17 May 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeNo unless you are willing to define "good things" and "bad things" and what means "stimulation" entails.
In order to have a pure and honest discussion we could replace the term "pressure" by "stimulate".
"When is it right to stimulate someone over whom you have authority to do good things, even if it reduces their freedom or that of others?"
Lets assume the answer is "always".
Let's refrase the question as follows:
"When is it right to ...[text shortened]... ir freedom or that of others ?
Let's assume the answer is "never".
Do you agree ?
17 May 05
Norris McQuirter founded the freedom party which basically stated that true freedom can only be achieved by a heavily regulated society. Personal freedom would be achieved within a set of clearly defined rules. I would think of this method as right wing almost fascist.
Are Identity Cards required for a safe and just society?
If you think yes you are to the right, If no you are to the left.
17 May 05
Originally posted by bbarrLook, I'm not defending Rand's choice of literary devices, which is all that that scene is. Roark is not glorified as perfect, and it's somewhat disingenuous to attack the ideals he represents based on actions which are not really informed by those ideals (and are, I would contend, contrary to them based on the passage in which it is asserted that those who strive for power and control of other people [of which a rapist is an example] are violating those ideals).
Would rape still be a crime in such a world?
17 May 05
2 edits
Originally posted by AcolyteI'd set right between the two gates with a bull horn and make fun of all the sheep as they divide around me to the left and right.
Which of these statements do you agree with more (or at least disagree with less)?
"The fundamental aim for a society should be freedom for its people, in the sense of freedom for individuals to achieve their personal desires. The coer ...[text shortened]... ed in the wrong concepts.
<Acoltye steps through the left gate>
It would sound like "What a bunch of sheep! Don't you guys dare do this on your own? Why follow paths that others set out for you? That way (pointing to their left) is a door to authoritarianism. That way (pointing to their right) is mediocrity. Let's go to the pub! You don't have to do this! Let's knock over the walls and tear down the gates! Then we can see what we are headed into."
😉
Which is just a polite way of saying that the two choices offered are both really, really, extremely bad. The rule is to not debate it, so I won't.
18 May 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyHow is the left gate authoritarian?
I'd set right between the two gates with a bull horn and make fun of all the sheep as they divide around me to the left and right.
It would sound like "What a bunch of sheep! Don't you guys dare do this on your own? Why follow paths that others set out for you? That way (pointing to their left) is a door to authoritarianism. That way (pointing to ...[text shortened]... oices offered are both really, really, extremely bad. The rule is to not debate it, so I won't.
18 May 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI agree with you for the third time this week, SVW, with this one minor caveat: the two choices, bad as they are, are more realistic than those you've offered in the threads you've began.
I'd set right between the two gates with a bull horn and make fun of all the sheep as they divide around me to the left and right.
It would sound like "What a bunch of sheep! Don't you guys dare do this on your own? Why follow paths that others set out for you? That way (pointing to their left) is a door to authoritarianism. That way (pointing to ...[text shortened]... oices offered are both really, really, extremely bad. The rule is to not debate it, so I won't.
Please note that I type this with a full glass of bourbon before me, and it not my first glass this morning. Context is critical to the communication.
18 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Acolyte"The fundamental aim for a society should be freedom for its people, in the sense of freedom for individuals to achieve their personal desires. The coercive means by which the state operates are sometimes OK, but only as far as they are needed to ensure greater freedom."
How is the left gate authoritarian?
The part that will eventually lead to authoritarianism is "but only as far as they are needed to ensure greater freedom."
That isn't defined well enough and will inevitably become subject to "he who has power defines "greater freedom".
What is 'greater freedom'? The people in the USSR were defined as free. As are the people of China today. In truth these people had GREAT degrees of freedom as defined by a non-personal property govenment, but were virtual slaves as related to owning land and property. Terms like "freedom" are red herrings and lead to logical errors of description.
An example of this is the current debate to get votes by the Senate on nominees to the Court Of Appeals. The dems have introduced the term "destroying the rights of the minority" to describe the repubs threat to change the rule. The idea is that this links "the average joes mind" to the issue of CIVIL rights of citizens. Does it? Or are we talking about the "minority party in the senate"?
We are talking about nothing to do with denying "rights of the minority". How many of our well educated citizenry recognize that the term is being mis-applied? Not many.
Gingoism of all sorts -- such as the term... "as far as they are needed to ensure greater freedom" are totally meaningless. This and all gingoistic terms are defined by those in power.
As Orwell said, we can be no more free than the language we adopt to allow others to manipulate us.
I would push for a third door. It might be:
"The only limits a person should allow to be imposed by any government are those widely agreed upon by the majority, but never a law that limits ownership. There should never be a law made or a person elected that isn't subject to immediate change by a simple majority.The only thing that can ensure more individual freedom is less collective freedom."
I am headed to door number three, even though this is the most difficult path for a person. The RESPONSIBILITY placed upon a person is tripled by this option. One must participate. One must be informed.
That is why it is a long, long way into the future -- if it is possible at all.
18 May 05
Originally posted by Wulebgr😵
I agree with you for the third time this week, SVW, with this one minor caveat: the two choices, bad as they are, are more realistic than those you've offered in the threads you've began.
Please note that I type this with a full glass of bourbon before me, and it not my first glass this morning. Context is critical to the communication.
Notice the x on the eyes. That is the bourbon glaze.
I don't know what to do with you sir! Let's have a bit less of this dispicable "agree" word, shall we?
I ain't had a drink for a week. My posts show it too. No real zing or muster to them of late.
See my posted reply to Acolyte as to my definition of a "possible" third door. It (this third door) has a big sign on it that says "Libertarians Only". Miserable two percent or so.