washington is, where else is there to go? That's all. That's the sum total of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  16. #14
    I am yet to find a version of 1. that is internally consistent. Objectivism got close-ish.

    Internally they tend to be a giant can of worms covered over with "but you have to have the right cultural context"

    In the realm of human endeavour, internal consistency is over-rated. If you like it, go be a programmer and talk to computers all day.
    In New Zealand:
    The Coastguard is a Charity
    Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
    The DMV is a private non-profit
    Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
    The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
    5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
    A tax return has 4 fields
    Business licenses aren't a thing
    Prostitution is legal
    We have a constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    I have been mulling this topic over for awhile, and almost started breaking it down in another thread, but decided it was off topic, so I'm going to do it here.

    To my knowledge, there are only five consistent positions that it is possible to hold in politics. There may be others, but to my knowledge:

    1. Anarchism/voluntarism/whatever else you want to call it, which rejects the legitimacy of rulers entirely. It does NOT reject the legitimacy or law, only the legitimacy of coercive violence against peaceful people, ever. No social contract. Thus, no compulsory taxes or monopolistic legal systems. This is the position that I take.

    2. Theonomy. Government strictly limited by Old Testament Law. More or less what Gary North and Joel McDurmon hold, and what Rushdoony used to hold. This is a fairly, though not ideologically, libertarian viewpoint, especially when the postmillennial view of progress that almost always accompanies this view is factored in. I respect this viewpoint, but I don't agree with it. I don't know of any statist viewpoint other than this one that has any degree of coherence and yet doesn't at least theoretically lead to tyranny.

    3. Strict Utilitarianism. Individual rights don't matter, only the good of the collective. The only relevant policy consideration is how a policy affects utility. No strictly moral considerations. One can come to a variety of different viewpoints on government structure, even stumbling upon a different internally consistent system perhaps. No individual rights. No moral principles binding government other than utility. Its possible to consistently hold this position. In reality the VAST majority of people who believe something like this do not realize its implications.

    4. Divine Right of Kings. God ordained rulers and they have an absolute right to rule. Note that this position is VERY different than the theonomy of #2. Theonomy does say that God ordains rulers in a positive sense, but it also puts strict limits on what they are allowed to do. By contrast, this viewpoint simply asserts that what the king does is inherently just because God ordained him. This viewpoint strikes me as sickening (as does view #3) but it is internally consistent.

    5. Absolute democracy. The collective has all the rights. The collective right of the majority to decide is supreme. No moral considerations, no individual rights. I find this view repulsive, but it is theoretically consistent. I haven't ever met anyone who is actually consistent about this view (or #3-4) though. Most people when pressed will eventually admit to a limit to their collectivism. Most people, for instance, will not claim that slavery or the Holocaust would have been justified were the majority to vote for it, but this is the logical conclusion of this view (A proponent to #3 could argue that such an arrangement is un-utilitarian, but that's not particularly satisfying to most.)

    Note that other religions could have their versions of theonomy. Sharia Law is perhaps an Islamic version of "theonomy" (although far less libertarian) and may be logically consistent with the presupposition that Islam is true. I don't know enough about any such systems to comment on them or discuss them, but I am aware that they probably exist.

    Other than that though, I'm not sure how any other position can be justified with internal consistency. It seems that to be a minarchist or a constitutionalist, one would have to accept one of the views between 3-5, or else be inconsistent. And it seems to me that most are consistent.

    I don't know of any logically consistent system that doesn't fit with one of these 5. I appreciate any thoughts or debate on this.
    Is there a point is this? I am failing to see one.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    A statist who agrees that everyone should consent isn't a statist.

    Minarchist-statists, who approve of tacit consent, either fail to truly acknowledge the fact of individual sovereignty, or are fascists-in-waiting.
    I'm actually OK with minarchists for the most part, and in the immediate term, its probably the best a person who isn't really interested in digging deep and trying to sort out the logical nuances of positions can do. But its still inconsistent.

    Then again, perhaps starting with the position "states are illegitimate unless every single person consents" is a better starting point than "states are illegitimate" even though the former will almost certainly lead to the latter.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    I'm defining "minarchism" here as a philosophical position which considers a limited State to be morally legitimate.

    "constitutionalism" means accepting that the state has the right to do those things that are in the constitution (this is inconsistent in part because nobody claims the Constitution is an inspired document, except Mormons. Come to think of it for a Mormon a strict constructionist position could be logically and ideologically consistent.)

    I ally myself with minarchists and constitutionalists, but I don't see how either is actually a consistent position.
    What do you mean by inconsistent? inconsistent with what?
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    What do you mean by inconsistent? inconsistent with what?
    internal consistency.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  22. #19
    3. Strict Utilitarianism. Individual rights don't matter, only the good of the collective.
    Egoists are essentially Utilitarians who only concern themselves with their own individual utility, and never anyone else's (see Max Stirner's Egosim and modern Egoism - major foundations of libertarian and individualist anarchist tradition). And they are explicitly amoral, but most Utilitarianism IS a moral theory (not a lack of morality or ethics). So the way you defined Utilitarianism isn't exactly right (there is no "Strict" or "pure" form of Utilitarianism that can claim collective utility trumps individual utility among utilitarians)...it's more nuanced than that between collectivists and individualists who subscribe to the idea of utility. I personally think natural rights and natural law are describing then exact same thing as utility, just from a different perspective. Both have different reasons for acting or not acting, but where they act they are almost 100% identical, and MAY BE identical (depending on who is describing their beliefs on the subject). People on either side often have to make a caricature of the other side's views in order to make the intentions/results of either come out differently from the other when saying whether or not they'd do something to maintain morality/increase utility. I'd also remark, those concerned with collective utility in any sense are subscribing to a moral code...consequentialism is still a moral theory. I know some deontological NAP adherents considered Utilitarian NAP adherents amoral or immoral, but as I said, they almost identical...it's just intentions and outcomes - which are almost (or are) 100% identical in action. Furthermore, Egoists, who only concern themselves with individual utility, are amoralists (they reject morality exists). Yet, their acts fall right into the succinct pattern of the two NAP adherent moral theories (all, in action, do the same tings with near to absolutely identical decisions). Obviously, moral theory or lack thereof should be less important to us than actions. You can claim you believe in the NAP all day long...but do you coerce others who haven't first coerced? That's the true measure of a libertarian, especially an anarchist/voluntaryist. Talk is cheap. Action matters, and is real. All are only consistent to the degree they act in non-coercive manners when not defensively. Anything else makes them inconsistent. I'm less interested in the thought process that leads to that lack of coercion than the fact it is in-action happening.

    There is also a false paradigm set up by individualism vs collectivism. I sum up my individualism this way: There is no greater collective good than individual rights/autonomy (natural rights and law/utility descriptors for the same thing). If you don't have individual rights/autonomy, you are a slave to others, be it majority, tradition, religion, union, church, corporation, etc. There must always be a point where 2 men and 1 woman on a desert island don't decide the morality or legality or social acceptance of rape via majority whim, what people did or didn't do in the past, what they were raised to believe independent of their own mind and conscience, what they were told some celestial authority wanted - as defined by other humans (of course), what other workers want or not, what your congregation or preacher wants, what your boss or co-workers want, etc.

    After all, if 2 men vote rape legal over the objection of the 1 woman, what does that really allow you to do? Legalize criminality. That's all; nothing more. You can make anything law, moral or not. The point of law is to nonviolently solve disputes between parties, and to do ONLY that. When statutory (state) law goes beyond that market-demanded service, it can only be two things: Redundant or Oppressive. It either mirrors natural law and rights/individual autonomy (which would be redundant), or it impedes and infringes upon rights/autonomy (oppressive).

    The point is, individualism is the heart if any un-oppressive (non-state) collectivism...and if one meets enough anarcho communists you'll find some (not a majority) of them amazingly accepting of individualism and even see themselves as individualists and communists simultaneously, because AnComs of any intellectual weight believe if you can't leave your commune at any time, be it for another commune or another economic arrangement altogether, then you are in a state. Therefore, they don't deny individualism and individual rights/autonomy, unlike nearly all state communists. They also aren't necessarily Utilitarians. It's not binary. I find much of the nuance in philosophy to be where you find the most logical consistency. The AnComs I just described are essentially individualists in that they respect and support individual autonomy...but in economic and organizational preferences, they prefer egalitarianism in communes to profit and property arrangements. Some even admit to me that they know very well free market economics, agree with it in terms of outcomes, and understand non-Marxian AnComs like themselves aren't the majority. They CHOOSE communism, and never wish to force others into it against their wills, even knowing the lower standards of living it creates vs free markets or even state capitalist markets. They choose voluntary poverty because it has more value to them than being a part of a system they've been coerced to participate in their whole lives. That may not be my preference, but if left to my own decisions, I can understand and respect that preference. In the end, I can see how these AnComs sort of break down the false paradigm between individualism and collectivism, and also show an AnCom not only CAN BE a voluntaryist, but in fact are (insofar as they don't want to coerce non-AnComs into their economic and organizational preferences).

    And I only see #1 as logically consistent (although you seem to exclude utilitarians from it, which is strange given so many influential voluntaryists ARE "strict" utilitarians and individualists)...even if I can quibble with some of the ways people come to that philosophy, or what they think it implies. To me a PURELY voluntary philosophy (where non-victimizers are not coerced via law or social norm) is the only logically consistent one simply because if one thinks coercion is moral/ethical/positive expected value in utility, then it would be good for society and civilized human behavior toward one another to legalize all coercion for everyone. Of course this would legalize murder, rape, and theft, and because all three are anti-social and uncivilized (as all non-defensive coercions are) they cannot LOGICALLY lead to civilization or society, cannot maintain them, and cannot be necessary to its existence. It is illogical to claim that non-defensive coercion can lead to a society or civilization, that it can maintain one, or that it doesn't erode one. On the other hand, if you illegalize all murder, rape, and theft for everyone, not just the ruled with a special set of exceptions and limits on liability for the rulers, then you abolish the state de facto. The state's existence relies on legalizing crimes (for the ruled) into legal acts (for the rulers)...they have to be able to steal (tax and such), torture (in some cases it has been alleged this includes rape - and why not, given they murder), and murder (if a war is NOT strictly defensive, then every soldier who killed anyone in that war on the side of the non-defenders is a murderer, albeit under false pretenses, and every politician that lied them into the war is a mass murder conspirator...if it isn't accidental or defensive, it's logically murder/manslaughter of some type - and limiting this liability via "law" is how the ruling class and their goons who enforce their legalized crime get away with it) to just exist. No legalized criminality for a tiny minority of people, no state, and no logical inconsistency.

    Therefore, any philosophy, political or otherwise, that supports, for deontological or consequentialist reasons, or for moral, immoral, or amoral reasons, the initiation of coercion against the innocent who are capable of consent by age and lack of severe mental disturbance or handicap, cannot logically be promoting civilized and social behavior in a civilization or society...they can only be promoting antisocial and uncivilized behavior, which can only erode such a society or civilization, or keep one from coming into being.

    And given the nature of logic, it is unlikely, given enough information (like we have on all these political beliefs and history/anthropology), that more than one can be logically consistent. Logic isn't usually a multiple answer thing...these is usually one valid answer and many invalid ones. Example: If I claim there is a god, I must have affirmative evidence that can be re-tested by others (scientific, in other words) to prove this claim, or by default, with no counter argument even deployed in opposition, it is logically invalid. Since no one can prove anything about any god's existence, in any scientifically verifiable way, the claim there is a god is illogical. I accept this as a philosopher AND as a non-atheist. I don't have to be an atheist to see my belief in a Creator is, in fact, illogical. That doesn't mean it isn't correct, however...it was illogical to claim germs existed before microscopes proved them via evidence, but some scientists did correctly theorize germs...it was an illogical claim without evidence at the time, but the theory was based on facts and logic and reason and ended up being right (and therefore ended up being logical once proof came into being). The point here is that something is either provable or it isn't...theories are either based on facts and reason or they aren't...it's largely (but not entirely) a binary thing. There can't be 5 logically consistent philosophies, imho, let alone political philosophies. Either they all reject initiations of coercion against the innocent who are capable of consent, or they do not. Those who do not are illogical, given what they claim a state is meant for in human affairs (creating/maintaining/progressing society and civilized behavior - which we know is logically invalid as a claim). Rights and autonomy cannot be created or upheld by the state - as its very existence is dependent upon FIRST violating rights/autonomy, logically (it must make criminal acts for the 'ruled class' legal and/or limited in liability for the 'ruler class').
    Last edited by ProIndividual; 11-30-2014 at 12:54 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post

    Yes, I want to force consumers to buy trampolines, popcorn, environmental protection and national defense whether or not they really demand them. And I definitely want to outlaw all alternatives. Nobody should be allowed to compete with the state. Private security companies, private healthcare, private package delivery, private education, private disaster relief, private militias...should all be outlawed.
    ^Minimalist state socialism (minarchy) taken to its logical conclusions; communism.



Similar Threads

  1. What were the political views of MLK?
    By GeorgiaAvenger in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-16-2012, 10:30 PM
  2. Where are you from and what are the general political views?
    By ForeverAlone in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-13-2010, 05:51 PM
  3. Political Views of Family?
    By Son of Detroit in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 01-03-2010, 01:33 AM
  4. Political views 'all in the mind'
    By Monolithic in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-19-2008, 01:15 PM
  5. Ron Paul's political views are called?
    By Spider-Man in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-03-2008, 09:50 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •