What Makes You Tick

Ah, so your the guy that’s going to get everybody killed by yelling “fire” in the theatre.

Seriously, great platform. Thanks for sharing. Care to elaborate on details of how you would create merit based education?

 

I developed over my lifetime from a moderate republican to a libertarian and finally to an anarcho-capitalist. I came to my current views by means of observation, research, analysis and philosophy. I've made a habit of reading and viewing a wide variety of resources over time. What I've come to realize is that government is at its core, the use or threat of violence. The State arrogates to itself a monopoly on the use of force, legislation and arbitration and this results inevitably to corruption, waste and incompetence. I believe the State is a group of people, badly organized with motivations and incentives that are counter to their alleged objectives. Those same people, organized in a voluntary organization that didn't have force or violence as an option, would be able to achieve their ends much more honestly, effectively and economically.

For a tiny taste of the literature that led me to my current views try these links:

https://mises.org/library/law-0
https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state-0

These are the audio versions. They can also be found on the same site in PDF or hard copy versions and I think they're available on Youtube as well.

 

My PT says it's a possible an old rotator cuff tear causing the tick when I rotate my arm.

 

Philosophy. Basically, anyone proposing that we should restrict the liberty of another should have to provide a good reason why. Presumption should be on the side of liberty.

 

The good reason is that it's a whole lot more productive to take what you have worked for than work for it myself.

 

Que?

 

I have learned a great deal from Republicans by asking questions. Sincere questions. I want to understand why others come to their political beliefs. I was raised in a politically liberal but fairly religious home, and I would be foolish to believe that it didn't influence my leanings. But I'm always interested in why others lean the way they do. And while discussing, I try to steer away from politicians and stick to the views of the party.

 

You pose a good question.

It's not what you think that is in control here; it is HOW you think. How the machine in your head processes things and controls your perception and judgement.

IF you understand how a person thinks, how the mind determines what values are and perceives what events mean- You know what the person will think and how they are likely to respond in a variety of conditions. That is because each person has some deeply embedded fundamental rules that limit the capacity of thought and logic.
These aren't conscious things, they aren't like written down and learned- they are imprinted, taken from the home and immediate environment when they are small children. Most people are unaware of the presence or control of these factors. By control- it's simple. They limit the list of options you can think of, thus- every option that occurs to you in a situation will be compatible with the underlying fundamental driving your conscious thinking process. Example-

Number one is the understanding of responsibility. You see right now in politics, a battle between two concepts.

One says that you are the person put here to guide your life, to provide for yourself. That is to say- for every person in existence, there is someone with the duty to provide for that person- and that is YOU. One to one ratio. Seems obvious that we have a balance that is totally trouble free is each person takes care of one person. Our charitable nature will more than accommodate helping those who cannot help themselves. Thus- if we each take care of one person, everyone is taken care of.

The second sees society like a sort of family, that will take over responsibility for their welfare after mom and dad are out of the picture. Society owes each person. This concept doesn't consider the one/one ratio is fair. It assumes that success is luck rather than skill, and that therefore people who have more must have taken it unjustly from those who have less, so they should pay for everything. This is a shifting, a denial of personal responsibility, and believing in entitlement to a share of everything anyone may build. Totally opposed mindsets.

The first offers the person independence and control over their own lives, but requires maturity, responsibility and foresight. The second offers an escape from responsibility, and in effect, a free or low-cost ride in life without being particularly responsible to the future. Unfortunately, humans seem especially attracted to "free" things.

As I eventually learned how this worked (only took 20 years of focused effort) I discovered I could ignore what people say, look at what they did, and know how they thought and what their values were. Wonderful skill to have- you can avoid a huge number of situations in advance simply by avoiding those who lacked character, who lacked the ability to actually love, who didn't feel compelled to be truthful of honest.

As it affects politics, the first type of person is generally a cautious one, and a skeptic. He also knows that learning from those who have already been where you are going is a very wise thing to do, and respects the trails those people have laid down in building the nation. Very likely he understands that the real job is improving what has been built, making it better with each generation. He will generally be- a conservative.

The second, simply assumes that what they think or see right is a complete analysis. They fail to question themselves honestly; they blame most everything they don't agree with on somebody else, and they expect the things society owes them to be paid for by- somebody else. Just as teenagers find fault with adult decisions and think their parents are stupid, these people still think that way- because they failed to grow up mentally. He will generally be a liberal or liberal democrat.

Why does this difference exist? In my opinion, there were some major mistakes made in the 60's, where we stopped holding children accountable and responsible for their own behavior. We stopped disciplining children, started calling bad behavior a medical condition, and drugged kids wholesale. Parent told these kids they were not responsible for their actions, and the doctors would fix them. Those kids grew up to have kids they weren't prepared to give anything better either, because they didn't have it to give. Thus, the next generation gets worse. Once this is embedded, it is extremely hard to change, and only the person themselves can do it. That takes some serious courage as well as enlightenment.

Now when I meet a person, and I look at the factors that tell me how they think. Not that hard; you look at what they do and ask yourself where their mind would have to be to find that behavior reasonable. You let the actions talk, not the specific words, which are only hot air anyway. When you get good at it, it takes only minutes to get a pretty good idea of what makes them tick..... and it's highly reliable. Of course, the first person you must be able to understand is- yourself.

It's not hard to learn the right rules, but cleaning out the trash humanity has piled on top of them is a monumental task.

 

Quebec?

 

Becky with the good hair?

 

I peruse the entire spectrum of candidates and evaluate them on their plank, and then make them walk it..

 

I’ll check out your links. It will be preaching to the choir though because I’ve pretty much arrived at the same destination as you starting from a similar place.

It’s unfortunate the vast majority are frightened to death of self governance (real freedom).

 

Guess I set myself up for that. The smart ones in this thread get information from many sources. You may want to get a second opinion...

 

Good advice. I think it’s pretty universal that people like to be asked sincere questions.

I also like the idea of focusing on belief systems instead of the individuals. Our current lack of civility would disappear if everyone adopted that view.

 

It taught me that socialism (or rather, communism) works incredibly well on the small scale, and when entirely voluntary. The only prerequisite is that all members participate. It also happens to be the key to the greater family integrity we see in the Third World. All members behave with a high level of responsibility and cooperation. Of course, a multi-generational family living together in harmony - the norm in the Third World - is itself a collective.

IOW, what I learned about base human nature is that those who lobby for socialism are usually the least suited to it.

 

I can't figure out if they really want socialism, or if they just want to be on the receiving end of the welfare state. It seems like they want socialism when it comes to getting free stuff, but they're not all that cool with the idea when it comes to be on the sharing side.

I'm not sure that the voluntary aspect really works because while you can enter into that arrangement voluntarily, how much of what you've worked hard for can you leave with if you decide it's not for you? That can easily turn into a situation of not having a pot to piss in.

 

It's just free stuff.

Crank's example of extended families (and in extension, Kinship groupings) probably work because family creates obligations, and it's a lot harder to welsh out of obligations with family. The experience with various communes in the US on the other hand, show that they are almost always failures unless they are based on some religion or go corporate, to give everyone a financial incentive. But the regular old commune? They don't work. Bernie Sanders got kicked out of one because he was lazy.

 

I think that all makes pretty good sense. I don’t think any system of government works with a combination of selfish producers and selfish takers. All systems work best with moral responsible members.

If there isn’t accountability individually or collectively force must come into play. That’s the downfall of socialism.