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="curiousbrain" data-source="post: 832025" data-attributes="member: 31608"><p>I would argue both; its a natural inequality because few things are distributed evenly around the world, and its an interventionist inequality because of what a natural inequality implies.</p><p></p><p>When "equality" was used in the context of the original post and its subsequent explanations, I meant it in the sense of what Western nations mean when they proclaim that they strive for equality.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>In a narrow context, I agree; in the wider sense of a world view, though, it seems a bit trickier. No individual citizen of any country should be required to give up their own freedoms so that others may enjoy them; but in a realpolitik world, it is almost necessary that some countries enjoy less freedoms because of the natural imbalances - be it populations, resources, technology, or otherwise.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree; that opens up a very subjective can of worms though, when you allow the possibility of applying the principles of the DoI (or other principled document) as "others see fit." At some point, in some land, I'm sure spreading freedom at the barrel of a gun not only made sense, but seemed the only possibility.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Agreed. I also think it's easier to maintain a double standard of principles at home and abroad, as most people are not willing to apply the same standards to themselves as they do to others.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree; freedom and liberty are doppelgangers of individual desires. It is another quandary of democracies that the definition of freedom and liberty are malleable and change from time to time; proof of this can be seen in how it has changed over the life of this country or any other relatively "old" democracy.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I share the frustration with a (what I perceive to be anyway) lack of reflection on the part of many citizens. That being said, part of the initial argument I tried to make was that if the people recognized that part of the reason they had the quality of life that they do is because of these "despicable" actions by the government, they might wholeheartedly support them out of pure self-interest.</p><p></p><p>You had mentioned transparency in an earlier discussion at some point: is it inconceivable that total transparency would not motivate the population to act much in the same way they do now - supporting foreign wars for resources is one example - except that they would support them out of self-interest instead of political delusion?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="curiousbrain, post: 832025, member: 31608"] I would argue both; its a natural inequality because few things are distributed evenly around the world, and its an interventionist inequality because of what a natural inequality implies. When "equality" was used in the context of the original post and its subsequent explanations, I meant it in the sense of what Western nations mean when they proclaim that they strive for equality. In a narrow context, I agree; in the wider sense of a world view, though, it seems a bit trickier. No individual citizen of any country should be required to give up their own freedoms so that others may enjoy them; but in a realpolitik world, it is almost necessary that some countries enjoy less freedoms because of the natural imbalances - be it populations, resources, technology, or otherwise. I agree; that opens up a very subjective can of worms though, when you allow the possibility of applying the principles of the DoI (or other principled document) as "others see fit." At some point, in some land, I'm sure spreading freedom at the barrel of a gun not only made sense, but seemed the only possibility. Agreed. I also think it's easier to maintain a double standard of principles at home and abroad, as most people are not willing to apply the same standards to themselves as they do to others. I agree; freedom and liberty are doppelgangers of individual desires. It is another quandary of democracies that the definition of freedom and liberty are malleable and change from time to time; proof of this can be seen in how it has changed over the life of this country or any other relatively "old" democracy. I share the frustration with a (what I perceive to be anyway) lack of reflection on the part of many citizens. That being said, part of the initial argument I tried to make was that if the people recognized that part of the reason they had the quality of life that they do is because of these "despicable" actions by the government, they might wholeheartedly support them out of pure self-interest. You had mentioned transparency in an earlier discussion at some point: is it inconceivable that total transparency would not motivate the population to act much in the same way they do now - supporting foreign wars for resources is one example - except that they would support them out of self-interest instead of political delusion? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
The Conundrum of Any Free People
Top