1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 06:22 am
DrewDad wrote:

Just because some folks two hundred years ago decided that Liberty was the most desirable thing in the world doesn't mean we have to follow in the same path.

If you remember, one key thing was the freedom to pursuit happiness. I think they understood that if you protected liberty then people could pursue their own happiness, to varying degrees of success. You can't guarantee happiness. In fact, I know from having children that sometimes the more you do to increase someone else's happiness the more it actually decreases.
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 07:12 am
Richard Cohen wants Obama to nuke Iran for Israel. Got it?
View Profile sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 08:23 am
FreeDuck wrote:
You can't guarantee happiness. In fact, I know from having children that sometimes the more you do to increase someone else's happiness the more it actually decreases.


Nice. I know just what you mean.
0 Replies
 
View Profile okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 08:32 am
FreeDuck wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Just because some folks two hundred years ago decided that Liberty was the most desirable thing in the world doesn't mean we have to follow in the same path.

If you remember, one key thing was the freedom to pursuit happiness. I think they understood that if you protected liberty then people could pursue their own happiness, to varying degrees of success. You can't guarantee happiness. In fact, I know from having children that sometimes the more you do to increase someone else's happiness the more it actually decreases.

Free Duck, if you would listen to your own advice, you would conclude that many of the Democrat's and Obama's socialistic policies are therefore the wrong road to follow. Doing stuff for people, taking care of people that are able bodied and capable of doing for themselves if otherwise held accountable, that is actually counterproductive in most cases. You are correct, happiness in children occurs when they are allowed to reap the consequences of their own actions, their own labors, their own studies, their own motivation. And it is no different with adults, even though many adults cry and sob, give us more, and they vote the person that promises them more, but sadly it is not what will make them happy.

All of the above is a big part of why I am a conservative. And you still haven't explained what you are and why. Solutions to problems and issues are determined by applying basic principles, and therefore you must have some foundational principles to solve problems.
View Profile okie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 08:40 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Nuanced indeed ! An interesting comment from one who is so given to black and white distinctions; his own "invisible" sources of moral judgements; and (usually empty) authoritarian bullying in his rhetoric.


My sources of moral judgment are not invisible, but eminently real and practical ones: an examination of who benefits and who is harmed by an action. No appeal to some mystical principles or invisible authority, but instead the cold knife of Logic.

Your repeated description of me as 'authoritarian' is entirely without merit, and reflects more about you than it does about me. I would also add that those who continually make assertions and demand that others accept them at face value, without any supporting logic or factual documentation, has a little bit of an Authoritarian inside themselves as well, George. It seems to be that you are not against Authoritarianism, provided that you are the Authority Laughing

Cycloptichorn

I still find it incredible that the highest form of morality and authority in your view comes from you, your view of whoever has the power at any particular time. No wonder Democrats and liberals are authoritarianist, I guess in your view might makes right. Thankfully, a few of our greatest politicians that have guided this country through the toughest times had something more credible and appealing than that. That is precisely why we had the moral backbone to oppose the worst of the worst, people like Hitler, that also thought he was the highest moral authority, since he had all the power at that time in Germany, and he simply thought the world's evils could be eradicated if he could expand his brand of ultimate moral authority. Such thinking is totally bankrupt and vacant.

I am still shaking my head over your theory that the only reason we can exercise our power over animals is because we are stronger, not because we we were designed to do by the Creator. You really are really really whacked out, cyclops. I wonder if you know how whacked out you are, or if this is all an act here.
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 08:54 am
Quote:
Richard Cohen wants Obama to nuke Iran for Israel. Got it


I have my doubts about your ability to document that statement. Be that as it may there is a slew of current commentary about Obama being full of dreams for his people but not producing. Talk is cheap, as they say.
  3  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 08:57 am
okie wrote:
Free Duck, if you would listen to your own advice, you would conclude that many of the Democrat's and Obama's socialistic policies are therefore the wrong road to follow.

And if you would listen to my advice then you would conclude that the last Republican administration did more to destroy personal liberty in this country (and elsewhere) than any social program you decry.

okie wrote:

And you still haven't explained what you are and why. Solutions to problems and issues are determined by applying basic principles, and therefore you must have some foundational principles to solve problems.

I am a Chronic Contrarian. Does that satisfy you? I think you may have missed my last post in that discussion.
View Profile revel
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 09:15 am
I think one reason why free duck may have resisted putting herself (if you are a she?) in a box is because people are complex and rarely ever fit into neat little labels.

For instance, I am a conservative christian who literally believes in the whole Bible as it is written. I am a liberal democrat. I don't think the two are contradictory in the way I understand both to be. Kind of blows your whole theories of religion and what not all to shot.
0 Replies
 
View Profile DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 09:25 am
FreeDuck wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Just because some folks two hundred years ago decided that Liberty was the most desirable thing in the world doesn't mean we have to follow in the same path.

If you remember, one key thing was the freedom to pursuit happiness. I think they understood that if you protected liberty then people could pursue their own happiness, to varying degrees of success. You can't guarantee happiness. In fact, I know from having children that sometimes the more you do to increase someone else's happiness the more it actually decreases.
0 Replies
 
View Profile DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 09:29 am
I'm not really advocating for happiness for being the standard; I'm trying to get a rational reason from Foxfyre as to why maximizing personal liberty should be the highest goal of a society.

Frankly, maximizing personal liberty would also mean abolishing a host of laws and programs that I think make life better. Everything from the FDA to local law enforcement would be affected.

It's a silly, hyperbolic statement of hers.
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 09:58 am
DrewDad wrote:

Frankly, maximizing personal liberty would also mean abolishing a host of laws and programs that I think make life better. Everything from the FDA to local law enforcement would be affected.

I guess I don't think that maximizing personal liberty (within the constraints of living in a society) necessarily means abolishing things like the FDA. The freedom to be poisoned by defective drugs doesn't rank high on my list of liberties.
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 10:02 am
FreeDuck wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Frankly, maximizing personal liberty would also mean abolishing a host of laws and programs that I think make life better. Everything from the FDA to local law enforcement would be affected.

I guess I don't think that maximizing personal liberty (within the constraints of living in a society) necessarily means abolishing things like the FDA. The freedom to be poisoned by defective drugs doesn't rank high on my list of liberties.


Still, in some ways he is correct. The FDA bans, for example, steroids and many recreational drugs; personal liberty maximization would say that you can't do that.

Cycloptichorn
View Profile DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 10:12 am
I would say that the goal is not solely to maximize personal liberty, but to balance personal liberty with societal safety. And that balancing point is different for different people.
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 10:15 am
DrewDad wrote:

I would say that the goal is not solely to maximize personal liberty, but to balance personal liberty with societal safety. And that balancing point is different for different people.

Right. Maximizing personal liberty does not imply that there are no other constraints. Societal safety, itself ensuring liberty to an extent, is just such a constraint.
View Profile DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 10:16 am
FreeDuck wrote:
The freedom to be poisoned by defective drugs doesn't rank high on my list of liberties.

So we can safely say you're not a Libertarian? Wink

That's why you have to make sure folks define what they mean, because there are Libertarians who, if pressed, will say that you should have that liberty, and that the FDA should get out of the way of "the marketplace".
0 Replies
 
View Profile DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 10:17 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Maximizing personal liberty does not imply that there are no other constraints. Societal safety, itself ensuring liberty to an extent, is just such a constraint.

That's what it means to you. I'm not sure that's what it means to Foxfyre.
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 10:19 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Frankly, maximizing personal liberty would also mean abolishing a host of laws and programs that I think make life better. Everything from the FDA to local law enforcement would be affected.

I guess I don't think that maximizing personal liberty (within the constraints of living in a society) necessarily means abolishing things like the FDA. The freedom to be poisoned by defective drugs doesn't rank high on my list of liberties.


Still, in some ways he is correct. The FDA bans, for example, steroids and many recreational drugs; personal liberty maximization would say that you can't do that.

Cycloptichorn

Sure, but it wouldn't mean abolishing the FDA -- just abolishing certain decisions made by it. But I've digressed enough for one day.
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 10:20 am
DrewDad wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Maximizing personal liberty does not imply that there are no other constraints. Societal safety, itself ensuring liberty to an extent, is just such a constraint.

That's what it means to you. I'm not sure that's what it means to Foxfyre.
Fair enough.
0 Replies
 
View Profile Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 10:54 am
DrewDad wrote:

I would say that the goal is not solely to maximize personal liberty, but to balance personal liberty with societal safety. And that balancing point is different for different people.
View Profile DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 11:00 am
Are you saying you agree with that?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
I AM PROUD - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. able2know
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1430
Copyright © 2009 Horizontal Verticals :: Page generated in 0.51 seconds on 11/27/2009 at 03:28:31 Top End