- Joined
- Nov 6, 2009
- Messages
- 37,510
- Reaction score
- 22,859
- Location
- Didjabringabeeralong
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
But if you're down under, like I am, wouldn't you then need to reach up, to reach down under?
Actually, it does, because said action necessarily involves reaching down under in order to implement the proper procedure for completing the act.
But if you're down under, like I am, wouldn't you then need to reach up, to reach down under?
Check out some of the funnier and more ludicrous claims of evolutionary psychology here. It's no theory on which to base a political ideology.
Of course they are determined by cultural values. The disagreement is about from where you believe these cultural values derive. The problem here is that I simply reject your idea that humans behave as pack animals. Some do, some don't. Many have transcended that evolved mass psychology, many more reject the idea that our social behaviour is pre-programmed. There are many, many examples of where humans have freely decided not to depend on the notion of a society led by some figurehead 'leader'.
You didn't address the main point of that paragraph, questioning where you get the idea that the State is the ultimate expression of tribal instincts. Whose theory is that? What is the scientific basis for that assertion?
Well, I guess, that might work in a state where people believe in the operation of metaphysical forces to impose accountability on leaders. As a Buddhist I might believe in the concept of karma, but I wouldn't rely on it as a bulwark against an oppressive government.
In place of legitimacy you have power exercised at the point of a gun.
You have no outlet for 'natural' dissent.
Conformity, in order to achieve the cohesion you crave, must be imposed on the individual and enforced. Can you conceive of a way to do that that doesn't run the risk of operating a police state?
There is no 'correct' use of such pronouns in English, any more than 'labor' is more correct than 'labour'. Custom and practice rules this and your choice to use exclusively the male pronoun is eloquent in itself.
Think of a brick wall. If a brick is out of place, the wall is weakened and may fall. If that brick insists on being out of place, can it still be called one of the building blocks of the wall?
Even without the evolutionary psychology, the theory that nations can be healthy or unhealthy, and that unhealthiness leads to suffering, is enough to justify my beliefs.
And yet most of them dress alike and make the same quotes from the same authors. :kitty:
It is Mussolini's. While I share his assertion, neither of us makes any assertion that it is objectively true-- it is the ideal he strove for, and the ideal I strive for.
The Mandate of Heaven is more practical than that. Good Leaders don't get overthrown without outside influence, like the Soviets or the USA during the Cold War.
That is legitimacy. That is the only legitimacy my government, the only legitimacy your government has, the only legitimacy any government has.
I do. It's membership in the Party. The Leader may act alone, but he does not act without counsel.
I consider a police state acceptable.
I prefer Loglan, in which the pronouns do not indicate gender at all. In English, I have no option for a gender-neutral pronoun.
I think Fascism would be wonderful....
I think this was a Founder quote, or someone commenting on the Founders, who said: "You need to set up a government with checks and balances so that even if your worst enemies end up running the State, the damage they can do is strictly limited."
Well, Kori, no, not really. At the risk of prising your analogies from your cold dead fingers, the whole 'the State as an organism' concept is getting a bit overdone. Using the word 'unhealthy' figuratively, you can discuss nations, polities or communities as such, I guess, but you need a much clearer and more rational analysis of what works and what fails than merely calling on strange, zoological metaphors. I understand that Mussolini used such simplistic concepts to create popular zeal for his animalistic ideas of good governance, but history has certainly given the lie to the claims that strong leadership, violent coercive authority and some semi-mystical collective will makes for happy and prosperous nations. Could it do so? Who knows? I very much doubt it, and I see no evidence to suggest that it would.the theory that nations can be healthy or unhealthy, and that unhealthiness leads to suffering, is enough to justify my beliefs
I agree. Not with the bit about Fascism being wonderful, but with the bit about checks and balances.
You left off "IF I got to be the dictator" part. I was actually being ironic. In reality, I'm not sure that I would trust even myself with that kind of power.
But what if they only inherit the premature hair loss from their dad and the grunt from their mom?
You left off "IF I got to be the dictator" part. I was actually being ironic. In reality, I'm not sure that I would trust even myself with that kind of power.
The imposition of authority by physical coercion is "the only legitimacy my government, the only legitimacy your government has, the only legitimacy any government has." Now, I'm pretty certain that my home country, the UK hasn't had a coup, revolution or violent overthrow of power for around 320 years. Other nations have, of course, but they are hardly everyday occurrences and the exception rather than the rule for régime change. Perhaps I'm missing something.
At the risk of prising your analogies from your cold dead fingers, the whole 'the State as an organism' concept is getting a bit overdone. Using the word 'unhealthy' figuratively, you can discuss nations, polities or communities as such, I guess, but you need a much clearer and more rational analysis of what works and what fails than merely calling on strange, zoological metaphors.
I understand that Mussolini used such simplistic concepts to create popular zeal for his animalistic ideas of good governance, but history has certainly given the lie to the claims that strong leadership, violent coercive authority and some semi-mystical collective will makes for happy and prosperous nations. Could it do so? Who knows? I very much doubt it, and I see no evidence to suggest that it would.
If you compare Fascist states to their existence before and after World War I, you will find vast improvements in the happiness and prosperity of the people living within them. It was World War II that ruined them-- when they were destroyed from without by larger, more powerful enemies that were every bit as violent and coercive as they.
What happens when you defy the laws written by your elected officials? What happens if you try to overthrow them?
Your democracy may work very well in preventing the actual use of violence, but it is still maintained by the threat of violence.
If we were discussing particular policies, I would agree with you and I would attempt to provide evidence showing that a particular policy is indeed healthier than the alternatives. We are now discussing core political philosophies, and such matters as the role of the government, the legitimacy of government, and so forth. There is little difference, qualitatively, between my concept of the State as an organism and other posters' vague ideas about freedom and personal responsibility. Even in the absence of the form of government that I advocate, I believe that the State's activities should be similar-- uphold desirable cultural and moral standards and protect the security and the interests of the State, which are a reflection of the security and the interests of the people.
If you compare Fascist states to their existence before and after World War I, you will find vast improvements in the happiness and prosperity of the people living within them. It was World War II that ruined them-- when they were destroyed from without by larger, more powerful enemies that were every bit as violent and coercive as they.
I think Rousseau and Locke explained the social contract better than I can here. Needless to say, I think they covered your bases.What happens when you defy the laws written by your elected officials? What happens if you try to overthrow them?
Your democracy may work very well in preventing the actual use of violence, but it is still maintained by the threat of violence.
That's not exactly selling it, now is it?There is little difference, qualitatively, between my concept of the State as an organism and other posters' vague ideas about freedom and personal responsibility.
Desirable? In whose eyes? Whose moral standards? In what way does the State become the reflection of the security and interests of the people? That would undoubtedly involve stomping fairly ruthlessly on the "putrid corpse of liberty", wouldn't it?Even in the absence of the form of government that I advocate, I believe that the State's activities should be similar-- uphold desirable cultural and moral standards and protect the security and the interests of the State, which are a reflection of the security and the interests of the people.
Are you edging towards making the argument that Germany and Italy were the victims of WWII? They were destroyed from within and what destroyed them was hubris; an ossified command structure which placed too much authority on too few, too inept shoulders; and an over-aggressive, expansionist and brutalist foreign policy based upon these semi-mystical concepts of volk, lebensraum or Romanisation.It was World War II that ruined them-- when they were destroyed from without by larger, more powerful enemies that were every bit as violent and coercive as they.
I think Rousseau and Locke explained the social contract better than I can here. Needless to say, I think they covered your bases.
Desirable? In whose eyes? Whose moral standards?
In what way does the State become the reflection of the security and interests of the people? That would undoubtedly involve stomping fairly ruthlessly on the "putrid corpse of liberty", wouldn't it?
Are you edging towards making the argument that Germany and Italy were the victims of WWII? They were destroyed from within and what destroyed them was hubris; an ossified command structure which placed too much authority on too few, too inept shoulders; and an over-aggressive, expansionist and brutalist foreign policy based upon these semi-mystical concepts of volk, lebensraum or Romanisation.
I was asked an interesting question today; in one sentence, how would you describe the core idea that your political beliefs rest on?
It seems fairly easy on the surface but it really does make you have to sort of stop and think. Digging down and finding the first brick that makes up the building of your political beliefs isnt easy.
After some considerable thought, I responded by saying I felt there was something fundamentally wrong with a world where one person can afford more of anything than he could ever even hope to use and someone else cant afford to feed themselves.
Think of a brick wall. If a brick is out of place, the wall is weakened and may fall. If that brick insists on being out of place, can it still be called one of the building blocks of the wall?
Ah but structural integrity is relative, so they argue. You can arrange the bricks in absolutely any manor and no design will be better or worse than any other, they say.
I'm quite comfortable in making just a small contribution to the control of the State. I can't be stomping around imposing moral standards all the time, I'd never get any Scrabble played. You might get to take the salute from your Stormtroopers on the Mall, but I'd make triple word score on 'equalize'.The only person's that matters. Mine.
If you disagree with my moral standards, you should fight to keep me from controlling the State. Of course, in the process, you would be fighting for control of the State yourself.
Now we're talking about purely subjective matters.Only to the degree that liberty contradicts morality.
And instigators. And aggressors.Victims? No. They were the losers. I believe that's an important distinction.
We could argue for days on the contribution Hitler's insanity made to his military losses, but if he weren't insane and Japan hadn't made a massive strategic blunder, World War II would have turned out entirely different.
Italy's only real error was in siding with Germany and Japan.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?