I have to admit that I tend to agree witht he BASIC ideas of John Locke in that we should limit the powers of government -- and that tyrany comes from big government (Adam Smith said the same thing).
That being said, I must admit that one good reason to vote for Bush in the next election is that at least it means less growth of government power -- while a Kerry vote ia assured to give us a much more expanded form of government.
Having lived in Europe I can say that I really hate the Borgish attitude of Nordic peoples towards government power. While they have civil rights those civil rights are what the government gives them (no reference to God being the author of life or liberty) and the basic attitude of the socialists there is that if a civil right is inconvenient, then it can be chipped away at. I see this with liberals in the US who believe in political correctness and wóuld restrict freedom of speech and religion to make us all give each other a big Telituby hug and do what the government says.
In this case I could care less if Bush went after Saddam in order to protect Israel (I believe that was the case for the most part) or to find weapons of mass destruction (we knew Saddam wanted them, Clinton believed he had them, so what?). I will vote for Bush just to keep Kerry's vision of big, liberal government from becoming a reality.
Thank goodness for overseas ballots!
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
However the whole principle of being a liberal means being for civil rights!
And yes... long live overseas ballots!
[ June 09, 2004, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I really ought to point out the negative impact Bush is having on America's economy. Mainly, the devaluing of the American Dollar. There are a host of reasons not to vote for Bush that even a hard-core conservative would find logical.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I find it funny how both the right and left think of each other as dictators and tyrants...and calling each other by their names is supposed to be the biggest insult.
Both seem to think they are all for civil rights and free thinking...
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Wait, so the Patriot Act doesn't represent a growth in government power?
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Perhaps, but the economy is improving -- and Kerry's policies of more regulation and higher taxes would stagnate our economic rebound.
As for civil rights and liberalism. I am somewhat a libertarian on civil rights, but I am firmly against called abortion a civil right.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
You can't really blame Bush for devalueing the dollar. It's actually quite an economic mystery that it took so long. This is where I'd start writing a treatise on investor confidence after the 1998 SE Asian crash, but it's not the thread for that.
quote:That being said, I must admit that one good reason to vote for Bush in the next election is that at least it means less growth of government power
Is this a joke?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Strange, Bush has undertaken a much vaster expansion of government programs than any other President in recent history. I would think you'd prefer a split government with Kerry in the presidency and republicans in congress if you actually wanted to curb government expansion. Why not support a presidential candidate based on past experience rather than wishful thinking about how his behavior will change in the future?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It wasn't until '99 that the number of government employees was equal to what it was (temporarily) in '94. There wasn't a large growth of government employees until Bush took office.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
As for the Patriot Act, if some crazy fundamentalist want to blow up the plane I am riding then I am all for catching him. However, as for telling me how I should educate my kids, or what I can say in church -- that is something the Republicans and conservative Democrats (yes, there are some that are great) are against.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Okay, I'm beginnint to think you're just a troll. Have you seen the NCLB act? Its all about telling people how to educate their kids -- in particular, it makes it remarkably easy for schools to be taken over by the government in the name of "improvement".
As for the PATRIOT act, it hasn't been used to prosecute a single terrorist yet. It has been used to try to obtain records about abortions and to create higher penalties for non-terrorist crimes.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
oh my gosh i feel like sleeping-not-quite-beauty. i have no clue who to vote for.
they really don't make this easy, especially when no one in a red cape is running. *sigh*
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Sorry, if you think I am a troll think again. I love debate and now that I have discovered this site... Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Dang it, how did you figure me out?
I was so totally hoping to make the government make the churches make you listen to something I may just make up.
Oh well, back to the drawingboard.
-Bok
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
(just to add to what's above, most of the highly conservative economic thinktanks have come out against many of Bush's economic policies -- including the tax cuts, because they're not conservative, they're economically irresponsible. Cuts should pretty much always begin in spending. Another favorite target is his overly protectionist trade policy).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think you may be a troll because you're mouthing off these little soundbites that are easily refutable, or at the very least far more complex than what you assert, as if they're fact. You could also be a fairly naive person.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
This is the biggest beef that I have againtst the Republican presidents we've had. They say that they are against big government, but the government grows just as much under the watch of the republicans as the democrats.
At least with the Democrats we don't have to wonder if taxes and government spending will increase.
[ June 09, 2004, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Nah, just too tired at the moment to go really, really into typing mode. I'll take that as a challenge, though.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Given the vast array of educational material available these days, I think we should just make a rule that anyone who uses the word "liberal" to mean left-wing is a troll.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
No, no, no Richard, you have it all wrong. He figured it all out. Crazy "liberals" like me want to do everything he said about us. Since you figured me out, michael, I'll just admit up-front that the reason I am pushing gay marriage so strongly is that I like the expressions good righteous conservatives give when they are around a couple of gay guys holding hands.
It. Never. Gets. OLD.
-Bok
[ June 09, 2004, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I strongly maintain that a split government is the best sort of government (in our two party system).
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
I happen to be a norwegian socialist. Or rather a Social Democrat but some people don't seem to see the difference, and I'm quite amused and a bit offended by michaele8's statements.
I love my country. I love the people here. I happen to think I live in the most democratic country in the world. I'm not sure what you actually mean.
quote: Having lived in Europe I can say that I really hate the Borgish attitude of Nordic peoples towards government power. While they have civil rights those civil rights are what the government gives them (no reference to God being the author of life or liberty) and the basic attitude of the socialists there is that if a civil right is inconvenient, then it can be chipped away at. I see this with liberals in the US who believe in political correctness and wóuld restrict freedom of speech and religion to make us all give each other a big Telituby hug and do what the government says.
Clarify please.
Are you saying that nordic socialists try to restrict freedom of speech? You have got to be kidding. Are you saying that we 'chip away' at whatever civil right we find inconvenient? Don't make me laugh.
"A big Telituby hug and do what the government says"
I think you americans misunderstand. The government doesn't tell us what to do. We tell it what we want done. The government isn't an all-powerful entity out to control us, it's here to serve us and it's time you americans learned that.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
If the two parties have to be the 2004 versions of Republicans and Democrats, then yes I agree. But that's quite a restriction. If we ever came across a party that didn't suck, I'd love nothing better than for them to have a 4-8 year unadulterated white-out festival.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I guess I'm either ignorant or naive. Richard, could you please tell me why it is unacceptable to use the word "liberal"?
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Because liberalism and big-government-itis are polar opposites. The word "liberal" means "plentiful" or "permissive" or "unbound to authority."
Note: this is not the same as the familiar observations e.g. that "conservatives" don't "conserve" the environment. Using the standalone word "liberal" as proper political jargon (i.e. anti-tyrannical) has 4 centuries of history behind it.
[ June 09, 2004, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: Richard Berg ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Government is only as evil or as good as the people who make and enforce the laws. Admittedly, with a Dubya/Frisk/Hastert/Scalia-controlled government, things are looking pretty damned favorable for the forces of evil, which apparently you side yourself with.
Last time I checked, God allows people to be as good or as evil as they please. So any rights are pretty much what man decrees.
I'd also suggest that you check the USConstitution for a reference in which our rights are attributed to God. There aren't any. Deliberately.
[ June 09, 2004, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
St Yogi, while I don't support Michele's rather extreme attitudes, I think it's easy to see how individuals in government can use the powers we've given them to worm their way out of our control, and the more power the easier.
There is an ironic sense, as well as the proper one, in which "whoever would be great among you, let him be servant of all", can be read. Aside from actual physical constraint, the greater the service, the greater the measure of control the servant gains. (The later Foundation novels are a good metaphor for this effect.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: the forces of evil, which apparently you side yourself with.
Come now, that's just plain mean.
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
Heh, I think we have a very different form of government. I don't think there is any one person in government with enough power to wiggle out of our control.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:However the whole principle of being a liberal means being for civil rights!
No - it means being for a particular set of civil rights, while conservatives are for a different (but overlapping set) of civil rights.
Read up on right to contract sometime to see what I'm getting at.
Dagonee
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
St Yogi states,
"Are you saying that nordic socialists try to restrict freedom of speech? You have got to be kidding. Are you saying that we 'chip away' at whatever civil right we find inconvenient? Don't make me laugh.
"A big Telituby hug and do what the government says"
I think you americans misunderstand. The government doesn't tell us what to do. We tell it what we want done. The government isn't an all-powerful entity out to control us, it's here to serve us and it's time you americans learned that. "
Lets see, in Sweden and Norway it is technically illegal for one to say that homosexuality is wrong or immoral -- even in a church setting.
In Sweden it is seen as socially a good idea to try to eliminate any gender roles starting in day care -- which is practically manditory socially and economically as taxes are so high women really don't have the choice to stay at home with their kids or not.
In America you can say that immigration from Mexico should be curtailed -- that would be illegal in Sweden. It is illegal for a political party that wants to stop immigration from advertising or putting up billboards.
I could go on...
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Mabus states,
"St Yogi, while I don't support Michele's rather extreme attitudes..."
Was John Locke or Adam Smith extremists?
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
quote: Lets see, in Sweden and Norway it is technically illegal for one to say that homosexuality is wrong or immoral -- even in a church setting.
Are you kidding? It's not 'technically illegal'. I can say that homosexuality is wrong or immoral as much as I want. People won't much like me but I won't get arrested or anything.
Please go on. Tell me how little freedom I have.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You might want to reread Smith and Locke, you appear to have missed some of the subtler nuances. You have read their works, I presume, and aren't just assuming they agree with you?
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Som du vill,
St. Yogi, it is illegal to condemn homosexuality in Norway and Sweden. In Sweden, for instance, homosexuality is listed now as one of the protected classes. You can be fined or jailed for condemning homosexuality. It is illegal as of January 1st. of 2004. I have heard the same is true in Norway.
Vi ses!
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
fugu13, As for Smith --
Wealth of Nations -- the three legitimate functions of government are:
1) Military (protecting the populace from without).
2) Police (protecting the populace from within).
3) Creation of an infrastructure capable of facilitating economic growth.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Step 3) is essentially a loophole a mile wide!
I'm sure Smith (who I have only read analyses of) goes into more detail, but you can justify almost anything the government does as facilitating economic growth.
-Bok
EDIT I would also like you to prove your claim that rights and freedom flow from a Godhead in such a way as to be convincing to people with various religions or lackings thereof. I actually agree that rights and freedoms are purely creations of society, and that they are contingent on that society's continued blessing. Maybe people OUGHT to have certain inalienable freedoms and rights, but the society is the final arbiter on these points (on this plane of existence).
[ June 10, 2004, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
For that matter, Step 1 and Step 2 can be interpreted pretty broadly, too, depending on how much people need to be "protected." Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I will also add that the PATRIOT act provides much more far-reaching powers to government than simply making it easier to stop a terrorist.
-Bok
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Canada has hate crime laws protecting homosexuality. Which, I suppose, means they're a protected class here as well. And yet, I still haven't seen anyone hauled away for speaking out against that lifestyle.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
"The third and last duty of the sovereign or commonwealth is that of erecting and maintaining those publick works, which, though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature, that the profit could never repay the expence to any individual or small number of individuals, and which it, therefore, cannot be expected that any individual or small number of individuals should erect or maintain”
Adam Smith, the Wealth of Nations. He included a number of things in this, including certain forms of schooling. Smith was for the freedom of private enterprise, but also for the intervention of the government in those areas in which enterprise was, for the reason he mentions above, inefficient.
I repeat more overtly, have you read Smith?
edit: I might point out that the duty you assert is actually a bastardization of this actual quote, which says something rather different.
[ June 10, 2004, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Richard Berg...just want to say I agree with you. Cheers.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote: However the whole principle of being a liberal means being for civil rights! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No - it means being for a particular set of civil rights, while conservatives are for a different (but overlapping set) of civil rights.
Just wanted to jump in here for one purpose only. Dag's response here (the second remark) is a classic example of why I really appreciate his posts.
In this particular case, this difference becomes oversimplified (on both sides) in the "liberal vs. conservative" debate(s).
I appreciate this whether he's agreeing or disagreeing with me in a given situation.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
quote:There are three orders in society - those who live by rent, by labour and by profits. Employers constitute the third order. . . The proposal of any new law by or regulation which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with the greatest precaution and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public. . .
Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit but constant and uniform combination not to raise the wages of workers. . . . Masters. . .sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the level of wages. . . These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy. . .
Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality, instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all. . .
Perfect liberty can never happen if government heeds or is entrusted to the mean rapacity, the monopolizing spirit of merchants and manufacturers who neither are, nor ought to be the rulers of mankind.
Quick quiz, who wrote that?
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
I think you're looking at the wrong place to criticize. France and Germany have some pretty strict anti-defamation laws, as well as various anti-Nazi artifacts in the speech code, but the Nordic countries are pretty, well, liberal in this regard Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Richard, I want to say Marx or Engels, but I'm guessing you'll say Smith?
EDIT: Hmmm, Jefferson comes to mind as well.
-Bok
[ June 10, 2004, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Richard, as you well kow Smith opposed merchentilistic government. He also opposed guilds and laws that were supported by large money interests who also have the attention of their cronies in governmnet. He supported free enterprise, not the kind of system that government and big industry are married together.
For modern day examples one could look at environmental regulations that are often supported by large multi-nationals knowing the true losers are small firms that can't afford to meet certain goals.
If anything, Smith and Locke were more in line with patriots like Teddy Roosevelt, not Teddy Kennedy.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Richard, you are right in one sense, France does not have freedom of speech:
But Sweden has more restrictions (for the good of the collective, of course) than America.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And yet, Teddy Roosevelt, Smith, and Locke would still not agree with you.
(and Roosevelt wouldn't agree all that much with Smith, either, but that's a detail).
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Yes, it is very true that Europe as a whole doesn't value free speech the way we do. But an overall analysis of BoR-type freedoms doesn't generalize. Many Euro states have stricter gun control than the U.S., yet many are far more liberal than Texas. Their protections against search & seizure, on the whole, go beyond what we espouse (especially in practice). Ditto cruel & unusual punishment, if you don't count Jerry Lewis.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
fugu13 states,
"And yet, Teddy Roosevelt, Smith, and Locke would still not agree with you."
Where would I and Teddy disagree? Examples?
And I stand by the fact that Smith and Locke had a strong distrust of centralized government.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
quote: one could look at environmental regulations that are often supported by large multi-nationals knowing the true losers are small firms that can't afford to meet certain goals
um, could you provide at least a little evidence for claims like this...
quote: Smith and Locke were more in line with patriots like Teddy Roosevelt, not Teddy Kennedy
who said anything about kennedy?
quote: France does not have freedom of speech
actually, in the sense that you're referring to american's don't have freedom of speech either, the difference is in how specific the injurious effects of one's speech is.
quote: But Sweden has more restrictions (for the good of the collective, of course)
first, if you really enjoy arguing so much, you should at least attempt to act like you respect the opinions of those you're arguing against. snipey little comments about 'the collective' do little to further your argument. second, you keep making statements with no factual backing, despite being contradicted by people with firsthand knowledge of what you're talking about.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Mmmm... Love your country, fear your government...
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: actually, in the sense that you're referring to american's don't have freedom of speech either, the difference is in how specific the injurious effects of one's speech is.
um, could you provide at least a little evidence for claims like this...
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Kerinin, Vad vet du om Svensk lag?
"Swedish lawmakers have given initial approval to a law that could have a chilling effect on preaching against active homosexuality. Voting in May, Sweden's parliament, the Riksdag, passed on first reading a bill criminalizing "hate speech" against homosexuals. A final reading will occur this fall.
While targeting Nazi and racist hate campaigns, the bill also addresses "church sermons," causing conservative Christians in Europe to sound the alarm.
"The bill clearly violates the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights," said Johan Candelin, president of the Religious Liberties Commission of the World Evangelical Alliance and a Finnish Lutheran pastor. "If the bill passes, it will place Sweden on level with China, with the state defining which theology is permissible."
Göran Lambertz, the Swedish chancellor of justice, declared in a formal note to the Riksdag that a church sermon describing homosexual practice as sinful "might" constitute a criminal offense under the law. Anyone convicted would face up to two years in prison. The chancellor of justice monitors basic civil rights in Sweden."
quote:Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent. The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.
also, we have laws against libel and slander
edit: link
[ June 10, 2004, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: kerinin ]
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
so does that mean that sweden too is prosecuting hate speech, or that a bill is in the process of being debated? i can't tell.
here's something that none of the governments in europe have the power to do, but which we are burdened with as americans - kill us. We are the only developed nation (assuming you don't call china developed) that still allows it. that feels like a pretty big infringement on my rights, unless of course you trust the government enough to never wrongly convict someone of murder...
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
also, regarding europe and hate speech... europeans have a much more vivid memory of WWII than we americans (IMHO); they incurred more damage and are living among the reminders of the conflict. it was precisely the hate-mongering that is being outlawed which allowed the NAZI's to take power, and i can't blame those countries for attempting to keep something like that from happening again. do you really see a concrete difference between castigating jews for being jewish and castigating gays for being homosexual?
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
I am not planning on murdering anyone so I do not fear getting executed. I might be politically incorrect at times so that is actually something I would think would be a dangerous law -- a law making it a crime to say something. Sweden has this law, we can wait to see how far they take it. I would think it interesting to see what would happen if they arrested a mullah at any one of the local mosques for saying something against homosexuality.
Oh, and Japan also has the death penalty. I am not sure how I would categorize China, but I did feel totally safe from Crime walking in Beijing -- even late at night.
[ June 10, 2004, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: michaele8 ]
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
heh...
jag icke gör det , utom lasten av bevis sitter i du
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
you're right about japan, my bad.
quote:I might be politically incorrect at times so that is actually something I would think would be a dangerous law
so your position is that the only "rights" which should be written into law are the ones that apply immediatly to you? as long as the holocaust is on my mind, isn't there a story about how after turning a blind eye to everyone else's opression the protagonist had nobody to turn to when they came for him?
quote:I did feel totally safe from Crime walking in Beijing
somehow i don't think that we should start looking towards totalitarian, communist regimes for pointers on how to make a safer(certainly not more free) society.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
"jag icke gör det , utom lasten av bevis sitter i du"
I hope I have supplied enough evidence to prove my point. I will respond with more later. Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Oh, and Kerinin,
"so your position is that the only "rights" which should be written into law are the ones that apply immediatly to you? as long as the holocaust is on my mind, isn't there a story about how after turning a blind eye to everyone else's opression the protagonist had nobody to turn to when they came for him?"
Murderers deserve no rights at all. I'll discuss the death penalty in a later thread. However, government has no business telling people they have to be polite or risk jailtime. I may not like anti-Mormons, but they have the right to say what they wish.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:I am not planning on murdering anyone so I do not fear getting executed.
Hold onto that thought. It was probably a comforting thought to the 18 people on death row here in Illinois before they ended up wrongly convicted of murder.
But most were poor and nonwhite. If you're white and not poor, maybe it's realistic not to fear. Something easy to live with as long as you don't care about what happens to people who don't happen to be like you.
[ June 10, 2004, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:kerinin said: here's something that none of the governments in europe have the power to do, but which we are burdened with as americans - kill us.
Nope. They can’t kill people as punishment for a crime, but you can bet the government still has the right to kill its citizens in certain situations.
quote: do you really see a concrete difference between castigating jews for being jewish and castigating gays for being homosexual?
But saying a particular action is sinful should never be something a government should be able to imprison you for. I’ve attempted to have this discussion before, but there’s a huge difference between saying “Group X is bad” and saying “Action X is sinful.”
Dagonee
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Am I the only one who's losing faith on michaele8?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You may be the only one who ever had it.
Edit: P.S., Icarus, you saw my apology in the landmark thread, didn't you?
[ June 10, 2004, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
*notes that Dag beat me to the keyboard on Ic's question*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*snort*
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
::smacks forehead::
I knew there was something on my "Hatrack Loose Ends list." I'll go reply now. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:*notes that Dag beat me to the keyboard on Ic's question*
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
quote:there’s a huge difference between saying “Group X is bad” and saying “Action X is sinful.”
i get the feeling this has been argued to death recently so i won't get into it except to point out that while the enlightened individuals on this forum might be more than capable of making this distinction, i have found that maintaining the seperation between the fact that what someone is doing is wrong and repugnant and that who someone is is morally wrong and repugnant is often rather difficult. homosexuals aren't beaten to death by people who make this distinction, and i would argue that the majority of people who would be incriminated under the law we were discussion likewise would not be all too interested in the distinction between the two.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:homosexuals aren't beaten to death by people who make this distinction
Of course not.
quote:i would argue that the majority of people who would be incriminated under the law we were discussion likewise would not be all too interested in the distinction between the two.
And most of the people who would be incriminated by the law would argue that they are interested in the discussion. Do we really want to be in a position where the government has say over what people profess to be moral and immoral?
Dagonee
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
If anyone is going to bitch about government, business alliances i have three words:
Military Industrial Complex.
And while everyone in the government is guilty of these sorts of things. the Bush DoD, is conspicuously intertwined in this mechanism (hello Kellog Brown and Root?).
At least the swedes aren't handing their tax payer funds to companies which are economically raping the populace.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
and, it seems, literally raping the populaces of other countries...
dag - i'm not saying that we should likewise adopt these laws. i guess what i was trying to get at is that in the case of "rights" such as the freedom of speech, a society must choose how much tolerance is going to be given to those whose speech has the possibility of inciting unlawfulness or injury. Europe, having witnessed firsthand the disastrous effects of this type of hate-mongering is understandably of the opinion that the dangers are significant enough to warrant giving up a certain degree of liberty.
We americans are pretty convinced (and with good reason it would seem) that our system of government and social order can withstand an almost infinite degree of expression, if we had just recently recovered from what germany underwent, we might not be as confident...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
One might argue that it is the continued acceptance of the idea that supressing unacceptable speech contributes to the vulnerability of a society to hate speech's influence. This is an intuition - I can give reasons why this might be so, but it would be conjecture.
Dagonee
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
Chomsky had some interesting opinions regarding mechanisms of control. his position was that "free" societies are no less controlling of their populations than totalitarian societies; in a free society political discourse is allowed and encouraged, however the "power structure" establishes conceptual limits outside of which the political discourse will not wander because the society would see such discussions as immoral or impractical. Totalitarian regimes he argue allow freedom of thought, and regulate only public expression.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I never bought that, although I've only seen others' summaries of Chomsky's theories on it. The man instantly bugs me.
But the problemt is I'm skeptical of the idea of imposed conceptual limits. The problem is, I think to impose them requires that you not have those conceptual limits - otherwise you wouldn't have the slightly broader view necessary to set the limits. Someone in the "power structure" with less constrictive conceptual limits would likely tend to make use of his broader limits, since they would help his rise in the power structure. So the elite would tear down their imposed conceptual limits almost by default.
Now, everybody has some conceptual limits, and they tend to self-reinforce in society. But the only way I've heard of to expand them is to talk about them, so free speech is anathema to the idea of imposed conceptual limits.
Dagonee P.S., One of the reasons I hate talking about Chomsky is that any short refutation of him has to use his terminology, which is wonderfully loaded towards his own ends. He is a linguist, after all.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Chomski has a few good insights but overall he pins himself so far left that his message is not influential or meaningful to the greater population. The best article he ever wrote in my opinion was his attack on behaviorism and his pointing out the dangers involved in Skinnerian views of human nature. I'd recommend that anyday.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
well at least we all agree on chomsky...
while i find his conclusions a bit overdone, i do see what he's getting at. the fact that refuting him is difficult because his terminology is loaded towards his own ends is in effect a support of his ideas in this instance: by determining (through control of the educational system for instance) the specific explanations and terminology which a culture uses, it makes certain ways of life seem more normal and acceptable.
my favorite part about chomsky is his ideas about the limits of human conception, or the idea that because we understand in a pre-determined fashion there are certain "ideas" which we cannot understand, or which are alien to our conceptual process. I really liked how he described science as a convenient coincidence; that we were able to easily understand the world in such a way that we could manipulate it as we have. an unusual perspective...
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)