Sat Jul 07, 2007 4:15 am
grr similar thing to magius happened to me...have to make this quicker...so just some bullet points i guess...excuse any tone and the fact this is not going to make as much sense as my first draft would've
Do we want the state run by class envy? For every Hilton, W. Bush or Al Gore, who's success is quite tied to their forebearers, there's the Apple, Microsoft and Google guys.
As I said, equality requires the lowest common denominator. KG was able to escape the inner city and become a millionaire because of his unholy basketball talent, but some people cannot play basketball, so he would not have had that opportunity in an enforced equality.
I do enough lamententing of our royalty that plays make believe for a living for all of us, but I'd still prefer that they, the people on this forum and everyone have that opportunity to become rich and famous over the prospect of everyone being merely low level equals.
You're a liberal, like me, based on your answers. Just because the New Dealers stole a word and forced people who believe in freedom to ape an anarchist term doesn't mean we shouldn't try to take it back! Thanks to them "liberalism" means "fascism" and all our political terms have become so peverted W. Bush is apparently a "conservative".
If your friends are shot, they were not shot in "self defense", the defending gang (albeit likely criminals) returning fire on the first gang is acting in "self defense." I also think the "self defense" defense, would run into problems here if the gangs had a history of conflict.
But would people simply not use things beyond their fists? If someone wants to kill someone (capital offense) I assume little things such as weapon-bans would not deter them. People have lamented that the Vtech and Columbine killers didn't follow gun laws. If you're intent on murdering a mass number of people, gun laws are probably the least of your concerns.
If guns/weapons are illegal, only criminals would have guns/weapons. That cannot be disputed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_world
Again, what is stopping the state then from taking advantage of the situtation? Or armed criminals?
Again, what if the state decides video games and fatty foods are bad for everyone? If it's decided that video games make you anti-social and more violent, it's clearly a threat to others that you play video games. If you eat fatty foods and become unhealthy that raises medical costs. If you drink or use drugs, you may become violent, engage in risky sexual behaviors, etc.
Should the state ban these things? Or should they punish you for any crimes you commit that are already on the books and leave these things free?
Again, the question here. How can freedom of speech exist if speech is banned? Should there not be freedom of speech even and especially when the speech is "unsightly"?
But don't rights force others to do certain things?
(Let's first get it out of the way that rights are granted by the state and therefore can be taken away by the state, that's not what I'm asking about here.)
If you are given the "right to a job", does that not require and demand of another to give you a job? Taking away their freedom to hire who they choose. The "right to housing" or "right to a minimum wage" places a duty on someone to provide that housing and minimum wage.
The difference between liberalism and anarchism, is of course, there are some rights. The natural rights of life, liberty and property. The first and latter restrict the liberty to kill someone and the liberty to steal. There's a pretty good social pact on these two issues. There are those who want rid of property rights, having either the state own everything or everything being everyones, both of which rational people reject. And of course there are those who aren't down with granting those they don't consider human the right to live. But for the most part we've agreed on these.
The question of course is where do we start drawing more rights (of the social pact, not state, defined kind) and we have some nations today where far too many rights were drawn and the system is collapsing. Everytime we create a right to a job, or a right to health care, it's imposing a burden, a demand, enslaving someone else to deliver on that right.
Because of segregation, there is now a "right to service" in this country. Technically, a business still can deny one service, but they face the prospect of a discrimination lawsuit, or even worse a criminal charge. This "right to service" removes the liberty to enter business with whoever one wishes. Politically, I'm disgusted by this restriction of liberty, even if opposed to the "offense" being committed. (Which would get me called a "racist" by political drive-by shooters...) But we've decided as a society that we cannot trust ourselves to punish businesses socially (by taking our business elsewhere, complaining, etc.) and we need the state to interfere.
Most "civil rights" are the same way. Such as requirements to have facilities for the handicap. This is again taking away liberties for rights. It is requiring a burden. Because of the social stigma attached to it, no one will challenge it and simply go along with an unconstitutional anti-liberty law.
The point of this rambling, is to illustrate how simple "innocent" things can restrict liberties and freedom, that aren't "state opppression" or "dictatorships" or other scary, less common events, but instead situations that convince people emotionally to have their freedoms taken away. Hate speech is another issue where emotions are causing liberties to be destroyed.
Just some things to think about...(Yes, I'm claiming that after rambling off...I really wish I hadn't lost that original post...)
Do we want the state run by class envy? For every Hilton, W. Bush or Al Gore, who's success is quite tied to their forebearers, there's the Apple, Microsoft and Google guys.
As I said, equality requires the lowest common denominator. KG was able to escape the inner city and become a millionaire because of his unholy basketball talent, but some people cannot play basketball, so he would not have had that opportunity in an enforced equality.
I do enough lamententing of our royalty that plays make believe for a living for all of us, but I'd still prefer that they, the people on this forum and everyone have that opportunity to become rich and famous over the prospect of everyone being merely low level equals.
tl;dr - I'm a libertarian.
You're a liberal, like me, based on your answers. Just because the New Dealers stole a word and forced people who believe in freedom to ape an anarchist term doesn't mean we shouldn't try to take it back! Thanks to them "liberalism" means "fascism" and all our political terms have become so peverted W. Bush is apparently a "conservative".
What I actually meant (this may sound a bit dumb) was, if there was a gang fight, and one gang initiated the fight, the opposition "fired back" in "self-defence" and my friends just happened to be there (as bystanders), that would suck. I didn't mean it in the sense that "my friends are the offenders".
If your friends are shot, they were not shot in "self defense", the defending gang (albeit likely criminals) returning fire on the first gang is acting in "self defense." I also think the "self defense" defense, would run into problems here if the gangs had a history of conflict.
We're not taking away the people's ability to self-defend. Fights will still occur, but with bare hands and fists instead (I know, I know, weak point). This should (unless you have a country full of heavyweight fighters) at least decrease the number of deaths per year.
But would people simply not use things beyond their fists? If someone wants to kill someone (capital offense) I assume little things such as weapon-bans would not deter them. People have lamented that the Vtech and Columbine killers didn't follow gun laws. If you're intent on murdering a mass number of people, gun laws are probably the least of your concerns.
If guns/weapons are illegal, only criminals would have guns/weapons. That cannot be disputed.
I am, of course, assuming that the government does have a sense of morality and will not use fear tactics to withhold an entire population and forcefully bend them (the population) to agree to unreasonable terms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_world
People/weapons v. State/weapons: State weapons. People posseing weapons will lead to some taking advantage of the situation and cause harm.
Again, what is stopping the state then from taking advantage of the situtation? Or armed criminals?
State interests v. Self interests: State interests. Smoking, for example, is not only bad for you but for others, so the state should eliminate it not only to protect the smokers' health, but to protect the second-hand smokers.
Again, what if the state decides video games and fatty foods are bad for everyone? If it's decided that video games make you anti-social and more violent, it's clearly a threat to others that you play video games. If you eat fatty foods and become unhealthy that raises medical costs. If you drink or use drugs, you may become violent, engage in risky sexual behaviors, etc.
Should the state ban these things? Or should they punish you for any crimes you commit that are already on the books and leave these things free?
Unfettered Political Speech v. Managed Political Speech: Unfettered. Freedom of speech will limit corruption.
Eliminate Harmful Speech v. Allow All Speech: Eliminate Harmful Speech
Again, the question here. How can freedom of speech exist if speech is banned? Should there not be freedom of speech even and especially when the speech is "unsightly"?
Rights v. Powers: Rights.
Requirement v. Option: Option. People should not be forced to do certain things.
But don't rights force others to do certain things?
(Let's first get it out of the way that rights are granted by the state and therefore can be taken away by the state, that's not what I'm asking about here.)
If you are given the "right to a job", does that not require and demand of another to give you a job? Taking away their freedom to hire who they choose. The "right to housing" or "right to a minimum wage" places a duty on someone to provide that housing and minimum wage.
The difference between liberalism and anarchism, is of course, there are some rights. The natural rights of life, liberty and property. The first and latter restrict the liberty to kill someone and the liberty to steal. There's a pretty good social pact on these two issues. There are those who want rid of property rights, having either the state own everything or everything being everyones, both of which rational people reject. And of course there are those who aren't down with granting those they don't consider human the right to live. But for the most part we've agreed on these.
The question of course is where do we start drawing more rights (of the social pact, not state, defined kind) and we have some nations today where far too many rights were drawn and the system is collapsing. Everytime we create a right to a job, or a right to health care, it's imposing a burden, a demand, enslaving someone else to deliver on that right.
Because of segregation, there is now a "right to service" in this country. Technically, a business still can deny one service, but they face the prospect of a discrimination lawsuit, or even worse a criminal charge. This "right to service" removes the liberty to enter business with whoever one wishes. Politically, I'm disgusted by this restriction of liberty, even if opposed to the "offense" being committed. (Which would get me called a "racist" by political drive-by shooters...) But we've decided as a society that we cannot trust ourselves to punish businesses socially (by taking our business elsewhere, complaining, etc.) and we need the state to interfere.
Most "civil rights" are the same way. Such as requirements to have facilities for the handicap. This is again taking away liberties for rights. It is requiring a burden. Because of the social stigma attached to it, no one will challenge it and simply go along with an unconstitutional anti-liberty law.
The point of this rambling, is to illustrate how simple "innocent" things can restrict liberties and freedom, that aren't "state opppression" or "dictatorships" or other scary, less common events, but instead situations that convince people emotionally to have their freedoms taken away. Hate speech is another issue where emotions are causing liberties to be destroyed.
Just some things to think about...(Yes, I'm claiming that after rambling off...I really wish I hadn't lost that original post...)
Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:35 am
Benji, did you ever want to be a politician? I think you'd make a darn good one. For every point someone made, you made a counter-point. But now its my turn.
Well, smoking is scientifically proved to be harmful to the smokers (and its stinky). It would be hard to actually prove video games to be harmful as that would require very advanced psychological ideas. Also, that's why there is ESRB. It determines which games have a less chance of making players violent. People playing only Live will generally be in contact with less violent as the players playing GTA or CS (nothing wrong with these games, of course). Both violent and anti-social behavior after playing video games cannot be blamed directly at the game. There is a chance that people who were anti-social and/or violent in the first place are attracted to video games moreso than the people who are not, thus making it seems that video games cause anti-social and violent behavior. There is a term for this but I can't remember it.
Yes, I agree with you on the fatty foods, drink, and drugs part. It is actually proven that people who drink are more likely to be in car accidents which not only hurts themselves but others. I've seen videos of people on drugs, and they are so uncontrollable.
About "engaging in risky sexual behaviors", isn't that's why the condom was invented
?
But the point is that unfettered speech will not cause any harm to people. Eliminating harmful speech is only for the things that will make people look bad.
Whew. That was long. Well, it doesn't necessarily (please don't flame me on the spelling) force another to give you the job as the others cannot function properly without giving jobs.
I don't know much about the right to housing, but there are many people in my city who are homeless and have to live on the streets. And this is Canada, not a third-world country.
The right to minimum wage was only made because back in the days of the Industrial Revolution, workers were having to work in poor conditions and had to work long hours and still not have enough to feed their family.
I won't even bother to respond to the other parts. Too confusing for me. If i get a chance, I'll come back and finish it at least after I'm done with university.
I think the name of this thread should be changed to "The official debate thread"...
State interests v. Self interests: State interests. Smoking, for example, is not only bad for you but for others, so the state should eliminate it not only to protect the smokers' health, but to protect the second-hand smokers.
Again, what if the state decides video games and fatty foods are bad for everyone? If it's decided that video games make you anti-social and more violent, it's clearly a threat to others that you play video games. If you eat fatty foods and become unhealthy that raises medical costs. If you drink or use drugs, you may become violent, engage in risky sexual behaviors, etc.
Should the state ban these things? Or should they punish you for any crimes you commit that are already on the books and leave these things free?
Well, smoking is scientifically proved to be harmful to the smokers (and its stinky). It would be hard to actually prove video games to be harmful as that would require very advanced psychological ideas. Also, that's why there is ESRB. It determines which games have a less chance of making players violent. People playing only Live will generally be in contact with less violent as the players playing GTA or CS (nothing wrong with these games, of course). Both violent and anti-social behavior after playing video games cannot be blamed directly at the game. There is a chance that people who were anti-social and/or violent in the first place are attracted to video games moreso than the people who are not, thus making it seems that video games cause anti-social and violent behavior. There is a term for this but I can't remember it.
Yes, I agree with you on the fatty foods, drink, and drugs part. It is actually proven that people who drink are more likely to be in car accidents which not only hurts themselves but others. I've seen videos of people on drugs, and they are so uncontrollable.
About "engaging in risky sexual behaviors", isn't that's why the condom was invented
?Unfettered Political Speech v. Managed Political Speech: Unfettered. Freedom of speech will limit corruption.
Eliminate Harmful Speech v. Allow All Speech: Eliminate Harmful Speech
Again, the question here. How can freedom of speech exist if speech is banned? Should there not be freedom of speech even and especially when the speech is "unsightly"?
But the point is that unfettered speech will not cause any harm to people. Eliminating harmful speech is only for the things that will make people look bad.
Rights v. Powers: Rights.
Requirement v. Option: Option. People should not be forced to do certain things.
But don't rights force others to do certain things?
(Let's first get it out of the way that rights are granted by the state and therefore can be taken away by the state, that's not what I'm asking about here.)
If you are given the "right to a job", does that not require and demand of another to give you a job? Taking away their freedom to hire who they choose. The "right to housing" or "right to a minimum wage" places a duty on someone to provide that housing and minimum wage.
The difference between liberalism and anarchism, is of course, there are some rights. The natural rights of life, liberty and property. The first and latter restrict the liberty to kill someone and the liberty to steal. There's a pretty good social pact on these two issues. There are those who want rid of property rights, having either the state own everything or everything being everyones, both of which rational people reject. And of course there are those who aren't down with granting those they don't consider human the right to live. But for the most part we've agreed on these.
The question of course is where do we start drawing more rights (of the social pact, not state, defined kind) and we have some nations today where far too many rights were drawn and the system is collapsing. Everytime we create a right to a job, or a right to health care, it's imposing a burden, a demand, enslaving someone else to deliver on that right.
Because of segregation, there is now a "right to service" in this country. Technically, a business still can deny one service, but they face the prospect of a discrimination lawsuit, or even worse a criminal charge. This "right to service" removes the liberty to enter business with whoever one wishes. Politically, I'm disgusted by this restriction of liberty, even if opposed to the "offense" being committed. (Which would get me called a "racist" by political drive-by shooters...) But we've decided as a society that we cannot trust ourselves to punish businesses socially (by taking our business elsewhere, complaining, etc.) and we need the state to interfere.
Most "civil rights" are the same way. Such as requirements to have facilities for the handicap. This is again taking away liberties for rights. It is requiring a burden. Because of the social stigma attached to it, no one will challenge it and simply go along with an unconstitutional anti-liberty law.
The point of this rambling, is to illustrate how simple "innocent" things can restrict liberties and freedom, that aren't "state opppression" or "dictatorships" or other scary, less common events, but instead situations that convince people emotionally to have their freedoms taken away. Hate speech is another issue where emotions are causing liberties to be destroyed.
Whew. That was long. Well, it doesn't necessarily (please don't flame me on the spelling) force another to give you the job as the others cannot function properly without giving jobs.
I don't know much about the right to housing, but there are many people in my city who are homeless and have to live on the streets. And this is Canada, not a third-world country.
The right to minimum wage was only made because back in the days of the Industrial Revolution, workers were having to work in poor conditions and had to work long hours and still not have enough to feed their family.
I won't even bother to respond to the other parts. Too confusing for me. If i get a chance, I'll come back and finish it at least after I'm done with university.
I think the name of this thread should be changed to "The official debate thread"...
Sat Jul 07, 2007 2:47 pm
Equality v. Liberty: Liberty, without incentives noone would try to do anything for themselves or anyone else.
Rights v. Powers: Rights, an all-powerful government does not seve its people, only itself.
Requirement v. Option: Option, same as above.
Unfettered Political Speech v. Managed Political Speech: Unflitered, filtering leads to an end of a democratic system.
Media/Market v. Media/State: Media/Market, not all opinions and facts may be presented either way is the sate controls it.
Eliminate Harmful Speech v. Allow All Speech: Allow all speach, without exteamists, everyone starts to become too alike.
People/weapons v. State/weapons: State weapons, people cannot be trusted unfortunatly.
State interests v. Self interests: Self interests, I value self over all, and supreme existance is everyone's goal.
State Moralism v. Liberalism v. Anarchism: Liberalism, humans need some guidents and laws, but can somewhat function by themselves if guided.
Market v. State: Market, all for one, one for all I say.
Rights v. Powers: Rights, an all-powerful government does not seve its people, only itself.
Requirement v. Option: Option, same as above.
Unfettered Political Speech v. Managed Political Speech: Unflitered, filtering leads to an end of a democratic system.
Media/Market v. Media/State: Media/Market, not all opinions and facts may be presented either way is the sate controls it.
Eliminate Harmful Speech v. Allow All Speech: Allow all speach, without exteamists, everyone starts to become too alike.
People/weapons v. State/weapons: State weapons, people cannot be trusted unfortunatly.
State interests v. Self interests: Self interests, I value self over all, and supreme existance is everyone's goal.
State Moralism v. Liberalism v. Anarchism: Liberalism, humans need some guidents and laws, but can somewhat function by themselves if guided.
Market v. State: Market, all for one, one for all I say.
Sat Jul 07, 2007 2:49 pm
Dro wrote:Aren't you Asian? Not trying to stereotype here, but aren't Asians usually pretty educated and well off?
I'm almost 100% sure you were trying to stereotype there.
And Benji, I'm actually not very liberal - more of a conservative-leaning libertarian (I don't like the Libertarian party, only a generalized libertarian platform). I see your questions as choosing between capitalism and communism/fascism for the most part, rather than liberalism and conservatism. Maybe that's not what you intended
.
Sun Jul 08, 2007 5:06 am
Equality v. Liberty: Liberty
Why should I let my life be dictated and ruined for the sake of equality? It's not my fault the guy on the street is lazy.
Rights v. Powers: Powers
It gives the people responsibility, so no more blaming others or the state for their own self-inflicted misery in life.
Requirement v. Option: Option
I want to live my life by my decisions, and not break a stupid law just because I don't have insurance.
Unfettered Political Speech v. Managed Political Speech: Managed Political Speech
It's choosing between two evils, imo. I just chose the lesser evil.
Unfettered Political Speech = people with money will probably abuse it.
Managed Political Speech = people in the position of power will probably abuse it.
There are only a few people with money, I don't want political speech to be focused and controlled by those few.
Media/Market v. Media/State: Media/Market
I don't want the state censoring the news labelling Paris Hilton as a disease-ridden whore. I have a mind of my own to choose what to believe, whether it's true or false, just like religion.
Eliminate Harmful Speech v. Allow All Speech: Allow All Speech
If some groups say something hateful to my kind, then I also have the freedom to say whatever I want to those arseholes. Tit for tat, stick and stones..
People/weapons v. State/weapons: People/weapons
The possiblity of abuse from the state is very great if they have the only weapons. If someone tries to shoot me, I want to shoot him/her to.
State interests v. Self interests: Self-interest
If I want to ingest unholy amounts of alcohol and weed, then let me be. My life, my choice, whether it leads me to death or not.
State Moralism v. Liberalism v. Anarchism: Liberalism
Anarchism scares me.
Why would let a group of people (state) decide how to go on with my life as a citizen without me having a say in it? With liberalism I get a say in the social agreement because I'm a part of that society.
Market v. State: Market
Why fault and hate some group or person just because they run their business better than others. They have the right to offer their product at a ridiculous price if the customers still buy the product because it's superior compared to others.
Why should I let my life be dictated and ruined for the sake of equality? It's not my fault the guy on the street is lazy.
Rights v. Powers: Powers
It gives the people responsibility, so no more blaming others or the state for their own self-inflicted misery in life.
Requirement v. Option: Option
I want to live my life by my decisions, and not break a stupid law just because I don't have insurance.
Unfettered Political Speech v. Managed Political Speech: Managed Political Speech
It's choosing between two evils, imo. I just chose the lesser evil.
Unfettered Political Speech = people with money will probably abuse it.
Managed Political Speech = people in the position of power will probably abuse it.
There are only a few people with money, I don't want political speech to be focused and controlled by those few.
Media/Market v. Media/State: Media/Market
I don't want the state censoring the news labelling Paris Hilton as a disease-ridden whore. I have a mind of my own to choose what to believe, whether it's true or false, just like religion.
Eliminate Harmful Speech v. Allow All Speech: Allow All Speech
If some groups say something hateful to my kind, then I also have the freedom to say whatever I want to those arseholes. Tit for tat, stick and stones..
People/weapons v. State/weapons: People/weapons
The possiblity of abuse from the state is very great if they have the only weapons. If someone tries to shoot me, I want to shoot him/her to.
State interests v. Self interests: Self-interest
If I want to ingest unholy amounts of alcohol and weed, then let me be. My life, my choice, whether it leads me to death or not.
State Moralism v. Liberalism v. Anarchism: Liberalism
Anarchism scares me.
Why would let a group of people (state) decide how to go on with my life as a citizen without me having a say in it? With liberalism I get a say in the social agreement because I'm a part of that society.
Market v. State: Market
Why fault and hate some group or person just because they run their business better than others. They have the right to offer their product at a ridiculous price if the customers still buy the product because it's superior compared to others.
Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:39 pm
BigKaboom2 wrote:And Benji, I'm actually not very liberal - more of a conservative-leaning libertarian (I don't like the Libertarian party, only a generalized libertarian platform). I see your questions as choosing between capitalism and communism/fascism for the most part, rather than liberalism and conservatism. Maybe that's not what you intended
Liberalism and Conservatism are not necessarily opposites...Liberalism and Fascism/Communism/Statism are opposites, Conservatism and Progressivism are opposites...
Back in the 30s, the New Dealers called themselves Liberals to cover up their Fascism and so we've had these peverted political terms since then. While conservative has kept some of it's meaning, liberal now means "government everywhere" despite what the word actually means.
Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:15 pm
Equality v. Liberty: I'm much more for Liberty, but there nothing wrong with a splashing of equality. Not everyone is created equal, so people with disabilities (confined to wheelchairs) need additional help from the government, im all for it.
Rights v. Powers:
Rights, no question. People vote politicians in who decide the rights for the people, so it's all a cycle really.
Requirement v. Option:
Options for non essential services(like internet services) and requirement for essential services (like health care and emergency services)
Unfettered Political Speech v. Managed Political Speech:
Unfettered, but only if its truthful. People must be accountable for speech in my opinion.
Media/Market v. Media/State:
Media Market, but once again they have to be accountable for what they say too.
Eliminate Harmful Speech v. Allow All Speech:
Eliminate harmful speech.
People/weapons v. State/weapons:
There will always be weapons underground, so I say people/weapons so non criminals can actually defend themselves. Plus farmers need guns for their work.
State interests v. Self interests:
Self interests dominate only in issues that have no impact on other people. Drugs can effect peoples family members mental health, smoking can effect physically on others with passive smoking etc.
State Moralism v. Liberalism v. Anarchism:
State moralism
Market v. State:
State. The state is accountable by voters. Companies can easily collude to create a monopoly on necessities.
Rights v. Powers:
Rights, no question. People vote politicians in who decide the rights for the people, so it's all a cycle really.
Requirement v. Option:
Options for non essential services(like internet services) and requirement for essential services (like health care and emergency services)
Unfettered Political Speech v. Managed Political Speech:
Unfettered, but only if its truthful. People must be accountable for speech in my opinion.
Media/Market v. Media/State:
Media Market, but once again they have to be accountable for what they say too.
Eliminate Harmful Speech v. Allow All Speech:
Eliminate harmful speech.
People/weapons v. State/weapons:
There will always be weapons underground, so I say people/weapons so non criminals can actually defend themselves. Plus farmers need guns for their work.
State interests v. Self interests:
Self interests dominate only in issues that have no impact on other people. Drugs can effect peoples family members mental health, smoking can effect physically on others with passive smoking etc.
State Moralism v. Liberalism v. Anarchism:
State moralism
Market v. State:
State. The state is accountable by voters. Companies can easily collude to create a monopoly on necessities.
Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:43 am
If I call KevC a twinkie, should I be jailed? fined? What if I call him a fascist? or a jerk? Should I also be punished for those?
Yes. Unless you GIVE me a twinkie.
Equality v. Liberty:
Easiest question of the bunch. There is no standard humans could come up with to define where things are considered "equal", let alone enforce it.
Rights v. Powers:
People should always rule people.
Requirement v. Option:
I believe Cartman said it best - WHATEVA! I DO WHAT I WANT!
Unfettered Political Speech v. Managed Political Speech:
If the state can say whatever it wants, why shouldn't the individual be able to?
Media/Market v. Media/State:
If the state can say whatever it wants, why shouldn't the media be able to?
Eliminate Harmful Speech v. Allow All Speech:
Hate is such a harsh word. Realistically, anything can be considered a hate speech. People can get nearly offended by anything? Who decides what's offensive or not? The state? HA!
People/weapons v. State/weapons:
If a gun is the ultimate form of defense in this world, and it pretty much is on an individual level, then of course the people should have guns.
State interests v. Self interests:
"Underage drinking" is the dumbest term the government ever thought of. I'll ruin my body if I want at whatever age I want whenever I want. But of course I won't because my body is sexxxxy. Everything should be motivated by self-interest.
State Moralism v. Liberalism v. Anarchism:
Benji's definition of liberalism is pretty how much all government should be involved with the people.
Market v. State:
Not much to say here. Is there any other way???
Small government, FTW!
Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:45 am
Simple, one-word answer: England.
Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:46 pm
The state should do something about them English teeth.
Sun Jul 15, 2007 1:54 am
from the view of economics, since i believe in Keynes,
i think i probably stuck in the middle of the choices
because i believe a certain level of government regulations is needed,
at the same time a free market should be allowed
i think i probably stuck in the middle of the choices
because i believe a certain level of government regulations is needed,
at the same time a free market should be allowed
Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:04 pm
Hmm, interesting to see such a discussion on these boards, i wonder where your motivation lies...
I have some points that you might want to consider... On your equality vs liberty for instance...it is unfair too simplify to a such level (this goes for the majority of your options) at the one side, equality, is wrongly defined, and worded in a very biased way.
Liberty must be enforced just as much and the question arises... one man's liberty resticts that of another...
you have something called positive and negative liberty...positive being the absence of obstructions imposed by others, negative is having real possibilies and choices...
Next on the equality; this would mean in your juxtaposition, an equality of chances, obviously this doesn't mean everyone is the same, but everyone should be entitled to good education, not just those who can afford a to go to an elite university, but when you have the intellect, you should be able to develop it, regardless of your financial sitution...
i'll stop here as i don't wish to make this too long of a post...
I have some points that you might want to consider... On your equality vs liberty for instance...it is unfair too simplify to a such level (this goes for the majority of your options) at the one side, equality, is wrongly defined, and worded in a very biased way.
Liberty must be enforced just as much and the question arises... one man's liberty resticts that of another...
you have something called positive and negative liberty...positive being the absence of obstructions imposed by others, negative is having real possibilies and choices...
Next on the equality; this would mean in your juxtaposition, an equality of chances, obviously this doesn't mean everyone is the same, but everyone should be entitled to good education, not just those who can afford a to go to an elite university, but when you have the intellect, you should be able to develop it, regardless of your financial sitution...
i'll stop here as i don't wish to make this too long of a post...
Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:02 am
No offense if you're not, but I smell Dweaver.
Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:03 am
Dweaver?? Endulge me...shadowgrin wrote:No offense if you're not, but I smell Dweaver.
Furthermore Benji, you consistently put fascism and communism together (you probably think that marxism equals communism...), fascism is very different from both of them...
Anyway, it seems the discussion here is dead...
Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:34 am
shadowgrin wrote:No offense if you're not, but I smell Dweaver.
he would've already admitted it somehow if he was Dweaver. something like nice to see you guys or i'm back or something like that.