What is/are the foundation(s) of your political beliefs?

[Skeeter]

There is a bunch of back and forth on the conspiracy theories thread about who is and is not a Democrat or Republican. As some have pointed out, it is not strictly a this or that issue. I would like to set aside party affiliation and have a discussion of people's core political beliefs.
My belief is rooted in the idea that rights derive from property. Physical objects are property. Unique ideas can be property, in the case of intellectual property. Even people are property under this model, where the individual is their own property.
Next, only negative rights are true rights. Negative rights do not require something (an item or action) of another, they merely prohibit infringement. This is separate from ethics which asks the question of what we ought to do.
Finally, these rights exist for humans only. Animals, corporations, A.I., etc do not have rights of their own. They only exist (rights) as they are viewed through the humans that have the rights over them (the object in question).
In my view this makes for a fairly simple approach to politics and governance. There is certainly nuance and areas for debate, such as how we deal with the commons, but overall allows for maximum freedom of the individual.
So there is my foundation, what is yours and what flaws do you see in mine?

 

[Catscratch]

I think most people don't put very much thought into it. At a young age they decided they were one or the other and stuck with it. I know several hard core democrats that very much act like republicans.

 

[Skeeter]

I think most people don't put very much thought into it. At a young age they decided they were one or the other and stuck with it. I know several hard core democrats that very much act like republicans.

Hopefully a thread like this will convince people like that to take an honest look at why they believe what they believe, and whether or not it is logically consistent. I often have to check my gut reaction against what I believe to be sound principles. It can be very difficult to admit that my initial feeling was wrong, especially when it is a strong emotional response. But what kind of person would I be if I openly held hypocritical views?

 

[Tree Spud]

Beliefs change as you experience life. You either learn from mistakes or you don't.

As they say ... at age 20 if you are not a progressive (democrat), you don't have a heart.

If at age 50 you are not a conservative, you don't have a brain.

 

[SwampCat]

The problem with too many voters today - they vote for the person's race, sex, attitude, etc - all of which have nothing to do with their ability to govern. I think we would be a lot better off if voters did not know anything about the person running - and went down a check list - Do you support freedom of speech, do you support the second amendment, do you support the right to peaceable assembly, do you support higher taxation to support govt aide programs, etc. Check the boxes and your vote goes to whomever it most closely matches. This voting solely for race and women and not voting for someone who is rude is what got us into this last four years.

 

[Skeeter]

Beliefs changes as you experience life. You either learn from mistakes of you don't.

As they say ... at age 20 if you are not a progressive (democrat), you don't have a heart.

If at age 50 you are not a conservative, you don't have a brain.

Can't say that I wholly agree with that sentiment. I read "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat as a teenager and it helped inform my political beliefs. While I am open to refining my viewpoint as I encounter more ideas, a foundational truth does not change over time if it is indeed true.

 

[Bill]

To the original question.

Leave me and mine alone and I'll leave you and yours alone.

 

[SD51555]

You could wrap mine up about like this: I don't support innocent people being robbed, attacked, or murdered. Put that lens on anything, and that's where you'll find me.

 

[Jordan Selsor]

Foundation = Gods word and commands

Reading proverbs with my kids right now. That will tell you everything you need to know in living life

The good Lord never changes

It's to good not to be true:)

 

[Natty Bumppo]

To the original question.

Leave me and mine alone and I'll leave you and yours alone.

Exactly this.

 

[gjs4]

Ive gone to the porcupine party ....and believe our government has become a Ruth Goldberg Machine of nefarious intention for totalitarian control. I am not a nihilist but don't appreciate the DMV and so much "hit home" in/since 2020.

 

[Skeeter]

Foundation = Gods word and commands

Reading proverbs with my kids right now. That will tell you everything you need to know in living life

The good Lord never changes

It's to good not to be true:)

What do you feel the bible tells us about politics/government? I feel much of the biblical teachings fall under ethics, or understandings of what tends to lead to positive or negative outcomes. More sound life advice than directly stating a proper role of government. Please do not read this to diminish the inspired word of God, it's just the pragmatic way I tend to read. I've heard many a sermon on Matthew 22:21, and while I see Jesus stating that there is a legitimate realm of government, he does not clearly state the nuanced details. Are we to submit to any entity that claims authority over us? If not, where do you draw the line and why?

 

[Catscratch]

What do you feel the bible tells us about politics/government? I feel much of the biblical teachings fall under ethics, or understandings of what tends to lead to positive or negative outcomes. More sound life advice than directly stating a proper role of government. Please do not read this to diminish the inspired word of God, it's just the pragmatic way I tend to read. I've heard many a sermon on Matthew 22:21, and while I see Jesus stating that there is a legitimate realm of government, he does not clearly state the nuanced details. Are we to submit to any entity that claims authority over us? If not, where do you draw the line and why?

Skeeter, when I think about stuff like this it gets pretty simple. I have a division in my mind. There is "government", and there is "people" in government. "Government" is the rules and system that are supposed to insure citizens are afforded opportunities and rights as defined. "People in government" should simply implement government. The people are where concerns become apparent. If everyone in government made unbiased decisions that were based on doing right as defined in Jordan Selsor's reference to the bible, I doubt many people would distrust or feel animosity towards our government.

I feel that I may have not worded that well (and that I used quotation marks too much). I wish I felt that more politians were making choices "for the people" rather than for themselves.

 

[Bowsnbucks]

Just a thought here ......... why can't folks like some ideas from both sides??? Both sides have some good ideas - and some bad ones as well. All of us painting each other with hugely-broad brushes gets us nowhere fast. Reminds me of kids throwing stones at each other over a fence.

 

[Skeeter]

To the original question.

Leave me and mine alone and I'll leave you and yours alone.

I agree with the basic idea in my everyday encounters with strangers, and to some extent the people that I know. But, for example, where does that leave us when hunting on public land? To that end, should there be public land for hunting purposes? How does one decide if that's a proper role of government? There are many things that this question could be asked of, but the public land question hits close to home for me. I personally do not believe that government should be in the game of holding land for anything other than the necessities of governance, yet I harvest the majority of my deer on public land. I rationalize it by saying that I refuse to handicap myself by playing by a separate set of rules from everyone else. However, if it came to a vote I would be in favor of eliminating public hunting land based on my view of the proper role of government.

 

[Skeeter]

Just a thought here ......... why can't folks like some ideas from both sides??? Both sides have some good ideas - and some bad ones as well. All of us painting each other with hugely-broad brushes gets us nowhere fast. Reminds me of kids throwing stones at each other over a fence.

That's part of the idea of this thread. I'd like to separate ourselves from the tribalism and understand why individuals believe a law or government function to be just or unjust. This usually comes down to a person's view on the proper role of government. Mine is that largely government should be restricted to defending the rights (negative rights) of the individual. When it goes beyond that in an attempt to provide a good or opportunity to one individual or group, it usually tramples on the rights of another.

 

[Skeeter]

Skeeter, when I think about stuff like this it gets pretty simple. I have a division in my mind. There is "government", and there is "people" in government. "Government" is the rules and system that are supposed to insure citizens are afforded opportunities and rights as defined. "People in government" should simply implement government. The people are where concerns become apparent. If everyone in government made unbiased decisions that were based on doing right as defined in Jordan Selsor's reference to the bible, I doubt many people would distrust or feel animosity towards our government.

I feel that I may have not worded that well (and that I used quotation marks too much). I wish I felt that more politians were making choices "for the people" rather than for themselves.

I tend to ignore the people element when thinking about the proper role of government. We are all sinners and will act accordingly given the right set of circumstances and motivations. That's not to say that we would all end up doing the same thing under the same circumstances, but at some point we will rationalize our behavior that falls outside of what we believe to be correct.

I am interested in your idea that government is there to impose rules and systems to afford opportunities and rights. How does government afford opportunities without infringing on the rights of another?

As an aside, I failed to list a person's labor as their property in my opening post. With this idea in mind, I come to the conclusion that direct taxation of income is an infringement of the rights of the individual.

 

[Foggy47]

I've got a minute to spare. Please share your philosophy on life with me......in two sentences or less. lol

 

[Bowsnbucks]

I am interested in your idea that government is there to impose rules and systems to afford opportunities and rights. How does government afford opportunities without infringing on the rights of another?

I believe that governments establish rules and laws for the general betterment and protection of all citizens. If I have the "right" to dump my dirty motor oil on my land (because its MY land) - but it leaches into the ground and pollutes your well .... is that your tough sh**? Same goes for me burning my trash on my land - and the stink blows over to you and you have to smell it & put up with it. Why should you have to endure my careless behaviors? As a young kid - our neighbor next door burned garbage at night and the stink was enough to gag a maggot in the summer with the windows open. No air pollution laws needed?? What rights do all those neighbors have that had to breath in that stench from smoldering, smoking garbage???

I once worked for a big company that had a literal 4" dia. hole in the ground in the corner of one of its parking lots. Management of that factory told the maintenance dept. to dump all old solvents, oils, thinners, and paints down that hole. That place cost the taxpayers via the federal "superfund" millions of dollars because it polluted the wells of part of the city used for drinking - and it took years to mitigate that pollution!!! How many people drank that toxic water for years - not knowing?? No need for laws & regulations?? Too much EPA "burden" on businesses?? What about the citizens' rights to have safe drinking water???

Smoking in indoor places ..... no "right" for non-smokers to breath clean air?

Let's establish that human selfishness and greed are at play when any laws are proposed. Let's not kid ourselves. Thus the need for GOD's rules as guides, which involve taking others' needs & safety into consideration. Health care comes to mind. (See the parable of the Good Samaritan). How can the rights of the masses be addressed & protected without "infringing on" the rights of the few? Actions taken by some individuals and businesses may negatively impact many others.

 

[Bowsnbucks]

I tend to ignore the people element when thinking about the proper role of government.

Government "by & for the people"??? Laws don't exist solely for their own benefit.