Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal mercedo's Journal: Perfect Moderate 24

Journal by mercedo
When someone holds conservative opinions in politics, and liberal opinions in economy, conservative and liberal make just moderate opinion.

I mean it's you -one of my best friends -Marxist Hacker 42

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Perfect Moderate More

Perfect Moderate

Comments Filter:
  • Save for the fact that, on the Meyers-Briggs personality profile, I scored INFP- which claimed that I have an obsession with the extremes in society- an obsession with the Holy and the Profane. And yet I often find myself fighting with extremeists on both sides of the fence.
    • Is anticommunitarianism [slashdot.org] a reasonable political stance?
      • I personally don't think so- though the neo* cultists on both sides (neoliberals and neoconservatives) obviously do. Most modern anticommunitarianism is about moving power from the political sphere to the economic- and from there concentrating it in the "virtuous" oligarchy of the rich (under which the highest virtue is greed, and the most greed serving good one can do is make a profit, regardless of who gets stepped on and hurt in the process). Even with this- I tend towards the center. I want the separ
        • Well, here's my take:

          It's Blair's 'Communitarianism'. Since it's impossible to ask a body what it, as an emergent form, 'thinks', you need to nominate leaders. That communitariansm exists in partial opposition to individualism tends to blind adherents to the intrinsic problem of listening to such usually self-selected minorities. Consultation for the purpose of making workable policies and laws gives way to 'group rights': a big mistake, considering that the group's interests may not be shared by any of the

          • Since it's impossible to ask a body what it, as an emergent form, 'thinks', you need to nominate leaders.

            This, in and of itself, is incorrect- most likely because it has become technologically outdated in the last 10 years or so. Neo* philosophies are built upon this being true- and thus fail as true communitarian philosophies.

            I've no problem with a sophisticated balance of interests, but to give power to society itself is, to my mind, the beginnings of fascism. A community's interests, in short, can e
            • I don't think that any of the pure philosophies get it right, but communitarianism is about community power, not democracy. In fact it is styled in opposition to liberalism.

              I agree with you that corporate power is bad, but the group is no better: the dilution of responsibility that being part of the group involves means that democracy cannot be considered a reasonable ideal. Anarchy (no enforcement of property rights either) is better, although there are different flaws there.

              Community will is not th

              • I don't think that any of the pure philosophies get it right, but communitarianism is about community power, not democracy. In fact it is styled in opposition to liberalism.

                Pure democracy IS community power. I'm not sure what you consider liberalism to be- but I consider it to be using governmental power to help people. I think what you really mean is that it is opposed to libertarianism.

                I agree with you that corporate power is bad, but the group is no better: the dilution of responsibility that being

                • Pure democracy IS community power. I'm not sure what you consider liberalism to be- but I consider it to be using governmental power to help people. I think what you really mean is that it is opposed to libertarianism.

                  No, pure democracy, or any other form of governance (including anarchic governance) regulates the community, just as it regulates every member. Community is emergent from the people, and has an identity of its own. Because that identity need not be a healthy one, sometimes the emergent f

                  • No, pure democracy, or any other form of governance (including anarchic governance) regulates the community, just as it regulates every member. Community is emergent from the people, and has an identity of its own. Because that identity need not be a healthy one, sometimes the emergent form needs to be regulated, albeit indirectly via the community's members. Democracy might be an ideal of community power, but the community has many possible structures, of which democracy is only one.

                    True enough- though I

                    • True enough- though I'd point out that any method OTHER than direct democracy by necessity removes information from the public debate- and thus, by definition is NOT taking into account the true emergent form at all, but rather a distorted picture of it, skewed towards special interests as opposed to the common good.

                      "Special interests" here means local interaction. Are you aware of the True Scotsman [wikipedia.org] fallacy? For community-wide considerations to overwhelm local considerations at every turn is not neces

                    • "Special interests" here means local interaction. Are you aware of the True Scotsman fallacy? For community-wide considerations to overwhelm local considerations at every turn is not necessarily a good thing. Information is in fact likely to remain hidden in any case, as some interests might not be aired at all. Consider the interests of a gay or S&M couple, for example.

                      You've got a MUCH different idea of what the word "local" means. You're trying to define "local" as "individual" where I'm defining
                    • This is getting a little too long, so I will select quotations. If I miss anything important, feel free to bring it up again. I don't want to exhaust myself, though, so I will attempt to address the major points, and may let some things slip.

                      You've got a MUCH different idea of what the word "local" means. You're trying to define "local" as "individual" where I'm defining "local" as "a group of people living in a small geographic area". A gay or S&M couple do not have a lifestyle well suited to, say

                    • This is getting a little too long, so I will select quotations. If I miss anything important, feel free to bring it up again. I don't want to exhaust myself, though, so I will attempt to address the major points, and may let some things slip.

                      And I'll do likewise- no problem. I agree we're getting very deep. But I think we're pretty close together in reality- the REAL difference is that your "community" is more virtual than mine- and because of that, you really don't have the same connections to your loc

                    • And I'll do likewise- no problem. I agree we're getting very deep. But I think we're pretty close together in reality- the REAL difference is that your "community" is more virtual than mine- and because of that, you really don't have the same connections to your local community that I do.

                      I think that you're kind of right, but also, I live in a town of 100,000 people: I cannot have personal relations with all of them. Also: Cambridge, when I live, is nowhere near being either a superset, or a subset o

                    • I think that you're kind of right, but also, I live in a town of 100,000 people: I cannot have personal relations with all of them. Also: Cambridge, when I live, is nowhere near being either a superset, or a subset of my friends and family.

                      Then in that case, your town or neighborhood isn't just the wrong one for you- it's also too big and should be broken up somewhat. Along small neighborhood lines if nothing else.

                      100,000 people in my town is too large to be a community of friends. It is said that the
                    • It's been good chatting with you.

                      Sadly, I won't have time to reply before this JE is archived as I'm taking a short break away from home, but maybe another time :o)

                    • We should prevent "front-runners"- for they steal resources from those who have the most need. Freedom MUST be equal between everybody- or else it's just a sham, a fake freedom based on slavery of those who have less freedom. YES- equality at all costs is my goal. I freely admit it- if you find you can't stand to be equal with your neighbors then there's something drastically wrong with your value system.

                      I have to admit that I am opposed to being lobotomised because my neighbours are stupid.

                    • I feel that that comment left a certain feeling of bad grace.

                      What I really meant to say is that the implication of an uncompromising dedication to equality is what gets squashed by that unwillingness to compromise.

                      Political equality can have a range of meanings, but some of those are destructive.

                      Life is about balancing freedoms. If you don't work with the grain of what people are inclined to do, however worthy your aims, you will break people, and probably help no-one.

                      Generousity can be teased out

                    • Fine with me- knowing me, I'll have another JE on basically the same topic eventually (it's not like the oligarchy is going away anytime soon- if anything the stupidity is getting worse, not better).
                    • What I'd like to see is an experiment to see if generosity can be bred into people. Or rather, if selfishness can be bred OUT.

                      Near my parent's farm is exactly the type of community I'm talking about. They're Mennonite- German Apostolic Christian. They're inbred enough, and their regulations are strict enough, and they've been doing it for at least 6 generations here and probably 12 or so back in the old land, that they're perfectly suited to what they do. They're HAPPY- a happiness that I don't see els
                    • Thanks for the JE idea. I'll do it when you get back (when are you getting back from vacation?) so that you can reply too.

                      Basically, my idea is that if you have physical equality based on evolved regulation for the world in which you live (and let's face it, if peak oil kills our transportation, all of our worlds are going to get a lot smaller very quickly) a type of happiness and freedom exists that simply cannot exist with foreign involvement. Mental equality isn't neccessary as long as physical equali
                    • Re: when are you getting back from vacation?

                      I'll be away for the weekend, but again for a week soon thereafter. If you give it about two weeks, a discussion is possible, then...

                      I'm off to bed now. It's past midnight, and I must fix my routine. And catch the train!

                    • What I'd like to see is an experiment to see if generosity can be bred into people. Or rather, if selfishness can be bred OUT.

                      I'm for the former: "invest in the good", including intelligently good behaviour (those who are not only good, but select for goodness). Enough people do this, and ill-will should fade. Certainly some will fake it, but we are actually quite good, in general, at detecting fraudsters. The trouble is that some fraudsters are also demogogues, telling us things that we want to bel

                    • I'm for the former: "invest in the good", including intelligently good behaviour (those who are not only good, but select for goodness). Enough people do this, and ill-will should fade. Certainly some will fake it, but we are actually quite good, in general, at detecting fraudsters. The trouble is that some fraudsters are also demogogues, telling us things that we want to believe, and cause us to overrule our better judgement...

                      Any given system will evolve parasites. The trick is to stay ahead of the par

Slashdot Top Deals

The last person that quit or was fired will be held responsible for everything that goes wrong -- until the next person quits or is fired.

Close