I think you are talking about negative vs positive freedoms here.
Negative freedom is where you are free to do as you please as long as you aren’t aggressing against others. In short, it is the freedom to be left alone.
Positive freedoms are where people are aggressed against, in order to provide help for those less able to live freely.
Naturally, I am pro negative freedom and against positive freedom - the latter can only come at the loss of the former and I find that position untenable.
Back to your post. With negative freedom, you can’t force a pastor to marry, nor force people to trade with those they wish to avoid. It isn’t aggression - it is merely a refusal to act.
I have heard this called a coma test. Can someone in a coma aggress against others? No, he is in a vegetative state. He cannot marry people, nor trade with gay people either.
This is racism not aggression. Racism can be aggressive, but not all racism is aggressive. Now if the sign read “No Colored Allowed and will be shoot on sight” and the policy was enforced then it would be aggression.
Hmmmm… if private, then also likely to be some form of hotel. Is Discrimination aggression? I’m not sure really, though I’d probably describe it as some form of passive aggression or psychological aggression. Though not a physical attack, it is demeaning I think and would certainly be illegal in the UK.
Would the solution not include de-centralising the State and the decision making process back to the electorate, utilising blockchain etc to improve transparency etc?
I’m assuming you are again referring to the Tax system…?
The vast majority of the population would completely disagree with your statement I think, if you amend it to read as it would if phrased honestly, without the unjustified assertion of your basic premise that Tax is a form of aggression:
No,you’re calling a Societally agreed safety net, a spade.
We’ve kind of had all the debates historically and every major Liberal Democracy’s populations have by majority agreed that this tax, for this purpose is a good thing.
We can go all round in circles debating whether it is coercive, does it constitute aggression etc. The fact is that the majority believe it a good thing. I’m not saying this gives full legitimacy to the system, but that it is quite likely as near to as good as its going to get, until we can de-centralise stuff. I’m saying that the very bare minimum you would need to progress any alternative system would be a majority consensus, which I really don’t think you’d ever get - it would be the Tories on steroids.
Only in the same way that money is taken from others in a fair manner. I get that you have a problem with providing for the vulnerable, as is your right. This is not a massively popular point of view and these arguments are usually used by those that would seek to remove all manner of welfare, tax etc in order to privatise/profiteer from these things and for a rampant free Corporate market to flourish.
As I say, we can argue our relative positions all day, but it’s pointless as the arguments have all already been had.
No politician is this honest. Moreover party politics of alll kinds is bullshit because one never totally agrees with the party’s stance and invariably has to lie in order to conform. If one was a high profile politician this would be even more so because their double life would be even more pronounced. Also you can’t very well manipulate a populace if you have to have total transparancy. And again for that reason no politician would agree to it. Politics is about power. How does total transparancy work to benefit a politician? I mean it sounds all well and good for the people but what would the practical result be? A politician doesn’t lead. A leader leads. A politician is concerned with getting votes and gaining power. A leader is concerned with getting what is best for the people to hell with whether it’s popular or not. A politician is concerned with manipulating via image a leader actually does the work and forms relationships with his followers. We don’t need more politicians and votes. We don’t need elections. We need leaders who actually LEAD the people and do the work and followers who vote with their actions by following and contributing to the causes of those people who they believe in. To hell with elections!
No no no…we don’t want any leaders in that way,there will be leaders in thought/ideas/arguments only, the best arguments will be made pro and against any particular policy and the electorate choose the direction on a more issue by issue basis - especially as to how taxes are spent.
You are describing a stereotypical politician operating within the current paradigm and granted a 5 year tenure. I am suggesting a different structure altogether. You could replace the word “politician” with person really, but one with useful and relevant political experience - we will need diplomats/Civil servants and the like.
I’m suggesting the electorate interviews a candidate for a position, as with any other job. If they talk Newspeak, obfuscate etc, then they will not get the jobs. Again, there would be a probationary period and the transparency would be part of the employment terms. Veering from the agreed manifesto would likely be a gross misconduct offence. I totally disagree that nobody would be interested in such a role.
Whether others are also taken from, whether the needy are fed, whether world peace is reached, etc are all beside the point. They are just excuses. Straw men.
Money is taken from me and given to others. These are the bare facts and the only reason to sugar coat this is to use sophistry to wave them away.
Is this not your typical politician in our current paradigm? No I’m suggesting that people just get up and take action and put in place programs using direct action. If you support a program then devote funds, time and skills to it. Forget about voting and letting some poltical middle man decide for you what should be done. Decide for yourself what you want done. We don’t need elections or some politician or electorate to tel lus what needs to be done. Just DO IT! If you believe that we need more charity then organize a crowdfund for charity, or donate to one. If you think we need the environment taken care of then get up and help the environment. If you believe in promoting business then promote business. If you believe families need more support then go out and organize support for them. No enough with elections and politicians. We need LEADERS and direct action. Enough with the think tanks that go no where. No more taxes that go to line political pockets and fund wars. No direct action only. Crowdfunds, leaders, real people doing real thinngs. No more coercion. Freedom, choice and real collaboration.
If you want to fight a war the YOU pay for it not everybody else. YOU raise the funds for weapons, armor, tanks, logistics and most importantly men and women to die in it. Don’t use taxation use persuasion. See how far you get.
The ‘contract’ between a renter and a rentee. Most places I go to rent a place, I sign a contract, written on actual paper. When I wrote about ‘a contract’ I am referring to the real-world that we live in today where there is a real physical contract that you sign (or don’t sign) as the case may be. Most landlords I’ve know have ‘a contract’ and they expect you to sign it.
I was not, at all, writing about some fictitious imaginary non-existent ‘thing’ called a social contract or whatever else you may have perceived I was writing about. We’ve gone over the whole squatting thing ad-nauseam haven’t we? I’m not in disagreement with you on that.
And that assertion is in the contract that you say doesn’t exist. I could print it out and fax it to you… MUCH paper.
I think ownership is a part of human nature. I own my body and the consequences of it’s actions – including the words I write. If we don’t take that as true, then we would live in a fairly barbaric world I think. Yet my body, like the house I build, like the land it sits on, is all composed of atoms that have been here since the universe began. So, arguing that it existed before I came along makes no sense - my atoms were here all along – in fact my atoms came from the land at some point along this journey, yours too. And here we are. Clearly we own ourselves, so clearly we are making claim that we own the atoms that compose us. So, we are making a claim on a portion of the universe.
It is the common acceptance of ownership that allows us to invest in many of the things we have today. If we lived in a society that did not value the effort and work of others then people simply would not build it. In fact if it weren’t for this fact, MAIDSAFE would not be under construction right now. It is our belief in the team that caused us to buy MAIDSAFE tokens. There is an implicit understanding (a sort hand-shaking contract) that David and his team will build it since we give him the money to do it. But in your world, he’d just take the money and walk away would he not? There is no contract … or is there?. I don’t know it for a fact, but I suspect David would ‘feel’ very guilty about violating our trust (that handshake contract).
Needy being fed and World peace are beside the point? Do you mean to tell me that if it’s necessary for people to starve and the World to be in a constant state of war, in order for you not to be “coerced” in some ill-defined way, then so be it?
This is why your viewpoint is not a commonly held one.
Yes they are…great innit?
On the contrary, the Sophistry is in your argument. Society as a whole has Democratically already decided all this. The sophistry is in trying to convince others that a harsh choice is not a choice…whereas it clearly is.
You are like a Meerkat complaining to your group that you don’t want to spend time/resources looking out for snakes and such, so you shouldn’t have to and complaining that you should be free to just maybe do TV work comparing things or something. You have the choice to try your luck elsewhere and see how long you last - crap choice but still a choice and definitely no unfairness.
Hmm interesting. So if a white dog in his yard barks at a black dog walking into his territory…and the black dog doesn’t listen and keep ingressing into his territory…and the white dog bites the black dog…you would say the white dog is aggressing? I would say that it’s self-defense.
uh oh…I’m going to get called out for saying the dog owns the land aren’t I…bummer…here come the CAPS.
yeah and we gotta love that. It’s not called ‘mob’ rule for nothing. A pack of dogs behaves very differently than a dog on it’s own …hmm, I’m on sort of a dog theme tonight. Mob rule is indistinguishable from the oppression of minorities.
If you or I individually do not have a moral right to steal from another, then we can’t just magically gain that moral right when we all gang up on a minority.
So if mob rule is just, then all I need to do is put together a gang and go take from my neighbours. Why not? If we outnumber them it’s all good right?
There are reasons we have and hold certain moral truths. If too many people behave like that, the society crumbles. People retreat into their caves with their clubs and there is no division of labor there is every person for themselves.
Lol…no, you’re going to get called out on something else.
Black/White dogs are not comparable to Black/White people for many reasons beyond the obvious only hair colour thing.
It is about Equality. Black dogs have not been historically treated with less dignity/respect than White dogs - they haven’t been discriminated against.
Your analogy breaks down because a dog of any colour would bark at a dog of any other indiscriminately for encroaching on it’s territory.
Given that the place was a Hotel of sorts, then it is welcoming “dogs”, not guarding against them coming in. To not welcome Black dogs only is Discriminatory.
