Obama '08?

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
On what principle or being then do you base your law of what is right or wrong? If it ends at us, at men, then who determines which one of us has the better moral principle? I would submit to you that it is up to each one of us then. And if I decide murder is okay, what right do you have to tell me that I am not correct? See how silly your argument is? If it all comes down to which one of us has more power to institute our code of behavior, then it isn't going to be pretty, cyclops, and actually that is why so much mayhem does happen, some people think they can create their own law and their own code of behavior, that there is no higher authority beyond them.

It's interesting to see how you argue all in favour of individualism and individual freedom to make decisions when it comes to economic issues, but that you're willing to cede those individual liberties and decision-making rights to a higher authority when it comes to moral issues.

So what in your opinion IS the authority? Or should be the authority? Should we allow Congress to devise the moral code bywhich we all shall live by? Should the President, by virtue of his high office, be the one to make such determinations? Should God be the ultimate judge? If so, then whose God and whose interpretation of what God decrees shall be the final authority?

Or is the social contract; i.e. the enforceable laws and system by which we agree to live in harmony the 'higher authority'?

Look again at what Okie wrote and I think you will see that he is saying that he advocates a society in which as much individual liberty as possible should be the norm. Individual liberty does not assume that there are no rules to prevent us from doing mayhem to each other. Individual liberty should be our highest collective goal in a society, but the license for liberty ends when it fringes on the next guy's liberty.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Individual liberty should be our highest collective goal in a society

Why?

Why not low infant mortality? Individual happiness? High standard of living? High education levels?

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Individual liberty should be our highest collective goal in a society

Why?

Why not low infant mortality? Individual happiness? High standard of living? High education levels?

You can achieve the lowest possibly infant mortality by taking the pregnant women into custody, restricting or mandating activity, diet, exposure to risks, providing the best in prenatal medical evaluation and care, etc. and taking the child into custody to ensure that everything is done exactly right. Would it be worth it?

Otherwise, I think few thinking people do not consider individual liberty as exclusive of individual happiness, high standard of living, and high education levels and, in fact, individual liberty could likely enhance all of those other things.

At any rate, with liberty, I can pursue all and nobody can tell me that I cannot.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

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

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

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.

The words of a dedicated Platonist. Your "cold knife" looks often more like a brick.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Your repeated description of me as 'authoritarian' is entirely without merit, and reflects more about you than it does about me.

Perhaps. But only that I have enough real experience in the judicious exercise of authority to recognize truly dangerous inclinations on the part of those who would regulate and reform the free choices of others.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

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
Cycloptichorn

Well, that's a start and it shows that - perhaps - you are worth saving. Cool

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

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

If that is true you had better not let that lot on the evolution threads run the schools because they'll have the kids sitting to attention faking gazes of admiring awe.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Perhaps. But only that I have enough real experience in the judicious exercise of authority to recognize truly dangerous inclinations on the part of those who would regulate and reform the free choices of others.

I would point out that those citizens in other parts of the world who are actually living under the sorts of reforms I would seek to institute here in America appear to be, according to available data, quite happy with their system. Is it because we are the only freedom-loving group on the planet? Or because the scare stories you put forth, re: the consequences of these reforms, have less merit to them than one might think?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

You still haven't explained why individual liberty should be the "highest collective goal in a society".

Why shouldn't happiness be the defining standard?

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Because you cannot legislate or enforce or defend happiness and therefore it is beyond the scope of the social contract. You can legislate and enforce and defend liberties.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Perhaps. But only that I have enough real experience in the judicious exercise of authority to recognize truly dangerous inclinations on the part of those who would regulate and reform the free choices of others.

Jesus Christ. Jehovah on the quarterdeck. Quite apart from the painfully obvious objection that those who exercise authority are not in a position to say if it were judiciously done or not, there is the problem that a naval officer at sea exercises power such as no other man does anywhere else.

Who set you up to decide whether or not you can exercise authority judiciously?

2 Replies

@Setanta,

I suppose Set is ignoring naval tradition which has an extensive experience of what happens when officers don't exercise authority. Necessity set them up. Had the deckhands behaved in a disciplined and orderly manner it would not have been necessary to set anybody up in authority.

Still-Set ignores a lot of stuff which is how he finds it so easy to prognosticate.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Jesus Christ. Jehovah on the quarterdeck. Quite apart from the painfully obvious objection that those who exercise authority are not in a position to say if it were judiciously done or not, there is the problem that a naval officer at sea exercises power such as no other man does anywhere else.

Who set you up to decide whether or not you can exercise authority judiciously?

You exaggerate a bit there. Though in answer to your question - in the good old days it was me. Now I have a Board to please.

My point however was that the real experience of exercising authority and being accountable for the outcome, tends to temper one's approach - particularly compared to Cyclo's rather quick, preemptive and unqualified expressions.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

for real abuse of authority one needs only look locally, the zoning department, the county clerks office, the DMV.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Who even suggested that happiness can be legislated?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

It sounds kinda like you reject happiness as a standard because you can't point at it and measure it.

I don't agree that happiness is beyond the scope of the social contract. It just hasn't been discussed much.

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.

3 Replies

@DrewDad,

there is a boatload of reasons to reject happiness as a benchmark, for instance science shows that humans do a very poor job of guessing what will make us happy, or of changing our happiness status. Also, the humans who have come before us have almost universally decided that happiness is not something worthy of devoting a lot of attention to.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

It sounds kinda like you reject happiness as a standard because you can't point at it and measure it.

I don't agree that happiness is beyond the scope of the social contract. It just hasn't been discussed much.

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.

I reject any power assigned to the government or any other authority to dictate what happiness is or must be. I certainly do not reject happiness as I, like our Founders, recognized the pursuit of happiness to be among God-given unalienable rights that the government would not have the power to infringe so long as such pursuit does not violate anybody's individual liberties.

And no, we don't have to follow the Constitution. We can chuck it and adopt something different.

As I personally believe the Constitution has allowed its adherents to produce the greatest nation the world has ever known, I would not vote to do that. And I would prefer that those who would do that just go someplace else where the value system is more to their liking.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Individual liberty should be our highest collective goal in a society

Why?

Why not low infant mortality? Individual happiness? High standard of living? High education levels?

You sound a little like a few dictators. Most of them had the goal of social justice, that of equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. You totally miss the entire point of what America is about, and why this country has been the most wonderful place on earth to live, that is my opinion anyway. America is about liberty, liberty to fail if you want to, and liberty to be lazy and totally miserable if that what you choose to do. You don't have to be rich to be happy by the way, I know many people with mundane jobs, but they are very happy because they found satisfaction in the work that "they chose" to do, not what some dictator told them to do.

0 Replies

Quote:

Time to Act Like a President

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Sooner or later it is going to occur to Barack Obama that he is the president of the United States. As of yet, though, he does not act that way, appearing promiscuously on television and granting interviews like the presidential candidate he no longer is. The election has been held, but the campaign goes on and on. The candidate has yet to become commander in chief.
.
..
.
Obama lost credibility with his deadline-that-never-was, and now he threatens to lose some more with his posturing toward Iran. He has gotten into a demeaning dialogue with Ahmadinejad, an accomplished liar. (The next day, the Iranian used a news conference to counter Obama and, days later, Iran tested some intermediate-range missiles.) Obama is our version of a Supreme Leader, not given to making idle threats, setting idle deadlines, reversing course on momentous issues, creating a TV crisis where none existed or, unbelievably, pitching Chicago for the 2016 Olympics. Obama's the president. Time he understood that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/28/AR2009092802484.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

OUCH!

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

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.

4 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know