Power and Freedom (in reply to Mach)

[Real Korimyr #9]

From Fellow Dems: Please Stand against Gay Marriage.

Your stated goal:
"for the government are for them to promote my moral and societal ideals"
Ah, but that leaves me hanging, as most of your posts leave me...
Do you, or do you not, want, as a goal, for the government to also support the moral and societal ideals of the rest of the population (or voting population)?

No, I do not. Other peoples' moral and societal ideals are irrelevant to me, except as they relate to my own. I am interested in them, I enjoy discussing them, and I am inclined to respect the views of people I respect in general.

- If not, then you're stating the definition of autocracy.

I am comfortable with that. I don't particularly care how the government manages to decide to uphold my views, as long as it does so without violating too many of my principles-- or violating me and mine-- in the process.

2. Your stated goal:
[The government should] "stay out of my way".

Again, do you want the government to stay out of someone elses way, if they, say for instance, get in your way?

No. Unless someone is doing something useful to me, or something I approve of, I have no particular reason to object to the government trying to stop them. Of course, I'll object if the government's interference in their actions sets a precedent for them interfering in something I am likely to do, or consider preferable.

Besides, how do we define freedom?:
- Able to act without restriction
Why would you use a myth, as a goal if yours?

The "freedom" that I claim as a goal is not the ability to act without restriction-- which is the "freedom" that I have dismissed as a myth, because we all must live among other human beings and be subjected to their opinions and actions.

The "freedom" I promote is an internal thing. It's the ability to evaluate one's own opinions, and the ability to decide for oneself whether the consequences of one's actions are worth the benefits. The freedom I believe in is the freedom to define one's self and negotiate for one's own place in society.

3. Claim:
"Korimyr is far more faithful to his specific vision than anyone else could be."

Please demonstrate how you know this so I can see if it's reasonable. As it stands, I'd disagree. Just as there is generally someone better than you at anything you think you do well, likewise there is someone that is more faithful, probably in terms of consistency, and amount of time dedicated to furthering the goals, than you.

I know this because anyone else who is successfully promoting my vision-- especially if they're better at it than I am-- is doing so incidentally in the course of promoting their own vision. Even if they are my follower, promoting my vision in my name, they are doing so according to their own understanding of it, and would thus be promoting something slightly different.

(rhetorical)How can you know if most people are afraid of your solution?

It isn't my "solution" that people are afraid of... but the ideas that (1) their own morals aren't objectively better than anyone else's and (2) that they do not require justification for their own moral values.

And I know this because almost every person I have ever discussed this matter with is absolutely horrified by the prospect-- and argues desperately against it, even if they happen to agree with the moral values I believe in.

Ah yes, the superior, kind of like the concept of progress. Who defines it? Let me guess...the superior. Please admit the inconsistency.

I'm not claiming that my definition of "superior" is objective. I recognize that my evaluation will differ from others. However, I could point out how political attempts to make people equal have damaged objective measures of certain traits.

For instance, I could point out that for every $100 that is spent on Special Education in this country, only $.03 is spent on classes and material for gifted and talented students. This means that they are limited to the classes and materials offered for less-talented students, and are often not even allowed to simply take more advanced classes for older "average" students.

Of course, this is based on a cultural attitude in which we like to deny that some people naturally possess greater abilities.

Instead, I believe in promoting strength and vitality in everyone, to the best of our ability and their potential. Teach people to empower themselves, and give them the tools to transcend their limitations... and then allow them to sort their hierarchies out for themselves.

There were some fairly successful pagan societies that centered around this concept. They were crushed by Christianity (and other similar reglious powers) which generally promote the meek and humble, and certainly not the knowledgeable or powerful.

They were crushed by Christians, not Christianity-- and the Christians who accomplished most of this were the former pagan rulers, soldiers, and priests who ruled the greatest empire on the planet at the time.

And it's worth noting that these people who accomplished this were proving the lie of meekness and humility at the same time that they were promoting these ideals in their lessers. In other words, they were living by one set of values-- values of strength and boldness-- and promoting a set of values that kept their subjects weak and complacent.

That's called "hypocrisy".

Humans choose self-power, not empowering others, which is generally speaking an inferior gaming tactic (literally part of the human mind).

Yes. It's an uphill battle, and the only way I can see to accomplish it is to structure society in such fashion that empowering oneself requires empowering others-- measuring the value of a king by the wealth and health of his vassals and subjects.

Most forms of morality involve either shaping or defying instinctual human behavior in some fashion. Why should mine be different?

It's simply unrealistic to envision it as a successful way to govern a modern-day population, given the realities of human nature as they currently exist.

And it's more realistic to expect tolerance, when human instinct runs toward tribalism?

If you were the only one teaching, and the only one who reached his potential, and the only one empowering others...

Wouldn't get very far alone. I recognize my need for both allies and followers, and I will eventually have both.

... and the weak, nowhere near their potential, worshippers of meekness and humility string you up and hang you in the town square...what are you to say in reflection on your form of government as you burn, still alive, on a stake? "I was right, and will die right?"

What else would you have me say? Would you prefer that I hang my head in shame, and refute my own wisdom? Would you prefer that I beg before my lessers, and tell them that they were right all along in embracing weakness?

I can only hope that I will die as bravely as you suggest.

Quite a vision of power. So far I gather your solution is to have you in power as an autocrat...

Me or someone like me. Doesn't really matter, though of course I'll be trying to take the throne for myself; it's the struggle that forces us to stay strong when we're in power. Of course, we can see the exact same struggle in democratic society-- except that successful democrats deny it in theory and undermine it in practice, once they're on top.

... and your stated goals will be education and athletics, and except for your title as autocrat, anarchy. Yes, I still don't believe that's your meaning but I have little to go on.

You are actually a good deal closer than most people who've tried to take a guess at my political ideals. It's similar to feudalism or fascism, without the divine right of kings or other forms of leader-worship, and without reliance on blind obedience to keep order.

Yes, my goals would be education and athletics, as well as a good deal of skirmish warfare. I would also promote other measures which help everyone in society live up to their greatest potential-- healthcare for both treatment and enhancement, and programs to keep people engaged in society.

But I would not want anarchy beneath me-- my vassals should have their own vassals beneath them, both so that they can accomplish my goals and so they can accomplish their own once they've deposed me. There would be disorder in my ideal society, but only so that it can be struggled against, and so that there's room for people to outgrow their former superiors.

 

[Mach]

No, I do not. Other peoples' moral and societal ideals are irrelevant to me, except as they relate to my own. I am interested in them, I enjoy discussing them, and I am inclined to respect the views of people I respect in general.

This is an example of what I find absurd. Ultimately you either will choose to be logical, or not. Again, this is nothing to do with absolutism, with choosing this moral vs that, or abiding by this law, or beliving you are bound by law XYZ, or not. Either irrelevant vs interested/respect is contradictory in implication, or the result is absurd.

Allow me to illustrate so you can see what I infer from this statement.

Joe lives in a small house in anarchy town. Joe has watched the town go from a culture supporting pagan beliefs (in strength..whatever that means, and vitality...whatever that means), to one supporting the teachings of BAMBO, the kind, humble, and compassionate, yet apparently fictional. Joe believes society and their morals and ideals are irrelevant, so he necessarily ignores the transformation of his environment from one that matches his ideals, to one that is contrary to his ideals. He has passed on many opportunities to teach people about his values, and why he chose them (we don't really know WHY so far, it's just a whim). He has passed on many debates on the issue, and while he has personally "voted" against new laws that promote these new ideals, he has not "cared" in any other way as they are irrelevant. and so on....until one day the haul Joe out forcibly from his own and sentence him to death for having owned a sacrifcial alter, which apparently was outlawed as a result of the new religion of BAMBO that has taken root.

I can say many things about Joe.
He apparently is weak, he lost in physical conflict.
He is apparently lacking in strategic knowledge/skill, he did not anticipate or attempt to counter in any way the circumstances.
He chose not NOT get invovled in things that apparently affect his survival, and limited (to the extreme) his personal desires.

If you care, and choose to lead by example, that's one thing. If you do not care, then it's willful ignorance, and we see the result. A weak, ignorant, indvidual, is removed from existence. We either can discover why I intereperet it this way (through you clarifying your position), or I'm left with what I have written. I can describe how it's unethical, based on reasons, but it's best to start from root philosophy to do that, perhaps in another response.

I am comfortable with that. I don't particularly care how the government manages to decide to uphold my views, as long as it does so without violating too many of my principles-- or violating me and mine-- in the process.

"for the government to promote my moral and societal ideals"
[The government should] "stay out of my way".

So Joe strongly believs these things, but what does he do with them? Apparently dies with them, while ignoring the realty of his environment?

No. Unless someone is doing something useful to me, or something I approve of, I have no particular reason to object to the government trying to stop them. Of course, I'll object if the government's interference in their actions sets a precedent for them interfering in something I am likely to do, or consider preferable.

No no, the contrary. You necessarily then agree with the government NOT trying to stop someone from harming you. And yes, the government's action in response to ANYONE, necessarily sets a precedent relative to what it's based on.

The "freedom" that I claim as a goal is not the ability to act without restriction-- which is the "freedom" that I have dismissed as a myth, because we all must live among other human beings and be subjected to their opinions and actions.

The "freedom" I promote is an internal thing. It's the ability to evaluate one's own opinions, and the ability to decide for oneself whether the consequences of one's actions are worth the benefits. The freedom I believe in is the freedom to define one's self and negotiate for one's own place in society.

That's volition, or "free will". Calling it freedom and then claiming other definitions of freedom don't coincide is interesting, but not helping establish any knowledge. volution is a premise to accept in any logical/reasoned debate, to bring it in, dress it up in a freedom-dress, then claim it's some derived way of thinking boggles my mind. We don't need pages and pages of posts to reject the rejection of volition, a few sentences suffice.

I know this because anyone else who is successfully promoting my vision-- especially if they're better at it than I am-- is doing so incidentally in the course of promoting their own vision. Even if they are my follower, promoting my vision in my name, they are doing so according to their own understanding of it, and would thus be promoting something slightly different.

Korimyr, then necessarily no one "can" know anyone elses morals/ethics. You aren't stating an ethic of yours, "to promote MY beliefs", you'r stating what amounts to tautology, or better, an absolute view of ethics/morality. This necessarily implies your morals/ethics are not able to be coded, or they literally are some matter/energy that for now we declare as "you", or you've made an irrational claim.

It isn't my "solution" that people are afraid of... but the ideas that (1) their own morals aren't objectively better than anyone else's and (2) that they do not require justification for their own moral values.

You contradict yourself based on the above. Each persons morals, according to you, are objective, and can only be "known" by them. Resolve it. Further, choosing to use reasons to base ethics/morals on is just that, a choice. Whether or not THAT choice is good/bad, can also be justified. Again, it will all come down to some single, simple concept, that is absurd to disgree with (but has been routinely disagreed with in these derivative issues).

-> continued

-Mach

 

[Mach]

And I know this because almost every person I have ever discussed this matter with is absolutely horrified by the prospect-- and argues desperately against it, even if they happen to agree with the moral values I believe in.

Then you have a good, although time-limited, sounding board. I cannot say I have ever feared any philosophical implication, and I can't say that I trust any fears I may or may not experinece over reason.

I'm not claiming that my definition of "superior" is objective. I recognize that my evaluation will differ from others. However, I could point out how political attempts to make people equal have damaged objective measures of certain traits.

Please do, pick one common one and I'll see if I can point out the justification (hiring practices, affirmitive action, etc.?)

For instance, I could point out that for every $100 that is spent on Special Education in this country, only $.03 is spent on classes and material for gifted and talented students. This means that they are limited to the classes and materials offered for less-talented students, and are often not even allowed to simply take more advanced classes for older "average" students.

If you to make the choice to bring into the world, a new human (citizen in this case), you have made a choice that is indeed restricted by the society. Society has deemed the choice-makers, responsible for their choice. In this respect, responsible in that the choice-maker provides for their child, through their effort (implied choices from here on out), and other people may or may not choose to assist them, through their efforts. However, as a society, it's been agreed upon through some means (formation of government, voting, etc.) that a portion of everyone's effort goes to everyone, equally (as possible) to support in this case, education. The fact that there is even a little more taxpayer dollar going to GT is impressive.

The general them is, money taken by government, is distrubuted as equaly as practical/possible. After all, people's effort is what generates it, saying they should put more effort into your child, vs their child, is specifically against their freedom, the end result is equality. If joint effort, joint application of the effort.

So, in the end, you are free to give your child what you think they need. Private education, a tutor, home school, fake home school (beat the system), hide from the law, whatever. Further more, you are free to choose the guiding attributes you'd like to cultivate (to the extent one can). Many an intellectual has been defeated by less intellectual men. In some cases (certain leadership roles), lower intelligence provides an advantage.

Remeber, competition is primarily been moved it the economy, not government, (although politics necessarily falls into that category as well). The economy DOES choose based on the criteria THEY deem worthwhile. In many cases, its NOT intellgence.

Of course, this is based on a cultural attitude in which we like to deny that some people naturally possess greater abilities.

I disagree. It's in their best interest to claim someone doesn't, in certain scenarios. Furthermore, it's very difficult if not impossible to show how a specific individual, necessarily has an advantage in some broad statement. Nature has the final say, not Korimyr. (deleted some for text length)

They were crushed by Christians, not Christianity-- and the Christians who accomplished most of this were the former pagan rulers, soldiers, and priests who ruled the greatest empire on the planet at the time.

Necessary related. Memes are as real as a rock. The beauty of evolution is it's not infatuated with any manly concept of strength and vitality. The seemingly strong are often trounced by the smallest and "weakest". The laws of the universe don't appear to care.

And it's worth noting that these people who accomplished this were proving the lie of meekness and humility at the same time that they were promoting these ideals in their lessers. In other words, they were living by one set of values-- values of strength and boldness-- and promoting a set of values that kept their subjects weak and complacent.

Then everyone who has voltion is necessarily strong and bold, again making the claim the same as...saying nothing at all.
Individually weak. Huddling together out of fear. Attacking out of panic. No one said complacent. Complacency vs action are buttons many relgions can turn to further their own power struggle.

Yes. It's an uphill battle, and the only way I can see to accomplish it is to structure society in such fashion that empowering oneself requires empowering others-- measuring the value of a king by the wealth and health of his vassals and subjects.

Yes, all very compelling in a fantasy ideal (I agree), but not realistic. All written history details it for you. Power corrupts. Ends justify the means. Etc. Do declare these are destructive, fine. To declare they don't exist and that a solution that apparently doesn't work with this in mind is a good one, get's out there on a limb.

Most forms of morality involve either shaping or defying instinctual human behavior in some fashion. Why should mine be different?

because other people's morals/ethics are irrelevant to you. See why I cannot resolve your position?

And it's more realistic to expect tolerance, when human instinct runs toward tribalism?

expect? no. The other "e" word. Enforce.

Wouldn't get very far alone. I recognize my need for both allies and followers, and I will eventually have both.

Yet if you don't care about their ethics/morality, and one is clearly ethically a tratior, how is it resolved?

What else would you have me say? Would you prefer that I hang my head in shame, and refute my own wisdom? Would you prefer that I beg before my lessers, and tell them that they were right all along in embracing weakness?
I can only hope that I will die as bravely as you suggest.

lol. It was wise to ignore a mounting army at your door? It was wise to not work towards solutions rather than to ignore, through CHOICE! the ethics/morals of the day? Surely you jest.

Me or someone like me. Doesn't really matter, though of course I'll be trying to take the throne for myself; it's the struggle that forces us to stay strong when we're in power. Of course, we can see the exact same struggle in democratic society-- except that successful democrats deny it in theory and undermine it in practice, once they're on top.

Yet historically all such forms of society were demonstrated to be ineffective at some point. Further, the methods employed by capitalistic democracies fuel effort faster into precision power at such ridiculous efficiency that comparing to to 200 years of feudalism is amusing. Some took a while to defeat, only because of specific things like geography.

You are actually a good deal closer than most people who've tried to take a guess at my political ideals. It's similar to feudalism or fascism, without the divine right of kings or other forms of leader-worship, and without reliance on blind obedience to keep order.

All have enormous flaws with respect to reality, when contrasted with modern governments. Less desireable to the general populace being one off the top. Your personal mission can be to do these things, you can raise an army (look at Bill Gates), and move mountains, the government will actualY SUPPORT you (and does). But trying to force it into government is unecessary, and self-destructive.

Yes, my goals would be education and athletics, as well as a good deal of skirmish warfare. I would also promote other measures which help everyone in society live up to their greatest potential-- healthcare for both treatment and enhancement, and programs to keep people engaged in society.

We are in warfare. Companies fight non-stop, even as you sleep soundly in your soft bed produced through exactly those skirmishes. The strong, the charismatic, the intellectual...survive on average, and amass power, and influence reality far more than they could alone without an ecomony. Get with the program, the costumes are different but it's ALL THE SAME. By letting the meek have their equal pittance, you ENABLE NECESSARILY the far larger treasure trove to no only be created, but to be up for enforced (!) ownership by the winner. How dramtically sweet it can be.

But I would not want anarchy beneath me-- my vassals should have their own vassals beneath them, both so that they can accomplish my goals and so they can accomplish their own once they've deposed me. There would be disorder in my ideal society, but only so that it can be struggled against, and so that there's room for people to outgrow their former superiors.

And you'd be overthrown by the capitalistic society (no need for democractic necessarily). As a society, it's as if captialsim forms the masses, no matter their meekness, into a juggernaut. They need but one who understands the way things work. Far more elegant and efficient.

Personally I'd like to change culture far more than government. Government should be to enable people, whatever they give up, they should get many times over in some other area they have chosen to prioritize (and this is how it often works). You can probably create a feudal realm inside the U.S., just look at the amish. They are all about oppression of ideas and behavior too.

-Mach

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

This is an example of what I find absurd. ... Either irrelevant vs interested/respect is contradictory in implication, or the result is absurd.

I should have been more precise. It matters to me what other people believe-- for the reasons you illustrate-- but the fact that they believe something isn't morally relevant to whether I believe it or not, or whether or not I behave in a fashion that upholds their belief. I don't want government to uphold the values of the majority unless the majority agrees with me.

If you care, and choose to lead by example, that's one thing.

This is, of course, what I consider most morally desirable. Sorry that I was not clearer.

Unless someone is doing something useful to me, or something I approve of, I have no particular reason to object to the government trying to stop them. Of course, I'll object if the government's interference in their actions sets a precedent for them interfering in something I am likely to do, or consider preferable.

No no, the contrary. You necessarily then agree with the government NOT trying to stop someone from harming you. And yes, the government's action in response to ANYONE, necessarily sets a precedent relative to what it's based on.

Fair enough. And since I do desire for government to be consistent, I should desire for it to attempt to prevent me from doing anything I would have it prevent someone else from doing to me.

That's volition, or "free will". ... We don't need pages and pages of posts to reject the rejection of volition, a few sentences suffice.

I am not certain that's true. Not when the expression of volition-- particularly the volition to accept or reject certain moral premises-- is labelled as "illogical" or "insane" by others involved in the discussion. That implies that we are not free, because ignorance and mental illness are not matters of choice, but matters of defect.

Korimyr, then necessarily no one "can" know anyone elses morals/ethics. You aren't stating an ethic of yours, "to promote MY beliefs", you're stating what amounts to tautology...

It's intended to be a tautology. I wouldn't bother stating it at all, except a lot of people seem to think they're doing something else whenever they're discussing principles of governmental ethics. I have a lot of trouble getting people to admit that things like "equality" and "tolerance" are specific moral values-- and that they're not different from other moral values, such as "chastity" or "temperance" that other people may be attempting to promote.

This necessarily implies your morals/ethics are not able to be coded, or they literally are some matter/energy that for now we declare as "you", or you've made an irrational claim.

Probably the latter. What I am trying to communicate is that no two people are in whole agreement on moral issues, and even people who claim to follow a specific moral vision diverge from it in some fashion.

My desire for the government (and other people in general) to uphold my vision is, by necessity, approximate. I want enough people working in roughly the same direction, so that society moves generally closer to what I want. Of course... I don't think I'm personally capable of accomplishing it exactly, either.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

However, as a society, it's been agreed upon ... that a portion of everyone's effort goes to everyone, equally (as possible) to support in this case, education. The fact that there is even a little more taxpayer dollar going to GT is impressive.

The general theme is, money taken by government, is distrubuted as equally as practical/possible.

Note that you do not deny that the end result is that the naturally talented students are neglected, and that less competence is cultivated overall. I concede that the decision-making process occurs much as you describe it-- except for the excessive portion of tax monies spent on the less talented-- and that it occurs for much the same reasons you list...

But however "fair" it appears in theory, I will never accept that it is right in practice. We are denying future generations the benefit of our best and brightest minds in the name of equality... and that has consequences that everyone suffers.

The economy DOES choose based on the criteria THEY deem worthwhile. In many cases, its NOT intelligence.

Obviously, and to our detriment. It's also most definitely not a number of other things that most people find desirable... but for some reason, they don't think it's "right" or "reasonable" to try to make the economy select for those traits.

Of course, this is based on a cultural attitude in which we like to deny that some people naturally possess greater abilities.

Nature has the final say, not Korimyr. (deleted some for text length)

Except, like the rest of the objective physical universe... Nature does not care whether our species lives or dies. Nature doesn't care whether we become more refined, glorious beings or if we slowly regress into the apelike traits of our ancestors.

I do care. And as a part of Nature, I want to change the environment so that it rewards qualities I value.

Yes. It's an uphill battle, and the only way I can see to accomplish it is to structure society in such fashion that empowering oneself requires empowering others...

Yes, all very compelling in a fantasy ideal (I agree), but not realistic. All written history details it for you. Power corrupts. Ends justify the means. Etc.

And yet, how is the society we live in today, with the values you're touting, any different? The strong still rule the weak, and they do so in a corrupt and hypocritical fashion.

The only difference is, your ideals give them something to hide behind.

Personally I'd like to change culture far more than government.

This, I am in absolute agreement with.

You can probably create a feudal realm inside the U.S., just look at the amish. They are all about oppression of ideas and behavior too.

Probably can, yeah. But where do you get the notion that I am about "oppression of ideas and behavior"-- or, at least, any moreso than any other ideologue? I don't want to be any more oppressive-- in fact, quite less-- than other governments; I just want to be the one who decides what gets oppressed and what doesn't.

 

[thenextbesthang]

you know, i'm gonna get in this argument, but i have to read what you read first, which'll take me a good half hour =p

 

[thenextbesthang]

ok i have read...and here is as best as I can sum up your points:

A) Korimir; he feels that if equality, freedom, liberty are taken too far, we are in a sense rendered all subservient to society - not because we are forced, but because we aren't strong enough to - thus why he said that gay should not marry, because then we make distinctions between two choices. As a result we should strive to keep the human spirit truly free from this sort of 'liberty of equality'.
B) Mach; believes that such a group of subservient people is necessary in order to maintain stability, and to prevent constant warfare. Furthermore, such a government could not theoretically exist, because it would have to define what is acceptable, or define whats the difference between 'true' liberty and 'equal liberty' is?

Am I...sort of right?
Before I say anything, I must ask both of you;
What should the goals of society be?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

A) Korimir; he feels that if equality, freedom, liberty are taken too far, we are in a sense rendered all subservient to society - not because we are forced, but because we aren't strong enough to -

More or less. The thing is, equality is impossible-- as is "freedom" in the sense understood by most people-- and all preventing the strong from ruling accomplishes is the untenable situation where men are ruled by their lessers.

Also, by denying power, we prevent people from cultivating it and using it effectively. Essentially, by denying our natural drive towards dominance, we are holding people back from their potential-- and holding our species back from any useful process of evolution.

... thus why he said that gay should not marry, because then we make distinctions between two choices.

I don't have any objection to gay marriage; I'm actually a supporter of it. I just don't think "fairness" or "equality" has anything to do with it, and I don't believe that legal benefits should be extended on the basis that it's "discriminatory" not to.

I want homosexuals to be able to marry because it allows them to be properly engaged by family law and social practice, and because it provides a more stable environment for those couples that choose to raise children.

Before I say anything, I must ask both of you;
What should the goals of society be?

The goals of society should be to continually improve the quality of its citizens-- stronger, smarter, healthier, nobler-- and to leave a legacy of great accomplishments to its descendants. We should always be striving for some distant, unattainable vision of perfection-- and clearing the way for our children to be able to reach even farther for ever more distant goals.

 

[thenextbesthang]

The goals of society should be to continually improve the quality of its citizens-- stronger, smarter, healthier, nobler-- and to leave a legacy of great accomplishments to its descendants. We should always be striving for some distant, unattainable vision of perfection-- and clearing the way for our children to be able to reach even farther for ever more distant goals.

Let me hear your reasoning behind this. I have my guesses.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I'm not sure there is reasoning behind that premise; it's about as close to a priori as it gets. There's a few verses in the Hávamál that would be appropriate, but that doesn't count as "reasoning" any more than if I would quote Scripture.

 

[thenextbesthang]

Why, unless there was some common message from the government about being a strong person, that such a thing will not happen (think, religious message):

My point may be hard to follow here, i'll do it as best as I can.
---
At some point before the rise of civil society, man was free to do whatever we wanted; however, because we lived in a hobbesian state of nature, where life was nasty, poor, brutish and short, we created this thing called civil society. This concept allowed us to organize people; it allowed for a division of labor, a creation of order, stability.
That's the part I want to focus on, in truth;
At that part, you have two options-
A) Stay in this pre-civil society state, where you are inherently free, but only have yourself to rely on.
B) Join with civil society, where you depend on other people for various parts of your life (you don't really control your life to the fullest extent), but you have the fruits of 'everyone' to rely on.

Practically every conflict is an extension of that. The basic conflict is essentially, do we get rid of the status quo, and whatever we are used to, so that we can create a more fruitful society,one that plays to peoples interest?

By and large, society has chosen, over the long run, B. Think about it; the act of getting food has been reduced to shopping at the supermarket - if people want to have sex, theres contraception so that they don't have to worry about consequences; if people want to listen to music, there is every type of music possible; if there is something that is not existing that people want to do, then they can create it.

What does that say for the state of human society? Essentially, what that is saying is that for whatever people want to do, they have the ability to do it; there tends to be less, and less of a reason for people to do anything in particular. Do people need to live in a family to live? No. Do people need to defend themselves from aggression? Not with the police around. Do people need to have kids? No. Therefore, I am making the statement that as civil society increases in scope, and as it becomes more and more present in our daily lives, the pre-existing sense of 'state of nature' becomes less and less prevalent, so we need to do less and less in order to survive, and we inevitably put more and more trust into society.

How does this effect my theory on increasing individual rights means less actual associations? Meaningful associations come together for a purpose; American Legion,to promote the military - AFL-CIO, to promote the workers; NAACP, to promote 'colored people', and so on and so forth. If this need is thoroughly diminished through the rise of civil society, for the reasons I have shown (because of less of an emphasis on mans 'state of nature'), then people will not have a true need to be joining these institutions anymore. If there is no need, these institutions will not be influential nor will they be effective, thus they are doomed to destruction.

That's 'voluntary associations'. You are never going to get rid of associations, period, but if you remove the associations that bind the large parts of society together, you separate society into many, individual chunks. Thats why I say removing the need for 'voluntary associations' creates a more individual society. It creates a society where people are individual, equal, but equally weak, because civil society has gotten to be so strong.

 

[Monkey Mind]

I don't have any objection to gay marriage; I'm actually a supporter of it. I just don't think "fairness" or "equality" has anything to do with it, and I don't believe that legal benefits should be extended on the basis that it's "discriminatory" not to.

I want homosexuals to be able to marry because it allows them to be properly engaged by family law and social practice, and because it provides a more stable environment for those couples that choose to raise children.

I agree with your second point. However, I do think it's a matter of fairness and equality. Gender should have no bearing on whether or not two people are allowed to marry.

The goals of society should be to continually improve the quality of its citizens-- stronger, smarter, healthier, nobler-- and to leave a legacy of great accomplishments to its descendants. We should always be striving for some distant, unattainable vision of perfection-- and clearing the way for our children to be able to reach even farther for ever more distant goals.

Well said. Once again, I agree. :cheers:

I think that in order for Society to continually improve, its scope must continually increase. Eternal tribalism is not sufficient for humanity to realize its full potential. An enlightened society should strive to spread its ideals and its prosperity to other societies around the globe. At that point, humans can and should start expanding beyond this planet.

<bad lazy snippage, next quote taken from a different post in the same thread:>

And since I do desire for government to be consistent, I should desire for it to attempt to prevent me from doing anything I would have it prevent someone else from doing to me.

Ha! That's interesting. So, do you think your government should have laws against fat men pushing you off of a train track?

:mrgreen:

 

[liberal1]

I think that in order for Society to continually improve, its scope must continually increase. Eternal tribalism is not sufficient for humanity to realize its full potential. An enlightened society should strive to spread its ideals and its prosperity to other societies around the globe. At that point, humans can and should start expanding beyond this planet.

For who does that authority reside however, to determine what society is "enlightened." Is war a viable option so that the enlightened one's ideals may be spread around to the ignorant? A slippery slope indeed if the self-righteous consider the enforcing of their ideals to have paramount importance over individual thought and personal philosophy.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Eternal tribalism is not sufficient for humanity to realize its full potential. An enlightened society should strive to spread its ideals and its prosperity to other societies around the globe.

But how is that not a form of tribalism? An expansionist tribe, and a tribe that welcomes refugees, are still tribes-- and they're still both capable and required to put their best interests first, if they're to survive to help others.

Besides, once we occupy other planets, the process will begin anew. Instead of landmass versus landmass, it shall simply be planet against planet, or star against star, as we expand the scope of our societies and thus our conflicts.

I still agree that this is desirable, but I think the effects will be different than you imagine.

And since I do desire for government to be consistent, I should desire for it to attempt to prevent me from doing anything I would have it prevent someone else from doing to me.

Ha! That's interesting. So, do you think your government should have laws against fat men pushing you off of a train track?

I would hope that the man who kills me is wise enough to praise my heroism and noble self-sacrifice to the police, when they arrive to investigate. I'd hate to think that I'd been killed by an idiot.

In any case, I'm not certain where the law should stand on this matter. I know where I stand morally, but I already accept the idea that many things I consider moral must be illegal, and the government must attempt to prevent them.

 

[Monkey Mind]

For who does that authority reside however, to determine what society is "enlightened." Is war a viable option so that the enlightened one's ideals may be spread around to the ignorant? A slippery slope indeed if the self-righteous consider the enforcing of their ideals to have paramount importance over individual thought and personal philosophy.

My point was that we should share our prosperity with the rest of the world, not just our immediate neighbors. It isn't enough that your town, tribe, city, or nation be prosperous. True peace and stability will only come when the entire world exists at more or less the same standard of living. If that time ever comes, then humanity will have evolved enough to be something more than a global force. Assuming, that is, that we resolve those cosmic ray issues.

 

[Monkey Mind]

But how is that not a form of tribalism? An expansionist tribe, and a tribe that welcomes refugees, are still tribes-- and they're still both capable and required to put their best interests first, if they're to survive to help others.

History has proven that tribalism does not scale. Large societies require more structure in order to survive. Unless you mean "tribe" in a more generic sense, in which case it's just a euphemism and not true tribalism. Tribes are by definition small and localized.

Besides, once we occupy other planets, the process will begin anew. Instead of landmass versus landmass, it shall simply be planet against planet, or star against star, as we expand the scope of our societies and thus our conflicts.

I still agree that this is desirable, but I think the effects will be different than you imagine.

I can imagine all kinds of effects, including wars on a huge scale. It's not a foregone conclusion though. It is in our nature to strive for something, but that needn't manifest itself as constant fighting amongst ourselves. Once we get our house in order, there is plenty else to conquer and struggle against.

To make any significant progress as a species, we need to quit all of the internal bickering. Right now I'd say there's too much of it for anything productive on a global scale. Also too much famine, poverty, and general suffering. Those and the constant warfare tend to feed one another.



-----------------
NP: Younger Brother - The Receptive