I agree with this legal ruling and its implications as it's consistent with my own stated position here — 180 Proof

Why do we need a legal ruling when science resolved that question long ago? Does science now require legal rulings to prove or disprove a scientific theory?

It wasn't to long before your expressed position that many on this forum threatened banning people for even questioning the idea. I felt I was walking on egg shells when I started this thread around the same time:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5097/is-gender-a-social-construct/p1

There is no single determinant in these cases. You seem to believe that the English words "male" and "female" refer to two clearly defined, mutually exclusive, and exhaustive biological qualities, but that simply isn't the case. Human biology is far more complex than our vocabulary accounts for. — Michael

Not really, When it comes to the brain sure, but sex parts - no.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/256369

Still hiding behind straw-men. Answer the question you keep ignoring.

Assume one does. I promise John £1,000 if he kills my wife. John then kills my wife. I renege on my promise. Ought I be punished for my wife's murder? — Michael

Why waste time on all these unrealistic assumptions and get to the point of the matter - does free speech involve the capacity to question authority and criticize what others say, or not?

Even if we were to suspend reality for the sake of your example, you still need to explain how the idea of free speech defined as "You can say ANYTHING with no repercussions" is reconciled with the idea that everyone has the right to free speech, which includes questioning authority and criticizing what others say because your examples are all of those in some authoritative position dictating to others, or manipulating others (in your new example) that lack the correct information. The solution to all of your examples it to have a more informed population - where all views are free to be expressed and criticized, not less free speech.

The reason why grooming is illegal and it is specifically targeted at older people mistreating minors, is that minors may not know better. Would you really say to a victim of grooming ,"You should of just questioned authority"? — Samlw

Of course. It comes down to how you raise your kids. My kids would never be groomed because they would be well-informed.

If you have another example then give it. It seems that this is all you have - some nebulous example that can be construed as both action and speech, or speech over weeks, and I'm sure grooming involves more than just saying words.

I'm waiting on an example that shows a clear distinction between action and speaking where the speaking is clearly the cause of the violent act of another. There isn't one.

So, you can ignore my main point all you want, but that is a response all in itself.

Biden isn't physically placing handcuffs on Trump and throwing him in jail; he's only uttered the phrase "Have Trump arrested and thrown in jail" to his Attorney General. — Michael

I'm pretty sure there would be much more involved than just making sounds with his mouth.

Besides, this misses the point that what you are describing actually a lack of free speech, where a dictator tells people what to do and no one is allowed to question the orders.

I'm only uttering the phrase "I'll give you £1,000 if you kill my wife" to him. — Michael

Again, there is more involved than just making sounds with your mouth. You have to give some money up front, as no contract killer will simply accept your word.

This is not a good example. no one should (and rarely does) go to jail over smoking cannabis and should only be arrested if they have a quantity that is deemed excessive in their possession. you have crafted a hypothetical that works for you. Answer a more serious and mature hypothetical of something that does happen and does ruin lives. — Samlw

You missed the point entirely. I never said they should go to jail for smoking it. I was asking if the one telling them to smoke it should go to jail or not?

It seems to me that throwing people in jail for saying things ruins peoples lives.

A person above the age of 18 speaks to a young teenager (13-15) and slowly over many days and weeks grooms them. Should we wait until the person over 18 does something illegal such as sexually exploit the teen or have the teen sell drugs... or should we enforce the law before the teen is coerced into doing something they shouldn't? — Samlw

What you seem to be saying is that we should arrest people even before they speak. Why wait until they speak? Why not monitor their thoughts and arrest them for their thoughts?

What you are describing is not using free speech to groom someone, but a lack of it in not having the ability to question authority and disagree with what is being said.

It is illogical to define free speech as "You can say ANYTHING with no repercussions", as free speech includes the rights of others to say what they want, which could be disagreeing with and criticizing what another says, which are repercussions to what one has said. So in a free society that values free speech - EVERYONE has the right, not just a select few (as that is the antithesis of free speech), to speak their mind, which includes questioning authority and criticizing and questioning what others have said.

If Biden, when he was President, were to have instructed the Department of Justice to arrest his political opponents and hold them in prison without trial, and if they were to then do so, would you place (some) responsibility on Biden, and argue that this warrants impeachment and removal from office (and perhaps also arrest), or would you blame only the individual officers who carry out the instruction? — Michael

Biden would not be impeached because he spoke, but because he acted in ways that are unconstitutional.

Should I be punished for hiring a contract killer to kill my spouse? I didn't kill her; I just asked someone else to and promised him money. — Michael

You would be punished for conspiracy to commit murder, which is a crime of action, not speech.

How about this example:
If a friend gave you a joint and told you to smoke it and you did, should the friend go to jail for telling you to smoke it, or simply for possession and distribution of an illegal substance?

It seems you are confusing actions with speech.

Let me ask you this: Is it always the case that when violence occurs and the suspect points to another person and says, "But he told me to do it!", that the person they are pointing is guilty of some crime? If not, explain to me the process you would determine the other's guilt at the expense of the one that actually committed violent acts.

Many of us believe in free will, and argue against hard determinism, and so deny the claim that speech can have some irresistible, compulsive force on others, but still accept that encouragement and persuasion are very real psychological phenomena, and that speech that encourages or persuades others to engage in (certain) unlawful activity ought itself be unlawful. — Michael

It only persuades the weak-minded and uninformed, which is not a problem of an abundance of free speech, but a lack of it - a problem of how we educate citizens and how the media disseminates information.

I mostly call myself a socialist, but I do support policies that improve people's lives and reduce injustice. — Vera Mont

How do you determine what is best for other people that you have never met? Who gets to determine what is best for everyone?

Progress is temporary; everything we build with long, laborious effort is regularly torn down by regressives. Wrecking is faster and easier than building. All the same battles have to fought again, generation by generation, just to be a little better than than previous century. — Vera Mont

Really? So when in history did humans solve the problem of going to the Moon before solving it in 1969, or cure polio and the measles, etc.? Those were not problems that were solved and now solved again. Science is what makes society progress, and it wasn't until only a few hundred years ago that Science was free to challenge the claims of the Church, to allow what we have now - the freedom to ask question and get answers, and then challenge the current answers when better ones come along.

I wonder what percent of us actually understand more about the universe and ourselves and whaty percent has given up the supernatural answers. The regressives are even now dismantling the edifices of science and learning. — Vera Mont

Where? I know they are trying, but they are not succeeding. There is no forced prayer in public schools, and public schools do not teach intelligent design, but evolution. And it's not just either or, many have tried to integrate evolution and the Big Bang with intelligent design. They fail because they do not realize the logic and observation simply doesn't support it.

I said children need laws to protect them from bad parents and other kinds of harm — Vera Mont

And this is exactly what I've been saying. Libertarians are not anarchists. Libertarians believe in limited government. Most (I would say a vast majority of) mothers do not need a law telling them to care for their baby. As such, the laws to not kill your baby is only for a small minority of people. When you only need laws to protect yourself from a small fraction of the populaton, you don't need a big, bloated government to do that - just a limited one.

I do not know what you mean by TOS and TNG. — Athena

TOS = The Original Series
TNG = The Next Generation

Yes, I have watched them - hence my comparison of the various cultures and their political structures in my prior post.

On the other hand, I am wondering what in hell is Trump doing making economic decisions instead of leaving them up to the business people. — Athena

Trump is a business person.

He came to power through the church and ministers, telling us his strength proves he stands with God. — Athena

He came to power like every other Republican and Democrat - through deception and manipulation of the fears of citizens.

I enjoy agreement. It helps me feel like I am not alone in the struggle to save the democracy we inherited. I am struggling for words to raise consciousness of what the Military Industrial Complex has done to our culture. — Athena

The current state of the military industrial complex did not come about randomly, out of the blue. When our only options for representation in government are generals and lawyers, what do you expect to happen?

How can there be people with good moral judgment if none are educated for that? Education for good moral judgement is not reading the Bible. It may include reading the Bible and every other holy book and the classics, but this isn't just about learning what others have said. — Athena

The Bible and other holy books are not what we should be looking to for moral guidance. They would be more in the domain of historical fictional stories. Any similarities between the moral teachings of different religions is an outcome of human nature and natural selection, not some supernatural entity. Ever read "The Selfish Gene", which is ironically more about how altruism evolved as a means to compete against selfishness? Selfishness and altruism do not necessary have to be at odds. If we are not at least somewhat selfish, how can we as individuals be altruistic if we do not focus on maintaining our own health and sanity?

There is an important difference between education for independent thinking or education for "groupthink". If you can, watch and compare the original Star Trek and The Next Generation. That TV series marks the point in time when we had a cultural shift. Captain Kirk was the John Wayne of outer space. Captain Picard is the "groupthink" shift. — Athena

I don't see much of a cultural difference between TOS and TNG. I do see a huge cultural difference between the Federation (everyone is free to live and let live) and the Borg (group-think).

The Klingons and Cardassians would be like 24th century fascists, the Borg 24th century communists and the Federation 24th century Libertarians. Notice how there are no political parties in the Federation. :wink:

Ever heard of fomentation and mob rule? — Janus

I fail to see your point. Is the ability to question authority and disagree with others a central tenet of free speech or not?

Heresy is a religious term, not a political one — Vera Mont

Religion and politics have been intimately entwined since humans starting governing each other. I don't have the time or patience to give you a history lesson here. What is a religion vs a government? They are both types of Big Brother. An atheist-leftist simply swapped one Big Brother for another.

Because no societies are libertarian. Most societies provide some kind of support for one another and some protection for the children. Not all, but most. — Vera Mont

So you're saying that mothers need laws to protect their children? Are you saying that you need laws to behave and treat others with respect?

Can you cite a single year in human history when a society had perfect equality of rights and opportunity? Should is just wishful thinking. — Vera Mont

Ok, then your argument is to just support the status quo. And you call yourself "progressive"?

There is a reason human affairs are in pieces: humans break things. Of course I can't put them together again. Neither can you. — Vera Mont

Yet, somehow we've made progress in our exploration and understanding of the universe and of ourselves as outcomes of natural processes instead of supernatural ones - all of which only happened after the Enlightenment where the focus on individual rights as opposed to the power of the government was realized and humanity began to shake off the bindings religion and authoritarian regimes have placed on us.

You are not looking at how it is used. You are just looking at it's position when a state have become authoritarian. It's not the final state that has the problem with the tolerance paradox, it's the formation of such states: — Christoffer

I am looking at the examples you and others have given - which is always of an authoritarian state.

They used the absolute state of freedom of speech to slowly change the perception of the population into a position that later restricted freedom of speech. — Christoffer

They did not use free speech to change the perception. They limited opposing viewpoints to change the perception of the population. I guarantee that the idea of Fascism does not have solid logical ground to stand on when there is a level playing field governed by logic and reason.

Not true, people can be shown facts and counter-arguments but will still oppose the rational if their conviction of the narrative they've been led to believe is strong enough. Just look at fanatical religion or any debate going on in the modern climate of debates online. Just look at anti-climate science beliefs; have you seen any of them change their mind because of logical, rational and sane scientific counter-arguments being showed to them? — Christoffer

Sigh. You're not taking into account everything I have said in my post to you. Like Vera Mont, you fail to put all the pieces together, even when they are all right there in one post - either because you lack the awareness or are being intellectually dishonest.

I said that we need to revamp our education system and the way the media disseminates information, remember? - that part that you did not quote in your response to me, which just makes your response a straw-man? If you're going to respond then make sure you are taking into account everything I have said, or you're wasting your time typing. You are exhibiting those traits you are ranting about - being manipulated by your those in power to diminish the free speech right of others with illogical arguments. You are participating in the very thing you claim you are advocating against.

Alternative media is no better, it's even worse.
Putting trust in "alternative media" is a clear path to being radicalized in the exact way we're talking
about here. — Christoffer

Again, that was not my proposed solution - you know - the part you left out of my post that you are responding to. I said that we need to change the way the media (all media) disseminates information. All these straw-men are wasting my time.

Or it's simply about the tolerance paradox. To foster a tolerant society that champions freedom of speech, there has to be limits to that freedom which does not tolerate speech that promotes intolerance. — Christoffer

Now you have to define what intolerance means - and who gets to define it. If you are saying that one part of the political spectrum gets to define what "intolerance" means then you are no different than the fascist you claim to be fighting against. It appears to me that we could imprison many people on these forums for being "intolerant" of other's views and use of words.

And the poll is misleading. Free speech is NOT saying what you want to say without consequences because we ALL have the right to free speech - which INCLUDES disagreeing with what someone says.

You have the right to say what you want, but so does everyone else. This is the misconception about what free speech is. It is not "say what you want without consequences". It is the "the ability to disagree using logical alternatives and to question authority, not submit to it without question (being incited)".

The history of psychological research and authoritarian states radicalizing its people says otherwise. People are easily fooled, easily duped into narratives that makes sense to them until being woken up by a deconstruction of those beliefs.

And to further question this, where do these beliefs that are supposed to already be within them... come from? Are children born with a hate that may only be unleashed when they get excuses to unleash them? I don't think this logic holds. — Christoffer

What you are describing is a lack of free speech, not an abundance of it. Authoritarian states, by definition, do not have free speech. This is the straw-man of "Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre." argument.

People are easily fooled and come to believe in illogical ideas when there is no counter to those ideas being heard. You are being raised in a bubble, which is exactly what is happening now with thanks to the partisan media and people unwilling to listen to alternatives.

Yes, yes, and yes. We need to revamp our education system, the way the media disseminates information and abolish political parties (group-think and group-hate).

Some people are incited by other people. It happens often enough. You seem to be confusing incitement with forcing. — Janus

Have you ever been incited? If not, then is that not evidence that saying words does not necessarily incite others? Could it not be possible that those that are incited already have hate within them and are looking for any excuse to unleash it?

In none of these groups are you expected - or able - to share the other members' views on any subject other than the purpose of the group. — Vera Mont

Which is what I've already said and further to the point that political parties are not like these groups in that they hold many views on many issues, and if you disagree on any of them then you are a heretic. Political parties today are like if you are playing on one football team and you decide to shake hands with the member of the other team and wish them good luck, you are "canceled", or banned, from your team.

Rights? Never mind infants' goals and rights - they haven't any, but may be protected by the governance, so that even if the mother's goal is to throw one into the sea, she is deprived of that right by society. — Vera Mont

Yet a vast majority of babies survive to adulthood regardless of which society you live in. How does that happen?

You keep talking about 'rights' as if that were something conferred upon individuals by a supernatural entity. — Vera Mont

Where did I ever imply such a thing? When you see the world through the prism of politics, it warps your view of reality.

Various political philosophies have varying views on what can or should be owned, by whom, under what conditions. Whichever political philosophy prevails (determined by majority of numbers or coercive power) makes the rules and sets up the mechanisms of enforcement. Government and law. Infrastructure. Agencies. — Vera Mont

Again, nothing that contradicts what I have said. You are just reiterating what I have said.

I have said numerous times now that there should be a level playing field of competing ideas where logic is the only referee, and let the best idea win. My money would be on Libertarianism - with one bit of evidence being that you have yet to provide a logical, coherent argument against anything I have said or proposed, relying on straw-men and moving goal posts.

Political parties are just groups that people join by choice to express their preference for the style of governance they want for their country. The members don't need to think similarly on any other subject but the issues of their platform. If most people were Libertarian, why did the party finish just below the Greens in popular vote. — Vera Mont

Because

Gullibility is a major human trait. — Vera Mont

. You seem incapable of putting the pieces together.

Another reason they lost is because there isn't a level playing field where logic is the referee.

And how does any of this contradict what I've said about people being able to freely choose which group they are a member of and that there are many people that are gullible to be conned into joining a group that misrepresents their positions on issues? For instance, Dems claim to be pro-choice only when it comes to abortion, but do not want you to have choice in pronouns to use. Reps claim to support economic freedom while at the same time supporting monopolies which leads to less competition, which leads to less choice, which leads to less freedom.

And yet, people are ignorant, opinionated, kind, selfish, forgetful, ambitious, clever, mean, greedy, violent, co-operative, compliant, manipulative, generous, reckless... People do lie. And cheat. And steal. And fight. And kill one another. Nobody has a "right to live" - only the protection of a lawful society. — Vera Mont

The issue is defining what a lawful society looks like. Does a lawful society include authoritarianism?

Please don't tell other people what they know or think!) — Harry Hindu

You do not believe that there are people that have joined groups for the wrong reasons, or were duped into joining a group because of the way the group falsely portrayed themselves?

Besides, I'm telling people what they think. I'm asking them to think differently about their political parties they are a member of.

If you are part of a group then you think what the group thinks.
— Harry Hindu
BS — Vera Mont

Then why join a group?

You're born into a group whether you like it or not. Could nos survive without the group until you reach at least puberty - by when you belong to several groups, either by choice or circumstance. All this individualist nonsense is wishful at best, disingenuous at worst. — Vera Mont

You still don't understand. Libertarians are fine with joining groups that promote their individual freedom - like their right to live. You might ask who is using who here? Is the baby using its mother to promote it's own survival, or is the mother protecting its baby to ensure that her genes make it into the next generation? If both are achieving their goals without their goals infringing upon the other's rights, then what is the problem? The goals of the two might be different, but they are not necessarily opposing goals. They are different goals that promote the goals of the other rather than inhibit them.

And yes, individuals should belong to certain groups by choice - not by being lied to and conned into joining.

As I see it, the only way to perceive The Forms, is through mathematics. Thus, if one were to try and describe in mathematics, what Plato alluded to The Forms, then, would it be tantamount to the very mathematical identities which one encounters in the study of mathematics?

Would the irrational number, π, also constitute some understanding of The Forms? — Shawn

How does one perceive mathematics? When did homo sapiens sapiens perceive mathematics? What is a mathematical entity? When dividing 10 by 3, what is the form of the infinite number of 3s that is part of the quotient?


I think of Plato's forms as informational templates - mental categories that take the visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, gustatory, etc. forms our senses provide. While all things are unique, they may share many properties with other things or not share many things. Think of a document template like a resume. All resumes are unique but follow a template. There are certain properties that make a document a resume and some properties that play no role in whether or not it is defined as a resume (like the language or the font used) but play a role as the variety in resumes.

Since everything is unique, I would say that forms are secondary to particulars. Minds conceive of forms only after observing multiple particulars.

Those things that are more similar than dissimilar are grouped together for the purpose of communicating them to others. Which forms we communicate is dependent upon our current goal. When telling you about an animal I had seen, I will refer to the template and not the particular when the distinctions between the particulars are irrelevant to the current goal - what it is I'm trying to communicate.

That is a culture change following the change in education. We changed how we teach young minds to work. They are no longer prepared for good reasoning.

This is a cultural problem. — Athena

Totally agree. Education needs a major overhaul with mandatory classes in critical thinking and administration.

Most people are tribal to some degree. — Vera Mont

Sure - the people that are weak-minded and look to others to confirm their own beliefs, and if they don't then they need to force them confirm their beliefs.

The two-party system is American. Most other nations have several parties represented in their legislatures, so that minority voices are also heard - indeed, if one of the largest parties does not get a clear majority, their administration depends on support from the minor ones.
(Please don't tell other people what they know or think!) — Vera Mont

I'm not. Only socialists and theocrats tell others what to think.

The smallest minority is the individual. If you are part of a group then you think what the group thinks. Now that may be your choice to join a group that shares your ideas, but what about when others join the group that do not necessarily share all of your ideas? The same problem that you raise regarding Libertarians and interacting with others applies to all groups.

In joining a group, you always run the risk of the group not sharing all of your ideas. You, and only you, can only accurately represent yourself.

The operative word there is bold. They might beable to, sometimes, if a competent leader is acknowledged by all participants and they are all equally willing to do their part. But in order for that that to happen with any reliable frequency, the people involved would have to be very much in agreement about all kinds of fundamental things. What you have in your little coloured chart is aparty platform, not a formula for most people's actual lives. Once a political party gains power, it's not eager to cede to any other organizing entity. — Vera Mont

Sure. In this thread we are talking about politics which is a very broad range of ideas. Individuals can join other types of groups, like a company, or a team, that have much more specific goals in mind - where other differences do not come into play and are completely irrelevant to the purpose of the group. The same cannot be said of political groups.

My point is, it took me a while to understand I was not one of them! — Athena

Exactly. This is what I've been telling Vera Mont. These political groups manipulate individuals into joining their group, using all the Libertarian buzz-words of "liberal", "choice", "freedom", etc. to get others to join only for these people to realize that are only for freedom and choice for themselves and not others.

Frankly, this lift-right thing baffles me. I so much wish people would give up their imagined left-right thinking. — Athena

I don't expect communists and fascists to give up their left-right thinking. I do expect intellectually honest and open-minded people that are part of a political party to wake up and realize they've been conned into supporting left and right authoritarian policies for fear of the other side taking away their freedoms.

That would be the idea, which obviously US Presidents and especially Donald Trump doesn't understand with his "executive orders". — ssu

..a precedence that has been established since the country's founding and expanded upon by both parties.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-orders

Even in a multiparty system this happens. Imagine a Parliament that would some day just declare: "Got it! All laws that we need have been done. We'll go home now, call us if we are needed." :wink: — ssu

I'm not talking about multiparty either. I'm talking about NO parties.

"However political parties may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
-George Washington (the only U.S. President to not be a member of a political party)

Not many laws are needed in a limited government - just an independently monitored police and defense force and a judiciary with term limits to interpret the laws, and a "head of state" for international representation.

I'm not sure if libertarians themselves see it like that. — ssu

I would have to question whether they are actually Libertarian or not. The more they agree with what is outside of the Libertarian box, the less Libertarian they are, and more authoritarian they are, by definition. If we don't have clear definitions then we risk talking past each other.

There wouldn't be. The problem emerges when you discover that not all people are Libertarian. — Vera Mont

I think that most people are Libertarians. They just don't know it because they've been conned by the two-party system into believing that the other side is trying to take your freedoms away. This is the fear-mongering that both sides propagate. They don't scare people into voting for them because the other side wants you to be more free. They are scaring you into believing that the other side wants to take away your freedoms. not the other way around, which is evidence that most people are Libertarian-minded.

That statement is bogus. All those people did not share those opinions. They chose the agenda that they thought more closely aligned with their own interests. Many were wrong in their assessment; many are now regretting their choice. I fully agree that those two options were insufficient to cover all the issues and concerns of the population, and that the system needs a serious reformation. I do not believe that yours could cope with the the reality of where the US is at this moment in history. — Vera Mont

I have a feeling that many would regret their choice no matter who ended up being president, given our (only two) choices. Mine is not a coping mechanism for reality as it is. It is the idea that we need to change reality as it is by abolishing political parties. Being that the two-party system is the status-quo, and continued support would be considered "conservative" in nature rather than "progressive".

They invariably and inevitably do. Not to mention the logistical difficulty arising from hundreds or thousands attempting to build roads and bridges all their own, any place they liked. All those unfinished projects would waste a lot of resources and clutter up the landscape. — Vera Mont

"Live and let live" does not necessarily mean Libertarians do not work together to better the lives for themselves. This is a typical straw-man argument against Libertarianism.

Looks like there was something to see here after all... — DifferentiatingEgg

Yeah, look at all the scribbled forms on this web page form.

Whatever happened to open and honest debate on a level playing field? The major media outlets claim that they are unbiased and have representatives of other views but they are often outnumbered and interrupted when speaking.

Whatever happened to interactions like this:

(sorry for the video quality. it's old)

It's funny watching the Rep and Dem trying to interrupt Stewart to get their talking points in. They aren't interested in discussion. They are only interested in being "part of their [party's] strategies", as Stewart put it. The part that is "hurting America" as Stewart put it is the inability to see the person on the other side as a person and trying to understand where they are coming from and why they believe what they do. Only then will you be able to find common ground and compromise.

I hate labeling! Politics needs to be about issues, not imagined divisions. — Athena

I knew I wouldn't have to go far (your post right above your reply to me) to find you contradicting yourself:

MAGA is equal to Hitler's propaganda used to manipulate the masses who have been prepared to follow — Athena

:roll:

Labels is what the left is all about with their focus on racial and gender identities. The right is focused on religious identities. Libertarians could care less about labels and identities - other than authoritarian and liberal - the main gist of what I've been saying recently is that the term "liberal" is being misused, and to correct that.

Democracy is based on the notion that we can learn and we can do better when all learn and share responsibility for self-government. This mentality is not about choosing sides and being winners or losers as though politics were a form of football. — Athena

No it's not. Democracy is based on the idea of majority rule and the minority has to suck it up. A democracy only works when the citizens are educated and informed, which most of the U.S. citizenry is not. Most Americans live in political bubbles formed by listening sources that only affirm what they think and don't bother exposing themselves to new ideas (because that would be heresy).

Please, can we drop labels and talk issues? — Athena

You first.

Interaction, no problem; merging, huge problem. That's what happened to tribal cultures when they became - or were subsumed by - nations. — Vera Mont

You're straw-manning. As I was saying - the two groups were made up of Libertarians, so why would there be a problem in two groups of 100 Libertarians each merging together? If they all share the same mindset of "live and let live", then what is the problem? There is none. The problem arises when others in the group abandon Libertarianism in favor of living how they want but imposing their standards on others. In a society of "Live and Let Live" no one's rights will ever be infringed upon.

The issues you speak of are the problems if an authoritarian society (either communist, fascist or theocracy) where you attempt to force everyone to think the same way. Libertarianism is far less dependent on people thinking the same as everyone can have different means and methods of obtaining happiness - only as long as those means and methods do not infringe on anyone else's goals. In this type of society everyone gets more of what they want, even if it differs, without fear of oppression.

It absolutely does. You can know 99 other people, at least to speak to or work with; you cannot know millions. 100 people can form consensus on what's in their individual and collective interest, since these overlap to a great degree and the welfare of each is the welfare of all, so it's good for you to help your neighbour and be trusted by him. 1,000,000 people share very little of common interest; each depends on only a few others; they cannot know whom to trust nor have the same regard for all the others. The larger the group, the harder it is to communicate and keep track of what others are doing, harder to care what happens to each stranger. But much easier to lie, cheat and exploit. — Vera Mont

If I can't know millions then that means I never interact with millions, only the 100 I am a part of.
Over 70 million shared a common interest that either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump should be president of the U.S., millions of people are part of political parties that share common interests, so you claim that 1 million people share very little is bogus. In a democracy, it seems to me all that matters is what the majority wants. If what you said were true then all elections could never be decided because too many people think differently - there would never be a majority vote for one candidate. What you're saying just does not fit with reality.

No, it's not. What I decide doesn't influence people who want something different - like pillage the environment in which I live, limit my freedom of movement, foist their religious beliefs on me, or use my labour to enrich themselves. If they're stronger then me or have more friends, my decisions matter not at all. — Vera Mont

Maybe it's your delivery. I have been able to get others to change their mind, or at least to consider other opinions and options as valid. It certainly helps that the other person is open-minded and intellectually honest. For those that aren't that is what your voice and vote are for - to reach other open-minded and intellectually honest people in an effort to help them see the ever-growing danger of a two-party political system ruled by elites that keep expanding their power while manipulating their constituents to demonize any opposition in an effort to close their minds to listening to and considering anything other than what the Party says.

Ok, with "the government" I'm more talking about the executive branch. Naturally the right wants there to be the legislature and the judiciary too. This complex relation is shown when especially the right wants to act legislation to protect the freedom's and the rights of the citizen from the government.

Left-libertarianism might sound as an oxymoron, but it isn't at all, especially outside the United States. In the US it is right-wing libertarianism that dominates libertarianism, but I guess both have strong roots in classic liberalism. — ssu

Yet the executive branch can only enforce the laws made by the legislature and interpreted by the judiciary.

Both the executive and legislature have expanded the powers of their branches, establishing precedence for when the other party takes power, essentially both parties working together to expand the powers of government influence in our lives.

Left-Libertarianism = moderate Democrats
Right-Libertarianism = moderate Republicans
Communists = extreme Democrats
Fascists = extreme Republicans

Left or right Libertarians can only be those that are abandoning Libertarian views in favor of more authoritarian ones, as in looking to gov. to solve their problems, when their problem is the need to tell others how to live and what "choices" they can make.

Yes, but most of the problems that need fixing were created by governments past, and/or a privileged class controlling some aspects of government. — Vera Mont

It is still going on today, building on what came before - thanks to the two-party oligarchy.

What it is is naive. The ideology can maybe work with groups of a hundred people, not in a large, diverse population, not in a capitalist society and certainly not in a nation with international relations. — Vera Mont

Ridiculous. If it works for a hundred people here and a hundred people over there, then why would it not be the same if those two groups interacted? It makes no difference in the size of the group. The difference is simply how you decide to treat other people - either by getting personally involved in their lives and making their life choices for them, or living your life and letting others live theirs.

As I said, the perpetrator of the crime was under 18 therefore his details were not able to be released to the public. Should we start releasing sensitive information about minors so that racists don't riot? — Samlw

It appears that you are agreeing with me, if only the person wasn't under 18?

How were they able to determine that it was disinformation if the "personal" information was never released?

Your race and sex are not personal information. That is information available to anyone with eyes. Name, birthdate, social security number, etc. - these things are personal information.

You see? You and I would make a good team as President and VP, with me as Pres of course :cool:

Especially in the US the right doesn't assume for the government to fix the problems, that is more of a leftist view. — ssu

Sure they do. They want the government to "fix the problem" of gay marriage by defining it as a union between a man and a woman. The Libertarian's stance is, "Why are we looking to the government to define marriage in the first place?"

They want the government to "fix the problem" of abortion and God being eliminated from public schools.

Both sides look to the government to "fix problems", either economic or social, depending on which side you are on. So yours, and others, tactic to put Libertarians on the right side shows that you all really understand what Libertarianism is.

This view totally underestimates the role and importance of the institutions that a government creates. The liberitarian might make an exception when it comes to national defense (as even they understand that going with private armies wouldn't be such a great idea), but otherwise everything is just a service. — ssu

Libertarians support the ideas behind the Bill of Rights and the checks-and-balances system. We support the existence of a police force to protect individuals from other citizens that do not respect other people's rights as defined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and an independent body that monitors the actions of the police to ensure the same thing.

If there are no political parties, who says you need a special election for a president? You're a fan of voting for specific candidates, including independents, who will then enact legislation on your behalf. So why not let them elect one of their member as chief administrator and a second for backup? Also key cabinet positions that don't require special expertise. Review their performance after two years and replace them if the constituents want to.
And fps, stop making jurisprudence and law enforcement political! — Vera Mont

Or let the 1st runner up be VP and the 2nd runner up get to be Sec of State to make compromise part of the system. I would rather have citizens vote rather than let them decide which would just create an environment where they work to enrich themselves by performing favors in return for positions of power.

All positions must max out at two terms, and Supreme Court Justices should be limited to 16 or 20 year terms.

You aren't from the UK so I will try and paint the picture. You had members of parliament such as Nigel Farage, prominent far-right figures such as Tommy Robinson and very popular voices such as Andrew Tate saying that the perpetrator was an illegal immigrant. It spread like wildfire across all social media platforms in the UK. He wasn't an illegal immigrant, the reason his personal information was not released to the public was because he was under 18, but because of this disinformation spreading across all anti-immigration circles, far-right protests were arranged in every city across the country lasting 2-3 weeks. These "protests" which were actually riots were violent, they caused major property damage as they set cars on fire and threw bricks at mosques and set a divide that we still experience today. When his information did get released he was a second generation legal immigrant born in Wales into a Christian family.

Let me say that again, CHRISTIAN... He wasn't even Muslim so all the hatred, violence and destruction against our Muslim communities can be entirely blamed on the disinformation that was spread. People in the UK have been arrested for their role in inciting violence which in turn, stopped the riots. — Samlw

This is what I was thinking, and is a typical argument made against free speech, made by people that don't understand what free speech is, and make this straw-man argument.

It was not free speech that caused the riot, but a lack of it. If only one side gets to make their case and all others are silenced, then you have something more like fascism and communism, not a free society where the ideas and information of all sides get to make their case on a fair playing field.

Free speech is not letting one side make their case while silencing all opposition. Free speech is the ability to criticize and question all sides.

If all the citizens heard all sides of the issue and were provided evidence to support one side or the other, and intellectually honest debate occurred, who would be to blame for engaging in violence, if not the people that had access to all the information and evidence yet still engaged in violent behavior?

This is the problem with the media today - they have become political, and have an agenda that is not to inform citizens but to manipulate them. Media should not have the same rights as individual citizens. Their job is to inform us of all angles and views of every story.

You have to assume that some people are going to be gullible and stupid, — Samlw

So the problem is that some people are gullible and stupid, not free speech. The problem is that one view was allowed to fester without being challenged. The solution seems to be more free speech, not less of it.

the UK experienced numerous violent riots targeted towards minority communities due to large-scale disinformation being purposefully spread, — Samlw

What was the source of this "large-scale" disinformation? If it were large-scale then I would expect that there would be large-scale opposition if it were known at the time that it was disinformation. Where were the gullible and stupid receiving their information? If we were to pop the bubbles that the gullible and stupid live in by abolishing bias in the media, then would that solve the problem? This is not to say that the media can no longer express certain points of view, but that those views must be expressed in the context of other views and we have a competition of ideas in front of the entire population.

Obama's election. Conservatives could not deal with a black man as president, so to cope they tried to "other" him and went down a rabbit hole of birtherism, qanon, pizzagate, antivax, stolen election nonsense where conspiracies and enemies are everywhere. They're still falling. — RogueAI

It seems to me that it started before that as your general label of all conservatives being racist is a symptom of the problem, not the cause.

We could rid of every politician in the country and it wouldn’t have the slightest effect on the polarized split between worldviews. This is not about what politicians or political parties say. It is about fundamental differences in philosophical outlook. One doesnt derive such an outlook from politicians. It is formed through interactions within one’s family and social milieu. — Joshs

This cannot be completely true because there are people who have views that are the antithesis of what their family or friends hold.

I'd be willing to bet that many, if not most, Dems and Reps would not know who to vote for if there weren't Ds and Rs next to candidates names on the ballot. All you have to do is look at the hypocrisy on both sides where they support an idea or action if their own party proposes it, but if the other side were to propose the same idea, then it is a bad idea and must be opposed.

When you get into a debate with these people, you realize that they live in a bubble - unaware that their party has done the same thing they are blaming the other side on. They have turned their political party into a religion and after living in a these separate bubbles for so long - living in their truth, and not THE truth.

So, in a way, you are correct. They have formed their ideas through their interactions. The problem is they segregated themselves by focusing on listening to one side, and one side only as a form of confirmation bias. If political parties were abolished there would be no more teams for the media to play on and be a mouthpiece for. It's time to pop the bubbles.,

Not giving them public platforms on mass media sure would save a lot of money, time, better tv programming, more interesting social media as well as wear on the environment: all that travel, all those balloons...! Each candidate should campaign in their own district, on foot and in the town hall. The party platforms - however many apply - should be published in the news outlets of the states in which they have a candidate. Campaigns to run for one month prior to each election.
That way, people can vote for whoever they think comes closest to their own level of morality.
(must repaint keyboard.) — Vera Mont

Agreed. It depends on the type of election though. Presidential elections require the entire country to be involved. We could certainly shorten the length of the campaign and need to stop the flow of money into campaigns to get a balanced playing field. All candidates get equal time to express their ideas and vision for the future. No political parties. We vote in a preliminary election no more than 3 months out from the general election that determines the top 2-3 candidates and then we vote for the finals in the general.

If the population has grown more heterogenous over time, then tribal disputes should become more prevalent. As in, if we're all in the same tribe, we have fewer disputes, but we're not less tribalistic. We just don't have any meaningful competitors. — Hanover

What I mean by tribal is that certain groups close themselves off from other competing ideas, essentially creating a bubble where their ideas are never questioned or criticized.

Disputes and competition are good things. They are the means by which progress is made - as long as individuals have the freedom to express their ideas on a fair playing field. Promote logic and reason, not an individuals' subjective feelings and truths, as the referees.

You focus on political parties, but I think they are just reflecting the polarization I just described in the general population. I have no reason to expect members of Congress to start singing kumbaya together until small town and big city America begin to see the world in ways that are more alike. — Joshs

The level of polarization today is not what it was 30-40 years ago. What changed? It seems to me that the rhetoric on the left and right has become more aggressive and tribalistic and that is what is driving the polarization.

Why do we even bother listening to what politicians say in the first place when they only speak in generalities and platitudes. We can predict what a Democrat or Republican will say on either side of the issue, or what they will say about each other. I no longer care what a politician says. I only care about what they do, which is often different from what they say.

The left and right are poorly defined and do not maintain consistency through time. — Hanover

They are only poorly defined because authoritarians have used these labels as a means of manipulating the population.
As NOS4A2 said,

and the term “Left” and “Right” are by now slurs meant to impugn another — NOS4A2

For instance, when I get into a debate with a Republican on the topic of freedom of religion and rejecting the idea of prayer in public schools, I'm accused of being a leftists. When I get into a debate with a Democrat on the topic of free speech and women's rights and transgenderism, I'm accused of being a right-winger. I'm an independent Libertarian. It's as if there is no middle ground for these people. Everything is black and white.

I don’t think the people in Massachusetts and Florida, California and Oklahoma ( London and rural England) are extremists — Joshs

I never said they were. I said that what is left in the party (Dems and Reps) are extremists. States are still composed of opposing parties and moderates, but since we are ruled by a majority and the majority can shift, then it is possible that some states might swing one way or the other, or change altogether (as in my example of Florida).

I do think that there are people that are members of the parties that are not extremists. They may be life-long Republicans or Democrats, but the parties have changed with many claiming that they did not leave the party, the party left them. If you want to limit extremism then either stay and fight for the moderate mantra in your party, or just abolish political parties.

And when I say extremists, I mean authoritarians, as authoritarians are extreme in a free society.