United Citizens of the world

So now Locke and Jefferson were communists?
You're appealing to Locke and Jefferson, but without context. Can you supply some quotes by them about restricting freedom in order to create more freedom?

Except maybe rampant anarchism, every political model employs the restriction of freedom. It is after all the fundamental quality of any kind of order. I would expect you to know that.
Yes, but it is mostly done under auspices other than creating more freedom, as if there is some kind of multiplier effect. We don't have the post office to make people freer, we have it to deliver the mail.

No, it's owned by the government.
The government is not supposed to act independent of the will of the populous, though. It does, but that's only because of the absence of action by the citizenry to stop these encroachments.

Yes. This is the process of growing up. As infants we have the freedom to piss, crap & cry whenever we want but as we grow up we learn that self-control (restriction ourselves for greater goals) reaps greater benefits than demanding instant gratification all the time.
That's a pretty poor analogy. What you actually described is more spontaneous order rather than the government trying to regulate everyone's bowels. It shouldn't be hard to spot as you wrote it yourself: self-control.
 
That's a pretty poor analogy. What you actually described is more spontaneous order rather than the government trying to regulate everyone's bowels. It shouldn't be hard to spot as you wrote it yourself: self-control.
Ah but you're wrong. If you've raised a child you'll know it's not "spontaneous", it's a long arduous process of constant correction. A child raised thinking it's own whims are the most important thing (and being mandated to consider others, which seems to amount to collectivism in your book) is a brat & may possess a modicum of self-control but will only use it towards his/her own ends. A society of people like this cannot survive. I suspect that a majority of all collapsed empires thruout history had this in common (a fractured society where people we're obsessed only with themselves or their group within society, and, even more so, a complacency based on the belief that the way things are in the moment is some sort of "natural order").

The "free market deciding" is basically people's whims deciding, like a child deciding he wants this toy & that toy. If you let him have whatever he wants he will never be happy just as people are not particularly happy despite an ever expanding array of consumer goods available.

You restrict a child to teach him the value of things. Creative expression should not be limited (expression of any kind really as long as not inciting violence) but there's nothing wrong with protecting resources & preventing pollution for the future (just as you'd make sure a kid ate just enough for the day while saving food for tomorrow).
 
The government is not supposed to act independent of the will of the populous, though.
Set the wayback machine for a month ago. Credit crisis. Politicians in U.S. government bickering over how to address the national debt.

Half the people want the debt ceiling raised. Half don't. What is the government supposed to do?
 
Narz said:
Ah but you're wrong. If you've raised a child you'll know it's not "spontaneous", it's a long arduous process of constant correction. A child raised thinking it's own whims are the most important thing (and being mandated to consider others, which seems to amount to collectivism in your book) is a brat & may possess a modicum of self-control but will only use it towards his/her own ends.

I understand what you're saying, but i'm uncomfortable with the analogy. I don't like the idea of the government treating its citizens like children.

Narz said:
A society of people like this cannot survive. I suspect that a majority of all collapsed empires thruout history had this in common (a fractured society where people we're obsessed only with themselves or their group within society, and, even more so, a complacency based on the belief that the way things are in the moment is some sort of "natural order").

I would like to hear Dach's thoughts on this theory.

Save_Ferris said:
Sounds way too leftist for any American movement.

It does sound too far left to ever be successful in american politics, agreed.
 
Set the wayback machine for a month ago. Credit crisis. Politicians in U.S. government bickering over how to address the national debt.

Half the people want the debt ceiling raised. Half don't. What is the government supposed to do?

I'm pretty sure more than half of the American people wanted the US to not destroy the international economy and every American's personal livelihood, despite what Fox will tell you.
 
Standard far-left jibber-jabber. Go join the Green Party.
 
Ah but you're wrong. If you've raised a child you'll know it's not "spontaneous", it's a long arduous process of constant correction. A child raised thinking it's own whims are the most important thing (and being mandated to consider others, which seems to amount to collectivism in your book) is a brat & may possess a modicum of self-control but will only use it towards his/her own ends. A society of people like this cannot survive. I suspect that a majority of all collapsed empires thruout history had this in common (a fractured society where people we're obsessed only with themselves or their group within society, and, even more so, a complacency based on the belief that the way things are in the moment is some sort of "natural order").

The "free market deciding" is basically people's whims deciding, like a child deciding he wants this toy & that toy. If you let him have whatever he wants he will never be happy just as people are not particularly happy despite an ever expanding array of consumer goods available.

You restrict a child to teach him the value of things. Creative expression should not be limited (expression of any kind really as long as not inciting violence) but there's nothing wrong with protecting resources & preventing pollution for the future (just as you'd make sure a kid ate just enough for the day while saving food for tomorrow).
Chinese authoritism seems to be what you're suggesting, but how do you fight the inevitable corruption?
 
It's not just because of Religion, it's because of the fact that homosexuals will never be able to procreate with each other. Oh, and for Abortion, I think murder is wrong no matter what your thoughts on Religion were.
So the fact that homosexuals cannot reproduce is the reason to ban gay marriage? I'm glad that sterile people and women over 50 will love to hear to your well-reasoned attitudes on this.
 
So the fact that homosexuals cannot reproduce is the reason to ban gay marriage? I'm glad that sterile people and women over 50 will love to hear to your well-reasoned attitudes on this.

So you are saying a medical condition or a fact of age in comparing it to homosexuality?
 
Celtic was claiming that homosexuals being unable to procreate was a good, non-religious reason to ban them from marrying, so I suggested two other groups who couldn't do that. I presume you have a non-religious answer for a change?
 
Why is it called united citzens of the WORLD when it seems to be going on about primarily american issues?
 
Can siblings marry in the US?

edit: nvm, it's getting off topic..
 
Why is it called united citzens of the WORLD when it seems to be going on about primarily american issues?
Why would you characterize any of these as primarily American issues? Don't all advanced civilizations have essentially the same problems and should use essentially the same methodology to resolve them, even though these problems are likely much greater in the US than elsewhere?
 
Exactly. Collective will is an impossible ideal. And every attempt to approach that ideal is self-defeating--because different people have different ideals. You can only approach true collective will for one group, and then only at the expense of another.
No, you still didn't get it. That we have democratic systems that work, and usually a lot better than their predecessors, proves this notion wrong. Democracy means approaching it. Your argument that only one group can be represented while the other has no say is not correct. That would be the tyranny of the majority, but we don't have a tyranny of the majority, but frankly I don't feel like explaining that to you, too.
But even if we had a tyranny of the majority, we still would have approached the ideal of collective will. Because that is still closer to the ideal of collective will than an autocratic system.
 
I pretty much agree with the whole list, except the environmental stance. The environment is man's to exploit, so long as all the cost are properly factored into the decision to do so.
 
A "policy" that is "overdue".

Are we talking about a new political entity, or the reform of existing states? Since all the land in the world is taken, presumably they are refering to a political agenda in already existing countries. There is no mention of taxation or means to pay for these reforms, nor is there any mention of coercive power to enforce these new policies. No mention at all, in fact, of the ugly side of government that would have to maintain these liberal goals, nor the reconciliation with those who may dissagree with many of them.

Interesting. Thought provoking. Expensive. Lacking consensus. Undoable.
 
Top Bottom