2 votes

Creating an Intellectual Straight Jacket - How to Get Neocons and Liberals to Wise Up

The recent election has me thinking. There are two things I take away from the whole ordeal.

First, American politics is far more corrupt that I thought -- and I thought it was damn bad. This post is not about that.

Second, the average voter out there is intellectually dishonest. How can a liberal say they want to help the poor, and do so by stealing money from others at gunpoint and possibly leading to loss of liberty or life for not upholding their whim? And how can a neocon support the murder of people who have not even been charged with a crime, while saying they support freedom?

These people are intellectually dishonest. Many of the political leaders know damn well the implications of their ideas, and they are intellectually dishonst with others -- they are trying to implement evil ideas and they know most people would not go along if honesty was first and foremost in the dicussion.

But most of the average voters out there are intellectually dishonest with themselves. Intellectual dishonesty is encouraged in most cultures around the world today, including the USA. Fortunately, these people can be turned around if they can confront their own failed thought processes.

This thread is about how to get them to see their own fallacies. I would like to hear input on the idea I am presenting as well as other ideas people have to get neocons and liberals to become intellectually honest.

If we have to put them in an intellectual straight jacket, then so be it. And by that, I mean we get them into an intellectual position that they MUST agree with because if they don't they will be perceived as bad people (in their own eyes). Then, we make them see the error of their ways.

The bottom line is: until millions of people wise up, things will continue in the direction they are going.

Here is one such attempt I have come up with:

(1) The point of government is to make and enforce laws that protect the rights of the people.

(2) Everybody is expected to follow the laws, which are supposed to be to protect the people.

(3) Government workers, above all, should follow the laws. They should be held accountable to follow the laws before anyone else is.

(4) The term "government workers" includes bureaucrats, politicians, cops, judges, government private contractors, and anyone who is employed by or contracted by any government office by any local government, state government, or the federal government.

(5) The highest law in American government is the Constitution for the united States of America.

(6) Therefore, the top priority in American government -- local, state, and federal -- is to make sure the government workers obey the Constitution.

(7) Government workers must also obey all laws that are in accordance with the Constitution.

(8) Once the government workers are obeying the Constitution and the constitutional laws, then we can look to hold everyone else accountable to the laws, but only those laws that are in accordance with the Constitution. The people should only be held accountable after we are holding accountable the government workers.

(9) No law that is not in accordance with the Constitution should be obeyed by anyone. Anyone attempting to enforce such a law is committing a crime, and should be held accountable to those he harms.

(10) If we focus on these ideas, then all government-related problems we have today will be solved within a few years.

(11) If any person does not accept these ideas, then they are saying they are in favor of nobody following any laws, or they want some people to effectively be slaves of others. Such people do not deserve to be protected by the laws, which is what the point of government is in the first place. Such people are not friends of freedom; they are enemies. They should either change their views by adopting these ideas or they should be exposed for who they are and held accountable for the harm the do to others -- whether they actually do the harm themselves or hire others to do it for them.

(12) Everyone who agrees with these ideas should be left alone to live in peace unless and until they harm another, at which time, they can be held accountable, provided they have their due process of law before being held accountable.

Now, many people will protest that the Constitution means what some judge says it means or that it is outdated, etc. Fine, we can discuss what it means or does not mean, which laws are constitutional or not, and how we can determine all of that in specific cases.

But before we get into that topic of conversation, FIRST we must agree with the basic principle that the Constitution is the highest law in America and that the government workers are the first ones who need to be held accountable to all the laws, including the Constitution.

The point here is to FIRST get agreement on the concept, and THEN apply specifics to it. NO conversation can occur until the concept is agreed to or debated. If a person refuses to agree that the concept is valid, then they are in favor of nobody obeying any laws, in which case there is no point in having government.

The key here is to NOT get suckered into moving the discussion on UNTIL agreement is made on the principle. If the principle is not agree to, then NO FURTHER DISCUSSION TAKES PLACE ON *ANY* TOPIC THAT DERIVES FROM THE PRINCIPLE.

It is the "letting them off the intellectual hook" that allows them to be intellectually dishonest.

Libertarians have an intellectually honest philosophy. It is the ONLY intellectually honest political philosophy, which is strong evidence that it is true. The fact that there is abundant evidence that free markets work, people do not want to be enslaved, etc. is further evidence that the libertarian position is true.

But we let neocons and liberals "off the hook" by NOT getting them to agree to some objective standard principle FIRST before we get into discussions on various topics. Since our standards are different from theirs, there should be no surprise that we have disagreements.

It is our fundamental disagreements with our/their PRINCIPLES that are our true disagreements with liberals and neocons, not the specific policies that DERIVE FROM our principles.

It is high time we STOP letting them off the hook. Get them to agree to PRINCIPLE, or get them to ADMIT they won't do it, in which case we call them out on being immoral. Under NO circumstances should ANY political discussion take place with a non-libertarian until FIRST the subject of principles is discussed and agreed to.

That is how we get them to become intellectually honest, in which case they will agree with us -- or, at least, start thinking about things they have never thought about (which is good).

That is how we have to turn the tide, IMO.

Now, how would most neocons handle such a discussion?

How would most liberals handle it?

Could it be persuasive to many liberals and/or neocons?