A practical application of socialist ideas (Read 1168 times)


Fat butt on couch

     I see the issue of immigration as a human rights issue about the autonomy of individuals to move their bodies and families in order to chase a better life rather than as a legal issue.

     

    If you see it that way, your view makes complete sense.  If you recognize the autonomy and integrity of nations, and their right as a group of people united under a government to set up their own laws, then I don't see how it does.

     

    If I wanted to move my family to Mexico and they found me there illegally, I'd likely be thrown in prison.

     

    I know you don't like anecdotes but this is where they are valuable.  One can talk ideals or philosophy but anecdotes at least ground them to the real world...although they may or may not hold true or representative on a broader scale.  One may believe in the autonomy to move wherever they want but you sure would have a legal problem if that desire landed you in a Mexican prison.  Smile

     

    If we want things to be a certain way then lobby for the laws to change....until then I don't think it unreasonable to want the rules enforced.

    "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

     

      If you see it that way, your view makes complete sense.  If you recognize the autonomy and integrity of nations, and their right as a group of people united under a government to set up their own laws, then I don't see how it does.

       

      If I wanted to move my family to Mexico and they found me there illegally, I'd likely be thrown in prison.

       

      I know you don't like anecdotes but this is where they are valuable.  One can talk ideals or philosophy but anecdotes at least ground them to the real world...although they may or may not hold true or representative on a broader scale.  One may believe in the autonomy to move wherever they want but you sure would have a legal problem if that desire landed you in a Mexican prison.  Smile

       

      If we want things to be a certain way then lobby for the laws to change....until then I don't think it unreasonable to want the rules enforced.

       

      Democracy is the idea that individual autonomy is primary and national autonomy is artificial and secondary. This is the whole idea behind contract theory (yes, this is not a personal anecdote, maybe pie-in-the-sky philosophy, but I happen to think that ideas have enormous real-world consequences.)

       

      Of course in the real world, these things have to be balanced, and I would not argue for the abolition of national borders--this would be extreme--exactly as extreme as seeing constructed national borders as somehow absolute and prior to the rights of individuals. (I'm sure you remember how these arguments were used to overturn racist laws in the South--the human right, for example of blacks to have an equal access to education showed the wrongness of the laws on the books.)

       

      Mexico's laws are irrelevant to the discussion, of course.

       

      I do lobby for these things to change--it's a primary reason I vote Democrat, in fact. Smile


      A Dance with Monkeys

        he made himself look like a buffoon in the closing months (Exhibit 1:  Palin).

         

        Right. And Obama did not.

         

        Newt looks like a buffoon. Mitt less so.


        ultramarathon/triathlete

          Obama's long game. 

           

          Hmm, thanks for that.  More people should read that to be reminded of reality. 

          HTFU?  Why not!

          Coach: Empire Tri Club 

          Speed Coach: Brooklyn Tri Club

            That Obama long game piece sounds like it was written by his campaign. 

             

            I'm interested to see that Gingrinch now has a lead in Florida.  I did not see that comming.  It may be a little confusing to the family values crowd to see Gringrich vs. Obama in 2012. 

            In an infinite universe, the one thing sentient life cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion

            http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white&fb_source=message

             

             

             






            ultramarathon/triathlete

              "That Obama long game piece sounds like it was written by his campaign. "

               

              Does this mean you agree, disagree, can't see how people could believe it, can't see how people could not believe it?

              HTFU?  Why not!

              Coach: Empire Tri Club 

              Speed Coach: Brooklyn Tri Club

              juniordo1


                Your first paragraph: every American believes this. Not just conservatives.

                 

                Your second paragraph (that I quoted): I never said that personal experience is a reason for rejection of an argument. It just is never a reason for accepting an argument. Personal anecdotes are always ad hoc reasoning. They can show, perhaps, how an individual came to a point of view, but they are never reasons for another person to accept that point of view, since they are always private reasons, not public reasons.

                Please explain public reasons. If you truly embrace only collectivism and reject individualism so be it. It sounds to me like the only position you can recognize is one accepted by the masses (public) and everything else is just anectdotal. The suggestion by those here seems to be that n=1 isn't an argument supported by facts. Next time I will go out of my way to provide a list of companies that provide educational assistance to their employees. The list will include businesses with a wide variety of pay ranges with opportunities for those with and without experience.

                 

                I didn't read this entire thread so I fear I may be falling victim to a clever bit.

                 

                If you truly belive in what you say here, we will ultimately vote for different people with mixed results.

                 

                At the end of the day I will keep my dog from crapping in your yard and I hope you will do the same.

                 

                Peace

                2013 -Sub 2:00 for 1/2 marathon


                Interval Junkie --Nobby

                  Democracy is the idea that individual autonomy is primary and national autonomy is artificial and secondary. This is the whole idea behind contract theory (yes, this is not a personal anecdote, maybe pie-in-the-sky philosophy, but I happen to think that ideas have enormous real-world consequences.)

                   

                  Never thought I'd hear the likes of Steven Darwall mentioned on a running forum.  Still, interesting application.

                  2014 Goals:  sub-3 Marathon ("Congrats! It's tough to race with poop in the mind" --Wing)

                  Current Status 03/17: Drinking beer and eating crap -- all the things I couldn't do before the marathon


                  Fat butt on couch

                    Democracy is the idea that individual autonomy is primary and national autonomy is artificial and secondary. This is the whole idea behind contract theory (yes, this is not a personal anecdote, maybe pie-in-the-sky philosophy, but I happen to think that ideas have enormous real-world consequences.)

                     

                    Of course in the real world, these things have to be balanced, and I would not argue for the abolition of national borders--this would be extreme--exactly as extreme as seeing constructed national borders as somehow absolute and prior to the rights of individuals. (I'm sure you remember how these arguments were used to overturn racist laws in the South--the human right, for example of blacks to have an equal access to education showed the wrongness of the laws on the books.)

                     

                    Mexico's laws are irrelevant to the discussion, of course.

                     

                    I do lobby for these things to change--it's a primary reason I vote Democrat, in fact. Smile

                     

                    If I do not believe in personal property, I simply take what I want and rationalize it by saying it was part mine to begin with.

                     

                    If I am an anarchist, I kill someone and take their Air Jordans and rationalize it by saying anything goes and there are no rules.

                     

                    In other words, one can rationalize whatever behavior they want with philosophy; I bet few people deliberately do things that they truly believe are wrong.  They always rationalize it somehow, but I don't see what this has to do with establishing uniform rules to make sure society can function.

                     

                    Individual philosophical differences don't put one above the law; I'm all for engaging the process to change the laws if one feels they are inappropriate however.

                     

                    Our Constitution and laws are a large part of what binds us together, many of them are the product of the character of our nation.  Citizenship is being part of this community.  Individual rights are important in a community but the individual lives by the rules of the community or they may be punished/expelled by it.  

                     

                    Somehow I'm finding the real life anecdotes more convincing arguments, but to each their own.

                    "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                     


                    Fat butt on couch

                      Right. And Obama did not.

                       

                      Newt looks like a buffoon. Mitt less so.

                       

                      Obama certainly helped.  Wink

                       

                      But yes, yes, and yes.  And appearances are more important to getting elected than substance.

                      "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                       

                        Please explain public reasons. If you truly embrace only collectivism and reject individualism so be it. It sounds to me like the only position you can recognize is one accepted by the masses (public) and everything else is just anectdotal. The suggestion by those here seems to be that n=1 isn't an argument supported by facts. Next time I will go out of my way to provide a list of companies that provide educational assistance to their employees. The list will include businesses with a wide variety of pay ranges with opportunities for those with and without experience.

                         

                        I didn't read this entire thread so I fear I may be falling victim to a clever bit.

                         

                        If you truly belive in what you say here, we will ultimately vote for different people with mixed results.

                         

                        At the end of the day I will keep my dog from crapping in your yard and I hope you will do the same.

                         

                        Peace

                         

                        What are you talking about "I only embrace collectivism and reject individualism?" I do not understand this.

                         

                        A reason by its very nature is public. Arguments attempt to communicate and convince across our differences. The whole point of speaking is that it's a gesture outward to a real or imagined public. This is even more true on a message board.

                         

                        So, then the question becomes "what sort of gesture do I want to make?" I can tell a story about my own life that will resonate with people who share my experience and way of thinking. This is a good choice because it provides context and humanizes a claim, but of course it also limits the claim to the narrowness of that experience.

                         

                        Or, I can try to make a more general argument that is decontextualized and tries to make a gesture beyond my experience. On the one hand, this might be seen as arrogant intellectualizing. "How dare Jeff try to speak in a general way?" "Why doesn't he just stick to his own experience?" Or, it might be seen more generously as an attempt to find common ground beyond the particularities of our experience--an attempt, using imagination and empathy, to find reasons that might go beyond the narrow idiosyncrasies of my life and personal situation.

                         

                        To spaniel's point, of course reasons can be used to rationalize pre-existing intuitions. They can also be used to defend them. A story can also be used in precisely the same way--to rationalize a pre-existing intuition. But if you are looking to defend your point of view, a reason or argument seems to me to be better suited than an anecdote. I don't see why this is so hard to understand or makes me an elitist who is out of touch with reality. In fact, I have exactly as much experience living in this world as you do, spaniel.

                         

                        I just don't see how the fact that I have had certain experiences necessarily justifies the claims that I have made. The act of justification, seems to me, is always public, making an appeal beyond the narrowness of our personal situations.

                         

                        How's that for an abstract meta-post. It appears that I cannot escape my own idiosyncrasies after all. Smile

                          Never thought I'd hear the likes of Steven Darwall mentioned on a running forum.  Still, interesting application.

                           

                          Ha, I was thinking of Locke, Rousseau, and Hobbes. Smile

                          juniordo1


                            What are you talking about "I only embrace collectivism and reject individualism?" I do not understand this.

                             

                            A reason by its very nature is public. Arguments attempt to communicate and convince across our differences. The whole point of speaking is that it's a gesture outward to a real or imagined public. This is even more true on a message board.

                             

                            So, then the question becomes "what sort of gesture do I want to make?" I can tell a story about my own life that will resonate with people who share my experience and way of thinking. This is a good choice because it provides context and humanizes a claim, but of course it also limits the claim to the narrowness of that experience.

                             

                            Or, I can try to make a more general argument that is decontextualized and tries to make a gesture beyond my experience. On the one hand, this might be seen as arrogant intellectualizing. "How dare Jeff try to speak in a general way?" "Why doesn't he just stick to his own experience?" Or, it might be seen more generously as an attempt to find common ground beyond the particularities of our experience--an attempt, using imagination and empathy, to find reasons that might go beyond the narrow idiosyncrasies of my life and personal situation.

                             

                            To spaniel's point, of course reasons can be used to rationalize pre-existing intuitions. They can also be used to defend them. A story can also be used in precisely the same way--to rationalize a pre-existing intuition. But if you are looking to defend your point of view, a reason or argument seems to me to be better suited than an anecdote. I don't see why this is so hard to understand or makes me an elitist who is out of touch with reality. In fact, I have exactly as much experience living in this world as you do, spaniel.

                             

                            I just don't see how the fact that I have had certain experiences necessarily justifies the claims that I have made. The act of justification, seems to me, is always public, making an appeal beyond the narrowness of our personal situations.

                             

                            How's that for an abstract meta-post. It appears that I cannot escape my own idiosyncrasies after all. Smile

                             

                            Wow, I'm sticking with clever bit.

                            2013 -Sub 2:00 for 1/2 marathon

                              Don't you people have jobs? (I mean apart from Jeff for whom this quite possibly counts as doing work.)

                              Runners run.


                              Idiot

                                Wow, I'm sticking with clever bit.

                                 

                                I think both you and Jeff are misunderstanding each other just a tiny.  No clever bits involved.  Sometimes the resident philosopher sees things through his weird internet glasses.

                                 

                                Although now that I'm thinking about it, the last five years I've spent here at RunningAhead just became infinitely funnier if Jeff were the world's greatest internet troll.

                                I decided that if I'm going to call myself a runner, I should probably run.