NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just posting something in another thread, and this question popped up.

Say I hold two political views, for example that drinking should be legal, but smoking weed should be illegal. The former says that people have the right to put harmful substances into their bodies for their own amusement (or other reasons), while the latter says that they don't.*

Is that a problem for you? How important is internal consistency in your beliefs and views? And how far down do you dig to uncover and resolve contradictions? For example, I could have one opinion which ultimately stems from one epistemological position, and another which comes from a different one.

So I suppose I'm asking: should people hold a complete system of political thought (which in turn can help them to quickly answer questions they haven't previously encountered), or is that being idealistic and it's good enough to just have a more or less random collection of opinions that don't have to gel?

*Please don't make this thread about weed or booze...it's just an illustration.

Clearly hypocrisy has no place in our government "We recognize that as a matter of diplomacy, the United States may for various reasons in various circumstances call another nation to account for practices that may in some respects resemble conduct in which the United States might in some circumstances engage, covertly or otherwise. Diplomatic relations with regard to foreign countries are not reliable evidence of United States executive practice and thus may be of only limited relevance here."

A consistent political thought (an ideology) is needed to plan for future, a thing that politicians nowadays refrain to do, thus leaving the things in the hand of other political actors (like workers' unions, trade unions, corporations, journalists...)

The main risk with ideology, though, is the lack of flexibility. Many people who want to show that their political views are consistent (while actually they're just stereotyped) usually exploit ideology to form a sort of an irrational belief system - as opposed to a rational political thought system. I, as a communist, could give you tons of examples...

Ideology is an important tool, but should always be guided by intellectual honesty, critical thinking, and constant review of the political analysis.

They should, but they don't.

Politics is more about being smug/graft/patronage than anything else though. So I'm not sure that it matters.

I can see ideological self-consistency as being an asset... certainly makes pro-lifers shut up or get confused. My ideological beliefs are a hierarchy of loyalties: God, Family, Community, Nation, World, and Self, roughly speaking. Like Risottia, I am a leftist, but not a communist (CPUSA is as crooked as you can get).

Is that a problem for you?

That particular problem? No, I can think of reasons why you would support both which don't contradict each other, not that I do support both.


How important is internal consistency in your beliefs and views?

Very.


And how far down do you dig to uncover and resolve contradictions?

Dunno


So I suppose I'm asking: should people hold a complete system of political thought (which in turn can help them to quickly answer questions they haven't previously encountered)

I think that's incredibly hard to do, but becomes easier when you become more extreme. I am jealous of real libertarians and real communists, because they have ultimately quite a simple set of principles, so economic issues for instance can simply be met with privatization and having the government fuck off, or socialisation, and be done with it. Those on the centre, with no clear ideals, have to think a lot harder about how to deal with individual issues. Although those on the extreme will have to think incredibly hard once their systems are actually put in place as a whole range of new issues come up, but for now they don't have to counter such issues too regularly.


, or is that being idealistic and it's good enough to just have a more or less random collection of opinions that don't have to gel?


I don't think that's the only alternative. Most people have intuitive ideals, but they're probably a bit difficult to articulate into a list of simple principles.

How important is internal consistency in your beliefs and views?
Pretty fucking important.

And how far down do you dig to uncover and resolve contradictions?
All the way down.

(Hint: it's turtles.)

For example, I could have one opinion which ultimately stems from one epistemological position, and another which comes from a different one.
That's a no-no in my book, unless you can (somehow) provide a decent rationale for it.

So I suppose I'm asking: should people hold a complete system of political thought (which in turn can help them to quickly answer questions they haven't previously encountered), or is that being idealistic and it's good enough to just have a more or less random collection of opinions that don't have to gel?
The former, definitely.

We should always be examining our beliefs and the assumptions those beliefs are based upon. I don't think we can create a completely rational system, epistemologically-speaking I agree with much of what Hume has to say about the matter, but ethically and politically consistency is the key.

Even if you're consistently relativistic.

We should always be examining our beliefs and the assumptions those beliefs are based upon. I don't think we can create a completely rational system, epistemologically-speaking I agree with much of what Hume has to say about the matter, but ethically and politically consistency is the key.


I did this, and found that there was nothing to base any ought statement on. :tongue: So I have a few problems.

Consistency in political views... I don't know, ask Churchill :p

Sometimes we just don't see the consistency in what appear to be inconsistent opinions.

Most of those who oppose abortion also support the death penalty. One position seems to value life while the other devalues it.

But in fact both share one important consistent factor: the desire to control the actions and lives of others.

Say I hold two political views, for example that drinking should be legal, but smoking weed should be illegal. The former says that people have the right to put harmful substances into their bodies for their own amusement (or other reasons), while the latter says that they don't.*

I think that one may believe that beer should be legal for reasons other than believing in the right to put harmful substances in one's body and that marijuana should be illegal even if it wasn't harmful, in the medium to long run, but for the sake of argument lets say they are inconsistent beliefs.

Is that a problem for you?

Yes.

How important is internal consistency in your beliefs and views?

Its fairly important but then again I doubt humans are capable of a totally consistent belief system.

And how far down do you dig to uncover and resolve contradictions? For example, I could have one opinion which ultimately stems from one epistemological position, and another which comes from a different one

I try to dig to the axioms and sadly they aren't provable. The problem of mutually contradictory axioms systems, which are internally consistent, haunts me when I'm feeling nihilistic.

So I suppose I'm asking: should people hold a complete system of political thought (which in turn can help them to quickly answer questions they haven't previously encountered), or is that being idealistic and it's good enough to just have a more or less random collection of opinions that don't have to gel?

They probably should but its idealistic to expect much beyond a certain level of consistency.

*That's like 'because he legalize booze we should legalize weed, hey lets legalize cocaine, now! What's next? METH!!!!' [It's an illustration, I'm not trying to jack this shit.] There's a limit, a practical limit, an understandable moderation. Take me for example, I believe every race is equal, but I think everyone should fuck their own races, why? Because I like it like that, and I'll do what it takes to further the goal. No human mind is the same, thus he can't expect everyone to always agree to a set of rules and beliefs. So contraction isn't as much a danger if its practical. How would my opinion that fucking in-the-race would be impractical be stopped? Because everyone else would be like FUCK NO! Shit, even though I believe that I like asians man, and if they ever instituted that law i'd be fucking asians more than ever, but that's a tangent. Trivial contradictions aren't important, and more over practicality should be the leader of a political view, not consistency. I personally believe that every candidate should be forced to to fill out a paper of his views, instead of just getting a label stuck on them.

*The following will be incoherent. WARNED U BITCHES!!! hahaha... Nah, but if you get that, golden star 4u :D

This is, arguably, another gray area -- sure, both can be considered self-harmful, but (depending on whose data you listen to) one is more dangerous than the other, so one could argue that the less dangerous one (which, IIRC, can be either one according to which data) is safe enough.

Similarly, look at the "some video games/television cause violence!!!111oneoneone" arguments some people make. Yes, people can argue that, but they may just as well (for example) argue that even "harmless" video games can cause the mentally unbalanced to do bad things:

Pokemon: Crazy kid throws round rocks at poor animals!
Mario: Crazy kid jumps on poor turtles!
Care bears: Crazy kid thinks grizzly bears are cute and huggable!

So no, there's no easy "thought A is acceptable and thought B is not!" boundary.

*That's like 'because he legalize booze we should legalize weed, hey lets legalize cocaine, now! What's next? METH!!!!' [It's an illustration, I'm not trying to jack this shit.] There's a limit, a practical limit, an understandable moderation. Take me for example, I believe every race is equal, but I think everyone should fuck their own races, why? Because I like it like that, and I'll do what it takes to further the goal. No human mind is the same, thus he can't expect everyone to always agree to a set of rules and beliefs. So contraction isn't as much a danger if its practical. How would my opinion that fucking in-the-race would be impractical be stopped? Because everyone else would be like FUCK NO! Shit, even though I believe that I like asians man, and if they ever instituted that law i'd be fucking asians more than ever, but that's a tangent. Trivial contradictions aren't important, and more over practicality should be the leader of a political view, not consistency. I personally believe that every candidate should be forced to to fill out a paper of his views, instead of just getting a label stuck on them.

*The following will be incoherent. WARNED U BITCHES!!! hahaha... Nah, but if you get that, golden star 4u :D

Shit man, pass me some of whatever you've been smoking!

I did this, and found that there was nothing to base any ought statement on. :tongue: So I have a few problems.

that's what the turtles are for

Shit man, pass me some of whatever you've been smoking!

I wish, that'd be fun. And yea, I do smoke, and in the short term it makes me stupid-er, but I always seem to get back whatever I loose after a week sober.

But on a more serious note [and conveniently less tangent :O], come on, you know that shit makes a little sense, and if someone more articulate then me could convey my message you'd be down.

that's what the turtles are for
You said it.

that's what the turtles are for

You said it.

That doesn't really help you know. :p

Well before I start off, excellent topic. Really.

Now, I have to say that I think it's best to form most of our ideals around an ideology that you truley understand. For example, if you embrace a right wing economic ideology, you understand the economics associated with it and are prepared to debate why the inequality that it may bring is acceptable when compared with the overall growth and economic freedom you're allowing . . . . but you shouldn't be cemented to your views. And here's where my main point is.

We don't have the word "ideologue" for nothing. An ideologue represents someone who will generally hinder any kind of progression due to his stuborness if a proposal is not absolutely 100% in line with his views.

There is absolutely no compromise here. No 'bipartisanship'. No unity.

So, it's important to have a political and economic fundamental foundation, but also to understand that pragmatism is key, and flexibility is necessary in a democratic institution that will almost always favor the pragmatic over the ideologue.

come on, you know that shit makes a little sense, and if someone more articulate then me could convey my message you'd be down.

I understand your slippery slope argument at the top, and the trivial contradictions part at the bottom, but the middle bit? That's just one giant wtf. I mean, you want to fuck only your own race, and want to make this as some sort of goal to aspire to, however people will detest such a policy, and if such a policy were to be put in place, you would in fact conversely be having sexual intercourse with Asians more. Yeah, that doesn't make any sense.

I understand your slippery slope argument at the top, and the trivial contradictions part at the bottom, but the middle bit? That's just one giant wtf. I mean, you want to fuck only your own race, and want to make this as some sort of goal to aspire to, however people will detest such a policy, and if such a policy were to be put in place, you would in fact conversely be having sexual intercourse with Asians more. Yeah, that doesn't make any sense.

!!! Golden... whatever I said for you!

See. I believe every race is equal, and only accept the term 'race' to once again exult my own nationality [That of a united Central/South America, with Mexico sprinkled on top] and unity. Nah, but seriously what I just said was bull shit. Basically, I don't like the thought of black people fucking anything that isn't black, such an abhorrent thought, so in order to stop that, I want everyone to fuck in their own race, because like I like my own race. However if my goal was ever to be achieved I would still partake in my guilty pleasure, because the only reason I ever wanted that goal to be reached was to really contain the blacks [AIDS MUCH!?!?!?!?! Not really...] and that if I hid it in a guise of world purity it'd be a more reachable goal. However, it's absolutely absurd to even DREAM of a divided world [Except Fernandez Maximilien [Or whatever his name] Hernandez or whatever order his damned name is in. The greatest dictator in the world <3 that man. If you want to know what I'm talking about he was the leader of El Salvador that ejected the blacks from his country] seeing as its too easy to travel the world now-a-days. The middle was really just a tangent I often run off into.

I was just posting something in another thread, and this question popped up.

Say I hold two political views, for example that drinking should be legal, but smoking weed should be illegal. The former says that people have the right to put harmful substances into their bodies for their own amusement (or other reasons), while the latter says that they don't.*

Is that a problem for you? How important is internal consistency in your beliefs and views? And how far down do you dig to uncover and resolve contradictions? For example, I could have one opinion which ultimately stems from one epistemological position, and another which comes from a different one.

So I suppose I'm asking: should people hold a complete system of political thought (which in turn can help them to quickly answer questions they haven't previously encountered), or is that being idealistic and it's good enough to just have a more or less random collection of opinions that don't have to gel?

*Please don't make this thread about weed or booze...it's just an illustration.
consistency is good.

i find that if someone i disagree with frames his argument in a way that hits my preconceived notions ill give it far more thought (and have to come up with a different reason why it is wrong)

!!! Golden... whatever I said for you!

See. I believe every race is equal, and only accept the term 'race' to once again exult my own nationality [That of a united Central/South America, with Mexico sprinkled on top] and unity. Nah, but seriously what I just said was bull shit. Basically, I don't like the thought of black people fucking anything that isn't black, such an abhorrent thought, so in order to stop that, I want everyone to fuck in their own race, because like I like my own race. However if my goal was ever to be achieved I would still partake in my guilty pleasure, because the only reason I ever wanted that goal to be reached was to really contain the blacks [AIDS MUCH!?!?!?!?! Not really...] and that if I hid it in a guise of world purity it'd be a more reachable goal. However, it's absolutely absurd to even DREAM of a divided world [Except Fernandez Maximilien [Or whatever his name] Hernandez or whatever order his damned name is in. The greatest dictator in the world <3 that man. If you want to know what I'm talking about he was the leader of El Salvador that ejected the blacks from his country] seeing as its too easy to travel the world now-a-days. The middle was really just a tangent I often run off into.

Ha, ha, ha. Oh wow!

So, it's important to have a political and economic fundemantal foundation, but also understand that pragmatism is key, and flexibility is necessary in a democratic institution and will almost always be favor the pragmatic over the ideologue.

This. I think most people have pragmatism sort of built in their philosophy, anyway. With the marijuana example: someone may oppose legalization but not be in favor of outlawing tobacco or alcohol, not because they see nothing wrong with the latter two, but because they figure trying to make those illegal would be more trouble than it's worth. (I personally don't hold this view, but I have opinions shaped similarly.)

For me, its not that important. I fully admit I don't really have a fully coherent set of views. I've got a set of priorities, rather than a single dominant one, and on each issue I try to weigh each up against the others to arrive at a position.

But it isn't, and can't be, a science; my personal experiences and prejudies influence what I think on each given issue, and mean that the positions I take aren't wholly compatible.

To have a consistent set of views I'd have to pretend to have positions on issues that don't reflect how I really feel about them, and whats the point of that?

This. I think most people have pragmatism sort of built in their philosophy, anyway. With the marijuana example: someone may oppose legalization but not be in favor of outlawing tobacco or alcohol, not because they see nothing wrong with the latter two, but because they figure trying to make those illegal would be more trouble than it's worth. (I personally don't hold this view, but I have opinions shaped similarly.)
Indeed. And sorry for my awful typos. Went back to edit.:p

There's a difference between "consistency" and "absolutism".

The former simply means an agreement between parts of an ideology - a degree of solidarity, as it were. As in "internal consistency". The latter is the advocacy of a rule, in all circumstances, for whatever reason. The former gives a guiding ideology, while the latter subsumes everything into that ideology.

Therefore, the former is the best out of the options (no guiding ideology, a guiding ideology, or a dominant ideology) as it allows for flexibility, and thus can change due to circumstance, while still having an end goal and a path towards that goal. This is a good thing, since that means that the *right* choice can be taken, as opposed to simply the choice that fits within an ideological paradigm. Moreover, it is also best as it can permute depending on the growth of this ideology or a change in circumstances (as well as a maturation in the political figure/platform).

People have trouble differentiating the two, however. One simply provides a guideline. The other does not.

I was just posting something in another thread, and this question popped up.

Say I hold two political views, for example that drinking should be legal, but smoking weed should be illegal. The former says that people have the right to put harmful substances into their bodies for their own amusement (or other reasons), while the latter says that they don't.*

See while this may seem inconsistent it doesn't neccessarily mean that it is, if you can show that you have different beliefs as to one is alright and the other isn't that are consistent.

In saying that I think that consistency is very important in political views and it is something that I certainly dilike when people are inconsistent on their views.

Depends on how much Hypocrisy bothers you....

See while this may seem inconsistent it doesn't neccessarily mean that it is, if you can show that you have different beliefs as to one is alright and the other isn't that are consistent.
Look, it's not a perfect example because I couldn't think of one. Yes, someone can think it's perfectly okay to tell others what to put in their bodies or do in their spare time and simply choose to allow one but not the other.

But if someone were to disagree with, say, an alco-pops tax on the basis of "they have no right to tell me what to do with my money and what to drink at parties", and then thinks weed shouldn't be legal, then that would be inconsistent. There is no way around that.

Look, it's not a perfect example because I couldn't think of one. Yes, someone can think it's perfectly okay to tell others what to put in their bodies or do in their spare time and simply choose to allow one but not the other.

But if someone were to disagree with, say, an alco-pops tax on the basis of "they have no right to tell me what to do with my money and what to drink at parties", and then thinks weed shouldn't be legal, then that would be inconsistent. There is no way around that.
That's a good point, people often give inconsistent arguments for their beliefs. Internally they probably have a coherent reason, but someone may realize it would be unpalatable for the general public. I would guess the hypothetical person you mention enjoys alcohol, doesn't think it has a hugely negative effect on society, and therefore doesn't want it taxed. Weed, on the other hand, they believe to be harmful. Just giving a straightforward utilitarian argument seems unlikely to work, so they go with a commonly accepted value (right to property, in this case) and use that.

EDIT: A more common example I just remembered is the conservative attack on loose liberal spending. Historically, modern conservatives have not been more fiscally responsible than liberals; they just have different priorities. However, experience has shown people don't like to hear "if elected, I will divert the flow of funds current going to social welfare to other programs." Better to say, "I will spend less on welfare" and leave it at that.

I was just posting something in another thread, and this question popped up.

Say I hold two political views, for example that drinking should be legal, but smoking weed should be illegal. The former says that people have the right to put harmful substances into their bodies for their own amusement (or other reasons), while the latter says that they don't.*

Is that a problem for you? How important is internal consistency in your beliefs and views? And how far down do you dig to uncover and resolve contradictions? For example, I could have one opinion which ultimately stems from one epistemological position, and another which comes from a different one.

So I suppose I'm asking: should people hold a complete system of political thought (which in turn can help them to quickly answer questions they haven't previously encountered), or is that being idealistic and it's good enough to just have a more or less random collection of opinions that don't have to gel?

*Please don't make this thread about weed or booze...it's just an illustration.

Consistency is important. It is ok to have a few exceptions though. For example, I believe in personal freedom and limited governmental power, yet I support anti gay policies because I believe that these are necessary for a country to receive blessings from God.

I'm quite an authoritarianin someways but a big libertarian in others.

I was just posting something in another thread, and this question popped up.

Say I hold two political views, for example that drinking should be legal, but smoking weed should be illegal. The former says that people have the right to put harmful substances into their bodies for their own amusement (or other reasons), while the latter says that they don't.*

Is that a problem for you? How important is internal consistency in your beliefs and views? And how far down do you dig to uncover and resolve contradictions? For example, I could have one opinion which ultimately stems from one epistemological position, and another which comes from a different one.

So I suppose I'm asking: should people hold a complete system of political thought (which in turn can help them to quickly answer questions they haven't previously encountered), or is that being idealistic and it's good enough to just have a more or less random collection of opinions that don't have to gel?

*Please don't make this thread about weed or booze...it's just an illustration.
This isn't about two conflicting views, if you hold to the view that obeying the law is important. Liquor is legal, pot is not. Simple. It's not that this isn't a good example, it's that you can find a commonality if you look at it the right way.

I was just posting something in another thread, and this question popped up.

Say I hold two political views, for example that drinking should be legal, but smoking weed should be illegal. The former says that people have the right to put harmful substances into their bodies for their own amusement (or other reasons), while the latter says that they don't.*

Is that a problem for you? How important is internal consistency in your beliefs and views? And how far down do you dig to uncover and resolve contradictions? For example, I could have one opinion which ultimately stems from one epistemological position, and another which comes from a different one.

So I suppose I'm asking: should people hold a complete system of political thought (which in turn can help them to quickly answer questions they haven't previously encountered), or is that being idealistic and it's good enough to just have a more or less random collection of opinions that don't have to gel?

*Please don't make this thread about weed or booze...it's just an illustration.

Well let's take the devil's advocacy on this one.

Inconsistency on political issues is a good thing I say. I mean, if everyone had a completely homogeneous and consistent set of political beliefs, perfectly derived from whatever ontological/epistemological positions they fancy, then you would find political compromise a rather difficult thing, because those ontological/epistemological axioms on which their belief systems are generally arbitrarily chosen, and beyond reasonable debate. So consensus politics would go completely out of the window and politics would be strictly a matter of power and force.

At which point, some might think that it is already a fact that politics is strictly a matter of power and force. Again, that would depend on your particular preconceptions of the world, and it may or may not be the case, but the fact that inconsistency exists at the very least allows for hypothetical consensus politics. And I posit that consensus is a good thing in political communities.

This isn't about two conflicting views, if you hold to the view that obeying the law is important. Liquor is legal, pot is not. Simple. It's not that this isn't a good example, it's that you can find a commonality if you look at it the right way.

He was talking about should, not is. About one's reasons for believing things should be this way or that, not whether one followed the law as it exists. Holding to the view that obeying the law is important is completely irrelevant when the debate is about what the law should be.

Anyway, to get back to the main thread somewhat, I would tend to defend at least a fairly strong level of consistency in one's political beliefs. Flexibility and pragmatism are important, of course, but one's positions should, ideally, follow fairly straightforwardly from simple, non-contradictory premises.

Is that a problem for you?

That depends. Are they just opinions that you aren't doing anything at all about? Or are you trying to get them both enacted into law?

How important is internal consistency in your beliefs and views?

Very.

And how far down do you dig to uncover and resolve contradictions?

I'm not sure. I try not to hold contradictory viewpoints, but I sometimes need someone else's point of view to make me question it enough to find the contradictions.

So I suppose I'm asking: should people hold a complete system of political thought (which in turn can help them to quickly answer questions they haven't previously encountered), or is that being idealistic and it's good enough to just have a more or less random collection of opinions that don't have to gel?

As close to the former as possible. I don't really expect anyone to have a complete system of political thought - there will always be things they haven't really thought through completely. What I do expect is that, when something is brought up, they're willing to question it and find any contradictions that are there.

Consistency is not quite as important as having a logical reason. If you can give a good reason for why Weed should be illegal, and booze be legal, please, give a good reason for it. Hypocrisy is my problem, which seems to be what you're referring to.

Consistency is not quite as important as having a logical reason. If you can give a good reason for why Weed should be illegal, and booze be legal, please, give a good reason for it. Hypocrisy is my problem, which seems to be what you're referring to.

Wouldn't that imply consistency? There's only one Logic, to use the word in an odd way that gives it slightly supernatural undertones.

Say I hold two political views, for example that drinking should be legal, but smoking weed should be illegal. The former says that people have the right to put harmful substances into their bodies for their own amusement (or other reasons), while the latter says that they don't.

That's one interpretation. Another would be: since liquids contains sugar have a natural tendency to ferment, consuming alcohol is something that is quite natural and therefore okay, while smoking weed is something you have to go to an artificial process to do, so it's not okay.

The same can be done for any example you give, even if it seems "perfectly inconsistent" to you.

Goes to show that "consistency" doesn't exist as an absolute value. Like everything, it's just in the eye of the beholder.

Is that a problem for you?

Yes, because if we are dealing with an outright contradiction, than one or another of the positions must be wrong.

How important is internal consistency in your beliefs and views?

As an end in itself, not at all. I would rather be inconsistently right than consistently wrong. But I think noting inconsistencies can help illuminate areas of one's thinking that are insufficiently developed and/or affected by bias, so that they may be improved.

And how far down do you dig to uncover and resolve contradictions?

As far down as it takes. Sometimes it does mean the resolution of issues at a fundamental level.

So I suppose I'm asking: should people hold a complete system of political thought (which in turn can help them to quickly answer questions they haven't previously encountered),

Yes. This is the best way of ensuring that we have actual good reasons for our beliefs; having political opinions that do not cohere with each other suggests a lack of thought.

Wouldn't that imply consistency? There's only one Logic, to use the word in an odd way that gives it slightly supernatural undertones.
Not necessarily true. There are many systems of logic out there. We happen to use a system that very much seems to match up with our reality, but there is by no means only one "logic." Unless you are referring to the key principle that a system must maintain consistency...which isn't even necessarily true, either--it just seems very hard to design such a system.
Consistency is not quite as important as having a logical reason. If you can give a good reason for why Weed should be illegal, and booze be legal, please, give a good reason for it. Hypocrisy is my problem, which seems to be what you're referring to.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Consistency is generally taken to mean having a logical reason within the proper confines of the logical system used. Hypocrisy is inconsistency, it's why we loathe it so much. It is saying one thing and doing another, acting discordant to a logical standard of consistency.

I actually don't see how maintaining consistency can be anything other than one of the key fundamental underpinnings of a legal code and political framework. This doesn't mean, as some have suggested, that there is no room for compromise. Consistency is a goal, rather than something someone magically has. When certain laws or political views are shown to be inconsistent or even contradictory, one generally uses compromise to realign them into their correct place. Unfortunately, politics and law are very complex systems so it seems that they are destined to possess many inconsistencies for a very long time.

It's sort of important. I think it's important to avoid contradiction, but I'm not convinced that contradiction is inherently resolvable.
Furthermore, I don't see why you couldn't have more than one epistemological position upon which to base your views, provided to reduce or eliminate contradiction. Since people pick and choose their epistemological positions, there's no reason they couldn't choose more than one.

I think that's incredibly hard to do, but becomes easier when you become more extreme. I am jealous of real libertarians and real communists, because they have ultimately quite a simple set of principles, so economic issues for instance can simply be met with privatization and having the government fuck off, or socialisation, and be done with it. *basks in your jealousy*

No human mind is the same, thus he can't expect everyone to always agree to a set of rules and beliefs.No, but he should expect himself to agree to his own set of rules and beliefs.

Political views should be thick on the outside, slightly runny on the inside, with no lumpy bits.

Being inconsistent in your opinions is a step towards being seen as a hypocrite, and nobody cares what a hypocrite has to say.

I think that's incredibly hard to do, but becomes easier when you become more extreme.

I think it becomes easier when you become more simplistic and dogmatic in your thinking, which radicalism does not necessarily encompass. Many "independents", further, are too pluralistic, so to speak, in their political judgments, and effectively choose positions based upon whim: they too have an easy time of it, because they do not think very deeply about justifications and can just go with whatever argument seems superficially most reasonable.

The most difficult position to stake out is the one that is nuanced and practical as well as consistent and coherent. That requires actually being thoughtful--exactly what is lacking in either of the above positions.

I am jealous of real libertarians and real communists, because they have ultimately quite a simple set of principles, so economic issues for instance can simply be met with privatization and having the government fuck off, or socialisation, and be done with it.

Only if we are being dogmatic and thoughtless. Socialization is obviously not the solution to every problem, and it has its own set of problems: a thoughtful communist (or socialist) has to generate an effective set of answers to how to deal with those problems, and what limits to put on the general economic principle, if any.

Generally, it is true, radicals possess a coherent set of political ideals, but we also (if we bother to think our positions through) have to deal with the issues that might arise when those ideals are actually applied to the real world--and that is inevitably a realm where inconsistency can pop up.

Those on the centre, with no clear ideals, have to think a lot harder about how to deal with individual issues.

If they have "no clear ideals", they don't have to at all, because they have no clear standards by which to judge issues and can merely make decisions based upon what seems on the surface to make the most sense.

Anyone thoughtful, radicals as well as centrists, has to deal with issues on their own merits; it's just that people with developed general political views often have pre-existing approaches that allow them to deal more systematically with political issues. (This is true of moderates, too: nothing stops anyone from being, say, an ideological Third Way social democrat.)

Consistency in political views is not at all necessary just ask any politician. They almost always flip flop from one issue to another, they often times argue about how bad an idea is during its conception and then attempt to take credit for how great of an idea it is when it works, they change their stance on things as often as the weather changes.

Consistency is not at all important.

Being inconsistent in your opinions is a step towards being seen as a hypocrite, and nobody cares what a hypocrite has to say.

I don't think inconsistency is the same as hypocrisy. Someone inconsistent in his or her beliefs holds two or more positions that contradict each other; one of those positions, at least, must be wrong. Someone hypocritical may have political and moral views that are perfectly consistent, but not actually live up to them; his or her failure has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not those views are right.

Noting someone's inconsistency is noting a flaw in his or her thinking, and is thus a legitimate tactic in intellectual discussion. Noting someone's hypocrisy is noting a flaw in his or her character, and is thus an ad hominem fallacy and irrelevant.

Consistency isn't at all important.

Consistency is of massive significance.

:p

I was just posting something in another thread, and this question popped up.

Say I hold two political views, for example that drinking should be legal, but smoking weed should be illegal. The former says that people have the right to put harmful substances into their bodies for their own amusement (or other reasons), while the latter says that they don't.*

Is that a problem for you? How important is internal consistency in your beliefs and views? And how far down do you dig to uncover and resolve contradictions? For example, I could have one opinion which ultimately stems from one epistemological position, and another which comes from a different one.

So I suppose I'm asking: should people hold a complete system of political thought (which in turn can help them to quickly answer questions they haven't previously encountered), or is that being idealistic and it's good enough to just have a more or less random collection of opinions that don't have to gel?

*Please don't make this thread about weed or booze...it's just an illustration.


It depends on where that view comes from and what's the underlying principle that leads to that particular conclusion. The above example isn't necessarily a contradiction or hypocrisy. It's only a contradiction if the reasoning offered for banning weed also applies to alcohol. Some people believe that weed should remain illegal because "do we really need another legal intoxicant." In other words, they believe that alcohol is bad, but that it would cause too much harm if we upset the applecart. But weed is illegal, so no new harm will becaused by keeping it so.

Such logic is stupid and false, but it is not contradictory. It's like saying "I don't want bombs in my house! Oh, there's already a bomb in the house? Well don't touch it, I don't know what might set it off." It's not a contradiction to say that you don't want to remove the bomb you've got, but don't want new bombs brought in. They're both expressions of the underlying principle "I don't want things exploding in my house."

If course, it does become a contradiction if the arguments against weed are things like "do you want doctors operating on you while stoned? Or truck drivers sharing the road with you while stoned?"

Or "the Federal government has no business stepping in and imposing civil rights legislation and taxes on the states. But gay marriage is wrong and they should amend the Constitution to ban it."

When people say things like that it should be legal to smack them once on the head with a blunt object and then walk away because conversation will end up having the same effect on you.

Consistency isn't at all important.

Consistency is of massive significance.

:p

Consistency doesn't signify mass.

It is massively significant to the quality of your pudding.

Consistency in political views is not at all necessary just ask any politician. They almost always flip flop from one issue to another, they often times argue about how bad an idea is during its conception and then attempt to take credit for how great of an idea it is when it works, they change their stance on things as often as the weather changes.

Consistency is not at all important.

Nothing is important to a politician. The appearance of these things is.

Dubya flip-flopped on every position he ever had. When first asked about gay marriage he quoted the Bible "take the log out of your own eye before you look to the speck in your neighbor's." Then he called for a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage.

But Kerry was described as the inconsistent one because he only wanted to go to war in Iraq if we already had the money to pay for it.

Bush was portrayed as the manly military man despite spending the Vietnam War being bribed into the National Guard and Kerry as the limp-wristed dandy despite being a decorated war-hero.

Consistency, courage, honesty, faith, marital fidelity, lack of education, and a blue-collar background are all important in winning elections. It is absolutely vital that a successful candidate fake them.