Fraternizing with the enemy?

[bubble sunglasses]

   [Or any such scenario, like if you were a sporting hero, etc.]

   I don't think I would, If I had ever met Howard I'd have wanted to give him a piece of my mind, not exchange pleasantries -I wouldn't want to see him on an apolitical occasion like an awards ceremony.

 Although, it's unlikely there'll be a PM who agrees with me on every count [unless it's me ], I wouldn't mind accepting an award from someone  I disagreed with purely in terms of our economic outlook.


 EDIT: Sorry, I should have said policies *and actions* in the question.

     

[brendan]

unless he was hitler or stalin then yeah

[rhcpfox1]

unless he was hitler or stalin then yeah

I don't think I'd High five Pol Pot either.

[Collin Li]

Yeah, I agree with the gist of brendan and rhcpfox1: as long as he/she wasn't a ruthless totalitarian. Howard is by no means a ruthless totalitarian.

[bubble sunglasses]

Yeah, I agree with the gist of brendan and rhcpfox1: as long as he/she wasn't a ruthless totalitarian. Howard is by no means a ruthless totalitarian.

 But he made moral judgements about people who had been packed into a cargo ship for weeks on end and threw someone into prison without trial just to further his political agenda. [To cite but two examples.]

 With the aforementioned "ruthless totalitarians" [Hitler, etc] -look at the countries they assumed control of. Howard and Bush couldn't do the things they did [though you'd question how much the 2 to 3 party system, especially America's polarized version resembles democracy.]

  Like with the Britain giving carte blanche to the Saudi Royal family [I'm not 
 quite sure  *who* authorised the visit -whether it was the Monarchy or the British Govt] I'm sure about where I stand on that. But should they be welcoming Bush with pomp and circumstance? What is "extraordinary rendition", if not an appaling human rights abuse? 

[Ren]

Yes. In life there are lots of people whose opinions are different to yours - you can't boycott them purely because you don't agree with what they did.

[Eriny]

I think I can appreciate the position without appreciating the person. It takes a lot of work to have a position like PM, so I'd respect them for that, if not for anything else.

[Collin Li]

I wouldn't mind accepting an award from someone I disagreed with purely in terms of our economic outlook.

Interesting. You seem like my friend who is undecided between the philosophies of libertarian socialism and libertarianism. I don't know why he has to pick from economic extremes, he could just believe in a moderate mix of both, LOL :2funny:.

I think he is eventually changing his mind to libertarianism (the free market), because after all:

"The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community."
-- David D. Boaz

He believes in the importance of unions, so I suggested this idea.

I hold the view that rights are of utmost importance. The consequences do not matter, but it just so happens to be that economics provides a consequentialist (based on a value that I disagree with) argument for libertarianism as well. I hold the position that economic freedoms coincide with political freedoms, and that there are no (or very little) "positive" rights (i.e.: the right to healthcare, the right to live "decently," etc.)

[bubble sunglasses]

   I'd see someone with even very different economic values to have a less disparate outlook to my own than someone who, say, was for the criminalisation of flag-burning or equated abortion with murder [as was the case for a few BOSers.]

[Collin Li]

Yeah. If we use the political compass model, and treat economic values and social values to be orthogonal (independent of each other), and you had to analyse your individual cost and benefit of moving up or down in a particular scale, I think I would say I value the social scale more strongly, but it is roughly the same now. I would have previously shared the same viewpoint, but if I would have to trade 1 "unit" of economic liberty for 1 "unit" of social freedom, I would do it, but if there is a higher cost than that, I wouldn't. (Re-reading this has made me realise that this is highly abstract and impossible to quantify)

There is a case for equating abortion with murder - it depends on how you assign the definition of life. I would have to say I am now undecided on abortion - and it is based on my unwavering support for social freedom. There is empirical evidence suggesting the crime rates are higher under legalised abortion, according to the book Freedonomics (secondary source). You may say: but you said you're not a consequentialist, but this is different because now we are setting the line on how life is defined, rather than disrupting a clearly defined right in order to maximise outcomes. That said, however, I am probably still leaning towards supporting legalised abortion.

[aidansteele]

I've never heard of Freedonomics, until just now. I see that it's some sort of rebuttal to Freakonomics, but I'm not sure why you refer to the book, though, as it seems to be very ill-regarded - if known at all. Not to mention the author appears to be in disrepute.

[Collin Li]

I picked it up on a bookshelf in Borders. It seemed sympathetic with my viewpoints, but I didn't get to have a good read of it. I flipped to the section that seemed interesting (the abortion part).