Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
The Conundrum of Any Free People
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 830318" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>Agreed!</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>This gets into the deeper question IMO is this inequality a fact of nature and naturally occuring events or is this a result of interventions that distort the situation. Someone in another post (sorry I forgot who it was) mentioned defining equality and it's context and this is a valid point. In the natural state, we are all different, Brett's point being valid in this case and there is no true equality in that sense. This changes however when interventions from 3rd parties take place and they dissort the effects of naturally occuring inequalities.</p><p> </p><p>Just to cut to the chase whether the politics or economics is on the right or left, the deeper question should be does it require gov't to disadvantage someone else in order for you/me to achieve your/my end result? If so, first off IMO it's socialism of the worse kind or using the collective nature of the state for your benefit and it's authoritarian and no difference IMO of the slave master who enslaves another human being for his own benefit. </p><p> </p><p>The Declaration of Independence was a statement about mankind in the broadest of contexts however accepting the failures of the writers of said document to live up to it's prinicples. Regardless, the right of every human to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or in Locke's words, property were never meant to stop at an imaginary line we call a border nor was it meant to exclude other races or cultures. At the same time, the intent was beyond ourselves, accepting these ideals and principles were purely a voluntary action and one others would have to apply to their own world in how they saw fit. At the point of a gun was not how freedom and liberty was meant to spread IMO. </p><p> </p><p>If there exists a natural right (and I believe that to be so) then going abroad to violate those ideals is the height of hypocracy but then what does it also say about what we've done within our own borders over the last 200 plus years in supposed mission towards those ends?</p><p> </p><p>Freedom and liberty is often said an illusion and there is some truth in this POV but if one sacrifices his freedom and liberty in a purely voluntary arrangement and he is free to change or modify at any time without having to disadvantage him/herself, then I would think that is about the best one can do. But just as freedom and liberty are in a manner an illusion, so to is power and authority. We all are like Winston, straped to a chair and a cage of rats hanging on our face while Big Brother asks us, does 2+2=5? It is only under these conditions that the illusion of authority and power ever exist in the first place. Remove the coersion (the gun in the room) and you have no means of power or authority to compell the answers you want to hear nor is Winston now compelled to act against his own best interest.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>They are happy with Bob because regardless of election cycle, isn't "A Bob" always re-elected? Different face, different party but it's still always just Bob again. Did it ever dawn on anyone to look closely in the past where Bob's forces helped overturn a "so-called" tyrant and evil person (ironically always in places with resources)? Yet the so-called new democratic and equality ruler (our man) built on the principles of freedom and liberty ideals we extoll so often end up having the bloodiest hands and then we have to take them out only to repeat the cycle all over again?</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>You too as I enjoy the discussion outside the box!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 830318, member: 2189"] Agreed! This gets into the deeper question IMO is this inequality a fact of nature and naturally occuring events or is this a result of interventions that distort the situation. Someone in another post (sorry I forgot who it was) mentioned defining equality and it's context and this is a valid point. In the natural state, we are all different, Brett's point being valid in this case and there is no true equality in that sense. This changes however when interventions from 3rd parties take place and they dissort the effects of naturally occuring inequalities. Just to cut to the chase whether the politics or economics is on the right or left, the deeper question should be does it require gov't to disadvantage someone else in order for you/me to achieve your/my end result? If so, first off IMO it's socialism of the worse kind or using the collective nature of the state for your benefit and it's authoritarian and no difference IMO of the slave master who enslaves another human being for his own benefit. The Declaration of Independence was a statement about mankind in the broadest of contexts however accepting the failures of the writers of said document to live up to it's prinicples. Regardless, the right of every human to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or in Locke's words, property were never meant to stop at an imaginary line we call a border nor was it meant to exclude other races or cultures. At the same time, the intent was beyond ourselves, accepting these ideals and principles were purely a voluntary action and one others would have to apply to their own world in how they saw fit. At the point of a gun was not how freedom and liberty was meant to spread IMO. If there exists a natural right (and I believe that to be so) then going abroad to violate those ideals is the height of hypocracy but then what does it also say about what we've done within our own borders over the last 200 plus years in supposed mission towards those ends? Freedom and liberty is often said an illusion and there is some truth in this POV but if one sacrifices his freedom and liberty in a purely voluntary arrangement and he is free to change or modify at any time without having to disadvantage him/herself, then I would think that is about the best one can do. But just as freedom and liberty are in a manner an illusion, so to is power and authority. We all are like Winston, straped to a chair and a cage of rats hanging on our face while Big Brother asks us, does 2+2=5? It is only under these conditions that the illusion of authority and power ever exist in the first place. Remove the coersion (the gun in the room) and you have no means of power or authority to compell the answers you want to hear nor is Winston now compelled to act against his own best interest. They are happy with Bob because regardless of election cycle, isn't "A Bob" always re-elected? Different face, different party but it's still always just Bob again. Did it ever dawn on anyone to look closely in the past where Bob's forces helped overturn a "so-called" tyrant and evil person (ironically always in places with resources)? Yet the so-called new democratic and equality ruler (our man) built on the principles of freedom and liberty ideals we extoll so often end up having the bloodiest hands and then we have to take them out only to repeat the cycle all over again? You too as I enjoy the discussion outside the box! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
The Conundrum of Any Free People
Top