Tyranny: The greater evil behind the liberals...

Selfishness is not a virtue; it's selfish.

 

Earthmother

I think this is your problem, I think when you say this you are only half joking (if that).

I get the feeling you just may believe you do have the all the answers, and since you ‘know’ you’re right there is simply no need to debate your ideas.

And for you you seem to imply everything is simple to know

But simple is clear cut, unsullied by complication, like yes or no, black or white, right or wrong.

But you’ve rejected that viewpoint, that people shouldn’t see things in the simple terms of black and white, that things are more complex.

So what is it simple or complicated?

*

I certainly don’t think I’ve got all the answers and I’m constantly questioning the views and assumptions I do hold.

One of my great pleasures in life is learning new things and exploring new ideas with an open and questioning mind.

But if someone already thought they new everything and was sure they were right about everything, I suppose they wouldn’t think such study or research worth it and such questioning of their own ideas pointless.

You claim to be a realist and to base your views on reason, but you can’t be if you never subject your ideas to any real test of reason.

*

 

Valid – sound, just, well-founded

Are all ideas equally sound, just or well-founded?

If a racist believes that black people are an inferior race to whites is that a sound, just and well-founded viewpoint?

Or is it an opinion that doesn’t stand up to closer scrutiny?

If Ghost believes left wing ideas are vastly inferior to the right wing ideas of Ayn Rand is that a sound, just and well-founded viewpoint?

Or an opinion that he’s unwilling and unable to defend?

Is pushing for social or economic models that are inherently unstable and only seems to make the rich, richer and the poor, poorer, a sound, just and well-founded viewpoint?

Or is it the promotion of flawed and dangerous ideas that could hurt millions and severely damage whole economises?

Only in open and honest debate can people come to some conclusion as to an ideas validity. Just saying that something is valid doesn’t cut it.

Ideas are tested by debate and practice, sometimes the ideas stand up to scrutiny other times they don’t.

The problem is that many of the ideological driven whose ideas don’t stand up to any type of scrutiny, don’t allow open and honest debate of their ideas (because they know or suspect they wouldn’t stand) and if those ideas are pursued in the real world the results can be tragic (the neo-con invasion of Iraq, the Stalinist agricultural policies).

That is why it is always better to test ideas in reasonable and rational debate before putting them into practice.

I put up my ideas for debate and seem able to defend them from there critics in a rational and reasonable way – you basically refuse to discuss your ideas and don’t seem able to defend them from criticism. All you do is claim they are valid but there validity is never put to the test.

I think you’re so afraid to debate your views openly and honestly because you know they would show just how much of a right winger you are and how bad they were.

Yet you continue to promote them while claiming you’re not a right winger and claiming they have a validity they just haven’t earned – why?

*

 

A person can combine chemicals and come up with mustard gas, that’s simple, the question of should that gas be used against an enemy is another matter. Mustard Gas was used widely in WW1. Who should be allowed to make it? Should it be regulated and if so by whom?

A person can learn human anatomy to relieve pain or cause it. At one time after 9/11 polls indicated most Americans thought torture was ok. Is it OK? Is it ok but only under some circumstances? Is it never ok? Should it be banned? Should there be international agreements?

*

What ridiculous protections do you mean?

Are you saying there should be no laws?

In what way are civilised humans ‘molly-coddled’?

 

drew

But if someone refuses to listen or learn about other ideas and never allows there ideas to be tested or scrutinised – how can they have an open and honest debate even with themselves?

 

Balbus, you, my friend, are frigging NUTS. You just asked me 19 friggin' questions! What are you, my high school teacher??? Am I in "Debating 101"? Ya know, I QUIT SCHOOL in the 8th grade because of stupid time wasting stuff like this.

I can not help it if you do not grasp anything I have to say. I can not help it if you do not "get" my brand of humor. Obviously we are "seeing" things from 2 totally different perceptions. Perhaps even from totally different galaxies. Now, does that make your ideas any more valid or any less valid than mine? No, it just means that you are on a completely different level than I am. And that's all. Nobody goes around spouting their ideas if they know their ideas are not "valid". My ideas are valid to me, just as your ideas are valid to YOU. My ideas are valid to a lot of people who happen to understand what I am saying. And your ideas are valid to those who agree with you or at least understand what you mean. But if you are speaking french and I am speaking martian, and neither one of us understands the other's language, it does not matter how "valid" our arguements are. Anyhow, and you "refused to answer", WHO is gonna judge what is "valid"?
--------------------------------------------

"What ridiculous protections do you mean?

Are you saying there should be no laws?

In what way are civilised humans ‘molly-coddled’? "

More ridiculous questions, but I WILL address them if you REALLY want to know.

The human race is covered up with MAN MADE laws. Rules and laws. There are Thousands of them. Every time someone stubbs their toe, another law gets created having to do with stubbing toes. Burnt yourself on a hot drink? Lets make more laws about how hot drinks can be, who can serve them, and when... So many frivolous laws, we are no longer allowed to think "gee, this drink is hot so maybe I should wait to drink it until it cools..." We no longer need to take responsibility for our own actions because the law does it for us. I screw up, I go to jail. Period.

I am even "protected" from my neighbor looking at me funny... Yes, I'm being sarcastic, because it is so stupid. What ever happened to people actually being allowed to THINK their actions thru and act accordingly. Without worrying about breaking some "law" or rule... How about if I screw up I actually get to LEARN from my mistakes by being allowed to suffer the consequences (NOT JAIL), The REAL consequences. The ones that they try to PROTECT people from by sending someone to jail in the first place.

If we were actually ALLOWED to screw up, without so much interference from man made laws, we might just learn something, and a lot quicker. Because for every action, there is a re-action, and that's a fact. Now all we learn is that if we screw up, we might go to jail. It never occurs to anyone that the REAL consequences might be something totally different if we were actually ALLOWED to experience them.

Molly-coddled. How many people do you know who could simply go about their lives and survive nicely if there were suddenly no rules, no stores, no money, no government to tell them what to do and not do? Not many I bet. THAT'S what I mean by molly-coddled. Spoiled. Weak. Not knowing how to take care of themselves, not having to think for themselves. Because someone else does all the thinking for them. Not having to act for themselves, because most of it is all done for them...

Now, I keep having this problem. I start answering your questions in a more detailed manner, just like you want, and I forget what the thread was originally about... Please remind me.

 

Oh yea, and if we ALL could open our minds and hearts, and stop trying to place everything in a box for scrutiny and inspection - categorized and organized and filed, we would ALL "have all the answers to the universe" within us. And MY ANSWERS might not even be the same answers as YOURS. Funny thing, we are not all the same...

 

You constantly ramble on about open and honest debate when people are openly and honestly debating but it's never an open or honest debate unless the person is agreeing with you. You can't compare being racist to someone having a different view on economic systems then you.

 

Why should I let someone outside of me, someone who isn't me, take my ideals and hold a measuring stick up to them like a lab technician.


That sort of thing is between me and God, and nobody else.


Not you, not George Bush, not even my Mother.


Get with the program.


How many people have to tell you the same thing before it gets through your head.


:toetap05:

I've had better luck beating someone in the head with a coconut...

 

well i think we should have an independent study to determine how many and of what race and gender, stub their toe on commonwealth ave, at 2pm, on the 2nd. monday of november, so we might determine, wether or not we should implement a city ordinance to require pedestrians to PICK THIER FEET UP!! lol!

 

Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language defines liberal adj. 1 favorable to progress or reform as in religious or political affairs.
2. noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive reform.
3. or pertaining to represtational forms of government rather than aristocracies or monarchies
4. of pertaining to based on or advocating liberalism
5. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
6.favoring or permiting freedom of action esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression.
7. Free from prejudice or bigotry: tolerant

syn.1.Progressive 2. Broad minded, unprejudiced. generous

liberalism noun. a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parlimentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political,social or economic institutions to assure unrestricted developement in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.


The word liberal is derived from the Latin word liber which means freedom so I guess you could say a true liberal is just a freedomist.

 

never even thought to look that up:cheers2:
how you been booboo?

 

Not to say i completely disagree, but to only debate...

does freedom not lead some to an end that is not in the best interest of humanity as a whole?

 

Very good question. And this is the kernel in thought why most people believe that unrestricted freedom or liberty leads to tyranny, corruption, injustice, etc.

 

I don't see any way to know what would happen if people were allowed to be truely and unrestrictedly "free", as it has never happened in the recorded history of OUR society, so there is no experience to go by. I'm sure there were and may be still are some societies that could be classified as "free", as in TRIBAL societies with minimal outside intervention...

But that type of "free" still comes with it a certain amount of restriction, because we need to do and not do certain things in life in order to even be able to LIVE around other people, or live at all... But those are not man made laws, those are just facts of life. Those are the "shoulds". Like I should not go around beating people up if i expect to get along with them as neighbors...

So, if we are basing the definition of Liberalism on their espousing "unrestricted freedom or liberty" then we don't really have a whole lot to worry about, because there is no such thing.

 

Modern liberalism only claims to advocate individual freedom, but it's "freedom" that comes only from government and is thus defined by government. Now anyone with a functioning brain will tell you that freedom does not come from an institution, let alone one that rules over you. The idea that freedom comes from government is like saying peace comes from dropping bombs.

When liberalism is basically socialism (as it is today), which means MORE government, how can freedom possibly come from that? As the US becomes more socialist, we are losing -- not gaining -- freedom. Liberalism was not always defined by socialist policies, but today it is. Classical liberalism is popularly defined as libertarianism today. But it's easy to get lost in all these meaningless labels and lose sight of the fact that true freedom can only come once people get past all the labels and the wanting to join sides, getting past the idea of government and relating institutions being there to guide you through life and make all the important decisions for you.

 

If the claim you made above is true (which would not surprise me), and most people in fact do believe unrestricted freedom results in tyranny and corruption, then it's because that is what the establishment has drove into their heads through the media and education system, and is a mindset that would certainly play favorably into the hands of the ruling elite that wishes only to extend their power and further remove freedoms from the people (under the pretense that only they know what's best for the people).

To say that freedom can only lead to tyranny is much like the Ministry of Truth in Orwell's 1984, stating that "war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength."

 

No, most liberals care about free speech, but only if they agree with what the other person is saying. I mean, these forums are a perfect example of that -- liberal hypocrisy at its finest (or worst).

Many "conservatives" are not much better, but liberals are definitely worse when it comes to this.

 

You mean like, for example, the way you whine about free speech all the time and then threaten to have me banned?

 

Earthmother

This seems to be the major difference between us, I don’t think learning stops when you leave the school gates.


To me life is an education, I try to learn something from every experience, from every question asked or replied to.

You seem to think that’s all time wasting presumably because you don’t think you need to learn anything because you already know everything?


Also as pointed out by Aris earlier this is a place of debate, where people put forward ideas to be debated.

*

A lot of people in history have gone around with ideas they believed were valid, but that didn’t make them valid. Ideas change and adapt as they are put to the test and found wanting.

Just believing something is true doesn’t make it true, especially if that ‘truth’ doesn’t seem to stand up to scrutiny.

The classic case is racism, many throughout history (and some today) believed other inferior based on race.


*

I don’t claim my ideas are valid only that they seem to have validity, its different, only the ideologically dogmatic claim their political ideas are valid even when they are unwilling to debate them openly and honestly.

I’m very willing to discuss my political views and to defend them from their critics, but even then I wouldn’t claim they are prefect and will not change under scrutiny.

*

But we’re not speaking French or Martian, and if an argument is expressed in French or Martian which doesn’t seem to be valid, it would still be a seemingly invalid argument, but just one expressed in French or Martian.

A different language doesn’t improve or worsen an argument’s validity.

When I lived in France I talked and debated in French, when I talk with an English speaker I talk and debate in English.

*

Anyone.

But people can only make a judgement as to any ideas validity if it is expressed openly and honestly and are able to ask questions of it.

You’re ideas are suspect because you don’t seem willing to debate them and don’t seem able to defend them from criticism.

But as I’ve said some people seem to have biases based on irrational ideas they seem unwilling or unable to defend.

For example a racist is going to see another racists ideas as being valid even when neither could actually defend those views in a rational way.


*

Again you seem to think questions ridiculous rather than important tools in understanding, do you never question anything you believe in, I do it all the time?

*