Originally posted by TeinosukePerhaps Lawrence felt that individuals need the support of others and that freedom does not meant total independence from others. The US conservative view that individuals achieve success independent from government and other individuals is really false. You cannot acquier wealth without people who will purchase your goods and services. Your wealth is useless unless others produce goods and services you wish to purchase. Therefore we are all dependent on one another for success, not to mention happiness.
But I don't think that Lawrence was interested in "the balance between liberty and security". If anything, he's saying that freedom is illusory; if we think we free, we're wrong. If you pull a tree out of the soil, it dies. Lawrence isn't making a political statement, so much as saying that the human condition is unfree. Of course, this might have certain possible political implications, but probably not the ones that Ben Franklin was thinking about.
Originally posted by karnachzThink about which countries have the highest standard of living. By most objective standards/measurements it is the Scandinavian, northern European countries, not places with limited government intervention such as Somalia. They have high taxes, high services, longevity, great health care, vacation time, parental leave.... What really hinders the US is the amount we spend on our military. Sweden has no military and so can spend it all on its people and foreign aid. Perhaps we need other democracies to step up and take on a greater share of the burden of keeping the world safe from crazies. I'm a liberal and love peace but the fact is, unless we can get powerful despots to drink the Koolaid and sing Kumbiah, a military is needed.
Freedom is very much a good thing. My case rests on the fact that progressive taxation places very, very little imposition on the personal freedoms of the rich, and their ability to live a rich lifestyle. The rich lived just fine in the 1950s, with a top marginal tax rate of 90% and 91% (I forget which way around it was) for the rich and corporations. For a ...[text shortened]... to instead challenge Reagan's deceitful propaganda that freedom depends on fiscal conservatism.
Originally posted by Phranny"conservative view that individuals achieve success independent from government and other individuals is really false."
Perhaps Lawrence felt that individuals need the support of others and that freedom does not meant total independence from others. The US conservative view that individuals achieve success independent from government and other individuals is really false. You cannot acquier wealth without people who will purchase your goods and services. Your wealth is use ...[text shortened]... purchase. Therefore we are all dependent on one another for success, not to mention happiness.
Take this out and your analysis is flawless. Buyer and seller depend on each other. This can take place without most of the interference and favoritism that government injects.
It isn't argued, by most conservatives and libertarians that government is unnecessary, but that too much of it is toxic.
Originally posted by WajomaForcing libertarianism or "user pays" on unwilling citizens is semi-voluntary, as well. In any country of over a million people, lack of 100% consent by everyone is inevitable.
Says freedom is a good thing.
Doesn't know what freedom means.
Thinks forcing your ideals on unwilling citizens is freedom, oh dear.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWomen like sex in general (a great deal), but whether a woman enjoys sex with her spouse in particular, is another matter entirely. A woman normally finds most men to be unattractive. Women initiate divorce more often than men, in both different-sex and same-sex marriages (lesbians get divorced more often than gay men, it seems), and this likely reflects the fact that women are much more selective than men with respect to sexual partners. A woman's sexual attraction to her spouse can vary depending on how the marriage goes emotionally speaking, whereas a man doesn't usually feel less attracted to his wife as long as her physical appearance doesn't change markedly. Men are evolved to find most women to be sexually attractive, whereas the same isn't true for women. This is because men are evolved to give priority to having a lot of different partners, whereas women are evolved to give priority to quality control.
Wives like sex too...
That's my theory, anyway. Any revisions are welcome.
The post that was quoted here has been removedThat's at least partly about physical strength differences. Most women are not able to rape a physically healthy adult man through direct brute force; they'd need to spike the victim's drink, or ambush him with a surprise attack or with a weapon. In other words, a typical woman can't casually hold her husband's wrists down and rape him, due to the physical strength difference not being in her favor.
Likewise, physical strength differences are no doubt at least -part- of the reason that most perpetrators of serious domestic violence are men. Women are under-represented in all crimes, though more markedly so for crimes involving physical confrontation.
1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removedThe emotional and sexual benefits of marriage can't be reduced into economic terms, and nor can a mother's precious bond with her child. Housekeeping, cooking and shopping are all tasks which could potentially be delegated impersonally to a paid worker. Personally, if I was in a -good- marriage with a spouse I felt attracted to AND felt emotional intimacy and trust with -- and, admittedly, it's hard for a woman to find all that -- then I -wouldn't- view sex as something I "give" to a man; rather, I'd view it as something we both benefit from equally. However, once a man starts treating me badly and getting greedy, I'd very quickly lose respect and attraction towards him, at which point sex would become more of a chore that he'd get more out of than I would.