Political Posts Are Prohibited

[MJDeMarco]

Unicon, I don't think it's really worth racking your brain trying to define something you yourself say has no satisfactory definition, even after centuries of experience with it.

You're probably trying to do that because you still believe in collectivist rule. Fair enough I guess. We need not go into details on why I don't believe in that anymore. I'll just say I'm for self-government 100% and collectivist government 0%. Yep, I'm a pure libertarian (AKA anarcho-capitalist, market anarchist or voluntaryist, all terms apply). Hence my being apolitical. It's more of a philosophy than a political system, one which is about doing away with political systems (systems based on ones forcing their will on another and calling it politics) altogether.

So yay for everything apolitical!

And based on your research and convictions for that preference, what country on the planet best serves that ideology?

[Merkin Man]

For a thread about political posts being prohibited this conversation is quietly becoming a political one.

[Banthaman]

I would like to note that there is a difference between political discussion and the ever changing rule of law. Law is often formed by political alignment though law in and of itself can be an apolitical topic. Seeing as what really affects ones investment knowledge and savvy use of the system is the law by which it is ruled, politics aside, that would seem a far more appropriate topic. The concern one generally has in politics is the political affiliation of the ruling party often dictates the laws changed or put in place. One can however refer to or show concern for a new law or law change as it pertains to economic trends without sighting political affiliations or arguments. People here are not ignorant to the changing winds that politics often brings to the fray but the result of law are what is really important. That can be handled outside of political discussion.

[andviv]

I agree with Merkin Man.
I don't see how this thread is moving towards a positive outcome.

Pretty soon we will see people posting about how such-and-such sucks, and how thus-and-thus rocks and then somebody will be offended and then we will go back to an infinite loop of no progress.

do you guys see any positive outcome out of this discussion?

[Banthaman]

In that direction.. not really. I just wanted to clarify a difference.

[unicon]

Everything is about freedom and giving up freedom, it can happen slow or fast.

It is no question politics affects all business, investment, and interpersonal relationships.

The above being said, to avoid or distort such a powerful impact on ones life is foolish. It appears the general consensus is it is negative, this is probably based more on human behavior than the actual politics of a decision

It is kind of like good and bad debt. You cannot define something when you have a distorted identity thinking debt is bad and an asset is good. The reality is that the opposite is the real truth with regard to home ownership (the whole point of RK's first book). It is just that humans have defined it from a prediction of doom thought process which keeps truth hidden.

A "Prediction of Doom" mentality cannot systematize or identify truth, it is a backwards thinking mentality and in a lot of policy today.

To define somethings identity is to give one power over it. Like evil, it is very dangerous but once you understand its identity you may approach cautiously and deal with it.

For example to miss quote myself saying "You yourself say has no satisfactory definition" when I factually said "I have heard of no satisfactory definition" is adding to the clutter and confusion in the world. Maybe everyone should stop thinking? Is this a political demand?

Not knowing a definition at current timing does not mean there is none. One can also state that the true definition will be a result of a positive or good side of politics.

Because there is so much "gray" the paradoxical truth is that the best politics within the gray should actually be more black and white. The clear decision making based upon integrity and clarity is what perserves our freedom.

Freedom is what is at stake here. Does anyone think that the financial investment bank collapse and bail out was a product of clear decisions based upon integrity and clarity?? Does anyone think this happened overnight? That it was kept hidden?

It seems that this enviornment has been about unjust taking where power corrupts absolutely. Who is standing up?

What do you think the next step is in the power grab for your freedom?

A better question is how does one stop it? The answer is found in individual integrity and courage. Taking advantage of the markets (capitalism) and surviving the wreckage is part of the clensing but not all.

If fastlane has at its root the never ending study of time, the professional politician's current welfare giving while at the same time taking, one can predict the speed and limits and boundaries of the current downturn. You are predicting human behavior (greed and fear) as there is clearly a shortage of work and courage.

This may be more of exact science then one may think. Politics affects more than your wallet, it affects your freedom and ones future opportunities.

Maybe a true definition would be a list of identities (clear elements) which would evolve to a global standard?

1) Excuse for the truth
2) Process of group decision making
3) Time sensitive decision
4) Goal oriented decision
5) Decision Quality
6) Opinions prioritized over fact
7) Productive decision
8) Voting
9) Power and influence
10) Control
11) Freedom
12) Interests
13) Other

[memenode]

And based on your research and convictions for that preference, what country on the planet best serves that ideology?

New Hampshire, USA. Otherwise, none yet.

For example to miss quote myself saying "You yourself say has no satisfactory definition" when I factually said "I have heard of no satisfactory definition" is adding to the clutter and confusion in the world. Maybe everyone should stop thinking? Is this a political demand?

No, you're right. Sorry about that.

I'm making NO political demands. I make decisions only for myself.

So if you're not discouraged to try and find a definition I say go for it. I just think that whichever definitions you discover you'll be but a one individual who defines the term as such, which is no guarantee that anyone else will accept it or that it will mean what you think it means to others.

I was mainly taking the wikipedia definition taking it to represent some sort of a majority consensus and comparing it to what it usually seems to be in practice. And taking the definition to be as such I reject politics and remain apolitical.

But if you were to have a discussion with me somewhere and insist that we agree on a different definition of the word, then for that discussion alone I would consider what you have to say and see if I can accept it under such definition.

So ultimately, in my opinion what matters most is that the parties involved in a discussion agree on the definition they will apply to particular key terms they're using, even if those definitions don't conform to many other people's definitions of the same terms. In a nutshell, so long as we both know what we're talking about we can have a healthy discussion.

So if you say.. define politics as "process of group decision making" I would say I am against it unless you further define group decision making as a process that doesn't involve individuals making decisions instead of other individuals, but more of a process of seeking consensus where those who don't agree aren't forced to participate. But that wouldn't, the way I see it, fit politics the way it is applied in the world around us since in the real world, so called "consensus" is actually ones preferences and decisions being forcefully imposed on others.

A lot (in my opinion too many) people accept that and feel that's just a necessary evil. I for one don't, and that's that.

If you were to define politics as "time sensitive decision" then I may not be against it since I certainly do make some time sensitive decisions.

So ultimately the question is which definition do moderators of this forum take? My guess is their take would be very close to the wikipedia definition with specific focus on talking about "decision makers", AKA specific political parties or specific politicians. That's not what we're talking about in this thread though. Here we're more into philosophy.

But I agree to end the discussion if you believe it'd be too long for its worth or leading nowhere relevant enough for this forum.

I also agree with Banthaman.

Regards