17 May 05
Which of these statements do you agree with more (or at least disagree with less)?
"The fundamental aim for a society should be freedom for its people, in the sense of freedom for individuals to achieve their personal desires. The coercive means by which the state operates are sometimes OK, but only as far as they are needed to ensure greater freedom."
"The fundamental aim for a society should be order, ie one in which people follow the generally agreed rules of what is good and what is bad. Sometimes we have to let people make up their own minds, as forcing them to conform to the moral code could backfire, but in general, if the state can make people behave in a more moral fashion, it should."
As these are mainly statements about ends rather than means, there's not a lot of point in actually debating them. Those who favour the first, go through the left gate. Those who favour the second, go through the right. This will be a useful reference for future debates, which for too long have been full of people arguing across the divide, and failing to understand that their posts have no impact because they are framed in the wrong concepts.
<Acoltye steps through the left gate>
17 May 05
Originally posted by Acolyte<Mayharm petitions the government to brick up the right gate so that people will go through the ri...er..."good" gate>
Which of these statements do you agree with more (or at least disagree with less)?
"The fundamental aim for a society should be freedom for its people, in the sense of freedom for individuals to achieve their personal desires. The coercive means by which the state operates are sometimes OK, but only as far as they are needed to ensure greater freedom." ...[text shortened]... o impact because they are framed in the wrong concepts.
<Acoltye steps through the left gate>
MÅ¥HÅRM
17 May 05
Originally posted by AcolyteWhat is this "society?" Is there only one, or one ideal society? Is a society a government? Are there sub-societies?
Which of these statements do you agree with more (or at least disagree with less)?
"The fundamental aim for a society should be freedom for its people, in the sense of freedom for individuals to achieve their personal desires. The coercive means by which the state operates are sometimes OK, but only as far as they are needed to ensure greater freedom." ...[text shortened]... o impact because they are framed in the wrong concepts.
<Acoltye steps through the left gate>
I can agree with either statement without knowing what you mean by society and it's relationship to government and culture. As a conservative I want a limited government the does not interfere with my religion and freedoms - with the main goal of protecting my rights and does not demand more than needed to maximize freedoms of all people.
I find liberals would impose their views on others by encouraging a large government that pushes a humanistic world view onto me and my children - that is intolerant to some - and wants to limit freedom of speech and religion and association of those that do not conform to their ideas of a better society. Keep your village to yourself.
17 May 05
Originally posted by royalchickenMy hat is off to you. Well said. Just ignore my previous post - RC has made the point much better than I.
*RC goes through the left gate, noting that 'left' has been used in a slightly unconventional sense; a socialist, for example, would walk through the right gate.*
17 May 05
Originally posted by Coletti'Liberals' were not mentioned in Acolyte's post. 'Left' was defined by the first statement, and 'right' by the second. Thus the 'liberals' you mention would be right-gaters, by the definition given.
What is this "society?" Is there only one, or one ideal society? Is a society a government? Are there sub-societies?
I can agree with either statement without knowing what you mean by society and it's relationship to government and culture. As a conservative I want a limited government the does not interfere with my religion and freedoms - with the ...[text shortened]... f those that do not conform to their ideas of a better society. Keep your village to yourself.
17 May 05
Originally posted by royalchickenI tend to associate left and liberal and right and conservative. I guess it should be libertarian and authoritarian.
'Liberals' were not mentioned in Acolyte's post. 'Left' was defined by the first statement, and 'right' by the second. Thus the 'liberals' you mention would be right-gaters, by the definition given.
And libertarians can have all sorts of conservative or liberal views.
17 May 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeI doubt it. If the world were full of uncompromisingly free people like the fellow depicted in my avatar, I suspect it would be nearly devoid of greed, crime, poverty and chaos.
Does your little investigation implies the following: "The more order the less freedom and the less freedom the more order" ?
17 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiSociety is a deliberately vague word. It refers to whatever society you consider most important; so if you think that the primary unit of human interaction is the chess club, and interaction between members of different chess clubs is insignificant compared to interaction within chess clubs, then society is a chess club.
What is this "society?" Is there only one, or one ideal society? Is a society a government? Are there sub-societies?
I can agree with either statement without knowing what you mean by society and it's relationship to government and ...[text shortened]... their ideas of a better society. Keep your village to yourself.
'State' was perhaps a bad choice - it refers to an entity which has authority over the society, eg the President of the chess club.
Sounds like you're a left-gater when it comes to government, though I would point out that governments can change people's behaviour without imposing specific taxes or benefits. But what about churches, or parents? When is it right to pressure someone over whom you have authority to do good things, even if it reduces their freedom or that of others?
17 May 05
Originally posted by AcolyteIn order to have a pure and honest discussion we could replace the term "pressure" by "stimulate".
Society is a deliberately vague word. It refers to whatever society you consider most important; so if you think that the primary unit of human interaction is the chess club, and interaction between members of different chess clubs is insignificant compared to interaction within chess clubs, then society is a chess club.
'State' was perhaps a bad choic ...[text shortened]... r whom you have authority to do good things, even if it reduces their freedom or that of others?
"When is it right to stimulate someone over whom you have authority to do good things, even if it reduces their freedom or that of others?"
Lets assume the answer is "always".
Let's refrase the question as follows:
"When is it right to stimulate someone over whom you have authority to do bad things, even if it increases their freedom or that of others ?
Let's assume the answer is "never".
Do you agree ?