In Defense of Stupidity and Kooks (enemies, Indiana, solution, ideology)

[irspow]

In defense of stupidity and kooks
Why is it that so many people are stupid? Why do kooks believe in the things that are obviously wrong? Almost everyone in this forum has been labeled as such, even if not publicly, by others with different beliefs or opinions. That is probably a quite natural reaction to ideas that are contrary to everything that one believes. How could this “idiot” believe that when I believe in something totally different? We all think that we have done our best in forming our beliefs and so defend them religiously. Obviously, if others disagree, then they are the one's who are lacking intelligence or sanity. Again, nothing wrong here, it is a “logical” conclusion for most to think this way.

The deep divisions among us seem too vast to fathom. This forum revolves around politics for the most part. Heated “debates” rage over whether a particular policy or other is justified, moral, or one of my favorites, “evil”. I do not wish to imply that I am above the fray because I am not claiming that I am. If you were to read all of the posts, you could be led to believe that we are not even the same species of life. What is this great chasm between the two sides? Can it be closed? I personally do not think that it can or even should, but that is left for you to decide. I believe that the great divide that creates the stupid and kooky people is nothing more than the result of just a very few fundamental beliefs that define our stances on just about everything else.

What I am asking people to contribute to this thread is the basis for their own particular stupidity and kook-like nature. I will attempt to defend my stupidity as follows:

I believe that humans beings are only truly free when they alone decide what to think and how to act according to their desires. The moment even one other person's interests has to be taken into account certain freedoms must be abandoned to accommodate cooperation between the two. As the unit grows into small groups of people, further reduction of freedom is needed to ensure a common set of freedoms that they all can agree on. The larger the group becomes, the less numerous are the freedoms that can be enjoyed by any one individual. So as the collective group grows the freedoms of any particular individual shrinks.

I am not implying that this growing bond is completely without merit because of the loss of natural freedoms. There are obvious benefits to forming societies, such as protection of inferior people through sheer numbers. Please do not read sinister motives into my use of the word inferior in the previous statement. I only use it to point out only that humans naturally form groups that are large in number to protect themselves from the superior minority. If we did not do this, you would not see skinny weak people such as myself in the gene pool.

The real problems start when the group is entirely too large for such collective agreements to even be possible. The only unanimous agreement among such a large group of people would leave every individual with virtually no freedoms at all and no such agreement would ever be made. Another major problem that arises is that there is no “real” bond to extended members of the group. There are now so many people in the group that many are not part of their family or friends and it is highly unlikely that they will ever meet these people or interact with them in their entire life. The last major problem stems from the inability for those not wanting to be part of the group to be consumed because all outside resources have been devoured by it leaving nothing for those who wish to be free. These people are forced to join the group simply out of the desire to survive and nothing else.

The only solution for such a large group of extended people that have very little in common now, other than that they have been consumed by the group, is to offer the power to rule to a select minority who then define what freedoms will be “granted”. This stage is where govenrnments are formed. The group collectively has “chosen” to forgo their natural rights in exchange for any rights that the chosen people will benevolently now allow them to exercise while under their control. Once these governments are formed, people are simply reduced to subjects at the mercy of the Chosen's whim. This large society is now nothing more than a disparate group of beggars at the feet of the ruling elite pleading for their particular interest to be served. If they are in the lucky group whose interests are served they are content and see their rulers as good. If they are not they see the their rulers as oppressive and bad. All quite perfectly natural.

So where does this lead? Well it leads directly to the kook writing this thread. I value those natural freedoms abandoned eons ago before we were all devoured by large societies. Governments are here to stay no doubt. They are a necessary evil in a world that was long ago engulfed by the large groups. Can we ever go back to being free humans in small groups of like-minded people with truly uniform goals and beliefs? No. Does that mean that we should simply abandon freedom completely and allow government to decide everything for us? No.

I believe that the striving for the smallest government possible is the only moral direction that can be taken by a freedom-loving people. I believe that every law added is a freedom removed. I believe that every restriction on natural freedoms is a blow to the human spirit. I believe that every cent taken from the people to fund selective programs or policies is nothing more than common extortion. I believe that everyone who wishes to impose their own beliefs on others through government force is evil.

These beliefs are what lead me to being a kook and saying stupid things in this forum. Everyone is free to disagree, and even call me an idiot if they want to, that is one of our remaining freedoms. I really do not care to be honest, because I will never have enough respect for those with different beliefs than those that I have stated to care what they think of me.

I am interested though in what it is that makes other people kooks. For the record, I am not arrogant enough to think that you should agree with me, nor I hope are you arrogant enough to think that you could change my fundamental beliefs. I was just curious as to what lies at the very foundation which makes you take particular stands in politics.

[irspow]

So no one has a set of fundamental beliefs that makes them take take stupid or kooky stances? I guess that I really am a kook after all

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by irspow

So no one has a set of fundamental beliefs that makes them take take stupid or kooky stances? I guess that I really am a kook after all

I have many that some might consider as such, most of them are based on religious principals and the logical application of them. I understand your point as this is dependent upon the concept of moral and cultural relativism, but then if I were to proclaim my stance as "kooky" or "stupid" I would be denying the entire position of my view. My view is merely different than others. Some I can disagree in harmony with, others I can not. This is the apex of the issue. Some moralistic principals between differing views are complete enemies and can never be resolved without the condemnation of one of them.

[tekape]

Originally Posted by irspow

So no one has a set of fundamental beliefs that makes them take take stupid or kooky stances? I guess that I really am a kook after all

no, it's that this post hasn't offended any of the people who would normally label you as such! this is supposed to be a debate forum...not a warm n' fuzzy one!!!

so here you go....you're wrong (and a stupid kook for exercising your First Amendment right!)

don't think this post will get many "bites" though...no one can argue logic (okay...some may try....but their just kooks!)

[irspow]

I really wasn't trying to start a debate at all, honestly. I really wanted to hear what people would identify as their fundamental beliefs that shape their political stances. I mean there are people here who I truly dislike. They take stances that I find appalling. I'm sure that others feel the same way about me too. I am okay with that.

What I was interested in was finding out what was at the foundation that allowed them to progress to the overall set of beliefs that they now hold. Warning: This is not intended to offend, just an example. Those who support socialist policies seem like complete aliens to me. In my mind, I cannot find any justification for thinking that socialism is anything but pure evil. I was looking not to debate, or more likely, argue over any particular policy but to find the motivation or belief system which allows one to accept such an ideology at all.

Isn't this lack of understanding of each other's core fundamental beliefs the immovable wedge that divides this nation and people of different belief systems? I do not expect that we will ever remove this wedge, but it just seemed like an interesting exercise to at least try to understand the true differences among people at a fundamental level.

[tekape]

I agree...the problem is, that for the most part, people on this forum just want to "win" their point, not truly debate and attempt to understand an opposing point of view. I don't care to hear that some political candidate is "stupid" or an "idiot"....tell me WHY you believe that. So many people state they hate Palin because she's "stupid"....that's not a valid argument. If one said, (for example...not that this is true) that Palin said XYZ but did ABC instead and has done it on multiple occassions, I could see a reason why someone would not think highly of her....however, no one can bring a valid point to the table (in my opinion)...or at least they haven't proven their point enough to change my views.

I'm all for changing my view if I'm given valid points....I am not so set in my ways that "this old dog can't learn new tricks"....it seems, however, that MOST people on the other side of the coin don't hold that same ideology. It also seems as though people get so offended by an opposing view that they start with labeling and name-calling....and that's just childish. Nothing is more annoying than a know-it-all who obviously does not!

[Huckleberry3911948]

that is deep however i am moredeep.
greeting from iracus i have appreciated your share.
(dune 1984)
what is a kook?


ps if you think they are name calling now wait til we pull out of bagdad and DOD loses billions.

[kpoeppel]

People believe "X" mainly because people with whom they associate also believe "X." It's human nature. I think it's called "groupthink."

Someone who grows up in a liberal family in San Francisco (and never leaves) can't even fathom that some people might believe in moral absolutes from a Holy God, or that sex is primarily for carrying on the human race, or that a human embryo might be more than just a parasite, etc, etc.

Someone who grows up in a conservative family in Indiana (and never leaves) can't believe there are people who don't believe the Bible is the Word of God, etc, etc.

[irspow]

I am surely not the brightest light bulb out there. You could also say that I am the butter knife of cutlery being as I ain't too sharp. As my poor communication has led people to not provide their fundamental beliefs at all.

I wanted someone who is, again just an example, a true believer in something like socialism to provide me with the basic beliefs at the core of their being which allows them to adopt such an ideology. I know that I am beating a dead horse here, but is that so difficult for people to express? Are these people simply devoid of core beliefs and merely profess to believe in something for which they do not understand.

I would reasonably, or as reasonably as my kooky mind could work, expect a socialist to say that they believed it was best to have more learned people decide how a society should function rather than leave it up to the majority of people who do not understand how government works. I would expect for this person to believe that the whole of society is more important than any individual concern. I would expect for this person to believe that it is right to have a select group of people to define what is "right" or "just" for all people. I would expect them to believe that it is right to use government force to punish some while rewarding others based only on what they define is "right", "fair", or "just". I would expect them to believe that equality of outcome is more important than equality of freedom. I would expect them to believe that freedom is only good when it is comfortable and rewarding, but not when it is harsh and degrading.

Now these are simply my own rationalizations for believing in the larger ideology of socialism. They are almost definitely different than those that such a person truly believes. I just was looking for an honest, clear, perspective into someone's heart. I thought that I held out my deepest beliefs for all to see without political spin or propoganda to lead the way, but I have failed. I guess I will never know what is in the hearts of those who I feel are so sinister.

Now back to the name-calling!

[TristansMommy]

My problem with people on this forum is not that they believe what they believe or that they hold onto them so tightly. I hold on to my beliefs too.

The difference is I don't believe that anything I believe is much more important than what someone else believes that I then have the right to take away another's equal protection under the law simply because they believe something different than I believe.

Everyone can believe what they want.. and live their life with what they believe.. as long as what they practice doesn't take away from someone else's ability to live their life as the want.