User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 94

  1. #21
    Liberator Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    19,995

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Their position leaves a number of obvious questions that they seldom manage to answer convincingly. (1) Why should the individual’s personal well-being be the responsibility of the state rather than their own? After all, it is the responsibility of clinical psychologists to help their clients develop healthier emotional dispositions with the purpose of empowering them to solve their own problems. This implies that it is entirely possible for people to overcome micro-aggressions and other personal sleights simply by achieving a higher level of mental health.
    I do not have time to address the OP in its entirety right now. I will, however, take issue with the highlighted question that underpins much of the argument. The individual's personal well-being is at least partially the responsibility of the state for two reasons.

    (1) Only the state has the means to oppose successfully many of the forces which stand to harm individuals. This covers everything from criminals to public health emergencies to invasions to explotive employers and unscrupulous vendors. Sure, an individual can attempt to take on these forces, but the odds are worse than David vs. Goliath. Individuals rely on government, through the rule of law, to protect them from the worst impulses of their neighbors, and from disasters, whether natural or man-made.

    (2) Membership in a society brings with it both rights and responsibilities. Individuals are better able to discharge their responsibilties when their personal needs are met. An obvious example is the fact that a majority of young Americans are ineligible for military service due to obesity, inadequate education, or having a criminal record. Some people like to point to all of these as personal failings borne of individual choice, and there are certainly elements of individual choice involved. But when individual choice and external constraints combine to impact our fundamental ability to maintain a strong national defense, it becomes a societal problem that it behooves the state to address.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  2. #22
    Senior Member Lark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    23,910

    Default

    The PC left is a soft target to be honest, largely a straw man too, and Charles Murray?

    Did you hit your head SW?

    Wait, wait, wait, is this even SW or is it an account hijack? The whole cutting up posts and responding line by line, is that SW's style? I know I cant be bothered with that.
    All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
    Chapter IV, p. 448. - Adam Smith, Book 3, The Wealth of Nations

    whether or not you credit psychoanalysis itself, the fact remains that we all must, to the greatest extent possible, understand one another's minds as our own; the very survival of humanity has always depended on it. - Open Culture

  3. #23
    Senior Member Lark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    23,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I do not have time to address the OP in its entirety right now. I will, however, take issue with the highlighted question that underpins much of the argument. The individual's personal well-being is at least partially the responsibility of the state for two reasons.

    (1) Only the state has the means to oppose successfully many of the forces which stand to harm individuals. This covers everything from criminals to public health emergencies to invasions to explotive employers and unscrupulous vendors. Sure, an individual can attempt to take on these forces, but the odds are worse than David vs. Goliath. Individuals rely on government, through the rule of law, to protect them from the worst impulses of their neighbors, and from disasters, whether natural or man-made.

    (2) Membership in a society brings with it both rights and responsibilities. Individuals are better able to discharge their responsibilties when their personal needs are met. An obvious example is the fact that a majority of young Americans are ineligible for military service due to obesity, inadequate education, or having a criminal record. Some people like to point to all of these as personal failings borne of individual choice, and there are certainly elements of individual choice involved. But when individual choice and external constraints combine to impact our fundamental ability to maintain a strong national defense, it becomes a societal problem that it behooves the state to address.
    This is why I'm suspicious, Coriolis' actual response reads more like Solitary Walker's posts when I was familiar with them from reading his blog, particularly when he'd have been posting protracted long winded posts about Kant, I also think its a classically Hobbesian argument, although updated somewhat. Its very valid in any case but then the Solitary Walker that I'm familiar with would have done that thinking himself as opposed to cite a bunch of popular contemporary libertarian curmudgeons like Murray, Popper et al and gone on a rant about the "PC Left".
    All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
    Chapter IV, p. 448. - Adam Smith, Book 3, The Wealth of Nations

    whether or not you credit psychoanalysis itself, the fact remains that we all must, to the greatest extent possible, understand one another's minds as our own; the very survival of humanity has always depended on it. - Open Culture

  4. #24
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Survive & Stay Free View Post
    The PC left is a soft target to be honest, largely a straw man too, and Charles Murray? .
    So, would that mean that Political Correctness does not exist at all? That the whole concept is a conspiracy theory of the Far Right?

    If that's not the case, the concept is entirely fit for discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Survive & Stay Free View Post
    Did you hit your head SW?
    I've been very patient with you up until now, but this was the last straw.

    Certainly that's a hell of a thing to say for someone who contributed absolutely no value to this discussion.

    Here is a summary of everything you've brought forth.

    1. Not all thinkers of the past who identified as Marxists were totalitarian. So what?

    2. Don't read Popper, he has a reputation for being unfair to leftists.

    3. Don't read Charles Murray. No, I mean Charles Murray, seriously? That's too much for my Politically Correct sensibilities.

    4. Everything you say smacks off "Jew hating conspiracy"

    5. Don't mention Soros because he is a target of right-wing conspiracy theories. You can't use him as a representative of a left-wing point of view, but I don't know why.

    6. The truly rich and powerful cannot be Keynesian in their politico-economic outlook, but I don't know why.

    7. My attention span is very short, so I resent that you respond line by line, as there is something wrong with going through a post point by point.

    At any rate, I don't have time for this non-sense and the quality of your contributions was by far inferior to that of everyone else in this thread. So, I'll be blocking you. At the very least, everybody else here framed one coherent question. Yet, none of your claims are either true or false, they are non-sensical as most are almost entirely without any meaning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I do not have time to address the OP in its entirety right now. I will, however, take issue with the highlighted question that underpins much of the argument. The individual's personal well-being is at least partially the responsibility of the state for two reasons.

    (1) Only the state has the means to oppose successfully many of the forces which stand to harm individuals. This covers everything from criminals to public health emergencies to invasions to explotive employers and unscrupulous vendors. Sure, an individual can attempt to take on these forces, but the odds are worse than David vs. Goliath. Individuals rely on government, through the rule of law, to protect them from the worst impulses of their neighbors, and from disasters, whether natural or man-made.

    (2) Membership in a society brings with it both rights and responsibilities. Individuals are better able to discharge their responsibilties when their personal needs are met. An obvious example is the fact that a majority of young Americans are ineligible for military service due to obesity, inadequate education, or having a criminal record. Some people like to point to all of these as personal failings borne of individual choice, and there are certainly elements of individual choice involved. But when individual choice and external constraints combine to impact our fundamental ability to maintain a strong national defense, it becomes a societal problem that it behooves the state to address.

    All of this is correct. The state has certain responsibilities to the public and there are cases in which the needs of the individual can only be served by the state. The judiciary, the military and the police are clear examples of that.

    In some cases, you can even go so far as to argue that there are certain measures the state can take to improve the quality of education and enhance the public's opportunities to maximize their well-being.

    However, that has no bearing upon the question of free-speech. I accept all of your claims, but none of this shows that the state has the responsibility to censor offensive speakers.

    It's one thing if individuals cannot defend themselves from foreign enemies or pervasive social problems that seem largely outside of the control of the individual, but "offensive speech" is not one of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by bechimo View Post
    Correct. No pass for him. Glad his right hand lawyer friend opted out and Spencer is sucking air for financing and support. Fuck him and his lily white ass.

    Just because he advocates a claim that is incoherent in theory and unworkable in practice doesn't mean he needs to be censored.

    We're free to ignore him, just as we are free to disregard any comment on this forum that we don't deem to be unworthy of our time.

    Nothing that Spencer said is a matter of public interest. In the strictest sense of the term, it is his personal opinion and he is free to voice it in all public forums.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/
    Likes Typh0n liked this post

  5. #25
    Senior Member ceecee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    10,579

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I do not have time to address the OP in its entirety right now. I will, however, take issue with the highlighted question that underpins much of the argument. The individual's personal well-being is at least partially the responsibility of the state for two reasons.

    (1) Only the state has the means to oppose successfully many of the forces which stand to harm individuals. This covers everything from criminals to public health emergencies to invasions to explotive employers and unscrupulous vendors. Sure, an individual can attempt to take on these forces, but the odds are worse than David vs. Goliath. Individuals rely on government, through the rule of law, to protect them from the worst impulses of their neighbors, and from disasters, whether natural or man-made.

    (2) Membership in a society brings with it both rights and responsibilities. Individuals are better able to discharge their responsibilties when their personal needs are met. An obvious example is the fact that a majority of young Americans are ineligible for military service due to obesity, inadequate education, or having a criminal record. Some people like to point to all of these as personal failings borne of individual choice, and there are certainly elements of individual choice involved. But when individual choice and external constraints combine to impact our fundamental ability to maintain a strong national defense, it becomes a societal problem that it behooves the state to address.
    I don't think I know anyone who wants the job of their well being to be controlled by anyone but themselves. The state can certainly make that job harder, and it's been quite successful at doing just that in the US.

    If a person agrees to be part of a society (from a town to a city to a state to a country) then they have a responsibility to the well being of that society. Yes everyone. If that's not something a person wants, they are under no obligation to be part of that society. But we have been doing the individual only, me first fuck you thing for some time. It isn't working any longer for the majority. Trying something else is the only option unless everyone is ok with chaos and breakdown further than what we're already experiencing.

    Save it with the PC left and unhinged right. That's getting us nowhere. If you're only here to bitch and pontificate, you're wasting everyone's time.
    I like to rock n' roll all night and *part* of every day. I usually have errands... I can only rock from like 1-3.

  6. #26
    Senior Member Lark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    23,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    So, would that mean that Political Correctness does not exist at all? That the whole concept is a conspiracy theory of the Far Right?

    If that's not the case, the concept is entirely fit for discussion.



    I've been very patient with you up until now, but this was the last straw.

    Certainly that's a hell of a thing to say for someone who contributed absolutely no value to this discussion.

    Here is a summary of everything you've brought forth.

    1. Not all thinkers of the past who identified as Marxists were totalitarian. So what?

    2. Don't read Popper, he has a reputation for being unfair to leftists.

    3. Don't read Charles Murray

    4. Everything you say smacks off "Jew hating conspiracy"

    5. My attention span is very short, so I resent that you respond line by line, as there is something wrong with going through a post point by point.

    At any rate, I don't have time for this non-sense and the quality of your contributions were by far inferior to that of everyone else in this thread. So, I'll be blocking you.




    All of this is correct. The state has certain responsibilities to the public and there are cases in which the needs of the individual can only be served by the state. The judiciary, the military and the police are clear examples of that.

    In some cases, you can even go so far as to argue that there are certain measures the state can take to improve the quality of education and enhance the public's opportunities to maximize their well-being.

    However, that has no bearing upon the question of free-speech. I accept all of your claims, but none of this shows that the state has the responsibility to censor offensive speakers.

    It's one thing if individuals cannot defend themselves from foreign enemies or pervasive social problems that seem largely outside of the control of the individual, but "offensive speech" is not one of them.
    Well, I wish I could say its been fun but its really not been, so mind how you go.
    All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
    Chapter IV, p. 448. - Adam Smith, Book 3, The Wealth of Nations

    whether or not you credit psychoanalysis itself, the fact remains that we all must, to the greatest extent possible, understand one another's minds as our own; the very survival of humanity has always depended on it. - Open Culture

  7. #27
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ceecee View Post
    But we have been doing the individual only, me first fuck you thing for some time. It isn't working any longer for the majority. Trying something else is the only option unless everyone is ok with chaos and breakdown further than what we're already experiencing.
    Yes, that's a good point. The Unraveling era took place between the early 80s and roughly the beginning of the Obama administration.

    Our culture was certainly very individualistic at that point and that is partly why there is a much higher demand for conformity and social order than there was 20-30 years ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by ceecee View Post
    Trying something else is the only option unless everyone is ok with chaos and breakdown further than what we're already experiencing.

    Yes, something will inevitably be tried, that's the nature of the Fourth Turning. See my sources in my second post in this thread.

    However, despite the excesses of individualism, Freedom of Speech is still important. In fact, at a time when the demand for order is increasing and individualism is declining, it becomes even more important. In the absence of Free Speech, societal decay is nearly inevitable for the reasons I've articulated in the opening post.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  8. #28
    Liberator Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    19,995

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ceecee View Post
    I don't think I know anyone who wants the job of their well being to be controlled by anyone but themselves. The state can certainly make that job harder, and it's been quite successful at doing just that in the US.

    If a person agrees to be part of a society (from a town to a city to a state to a country) then they have a responsibility to the well being of that society. Yes everyone. If that's not something a person wants, they are under no obligation to be part of that society. But we have been doing the individual only, me first fuck you thing for some time. It isn't working any longer for the majority. Trying something else is the only option unless everyone is ok with chaos and breakdown further than what we're already experiencing.

    Save it with the PC left and unhinged right. That's getting us nowhere. If you're only here to bitch and pontificate, you're wasting everyone's time.
    There is a huge difference between controlling and facilitating. I for one don't want to have to fend off an invader on my own, or face an epidemic or hurricane. I have neither the resources nor the expertise to screen my doctors and building contractors, track down thieves or vandals, check every claim of every vendor for accuracy, or stand up to a harmful employer or landlord when I really need the job/housing. Laws enforced by the government do however imperfectly what I as an individual can do only in a few isolated instances. Leaving society is impractical for most people. I am happy to discharge my responsibilities toward society as long as it keeps its part of the bargain.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...
    Likes tinker683 liked this post

  9. #29
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    There is a huge difference between controlling and facilitating.
    There is a difference in theory, but in practice, the two can be conflated very easily.

    For example, in "Thinking: Fast and Slow", Daniel Kahneman advocated for "Libertarian Paternalism", positing that once the public voices their interests, the government should help them achieve their goals.

    Amazon.com: Thinking, Fast and Slow eBook: Daniel Kahneman: Kindle Store

    In other words, if New Yorkers proclaim they want to be healthy, the government can impose a tax on sugar-intensive beverages. Yet, there is a problem here. The government officials can misinterpret the public's wishes and may facilitate the achievement of the proclaimed goals in terms of questionable methods. This is where the process of "facilitating" can begin to closely resemble the act of controlling.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I for one don't want to have to fend off an invader on my own, or face an epidemic or hurricane.
    It is a basic responsibility of the government to proivde security from crime and natural disasters, so this claim is hardly controversial.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I have neither the resources nor the expertise to screen my doctors and building contractors, track down thieves or vandals, check every claim of every vendor for accuracy,.
    Again, the government has a legitimate reason to enact and enforce laws regarding fraud. When professionals and merchants deliberately mislead their buyers, they are subtly using force.

    On the other hand, the government will likely be overstepping its authority when it begins facilitating the achievement of goals that can be more easily and cost-effectly achieved through private means. For example, citizens have cheaper and more effective ways of becoming healthy than by paying large "sugar taxes" and allocating tens of thousands of taxpayers' dollars to staff the countless non-profit organizations that are supposed to advise the public on basic facts about health that anyone can easily find through a five minute Google search.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post

    I am happy to discharge my responsibilities toward society as long as it keeps its part of the bargain. .

    Yet, it is never easy to ensure that the government keeps you in the bargain, which is why politicians are notorious for breaking promises with impunity. Hence, a government solution is to be implemented as a means of last resort. This is to be done only when it is clear that the objectives in question cannot be reached more effectively and cheaper through private means.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Leaving society is impractical for most people
    No, it isn't, yet in many cases, it is entirely possible for the public to solve their own problems. In the event where problems cannot be solved through private means, it seems tempting to seek out government intervention. Yet even then, one must ask why the government solution would be more effective than the methods that were previously tried. Decisions are to be made on a case by case basis, as it is a mistake to assume that in each case where civil society cannot solve a problem, the government must be able to overcome it.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  10. #30
    Senior Member ceecee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    10,579

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    There is a huge difference between controlling and facilitating. I for one don't want to have to fend off an invader on my own, or face an epidemic or hurricane. I have neither the resources nor the expertise to screen my doctors and building contractors, track down thieves or vandals, check every claim of every vendor for accuracy, or stand up to a harmful employer or landlord when I really need the job/housing. Laws enforced by the government do however imperfectly what I as an individual can do only in a few isolated instances. Leaving society is impractical for most people. I am happy to discharge my responsibilities toward society as long as it keeps its part of the bargain.
    Exactly. Leaving society might be a bit extreme but it is an option. No one is forcing anyone to be in any specific society. What I'm getting at is the government exists to serve the people. The people are meant to lead and if the servant needs to be led back to serving, I have no issue with doing that either. They are not currently keeping their part of the bargain.
    I like to rock n' roll all night and *part* of every day. I usually have errands... I can only rock from like 1-3.

Similar Threads

  1. What is this strange behavior called and why do people do it?
    By theflame in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-17-2017, 06:07 PM
  2. Just for fun, what do you think my socionics type is and why?
    By Generalist in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-29-2016, 08:58 PM
  3. Europe's war on free speech and its consequences
    By lowtech redneck in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 02-08-2010, 07:07 PM
  4. What is your favorite # and why?
    By swordpath in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 07-16-2008, 11:32 PM
  5. What is "hope," and why do I "need" it??
    By ArbiterDewey in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-14-2008, 05:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO