Page 5 of 6 [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

AdrianB
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 291

14 Apr 2007, 12:00 pm

(I've only read the first post)
Freedom should only be allowed if it doesn't form a threat to freedom later on.
Parties like NASDP used the existing freedom to take over and regulate that freedom.
In order to counter this, you must have freedom within certain (for people) logic boundaries.



foxman
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 425

24 Apr 2007, 5:07 pm

kt-64 wrote:
Communists a danger to freedom? What have you been inhaling? :lol: True communists would only take away economic freedoms in a sense. But when the market is less free, by extension the people are more free. You americans have it wrong, communism maybe inefficient but it is not anti-freedom. It is more pro-freedom than half your ideologies. Socialism (if moderate), is the best form of government. By taking away rights you are worse than those you have taken rights away from them. NAMBLA is harmless, just dont vote for them. :lol:


Hehe, you should read Herbert Spencer's "From Freedom to Bondage." He demostates pretty clearly how communism/socialism is the opposite of freedom.

Personally, I'm taking my cues from James Madison. True, factions cannot exist without freedom. "There are...two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests." (Federalist Papers, No 10, 1787.) Trying to supress or eliminate dissenting/dangerous political views/parties leads to either tyranny or socialist brainwashing. The goal then must be to control factions through the creation of a bureaucratic system. Political dissent and action is inevitable...a bureaucracy (much like we have now) provides a means for non-destructive political involvement. (Otherwise, revolution.)



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

24 Apr 2007, 8:04 pm

foxman wrote:
Hehe, you should read Herbert Spencer's "From Freedom to Bondage." He demostates pretty clearly how communism/socialism is the opposite of freedom.
Interesting, I think that Friedrich Hayek argued that socialism leads to the end of freedom in his book "The Road to Serfdom" which I somewhat recommend. Really though, there are a few books attacking the idea of socialism and freedom coinciding though or that argue that capitalism and freedom go together.
Quote:
Personally, I'm taking my cues from James Madison. True, factions cannot exist without freedom. "There are...two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests." (Federalist Papers, No 10, 1787.) Trying to supress or eliminate dissenting/dangerous political views/parties leads to either tyranny or socialist brainwashing. The goal then must be to control factions through the creation of a bureaucratic system. Political dissent and action is inevitable...a bureaucracy (much like we have now) provides a means for non-destructive political involvement. (Otherwise, revolution.)

This makes sense to me.



Griff
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,312

25 Apr 2007, 10:47 am

The opposite of stupidity is a different kind of stupidity. The middle way between the two is half-assed stupidity. I think that the factions of our politicians should follow the advice given to me by a Singaporean lad I happened to meet aboard an Amtrak: "take the easy way, and don't take shortcuts."

1) Bear in mind that one should first pursue those goals on which one are least likely to suffer opposition or obstacles. This puts one in a position from which other acheivements are more attainable.

2) Do not take unnecessary risks or allow impatience or overconfidence to result in recklessness or inattentiveness. Doing so is more likely to result in catastrophic failure than success.

The government should follow the same advice, particularly in regard to its role in the economy. Don't regulate things that don't require regulation, don't make laws that cause more upset than they are worth, don't be ostentatious, don't make our lives difficult, don't demand more money from us than we have, don't start unnecessary wars, don't spend money that isn't available, don't make make expenditures you don't have the money for, don't leave serious problems unaddressed, don't expect miracles, and don't do stupid things. As long as the government abides by this, I'm supportive of absolutely anything they do.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

25 Apr 2007, 10:53 am

Griff wrote:
<snip>As long as the government abides by this, I'm supportive of absolutely anything they do.

I see you don't support most government ideas then. :wink:



Quatermass
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,779
Location: Right behind you...

25 Apr 2007, 6:20 pm

Just cutting through the discussion, I believe a quote from one of the Discworld novels by Lord Vetinari is rather appropriate. "No practical definition of freedom is complete without the freedom to take the consequences. Indeed, it is the freedom from which all others follow."


_________________
(No longer a mod)

On sabbatical...


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

26 Apr 2007, 9:17 am

Quatermass wrote:
Just cutting through the discussion, I believe a quote from one of the Discworld novels by Lord Vetinari is rather appropriate. "No practical definition of freedom is complete without the freedom to take the consequences. Indeed, it is the freedom from which all others follow."

Makes sense. If people do not bear the consequences of their action then they do not act rationally in regards to how utility maximizing choices should be made within a societal context.



AlexandertheSolitary
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 945
Location: Melbourne

27 Apr 2007, 12:55 am

Kosmonaut wrote:
Griff wrote:
Kosmonaut wrote:
Griff wrote:
Kosmonaut wrote:
How do you come to such a quick conclusion?
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...


OK good point.

Not the sort of reply i would expect from an Aspergian, but quite common amongst the idiot masses.
Nothing to say, so try to assert domination by ridicule.
Dude, it's not even clear to me what you're talking about. I was just offering a suggestion as to why AG would have made such a quick assumption. If you sound like a conspiracy nut, you're going to be treated like one. Take a breath, and try to explain your views in a tone that doesn't make you sound like a raving maniac.


Dude, i have no interest in your suggestions as to what someone else assumes.
Don't even try to advise me on the tone of my posts: you're the one posting juvenile sh** like
Quote:
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

If you sound like a child, you're going to be treated like one. Why don't you take a break, stay out conversations that don't concern you and be a good boy in school tomorrow.


"Conversations that do not concern" him? In what earthly sense? I would have thought this was a legitimate concern for all of us. And Griff's early responses were quite mature; you should not have gone on about his one flippant remark for so long. Generally the level of debate has been reasonably good here (from what I have read so far). Resorting to insults is hardly a habit confined to so called neurotypicals. To be honest, I rather agree that an attack on China is rather less probable at present than in the past, and AwesomelyGlorious (with whom I certainly do not unswervingly agree with so please do not try and argue that I am succumbing to his insidious propaganda) has a point about the likely consequences of war with China. Certain freedoms have been eroded in your country, and indeed in mine (Australia). Nevertheless, to equate this with fascism is an insult to those who have suffered under such regimes. Iran might be a more probable target; even then there would be serious problems. Also your nation's military is likely to suffer from overreaching itself, vast as its resources no doubt are. They are hardly going to "sort out" the Middle East before moving on to China as you imply. They are not managing with what they currently hold, and the populace are having limited patience with a rising deathcount. Why would they want China offside anyway? Their diplomatic influence with the "Democratic people's Republic" of North Korea, limited as this may have proved, is valuable, they are a major economic power, and have a permanent seat on the Security Council of the United Nations with veto power; their divergence, often accompanied by that of Russia and sometimes France, with the United States of America on various issues would hardly be helped by attacking a nation with a strong military, nuclear weapons, and an effective propaganda machine of its own; solidarity of the people, even some who may not support the Chinese Communist Party, would be the likely response to invasion; such an action on your nation's part would be madness (which admittedly does not rule it out I grant).

The propaganda machine of the Bush Administration is really quite defective; quite a number of people are quite capable of resisting their arguments, or have you ignored this? Of course there is the propaganda from the other side, but that rather supports AwesomelyGlorious' statement about multiple propagandas.

I believe that Griff has a good point on the need for honesty and decency in individuals for the continued survival of something resembling the rule of law. Snake321, given your subjective categories of "religious fanatic" "politically correct extremist" and "apathetic" individuals, who exactly does qualify as an exponent of common sense? Someone who agrees with you? I doubt this, as surely you would not be so arrogant, and clearly you enjoy lively debate, like this one, but I am seriously considering standing by my earlier comment in another thread about you being a fanatic. I am confident that you will take this in your stride; I would attempt to be more sensitive if I did not think you were prepared for honest criticism


_________________
You are like children playing in the market-place saying, "We piped for you and you would not dance, we wailed a dirge for you and you would not weep."


AlexandertheSolitary
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 945
Location: Melbourne

27 Apr 2007, 1:04 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Kosmonaut wrote:
Laugh all you like. I hope you are right, but it's your analysis of the situation which is rather laughable (to say the least.)

I think your analysis is. Really, going to war with China would be too destructive for our interests. You strike the weak, not the strong Hitler knew that. We are more likely to want to muck around Africa or South America than China because nobody could stop us there.

Kosmonaut wrote:
Griff wrote:
Kosmonaut wrote:
How do you come to such a quick conclusion?
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...


OK good point.

Not the sort of reply i would expect from an Aspergian, but quite common amongst the idiot masses.
Nothing to say, so try to assert domination by ridicule.

What would you expect? This is not some matter of idiot masses. This is a matter of idiots on forums. Conspiracy theorists and others with their own hare-brained ideas are all too common. It is very very easy to just end up a little bit jaded and dismissive. It isn't purely a matter of asserting domination either, I just run into a lot of people who want to create their own crazy world and draw off of fringe, wacko ideas.

I just love that this degenerated into a name calling contest between Kosmonaut and Griff. I also recognize that saying that you are a bit of a conspiracy theorist is not entirely unjustified either. You have a theory on a conspiracy. I recognize that saying such is negative and perhaps it might be unwarranted for me to jump so quickly to a conclusion. I just have run into a large number of crazy people on the internet.


Given your rejection of snake321's distinction between positive and negative, and of objective moral standards generally, on what grounds can you continue to reject anything, AG? Enlightened self-interest? Sorry about that. The degeneration was rather sad really; there have been some important points for discussion raised, and it is a shame to have so much of the thread consumed by futile back and forth quibbling over Griff's duck comment, which Kosmonaut seemed to take an inordinate amount of time to get over. And "idiot masses" is not a very prudent generalisation.


_________________
You are like children playing in the market-place saying, "We piped for you and you would not dance, we wailed a dirge for you and you would not weep."


Kosmonaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,253

27 Apr 2007, 3:42 am

Griff wrote:
The government should follow the same advice, particularly in regard to its role in the economy..


So you are an expert on economy.
Do you trade currency?
Bring lots of $ and tell them Kosmo sent you.
:wink:



Kosmonaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,253

27 Apr 2007, 3:43 am

AlexandertheSolitary wrote:
.... which Kosmonaut seemed to take an inordinate amount of time to get over.


:lol:
I have not even started yet.



Griff
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,312

27 Apr 2007, 4:05 am

Kosmonaut wrote:
So you are an expert on economy.
I am not an authority on the subject, but I feel that my advice is prudent.



Kosmonaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,253

27 Apr 2007, 4:06 am

Quack quack :lol:



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

27 Apr 2007, 10:28 am

AlexandertheSolitary wrote:
Given your rejection of snake321's distinction between positive and negative, and of objective moral standards generally, on what grounds can you continue to reject anything, AG? Enlightened self-interest? Sorry about that. The degeneration was rather sad really; there have been some important points for discussion raised, and it is a shame to have so much of the thread consumed by futile back and forth quibbling over Griff's duck comment, which Kosmonaut seemed to take an inordinate amount of time to get over. And "idiot masses" is not a very prudent generalisation.

Reject anything? I can reject whatever I want, really though, I act according to my standards, which are a private thing that I do not argue the objectivity of and that I cannot prove the objectivity of. I don't think that anyone can prove an objective morality because morality is an abstraction, we can argue that certain actions lead to good ends or bad ends but we cannot put in place or debunk a moral concept. I recognize that all action flows from philosophical concept held deeply inside, however, that does not mean that I believe that snake's moral ideas are necessarily good, nor do I think that they should necessarily be enforced upon a society. Idiot masses gets to the point that the rejection was not based upon the idiocy of all people but rather on the set of people who get on the internet, I think it was prudent to do so.



AlexandertheSolitary
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 945
Location: Melbourne

29 Apr 2007, 8:48 pm

Kosmonaut wrote:
Quack quack :lol:


And you had the unmitigated timerity to question the level of Griff's maturity... Enough with the ducks already; you have made your point, and run the risk of appearing foolish as well as petty and vindictive if you continue, which I am sure would be a misleading impression, as you are not like that at all. You are never going to let him live this down, are you? Now to return to the argument... Where were we, you were telling us how the Freemasons were behind both the Democrats and Republicans (and probably Labor and Liberal here in Australia, and Labour and Conservative in the United Kingdom of Great Britain as well, not to mention the Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats in Germany). Or was the "same lodge" phrase about something else entirely? The Jesuits? This is blatant slander... I do not know if I am going to tolerate such demonisation. To be serious, come now, let us reason together...


_________________
You are like children playing in the market-place saying, "We piped for you and you would not dance, we wailed a dirge for you and you would not weep."


Desurage
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 93

23 Jan 2015, 3:19 am

My opinion is that everyone has opinions on how things work, how to make things better, how things should be, and everything else. All the above are separate and do not require each other to exist.
One guy could say "I want an economy that doesn't take from the earth" but the implications from that, spread across an entire nation, are disastrous. Is that freedom? Like those people who make alcohol so strong its banned, Moonshine. Is that freedom?

That in itself is an opinion and by the time it reaches others they have their own ideas about what you said, how you said it, and what they believe. Then you have someone else come in and disagree on a basis with actual facts, then the other guy can dispute those facts forever. Its a massive power game, how many can you shut up with your words? How many can you make agree, when you hide everything that you really want to do and dance around the issue? Like how Mr. Clinton disagrees with everything he did while in office, or the lies he told to get elected. In the end he's still the most loved recent president.

There is never any answer forever, answers in the political sense are brokered with reality and the many competing forces in order to control resources. Its like Al Sharpton coming to your business and threatening to sue you because black people exist and if you decline it will cost your company dearly. Freedom is won through lying, conniving, intelligence, adaptation, and sheer economic force. You are limited until then, you as a person cannot go on a cruise with a cadre of beautiful women tomorrow but guess who can.

Bill Clinton Can.