Politics

[rowyn]

I am apparently a Republican, but not a very enthusiastic one.

69% Ron Paul
67% John McCain
65% Mike Huckabee
64% Rudy Giuliani
64% Mitt Romney
58% Fred Thompson
53% Mike Gravel
49% Tom Tancredo
49% Bill Richardson
46% Dennis Kucinich
43% Chris Dodd
38% Barack Obama
38% Hillary Clinton
37% John Edwards
33% Joe Biden

2008 Presidential Candidate Matching Quiz

I don't know who Mike Gravel is either, nkcmike

In unrelated news: Happy Birthday, mister_wolf!

Comments

[tahkhleet.livejournal.com]

Ironically, Judaism has strengthened the emphasis of my own positions in several places. Do you feel the same applies with Christianity and yours ?

I suppose our main difference comes down to the fact you're more principled than I am. I'm willing to argue means justify the ends. Provided there is sufficient reason to think the case isn't one of a slippery slope towards a negative change in normative morals. But I admit, you can make a tight, emphatic, counter argument that means justifies the end is never good and this is the source of the world's problems. I guess it comes down to me growing up in Canada and being basically happy with a much more paternalistic and inteventionist gov't and thus being unconvinced that a pure principles stand results in a good outcome in practice.

So the bottom line is I respect our political differences. I'm just curious if I understand them. You are a rare breed. There are not many sincere libertarians out there. I'd rather see voters like you than those smarmy "prosperity gosepl" upper middle class types spouting "hard work is always rewarded, if your life is bad, you just don't work hard enough" types. (I hope you prefer me to the wooly headed college activist "anything the establishment is for , I'm against, including breathing!" types (wry smile) )

A couple of Jewish bits to close on with Judaism and "consequentialism"...
--> Divorce laws. While there was no manner in which Chazal (the great teachers of 1st century BCE to 3rd or 4th century CE) could countenance a female right of divorce, they endorsed dragging a husband who was binding a wife in a bad marriage against her will to the religious court and beating him until he agreed. (but being very careful not to beat him to death!) So they had a de-facto right of female divorce. the only problem was this solution couldn't be implemented any longer after the Temple was destroyed and the religious court could no longer be convened.

(morbid humor image, man locked in cells, judge of the court talking to him through window on the door (with a couple burly guys nearby) "9AM Schmuely. Time for some more attitude adjustment. You ready to sign that Get yet, Schmuely?" [Get=bill of divorce]")(sad when you have to lock someone up to make them do the right thing)

--> there used to be this provision that a man who suspected his wife of adultry could demand she be divorced from him immediately. If she protested her innocence, the proceudre was to take her to the Temple and after a humiliating ritual force her to drink a page of Torah dissolved in a jug of water. The page enumerated the curse on her if she was lying. Unfortunately, the ink used for Torah scrolls has to be made to very precise specifications. It is also somewhat poisonous. A goodly number of women thus died from this. Witnessing this, and seeing that as adultry became more talked about and visible, that husbands weren't feeling reassured even _after_ their wives survived the ordeal, they concluded "This Law is no longer doing what it was intended to, we have to stop".

So for my part, I think it is possible to embrace ends over means...if you have a sufficiently rigid framework supporting the effort. Oddly enough, I'd say we mostly have that these days at least on the above issues.

[rowyn]

I don't deal so well in absolutes these days, and I'm not as devout a libertarian as I used to be (or I'd probably like Ron Paul better.) Much as I'd like a One True Path, I have to admit one doesn't seem to exist.

I certainly don't believe in a political path so strongly that I'll fault anyone else for their choice. One of the advantages to not agreeing with anyone on everything is that I agree with almost everyone on at least *some* things. That's good enough for me. :)

[krud42.livejournal.com]

I can identify with that statement.