So to conclude, a new society must be formed, and it must be Exclusive and Divisive.
Exclude those on the list above. Reform a Republic, reassert the Constitution, learn from past mistakes.
The next thing that needs to be done is a historical analysis of how USA rose so high, and then how we disintegrated and corroded over time.
The corruption can be tracked. That corruption must be dealt with. The rot must be purged. Then a new society can begin after the diagnosis and autopsy.
We are beginning the diagnosis and autopsy phase of western history.
I’d cheer if the conservative states succeeded from the union, it’d be a relief, a separation from overwhelming retardation and corruption. Let libtards fend for themselves and create their social utopia that they pay for themselves. And I am no Republican either, I’m without a party, but I’d choose the saner conservatives over the deranged libtards any day.
K: I can’t even tell which part is more wrong because every word is just plain wrong…
when you attempt a coup on America, yes, you are a “domestic terrorist”
and according to the FBI, the greatest danger to America is right wing
“Domestic terrorism” but more then that… you are wrong that you can live without
the left for the very simple reason that America was founded upon liberal idea’s…
“the entire consent of the governed” liberal, voting for all… liberal… equal rights… liberal,
social security… liberal… the 5 day work week… liberal… paid vacations… liberal…
maternity leave… liberal… even the very idea of a constitution and bill of rights, liberal…
take away all these liberal idea’s and what do you get?
a soviet union… congratulations…
the second point is that exclusion of any kind is simply doomed to failure…
name me a society that tried exclusion as you suggest and have it
succeed? South Africa and apartheid? that didn’t end well, did it?
America and Jim Crow laws? that didn’t end very well…
the type of exclusion you are looking for simply doesn’t exists…
the right wing… my way or the highway isn’t a road that works
for anyone, including the right wing…
and the sooner that you come to realize that we need each other, now
more then ever, the sooner you will return to success…
recall that the GOP is and has been for over a decade, the minority party
in America…that there are far less republicans in America then there
are democrats… and that is a fact jack…and the trend will continue…
in the last election, the GOP lost the presidential election by over
7 million votes… with over 81 million people voting democratic…
a record number of voters…
and with the ongoing civil war in the GOP, it is going to remain the
minority party for a very long time…
look at the red state, blue state divide… look at the red states, states like
Montana and south Dakota and Wyoming… and look at the blue states, Cal and New York
and Illinois… the stronger, wealthier states are the blue states…Fla and Texas are soon
to turn blue permanently because of demographics… and at that point, not one single
top ten state will be red…and recall that the dem’s won Arizona and Georgia the last
election… that doesn’t bode well for the GOP…and before you babble about fake elections,
I will point out that it is President Biden, not IQ45…and that point cannot be contested…
the path you advocate is simply the path of failure… and on some level, you know that…
when the going gets tough, the tough don’t go running off to some far away land…
you fight through it…you struggle and work your way to a solution of some sort…
and how does running away solve your problems? it doesn’t…
K: I can’t even tell which part is more wrong because every word is just plain wrong…
when you attempt a coup on America, yes, you are a “domestic terrorist”
[/quote]
UR: Actually you are the domestic terrorist. This is proved by how you recently excused death threats on this forum.
K: I gotta say, what a sophisticated argument you just presented…
“I am not a domestic terrorist, you are” a 5 year old presenting an argument…
way to live up to your ideals…nice job, I am sure your mother is very proud of you…
All Biggie does is play word games trying to distract from the original issue, and attention whores himself. I always thought you enjoyed his routine, has that changed?
*If we have to wear seatbelts (bicycle helmets, safety goggles, glasses, etc) but don’t want to wear them, then we are restricted in our freedom. (But we gain reasonable safety standards that reduce risk and save lives.)
*If a surgeon has to wash his hands and equipment before operating, but doesn’t want to, then he is restricted in his freedom. (But the surgeon and his profession gain the safety and trust of patients.)
*If we want goods and services for free, but have to pay for them, then we are restricted in our freedom.
(But we all gain a fairer, more functional and sustainable marketplace instead of chaos and plunder; we gain the possibility for such goods and services to exist in the first place.)
The measure of freedom is not whether I can do absolutely whatever I want, whenever I want. It is whether I can reasonably pursue my interests and make reasonable concessions such that others can do the same. There are many competing freedoms. The challenge is to find the best balance or harmony between them.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Where one’s liberty infringes on the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others, it is necessarily limited in a free society. Nothing new about this.
The issue here is about basic facts. Is there a global pandemic in which a novel virus has the potential to kill millions of people at an exponential rate if left unmitigated? Do masks help prevent viral transmission, and thus many unnecessary deaths? If you answer ‘yes’ to those two questions, then it’s overwhelmingly reasonable to wear a mask when, for instance, you go to the grocery store. If you answer ‘no’, then you’re free to speak your mind and support your case via the means that are legally available to you.
Like most things, I think about freedom shades of grayly rather than black and whitely.
We were most free in the 19th century.
We were more free in the 20th century.
Can we restore freedom to 19th or 20th century levels?
With mass civil disobedience, unrest and supporting dissident candidates, we can, but will we?
We shall see.
There is the classic conservative/capitalist frame of mind: the smaller the better. Then the reality: crony capitalism.
There is the classic liberal/socialist frame of mind: the bigger the better. Then the projected reality: it all withers away under Communism.
Now minds do change over time about this distinction. Marx rooted this “scientifically” in his assessment of the organic, historical evolution of the “means of production”. Big governments are not even possible without the surplus labor around to occupy all the positions.
Now, in regard to our own individual reactions to government here at ILP, I suggest that is likely to be rooted in the arguments I make in my signature threads. We are all “thrown” – thrown “adventitiously” – at birth into a particular world. Utterly beyond our control. We are all indoctrinated for years to think this or that about socialism and capitalism. We all have different [sometimes very different] personal experiences, relationships and access to information, knowledge and ideas that shape and mold us into those who favor one political economy over the other.
There does not appear to be either a philosophical or a scientific argument that can take this diversity into account and establish the most rational or the only rational manner in which to think about it.
Right?
The “beginning of philosophy”? Again, given what particular context? Over and again, I note that my main interest in philosophy [and science and religion] revolves around this: how ought one to live?
And, given that, subjectively, existentially, I am an atheist – “here and now” – in a No God world.
Again: you note these accusations about me. Okay, choose an issue and a context that revolves around a discussion that explores our respective views on identity, value judgments and political power. How existentially they become intertwined out in a particular world understood in a particular way. What can we agree is true objectively for both of us and what seems more rooted subjectively in my philosophical assumptions regarding “I” in the is/ought world. And in your philosophical assumptions regarding your own self.
Yes, but the “battles” that unfold between the liberals and the conservative here often do become actual behaviors chosen by flesh and blood men and women “out in the world”. Resulting in “the staggering consequences embedded in conflicting goods down through the ages.”[/b]
We synchronized our watches in order to resume it.
Note to Wendy:
By all means respond to my points above yourself.
Besides, I put this at the end of my “retort” above:
In other words, I was only in a joking frame of mind. Well, mostly.
We have been only partially and/or temporarily free, because freedom is always relative. Now we are not unfree, but almost unfree. So it is again relative, although relatively near to unfreeness.
You already know that your comparisons “limp”? And the measure of freedom is always whether I can do absolutely whatever I want, whenever I want. Otherwise I would not have any basis for the measurement, I could not measure meine Freiheit. And when you are saying: “where one’s liberty infringes on the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others, it is necessarily limited in a free society”, then you are saying what the communist Rosa Luxemburg was saying - meaning her own liberty that should be accepted by the society. Also, why do you affirm the freedom of society, but reject the freedom of the individual? Anyone, who wants to talk about freedom, must begin with the individual, not with the society. And the freedom of the individual is relative (see also: Great Again). But the amount of relativity of social freedom must always be greater than the relativity of individual freedom in this society. Never vice versa. And if it is the other way around, then dictatorship is at work.
Which is more dangerous for you: a society that tries to be as free as possible, or an individual who tries to be as free as possible?
Freedom isn’t free - cliche, but true. Freedom has costs, and specific freedoms are necessarily circumscribed in order to allow competing individuals in a society to get the best balance of freedom among each other. Freedom of speech means that in general one can speak his mind. But should one feel free to shout his mind through a loudspeaker at his neighbor on his neighbor’s property at 3am? Most people agree that there are reasonable limitations. Different countries circumscribe freedoms in different ways and produce different balances/trade-offs for the individual and a net effect for society as a whole that can be better or worse.
