Picards mistakes

Deepcrush · Post by **Deepcrush** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 3:57 am

I won't but in on your debate but I would like to add just a thought. It is my belief that many people become upset when fighting for hopes that they as a single person in this world will freedom of choice and while many of us to have a massive number of such choices open to us, it may still bother people that the choices given are not up to them but 'choosen' by someone else. They feel as though their free will has been taken away and it hurts to think about it since it only serves to remind them of what they want but can't have. Try to keep this in mind when debates come to the point in which this one has reached.

Post by **Tsukiyumi** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 4:11 am

The majority of 'free will' is an illusion. Society dictates most available choices, and depending on what society you live under, your choices will be notably different. Some of this control is obviously needed: a lot of people would kill at the drop of a hat if the choice were theirs. Others would fail to render aid to injured people because it would adversely affect their schedule (trust me, there are people who would pass up a dying person to make an appointment on time, and make money).

Of course, there is the opposite, government control so oppressive it borders on communism (like what I said about Hillary Clinton's plan to require people to pay for healthcare).

So, on the politcal spectrum, you have oppresively tight government control (communism), and lassez-faire economics where people and companies are free to do whatever they want (fascism). Hitler's ultimate goal was a society where companies and workers were totally free to make economic choices. Of course, all of those people would be white, and speak German...

Deepcrush · Post by **Deepcrush** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 4:29 am

Either you have lost your mind and just gone to where ever it is that they send people to with the pillow walls or you're (this is the one i'm hoping for) very tired and didn't notice what you were saying.

But no matter what you just made very little sense on top of a load of nothing. I must admit I'm not sure what to make of it as of now.

Post by **Tsukiyumi** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:12 am

I was trying to illustrate the extreme version of Teaos' view that everyone should have total freedom over their choices, and contrast that with the opposite: that the government should have total control over everyone's choices. By illustrating the extremes, you can see where either path eventually leads, if people aren't moderate.

And yes, I am rather far from what most people would consider 'normal'. Which part in particular did you take exception to? The political spectrum is a well-known and very real aspect of politics. I myself am nearly dead center.

I suppose I should clarify my intent more in the future.

Post by **Teaos** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:28 am

Strange - you already have. Explicitly stating that my father should have saved up enough money to last him 5 years. I'm sure I don't need to quote it for you.

Fine you insist on bringing it up. Yes he should have. Are you honestly saying he could not have put aside $5 week for the nearly 40 years he was in the work force? Are you saying that he has no family that could support him during that time? Did you work every available hour you were out of school and help out?

If by some slim chance he did have absolutly everything going against him and had absolutly no chance of preparing for it then I hope he would have been lucky enough to find a supporting charity.

Do I have a right to say any of this? Do I know what its like to live in that situation? Damn straight I do. I worked 40 hour week ever since I was 14 while still going to school after my family got in trouble and my dad went from a well paying job to minimum wage job. Thats why I have little sympathy for others in that situation. I went through it and fought my way out with out help from anyone outside of those who willingly gave their aid.

Decisions should only be given to those who have the ability to make them

Decisions arent given they are a natural right like breathing.

if tax was optional, would anyone pay it? Nope. But then there'd be no police force, no fire and rescue, no military, no schools... And then everyone would complain about that.

I suggest you look up the definitions of Liberatian and anarchy. Two things that are rather different. Your point is irrelivant.

The decision has to be made for the greater good, people, like yourself, are completely biased and while you may choose to give charity to those in need, many would not - especially if it required them to actually do something rather than it just being automatically taken off them.

Who decides the greater good?

If people choose not to give to the greater good who are you or anyone else to force them to?

The entire history of modern civilization disagrees. If you want to live in a country with no laws and everything is your choice then you're going to be hard pressed.

History agrees with my point actually. Look at ancient civilisations, the ones who give the most personal freedom we know look back at as being the greatest and they usually did rise to great heights.

Even in modern times the bench mark for a great country is the personal freedoms given the their citizens.

Azrael · Post by **Azrael** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 7:10 am

There is one part I really agree with here. is about the greater good

Who makes that descision for us? people we elect, personal freedom should never come at the expense of another's freedom to live.

Lets use drunk driving as an example, as ironically I just had this debate in class, with some drug addict whom was on his third strike for posession, who thought he and everyone else should be able to do whatever they want, including rape, murder, robbery; anarchy basically.

Your choices can have an impact on others; the reason we have laws and restrictions, is for the safety of others; because we as a species are not responsible enough to choose for themselves. We hardly ever think about anyone but ourselves, which is why anarchy cannot work.

Post by **Teaos** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 7:29 am

because we as a species are not responsible enough to choose for themselves.

??????????????????????????????????????

And the idiots in power are? That is one of the strangest comments I've ever seen brought up in this sort of debate.

Lets use drunk driving as an example, as ironically I just had this debate in class, with some drug addict whom was on his third strike for posession, who thought he and everyone else should be able to do whatever they want, including rape, murder, robbery; anarchy basically.

Your choices can have an impact on others; the reason we have laws and restrictions, is for the safety of others; because we as a species are not responsible enough to choose for themselves. We hardly ever think about anyone but ourselves, which is why anarchy cannot work.

I'm not sure if that is aimed at my points. But as I said anachy is different to libertarianisum.

At its core it is the point that personal freedom is the single most important thing and shouldnt be infringed apon so long as it doesnt infringe apon others personal freedom.

Post by **Tsukiyumi** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:29 am

Just to clarify further, I fit pretty much in the bottom center box straight in the middle of this model of the spectrum:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Worl ... l-Quiz.svg

And somewhere near "social liberalism" on this one (although it's not as encompassing as I would like):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Euro ... ectrum.png

Social Liberalism as follows (again this isn't right on the mark at all, but most political philosophies don't cover individual beliefs):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

To quote Picard: " We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity."

That's what I believe should be the ultimate goal of our civilization.

Post by **Teaos** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:47 am

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

That chart you gave is similar to the above test. As far as online tests go its pretty good but the interesting part to read is the Q and A section that out lines the logic behind the questions.

Azrael · Post by **Azrael** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:54 am

Teaos wrote:
??????????????????????????????????????

And the idiots in power are? That is one of the strangest comments I've ever seen brought up in this sort of debate.
We elect those idiots. if left to choose for our selves, anarchy would ensue. We're a greedy species, akin to a virus. Humanity has to have some form of order to it.

We choose whom decides for us.. maybe not everyone agrees with that paticular "idiot" but that's where the greater good come in.. if some of the freedoms of certain people have to be restricted, to keep the larger majority safe.. I'm okay with that.

I'm not sure if that is aimed at my points. But as I said anachy is different to libertarianisum
No those aren't aimed at you in paticular, it's a reference to the debate with this druggie that I knew in class, whom was even more far to the extreme of personal freedoms, including freedom without regard to others.

At its core it is the point that personal freedom is the single most important thing and shouldnt be infringed apon so long as it doesnt infringe apon others personal freedom.

Isn't that sort of what we have now? atleast if you're american, other than drugs, we're pretty much free to do what we want, as long as it doesn't put others in danger, or infringe upon their freedoms, such as the right to live, the right to be safe.. that sort of thing.

And I can see in somecases with drugs why it's nessicary.. people can't be trusted on their own judgement not to get high and do something dangerous.

Post by **Teaos** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:02 am

Isn't that sort of what we have now? atleast if you're american, other than drugs, we're pretty much free to do what we want, as long as it doesn't put others in danger, or infringe upon their freedoms, such as the right to live, the right to be safe.. that sort of thing.

You cant own many types of guns or animals. You cant marry your own sister. In some places you cant marry someone of the same sex. You cant swear in some places. You cant print or say certain things. You are unable or find it very difficult to get an abortion in many places. There are a lot of pointless laws for victimless crimes. You cant assist someone in killing themselves.

There are many many things you cant do for no good reason apart from it annoys someone who has no right to dictact the way you live your life.

Azrael · Post by **Azrael** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:04 am

Interesting.. by my views and your political compass, i am a left leaning libertarian.

In the same catagory as ghandi.. o_O

Post by **Tsukiyumi** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:11 am

I'm starting to think some kind of three-dimensional political scale may be needed, with the vast differences in opinions.

Interestingly enough, I ended up farther from the center than I expected. I'm almost exactly where Ghandi and Nelson Mandela's politics show up. The lack of questions on military mindset, and my views on religion may have contributed to this.

Considering the abundance of leaders in the "Authoritarian Right", this is probably a good thing.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.23

Post by **Teaos** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:14 am

As I said the test shouldnt be taken at face value as it is only a test but it does give you an idea and stuff to think about.

If you havent read the QnA section as it is pretty interesting.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.11

Post by **Tsukiyumi** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:28 am

The FAQ is very enlightening, really.

Thanks, Teaos for introducing this to me; I recommend that everyone take it to at least give yourself something to consider, as Teaos stated.