Third Party & Independents: Archives

“Moral relativism” is a red herring.

In a secular society it is good enough to set goals of what we want our civilization to be, and work toward those goals. We can think our way through morality-related problems without resorting to a god-crutch or a scripture-crutch.

The lemmings have a spokesthing, and its name is Nader. It is obvious to (perhaps) 99%, of all sentient beings, perhaps even to Algore, that no third party is going to have any influence on the results of the coming election. Nader no longer has the ability to draw a meaningful number of votes from the fraction of the electorate that hates Bush but is a bit leery of the old red network. So, Nader will no longer be able to extort donations or secure speaking engagements from the Democrats. His act is stale, his playbook is in tatters, and we now recognize he is just plain dull.
Meanwhile, among the other side-shows, we have Algore, doing his specialty act of making a fool of himself. Lo, how the mighty (?) have fallen. But there are those, the real machers, who know what is going to happen.
Here is the secret agenda. Kerry has been assigned the role of destroying all the potential presidential candidates before the Democrat’s convention opens. We will be given some reason why Kerry cannot be made the candidate. This leaves a terrible vacancy and a chance that the convention will dissolve in chaos. This is the point at which Bill the Blowee will stride to the podium and suggest that the delegates consider that icon of the party, a person who has studied under him for eight years, and who really knows how to do the job. He nominates Saint Hillary. The convention erupts in cheers, tears, etc., and, within a short time, Hillary is nominated by acclamation. Then it is her turn to waddle to the podium, and humbly suggest that the wonderful, sympathetic, Jewish icon, Joe Lieberman, be nominated for the vice presidency, Al Gore being unfortunately unavailable. Again, nomination by acclamation.
The Democrats can then present to the voters a militant feminist and a prominent Jew s their leaders. There will be the added attraction of Bill, who will be chairman of the entertainment committe, and chief collector of bribes. How can Bush and Cheney compete against such a ticket? Good times are a-cummin.

Hartwright,
Though your day-fantasy/conspiracy theory about the Democratic convention may help pass the time, your post is a non-sequetur. In any case, it’s self contradictory. You say “The lemmings have a spokesthing, and its name is Nader” but then in your very next sentence basically assert that 99% of sentients will not vote for a third party candidate. Hmmmm. It would therefore seem that, once again, the lemmings will be voting Republican or Democratic.

In a Related Story:

(I am a Link to the Full Story…)

In a move destined to dumbfound only the Dumb and outwit only the Witless, it seems that the Cheney Regency has been using both Political Carrots and Sticks to coerce the Pakistani Junta of Generalissimo Pervy Mustache into capturing the Real Killers during the U.S. Democratic Convention in the last week of July.

(See Full Story at The New Republic Online, Above…)

When asked why they hadn’t made an effort to capture the Real Killers earlier, Cheney spokesman and personal confidante Satan said, “Well duhhh! It wasn’t Election Time then, was it, you simps?!” before vanishing in a puff of smoke, a flurry of Preferred Halliburton Options, and a gale of demoniacal laughter.

I saw that story in TNR as well. Its evidence is pretty skimpy—unnamed Pakistani officials talking to reporters for a left-leaning American political magazine? Yeah, right.

But what if it was true? Oh, the horrors! Bush is trying to catch or kill Osama. Doesn’t he realize how unfair that is to John Kerry? That he’s supposed to be dedicating all of our attention and resources to Iraq and Halliburton and “ignoring” Al Qaida, according to a Democrat-scripted storyline? What a scandal!

If Osama really was caught or killed before the election, I have no doubt that the election would be over immediatly. And not in the slightest because Americans would be so overwhelmingly grateful to Bush, but because voters would recoil in horror and disgust from the Democrats, who would be hanging their heads, wringing their hands and crying all over the airwaves about how terrible it was that Osama should be brought to justice at such an inconvenient moment (for them).

Martin, it is comforting to see how ill-informed you are about your adversaries, but, they have their counterparts too, who are equally ill-informed about conservatives, and thankfully for centrists and moderates, neither the left of the left nor the right of the right have any advantage over each other. Sometimes failing to understand one’s adversaries has a positive outcome for the majority.

The “left of the left” and “right of the right” lunatic fringe tend to merge conspiracy theories. Just swap the right wing whacko term “New World Order” for the left wing whackos’ “Corporate Oligarchs” and you have the same boilerplate. Same tinfoil, different conical heads.

Ciggy: the right wing whacko term “New World Order”

Do you mean right wing whackos like George Bush senior?

Charles, Ciggy was referring to the fact that Right Wing Wackos use the term “New World Order” in a negative sense. They despise George H. W. Bush almost as much as they despise Democrats and they distrust the whole idea of the United States having any foreign policy at all. Look up David Koresh, Michigan Militia, etc.

-Cf

Cf,
It was just a dig. You dig?

I dig. It’s funny, though, how a term that was intended to be emblematic of George H. W. Bush’s Republican post-Cold War vision for the world so quickly turned into a right-wing nightmare scenario so profound that George W. Bush’s campaign in 2000 was filled with significant echoes of that backlash against his father’s vision of a world led by America and partnered with the UN (“we shouldn’t be the policeman of the world”). To a certain extent, the current Bush Administration’s foreign policy is a complete repudiation of that of his father (and, tragically, a repudiation of the vision of our figurehead Secretary of State Colin Powell).

-Cf

Christopher, with Jr. stating he does not consult with his father, with Jr. trying to be an oil man like his dad and failing, with Jr. trying to upstage what he may believe was his father’s failure, with Jr. resolute in NOT following in his father’s footsteps regarding Iraq, I am beginning to get a picture of a son who could never meet dad’s expectations, and has determined to do whatever it takes to prove he is better than his dad. The only problem with fear as a motivator is, it usually manifests in a self-fulfilling prophecy - the son will never be as good as the father and all his actions will prove what his subconscious believes.

If I am right, I shall feel sorry for the boy, GW Bush, Jr., but not the man. If I am right, the man is a loser self-made by his own envy, jealousy, and unconquered fears. Such men as these are dangerous for logic and rational thought do not dictate their actions.

On morality, relativism, and the law:

I first of all posit that morality is not a relative matter but an objective one. There are certain acts which can be said to be objectively immoral (for example: The holocaust, enslavement, the 9/11 terrorist attacks). The fact that some people may disagree with me and say that these acts are not immoral is not merely a matter of differences in preference, like two people disagreeing about which flavor of ice cream is best. It is an objective matter, with one view correct and the other incorrect. One could demonstate this using reason.

I furthermore must state that the just purpose of law is not precisely to prohibit immoral acts. There are some immoral acts which the state ought to prohibit and some which it should not. For example consider two immoral acts: rape and cheating on one’s spouse(with a consenting adult). Rape is immoral. Furthermore it is a violation of the rights of the rape victim. The state therefore prohibits rape and rightfully so. Cheating on one’s spouse is also immoral in a certain sense in that you shouldn’t do it and if you do it frequently you could be considered to be engaged in an unethical lifestyle. This act does not however violate the rights of the person’s spouse(although it would most likely cause some grief and emotional anguish) or of anyone else. It is not therefore proper or just to use of the force of law to stop someone from cheating on his or her spouse.

My conclusion then is that to justify legal prohibition of any conduct it is not sufficient to show that the conduct is immoral. It must be shown that the actor is violating someone else’s rights by commiting the act. That is, generally speaking, the act must constitute a physical or material infraction against the person or property of another. (The acts I gave as examples on the first paragraph were, in addition to being immoral, violations of rights.)

I welcome any comments regaurding my post.

“To justify legal prohibition of any conduct it is not sufficient to show that the conduct is immoral. It must be shown that the actor is violating someone else’s rights by commiting the act.” Not necessarily. Driving over the speed limit is prohibited, but it doesn’t violate anyone’s rights. Drinking is prohibited to people under the age of 21, even though drinking while young does not violate anyone’s rights, and the prohibition of such activity itself violates the rights of young people.

charles, appears you did not think through your reply. Speed limits help insure other citizens’s right to safe transportation on the highways they paid for.

Drinking laws were passed by voters old enough to have children and the laws help protect a parent’s right to raise their children healthy, wise, and strong by reducing temptation until they reach a legal age of self-decision and responsibility.

Bruce said, ” I first of all posit that morality is not a relative matter but an objective one. “

The rest of what you had to say is irrelevant since this premise is patently false unless you have a red phone direct to God.

We have cheap drugs which will prevent transmission of Aids to newborns. Should we out of humanitarian concern for the children dole out tax dollars around the world to stop the AIDS epidemic, or, should we withhold such resources for other purposes and let nature (created by God) run its course reducing population numbers of the poor, ignorant, and undisciplined?

It is relative - entirely relative!

“Speed limits help insure other citizens’s right to safe transportation on the highways they paid for.”

LOL. Tell that to the 40,000 people who died in car accidnts last year.

“help protect a parent’s right to raise their children healthy, wise, and strong by reducing temptation until they reach a legal age of self-decision and responsibility.”

First of all, the “legal age of self-decision and responsibility” is 18, not 21. Second, the state has no responsibility to “reduce temptation,” parents should be able to do this without the intervention of the state, and if not, well, then its clear they are just bad parents and are incapable of raising their children as they see fit. I for one am sick and tired of parents who want everything regulated to child-proof the world and make it safe for the children whose education and moral existence they refuse to take responsibility for.

Speed limits are not a guarantee of safety, but an apparatus designed to improve it. The cost in liberty, to a speed limit, is negligible. The cost in lives when individuals drive recklessly, deplorable. Therefore, it makes common sense to regulate speeds.

I disagree with drinking ages though, on the basis that parents need to stop licensing the government to do their parenting FOR them in all things. It’s a dangerous path for them to take. Not even hyper-regulated Europe goes that far in micromanaging people’s lives.

charles, what planet are you from. Have you never heard that time honored government saying, Speed Kills? I used the word help. Laugh all you wish, but if there were no speed limits that number would without question be much, much, higher.

You truly know how to wield a weird argument, charles. The Parents of this nation constitute the largest voting block of all, and they live in a democracy where majority rules. Hence, the states in passing drinking laws followed the dictates of the majority of voters who happen to be parents. Since the majority is the state, in a democracy, republic or otherwise, the state has every right to assist in parenting with social standards if the majority of voters wish it.

Don’t like democracy, their are many other nations who accept immigrants, as well. Though, Americans aren’t too popular so you may have to do some checking around. Throwing a dart on a map just won’t work while Bush is in power.

David, one can always pretend to be Canadian. Just don’t forget that the “ou” sound turns nearly to “oo” but not quite. And study up on your hockey.

“the states in passing drinking laws followed the dictates of the majority of voters who happen to be parents.”

If I’m not mistaken, states may legally keep the drinking age at 18, but to do so they must forgo some amount of federal funding for highway repairs. One could make a good argument that states are not bowing to the demands of parents, but rather lining up for federal handouts by adjusting their drinking laws.

Actually, I love democracy. What I don’t like, and what I really cannot comprehend, are people who desire a nanny-state, whether to regulate what you can broadcast on television, what you can say on the radio, where you can freely assemble, etc.

On speed limits: Germany has no speed limits on its highways, and have percentage-wise (and relatively), far fewer accidents than there are in the United States, though when there are accidents they are deadlier.

But this, of course, has nothing to do with the conservatives’ embrace of moral relativism, and their denial of universalism.

Just a note to you youngsters out there the Ad Campaign “Speed Kills” was started in the seventies in reference to the street amphetamine like drugs, commonly called “speed”

Cristian Hartwright, Wow. Guess you don’t like Jews much. See ya at the next Klan meeting.

Charles, ummm most people don’t see as immoral child porn? Waaay too much internet surfing,dude.

While I lately do find myself aligned with
Pat Buchanan on several issues, this article is off base. Buchanan equates zealotry with morality here and is lacking clear thought on this issue.

Funny, In the sixties and seventies, I often found myself alligned with the right. I once argued with a Vietnam War oponent when I was in college in Ohio in the seveties and asked why I should believe him when he said Nixon was bombing Cambodia and Laos. Now I find myself left of center disagreeing with Bush’s agenda and agreeing with Pat Buchanan on Iraq. I feel like I’m in a game of twister.

I will mix metaphors:

Buchanan was saying Emporer Iraq had no clothes at a time when Ted Kennedy was crying wolf with his claim that Emporer Afghanistan had no clothes.

Life is Twister. Left hand red. Right hand green.

Speed limits are fine. They are not a violation of anyone’s rights and they are calculated to prevent people from violating the rights of other people on the road. I am not familiar with how roads in Germany work but if they have a better system we could implement it for utilitarian reasons not as a matter of principal.

It is ok for the law to prevent indiviauals who aren’t in the maturity of their intellectual facilities from engaging in certain acts in which adults are permitted to engage. The justification for this is that the person does not have sufficient understanding to give valid consent to participate. Drinking alchohol is arguably one such act. One can reasonably debate what age a person becomes responsible enough to drink but 21 is absurdly high. So I guess a person is responsible enough to fight in a war at 18 but a beer is just too intense for that same person to handle. The federal government should end its policy of threatening to refuse grants to states with lower-than-21 drinking ages (of course the residents of such a renegade state would still pay federal taxes, the source of grant money to states) and states should lower their drinking ages to something more reasonable. I don’t obey those laws anyway but why take the risk of getting caught?