Compromise

I've had some major political swings over the past couple years. Recently, I've sort of discovered that the "middle ground" is important on a lot of issues and I'm now (thankfully) rejecting more extreme views, whether that be something on the left, right, or libertarian. But I dont think the middle ground is always optimal- albeit preferable to something anarchist, or pure capitalistic or socialistic.

In your opinion, should people only believe in more mainstream views (obviously unique to different countries)? Should compromise and a middle ground be the goal? Or are there some issues that there shouldn't be compromise. If so, what are those issues? Why? How do we find a balance?

People have the freedom to believe in what they believe in. As long as political parties are a thing there will never be a complete balance. There will always be conflict.
But the solution to the problem is realizing that without differentiating opinions there's no point in even your own thoughts. Everyone's mindframe is different, nobody has the exact same mindframe. Only you are in control of what you believe in.

BadSheep said:

I've had some major political swings over the past couple years. Recently, I've sort of discovered that the "middle ground" is important on a lot of issues and I'm now (thankfully) rejecting more extreme views, whether that be something on the left, right, or libertarian. But I dont think the middle ground is always optimal- albeit preferable to something anarchist, or pure capitalistic or socialistic.

In your opinion, should people only believe in more mainstream views (obviously unique to different countries)? Should compromise and a middle ground be the goal? Or are there some issues that there shouldn't be compromise. If so, what are those issues? Why? How do we find a balance?

Click to expand...

First, I'd like to point out a few current mainstream views that were considered "extreme" before, a few of which still are in some non-Western countries:

-Abolition
-Democracy
-Gay marriage
-Freedom of religion
-Women's suffrage

People shouldn't believe or accept views only based on the majority's perception of those views and whether they are considered "mainstream" or "radical".

As for me, since I'm a voluntaryist, I don't compromise on my principles of non-aggression and self-ownership. It is always wrong to attack innocents, and it is always wrong to use force to control another, including when those in "government" and "authority" do it, which means their "authority" isn't legitimate, as it doesn't give them the right to violate human rights.

I think people can believe what they want politically for the most part. I have a personal dislike for some stances sure but the best outcome is the one that is fair for the most people. I think it's less about people aiming for a middle ground and more about open and reasonable discussion so compromise between opposing sides can be met. That's an element sorely lacking in modern political discussion and something I myself am certainly guilty of.

Philosophizer said:

First, I'd like to point out a few current mainstream views that were considered "extreme" before, a few of which still are in some non-Western countries:

-Abolition
-Democracy
-Gay marriage
-Freedom of religion
-Women's suffrage

People shouldn't believe or accept views only based on the majority's perception of those views and whether they are considered "mainstream" or "radical".

As for me, since I'm a voluntaryist, I don't compromise on my principles of non-aggression and self-ownership. It is always wrong to attack innocents, and it is always wrong to use force to control another, including when those in "government" and "authority" do it, which means their "authority" isn't legitimate, as it doesn't give them the right to violate human rights.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with you regarding abolition and other extreme movements, but I am talking about stuff thats extreme relative to current politics. So something like anarchism I suppose. Do you think that your unwillingness to compromise could potentially damage any chances of legislation being passed that could increase freedom in any way?

gimmepie said:

I think people can believe what they want politically for the most part. I have a personal dislike for some stances sure but the best outcome is the one that is fair for the most people. I think it's less about people aiming for a middle ground and more about open and reasonable discussion so compromise between opposing sides can be met. That's an element sorely lacking in modern political discussion and something I myself am certainly guilty of.

Click to expand...

I think we are all guilty of this lol. I am for sure.

BadSheep said:

I completely agree with you regarding abolition and other extreme movements, but I am talking about stuff thats extreme relative to current politics. So something like anarchism I suppose. Do you think that your unwillingness to compromise could potentially damage any chances of legislation being passed that could increase freedom in any way?

Click to expand...

The idea of legislation is the exact opposite of freedom, because it implies you need the permission of the politicians to be free. This is why I don't consider it as an effective or viable method of achieving reasonable freedom.

Here is a very good article regarding this:

https://steemit.com/anarchy/@larkenrose/the-transition-from-slavery-to-freedom

Should compromise and a middle ground be the goal? Or are there some issues that there shouldn't be compromise. If so, what are those issues? Why? How do we find a balance?

Click to expand...

I think it's kind of hard to know perfectly when to compromise vs when to not, and why, and how much of a balance between the two to have. There's a fine line between sticking to one's good beliefs and just being stubborn/inflexible/not willing to change, same as there being a fine line between being open to going for a middle ground/compromise when it's more beneficial than not and being too easily swayed/giving up too much when it's not more beneficial to do so. There are some things where it'd be obvious to compromise/not compromise, but life ain't black and white, so it's not always gonna obvious either.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The items people often refuse to compromise on are usually issues rooted in moral beliefs.
If you sincerely believe that something is literally murder, how many murders would you be willing to allow?
If you believe a new or additional restriction is a restriction on your freedoms, how much of it would you allow?

An additional issue is that some people label concessions/extortion as compromise. If you both give up something to get something, then that is a compromise. One side giving up something "or else" is not.

Items that people don't/ won't/shouldn't compromise on. (Listed in no particular order)
Constitutional/legal Rights (covers a lot)
Abortion (if you believe this is murder, then at most, the only abortions allowed would be for pregnancy that will end in death of mother and/or child.). (If you don't believe it's murder, then any restriction is an invasion of bodily control).

Philosophizer said:

The idea of legislation is the exact opposite of freedom, because it implies you need the permission of the politicians to be free. This is why I don't consider it as an effective or viable method of achieving reasonable freedom.

Here is a very good article regarding this:

https://steemit.com/anarchy/@larkenrose/the-transition-from-slavery-to-freedom

Click to expand...

The article you linked talks about transitioning from a government to no government... i see little relevance.

Regarding you statement about legislation being the opposite of freedom, is it not legislation that outlaws and criminalizes slavery? Is it not the government that prosecutes and jails kidnappers, rapists, etc? Sure, slavery back then was legislated, but the law works both ways. You cant just ignore the good and focus on the bad... society and politics have moved on since the 19th century.

And I am not assuming that I need permission from politicians to be free and that politicians own me as property (according to that article you linked). I have the political freedom to elect politicians. And i know what you are going to say- that I'm forcing my political will on others. But here is where you are wrong:

Pretend that gimmiepie and i live in the same country. We have totally different political beliefs, even if there may be some overlap. Say we vote on taxation. By him voting for a candidate pro-higher taxes, he is enforcing his will on me. By me voting for a candidate pro-lower taxes, I'm enforcing my will on him. We cant, by extension, own each other. We recognize that we both live in a democracy and that we respect whoever wins the election. We have the right to protest and we have the right to vote for a different candidate if we want. I dont see the issue.

But this is getting slightly off-topic...

LDSman said:

The items people often refuse to compromise on are usually issues rooted in moral beliefs.
If you sincerely believe that something is literally murder, how many murders would you be willing to allow?
If you believe a new or additional restriction is a restriction on your freedoms, how much of it would you allow?

An additional issue is that some people label concessions/extortion as compromise. If you both give up something to get something, then that is a compromise. One side giving up something "or else" is not.

Items that people don't/ won't/shouldn't compromise on. (Listed in no particular order)
Constitutional/legal Rights (covers a lot)
Abortion (if you believe this is murder, then at most, the only abortions allowed would be for pregnancy that will end in death of mother and/or child.). (If you don't believe it's murder, then any restriction is an invasion of bodily control).

Click to expand...

I agree here. There are definitely some issues that require two polar opposites, whether that be for moral or legal reasons.

How do we find a balance with extreme terrorists? Terrorists groups that resort to violence for their own pleasure? Which goes hand in hand with religion, "It's Allah or die". There's no compromise in their beliefs. We don't believe in murder for religious practices, or any reason for that matter; unless in self defense depending on the situation. How do we come to an agreement on ideologies that are against our own morals and beliefs?

But this is where everything becomes a grey area.. What exactly is right and wrong?

ShinyUmbreon189 said:

How do we find a balance with extreme terrorists? Terrorists groups that resort to violence for their own pleasure? Which goes hand in hand with religion, "It's Allah or die". There's no compromise in their beliefs. We don't believe in murder for religious practices, or any reason for that matter; unless in self defense depending on the situation. How do we come to an agreement on ideologies that are against our own morals and beliefs?

But this is where everything becomes a grey area.. What exactly is right and wrong?

Click to expand...

I think the religious aspect is very clear, at least to me.

There are very few items I am unwilling to compromise on and, to my fault I admit, despise those that oppose my stances on certain issues.

One issue is female genital mutilation. There is no reason for this, it's evil and often done far from ideal medical conditions. Sometimes even broken glass is used for this. Disgusting.

Stoning. Stoning women for being raped. Using rape as s punishment. Keeping women in a bag all their adult lives etc. essentially the Middle Eastern prescribed Islamic practices. There are Imams that actually issue rape as a punishment for being raped.

I will never bend nor cow from my opinion on these issues. I have seen much of what Islam has to offer and out of all religious groups they offer more pain and suffering than the others.

It isn't right to oppress other people for the sake of 'religious practice'.

However, on nearly every other topic I am willing to listen. I don't flip whimsically and very rarely change my stances on other issues but I don't despise that person.

Compromise is good in many aspects, but terrible in others.

That true balance will never be found, I think, as old opinions change, new data emerges and so on.

Her said:

so does philosophizer actually do anything but repeat the same seven words over and over or

Click to expand...

So do you have an actual argument or?

BadSheep said:

The article you linked talks about transitioning from a government to no government... i see little relevance.

Click to expand...

It's very relevant, given that you brought up freedom.

Regarding you statement about legislation being the opposite of freedom, is it not legislation that outlaws and criminalizes slavery? Is it not the government that prosecutes and jails kidnappers, rapists, etc? Sure, slavery back then was legislated, but the law works both ways. You cant just ignore the good and focus on the bad... society and politics have moved on since the 19th century.

Click to expand...

The fact that the law can either be good or bad demonstrates why it shouldn't be obeyed solely on the basis of being law, and why it's illegitimate. With the concept of "law", you can't decide to break a law that goes against your conscience without punishment; you have to obey all of them, even if some are bad. If you believe, as I do, that you and anyone else personally has the right to disobey bad laws, then the government has no authority to enforce those laws and isn't actually a government.

And I am not assuming that I need permission from politicians to be free and that politicians own me as property (according to that article you linked). I have the political freedom to elect politicians.

Click to expand...

How exactly are you free if you still have to obey whatever they pass as law, even if you disagree with some of those laws?

Also, what if they get rid of elections? It would be legally legitimate, because they have the authority to do so.

And i know what you are going to say- that I'm forcing my political will on others. But here is where you are wrong:

Pretend that gimmiepie and i live in the same country. We have totally different political beliefs, even if there may be some overlap. Say we vote on taxation. By him voting for a candidate pro-higher taxes, he is enforcing his will on me. By me voting for a candidate pro-lower taxes, I'm enforcing my will on him. We cant, by extension, own each other. We recognize that we both live in a democracy and that we respect whoever wins the election. We have the right to protest and we have the right to vote for a different candidate if we want. I dont see the issue.

Click to expand...

The issue is that you're speaking as if both your candidate and gimmiepie's candidate can be in office at the same time, therefore balancing each other's interests and influence. This isn't the case, because one of the candidates has to lose, and whoever wins is enforcing his or her will over the other. If your candidate wins, you're enforcing your will over gimmiepie. If gimmiepie's wins, he's enforcing his will over you.

Centrism is what allows basic civil liberties to be viewed as radical and evil ideologies to be viewed as mainstream.

I think compromise is a nice idea but often a trap? I mean, look at Obamacare/The ACA, the Obama administration took great pains to compromise with the GOP (To the point of hamstringing the ACA and letting the gop internally sabotage it) and once it passed they immediately cried out and spent from then 'till now trying to completely and utterly destroy it, against both common sense and it's genuine usefulness.

Can anyone even really name any recent major legislation where compromise would be possible, or ideal/useful, for either party?

Mobile Tsk said:

Centrism is what allows basic civil liberties to be viewed as radical and evil ideologies to be viewed as mainstream.

Click to expand...

I think I half agree that the idea of centrism as a valid political ideology (Or, at least the very common mindset of the middle being the best place to be, politically) does very bad things for political discourse and discussion, but i'm not sure if i'd go that far with it.

While I am not an expert on sociology or political studies, I feel like common sense would dictate that compromise would be only useful if and only if execution allows for pursuing both of the competing ends to completion.

If one of the ends of the discussion is something that should, under our perception of space and time scoped to "our society", not even be allowed to be pursued, then compromise on that should not be sought as it is ultimately detrimental. Think the rebirth of nazism currently in the US. Alternatively, if compromise would allow for both interests to be pursued but ultimately sacrificing both their ends, then while it might be useful to have compromise, it means both interests have to be redefined to be useful in the new scope. I'm thinking here things like abortion vs the doctor's conscious objection, something my country has been having issues with as of late.

Down the line, I see compromise always good to measure, but only sometimes a good or sure thing to pursue.

re Candidates: My understanding is if my candidate wins, I am rescinding my rights / freedom to have my candidate manage them as well as those of the other party. I am not truly exerting my will on others, in the sense that "freedom" is conceived for this discussion. It is far too unlikely that my will will agree with that of my candidate to an exact 100%.

compromise pretty much never leads to anything of worth for either opposing ideology on whatever two people of different political opinions are debating

and quite frankly there's a lot of positions that shouldn't be compromised on