1Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
IMO, net benefits for society take the back seat in favor of free individuals. In fact, free individuals may very well have a net benefit to society. Forcing individuals to do something usually has the opposite effect. |
|
Results 1 to 7 of 7
Thread: Authoritarianism
-
05-28-2010 11:09 PM #1Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
- Posts
- 528
- Likes
- 16
Authoritarianism
As liberal as I am (not very, but enough), Isn't some authoritariansism better, if it has a net benefit for society as a whole. things i'm talking about here are criminalisation of drugs for example. DV seems to be made up of mainly Liberals/libertarians so I just wondered what peoples take on this was. In most western societies, in the US especially, it seems that the right of individuals is placed above that right of others not to have to suffer at the hands of others freedom, both directly, (I suppose offending millions by flag burning for the sake of 1 flag burner is a good example) and indirectly (increased Tax costs by the public to help both illegal and illegal drug users get medical treatment).
Last edited by Thatperson; 05-28-2010 at 11:11 PM.
-
05-28-2010 11:23 PM #2Terminally Out of Phase
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Gender
- Posts
- 2,246
- Likes
- 831
The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended. - Frédéric Bastiat
I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves. - Christopher Hitchens
Formerly known as BLUELINE976
-
05-28-2010 11:36 PM #3Ad absurdum Achievements:
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
- Gender
- Location
- Block 4500-7000
- Posts
- 4,825
- Likes
- 1113
You can't really have "some authoritarianism", it's usually all or nothing.
guerilla likes this.
-
05-29-2010 04:51 AM #4used to be Guerilla
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- LD Count
- 2
- Gender
- Location
- Arizona
- Posts
- 2,929
- Likes
- 102
Ding ding ding, we have a winner!
Originally Posted by Spartiate
You are spot on correct, once you introduce an infantile amount of authority, it grows like a disease left un-treated, government is the disease.
We have to find a way to control the disease.I would rather die on my feet then to live on my knees.
-
05-29-2010 06:00 AM #5Ad absurdum Achievements:
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
- Gender
- Location
- Block 4500-7000
- Posts
- 4,825
- Likes
- 1113
No, authoritarianism is Originally Posted by guerilla
. There's government, then there's oppressive government...
-
05-29-2010 06:55 AM #6used to be Guerilla
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- LD Count
- 2
- Gender
- Location
- Arizona
- Posts
- 2,929
- Likes
- 102
I can see why you say that but I believe any government is oppressive, all of them.
(but obviously our ideologies are not the same, but that's okay with me) You are still cool in my book.I would rather die on my feet then to live on my knees.
-
05-30-2010 06:08 AM #7Drivel's Advocate
- Join Date
- May 2007
- LD Count
- WhoIsJohnGalt?
- Gender
- Location
- Denver, CO Catchphrase: BullCockie!
- Posts
- 5,589
- Likes
- 930
- DJ Entries
- 9
The question is, can you ever trust an authority to make it's goal to benefit society as a whole? If they don't, how do you propose their authority be removed?
I don't want to focus too much on your drug example, since it will no doubt spawn a debate on that specific subject, but who gets to decide what is legal and what is not(or what is benefitial and what is not)? What exactly is the difference between heroin and oxycodone?Art
The ability to happily respond to any adversity is the divine.
Dream Journal Shaman Apprentice Chronicles
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
Bookmarks