Satanic Politics | Forum

Topic location: Forum home » Main Forum » Politics
Hatepeach
Hatepeach Dec 13 '13
No, the distinction is very plain.  Law in the collective or political sense is  validated by an external system of punishment and reward, operating quite independently of anyone's personal opinions or commitments.  It is something into which you are born, whereas personal standards and the pleasures of thinking for oneself are something into which (a few people) grow. 
SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Dec 13 '13
These Laws were once based in personal codes of opinion, to include how the law-breakers should be punished.  On a personal level, many share the external Political Law as their own code.  It's not exactly Anti-Nomian, nor is it independent of the society they happen to live in.


A recent example is, the incident involving a 15 year old and nudity in a video chat room.   


LeDeluge
LeDeluge Dec 13 '13
Quote from Hatepeach No, the distinction is very plain.  Law in the collective or political sense is  validated by an external system of punishment and reward, operating quite independently of anyone's personal opinions or commitments.  It is something into which you are born, whereas personal standards and the pleasures of thinking for oneself are something into which (a few people) grow. 

You are conflating personal morality and honor with politics. The question was specifically about politics. Politikos simply means of, for, or related to citizens. It has a normative connotation. While I might agree that politics is largely irrelevant to satanism, it was the question asked. It has nothing to do with a "law unto one's self", although they may be the same in some cases. IE: Disapproval of promoting the nudity of a 15 year old may simply be a personal value and not a normative one. Yet, the law is also implicated.
JK
JK Dec 13 '13

Quote from Hatepeach A Law unto one's self is very different than law in the political sense, and it is not unreasonable to imagine that a Satanist may adopt a personal code of behavior or values that is radically different than that which he would prefer or endorse for others.

I know, right?

Some of the most "sinister" people I know are abusers of the "system," i,e, the money I don't get on my paycheck because somebody else "needs" it more than I do.

And I say this as a progressive. And libertarian.

Categories are always dangerous (q.v. Satanism) because they they limit the ways in which we are capable of viewing the world. There are cultures of "human beings" which have no mathematical competency beyond the number two. Are they categorically retarded? Fuck hell yeah!

JK
XiaoGui17
XiaoGui17 Dec 13 '13
Quote from Hatepeach This is the quiz that's designed to prove that you're a libertarian, plain and simple.

Ironic, given that my govt class in high school took it and almost everyone in the class (yours truly excluded) ended up in the exact opposite corner of libertarian.


If this quiz was designed to establish how libertarian everyone is, it does a shit-tastic job of it.  Specifically, even though I consider myself very libertarian, I come off as more authoritarian than I am, simply because of the way the questions are phrased.  For instance...


"Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races."

"People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality."

"It's natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents."


Well, those are factual positions, not stances regarding what policy should be taken.  A libertarian could very easily end up anywhere on any of these from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree."


Also...
"
When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things."

What the fuck does that have to do with politics?


It's deeply flawed in that social stances don't necessarily translate to political stances.  I am of the opinion that certain people should not breed.  That does not mean I am of the opinion that the state should issue birth permits or make sterilization mandatory for certain people.  I generally think that smoking is bad for you, but I'm not about to advocate making it illegal.

And the fact that this quiz doesn't seem to make said distinctions is precisely why it tends to skew away from libertarian.  I think Hatepeach had this quiz in mind.

SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Dec 13 '13
Quote from XiaoGui17 Also... "When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things." What the fuck does that have to do with politics?

I suppose it depends on what you consider a Liberty.  Politics pertains to citizens, if a person were more inclined to keep busy than dwell in troubles, this is a Liberty taken vs. getting sucked in to state of being politicized on a grander scale.   Most 'News' is the bad news, for a reason.
Hatepeach
Hatepeach Dec 13 '13

Quote from XiaoGui17 "When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things."

That question has everything to do with politics.  We all have "grievances," and politics largely dictates the norms and boundaries of acceptable complaining and perhaps redress.


LeDeluge
LeDeluge Dec 13 '13
Both liberals and conservatives are miserable bastards though. I don't see how a specific political preference could be inferred.
XiaoGui17
XiaoGui17 Dec 16 '13
Quote from LeDeluge Both liberals and conservatives are miserable bastards though. I don't see how a specific political preference could be inferred.

Indeed.  Politics is essentially three things:

(1) What is the scope of government authority?

(2) How should government authority be applied?

(3) To what extent should citizens defer to government authority?


Anything beyond that is merely a social stance, a philosophical stance, etc.  You could attempt to infer political stances from social stances, but you could often misfire.  For instance, I strongly oppose burying one's head in the sand and thinking about cheerful shit, as does D.  But where I and D differ is that I think facing the truth should lead to a massive overhaul of our federalist system, narrowly restricting the scope of government to eliminate the regulation that inevitably leads to cronyism.  D thinks that facing the truth should be admitting the inherent inequality of capitalism--how it not only is unfair in a meritocratic sense, but perpetuates social inequities like sexism, racism, etc., and therefore facing reality in her opinion means that the means of production should be publicly owned.


The antecedent here is just a philosophical stance.  The consequents, which could not possibly diverge more, are the political stances.

LeDeluge
LeDeluge Dec 17 '13
@XG: In terms of federalism, I would be considered conservative. The federal government has (had) enumerated powers. While it is unlikely they will go back to original intent, a good dose of federalism would be a start. I believe the citizenry of each state should decide how far the police power extends. There will (and should be) differences on matters of public health, welfare, and safety. I don't believe federalism implies a given politick. Obviously, I would personally oppose cronyism on *all* levels. My primary concern there resides on the federal level. I believe we've discussed the absurdity of federal administrative law for one. Obviously, one has to make allowances given the 14th Amendment. My hope is that it is utilized to incorporate individual "rights", but we have seen plenty of folly under the incorporation doctrine as well.
The Forum post is edited by LeDeluge Dec 17 '13
Pages: « 1 2 3

Issue Reporting

Report any issues to satanhimself@circleofdescent.com. He may, or may not, get back to you in a timely manner.