Racism Discussion - what is race? what is racism?
- Thread starter The Coup
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
ABC is a reliable news outlet, quoted frequently by all manner of posters.
Stormfront is..._____?
Think you be confusing "whinging about" and "mentioned".
Gus Poyet
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jul 1, 2012
- 9,253
- 4,056
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Brighton & HA, Boston Celtics
- Banned
- #683
Simple really. My actions make a statement about myself. As do everyones actions.
Guns and gun owners are associated with the right , gays with left in this society.
To use a tool of the right to defend a part of the left (in peoples eyes) creates a statement through my actions which contradicts itself.
- Moderator
- #684
I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning there but hey.
i prefer the left/ right divide as in a divide between those that think social inequality is a natural or even desirable outcome (the right) v those that think social inequality is largely a product of the dominant social group exercising that dominance and hold the view that minimising that social inequality is desirable (the left).
Right wingers favor policies that provide greater power for those that already have it. Left wingers favor policies that try and empower those those on the bottom.
Gus Poyet
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jul 1, 2012
- 9,253
- 4,056
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Brighton & HA, Boston Celtics
- Banned
- #685
I simply believe policies should not affect our lives. Our lives are our own to do as we please. That is within sensible reason in regards to how it affects others in the surrounding society.
Thus I don't consider myself left or right. I don't like authority, I don't like being told what to do. The whole premice of right and left is to impose on people through policies and laws their ideal social constructs. I hate that s**t.
However I also do not support anarchy. Governments are required for logistical matters and to coordinate national safety defence mechanisms to protect the citizens from those who would seek to harm them.
- Moderator
- #686
But in the same breath you identify how a lack of policies and laws by the Government (anarchy, lack of security, and a criminal code) affect you and others in our society (potentially extremely seriously).
Cant you see the glaring flaw in the libertarian argument? Small government and less laws protect no-ones liberty, and far from granting anyone freedom, they allow for entirely different forms of tyranny to emerge.
True liberty is a liberal government, not a libertarian one. A liberal government only ever makes laws when those laws are reasonably needed to protect an individual from harm from others. Such laws are proportionate to the level of harm they seek to protect.
- Sep 21, 2009
- 16,736
- 14,940
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
He has done that as well.
- Sep 21, 2009
- 16,736
- 14,940
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Filled with?
Seems to be a lot of Bolt supporters in there... are they lefties now?
Your evidence is weak. Like you.
Gus Poyet
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jul 1, 2012
- 9,253
- 4,056
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Brighton & HA, Boston Celtics
- Banned
- #689
I never said we have a lack of policies. Quite the opposite.
The issue is Govenments are legislating in areas where they have no business to be.
You're confused. Laws which protect a persons personal safety would not be lessened. You can have a small government which is BIG on protecting personal liberty.
Tyranny already exists all around us. Go look at how councils can financially arse rape the citizens for parking in a parking spot too long. They have been empowered to take a persons private property, remove it and impound it until nothing more than a bribe is paid to the council.
We have next to no freedoms these days. Anyone who thinks we do really is a dupe to the system.
Well if thats how you see it then we have zero political parties which follow that mantra. Especially the 3 major parties.
Thus if we will never be free from such parties then following a political philosphy that promotes individual responsibility and a distrust of said parties is the best I could ever hope for.
Tell me about it, just let him be
- Moderator
- #692
No, you said a lack of policies would be a bad thing. A lack of criminal laws, national security laws and so forth. You also alluded that a total lack of policies and laws (anarchy) would be a very bad thing.
Such as?
No youre confused. You assume personal liberty exists without a government. I say the only way to have personal liberty is via government. Liberal government.
Does this individual responsibility exist in a vacuum? Are poor people only poor because they choose to be, and millionaires only wealthy because they choose to be?
Lester Burnham
Cancelled
- Jul 9, 2013
- 4,492
- 4,406
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Your usual strawman arguments. He was advocating small government not no government.
Poor old Maljazeera
Still unable to come to grips with meritocracy
Che t shirts just aren't the bargain they used to be.
Dresden ignoring the obvious as usual. Forget 1st year Arts, he can't even pass go on the SRP board.
"As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” Bastiat
Your attitude to reason is like St Kilda to creditors
10c in the $
Last edited:
- Moderator
- #695
Yeah. I know. You're missing tbe inference in my post above.
Individual liberty does not exist with 'no government'. Why is that? If Liberty is defined as 'freedom from the laws of the State' then surely the less laws there are (and the smaller the government) the more 'Liberty' there is, right?
Clearly this is wrong.
The reason is that Liberty is not just 'freedom from the tyranny of the State' as libertarians would have you believe. That's just the first step. Liberty is also 'freedom from the tyranny of other people'.
Imagine a State with only one law. The smallest government there could be. Let's assume that one law is a prohibition on theft. Thanks to this small government you have zero freedoms. Anyone and everyone can lock you in a dungeon, or kill you and burn your house to the ground.
Laws don't exist to limit freedoms - they exist to ensure them. The more laws there are, the greater your freedoms - as long as those laws are liberal ones (ie they individually only exist to protect a person from harm from others, and are proportionate).
Let me put it to you this way; Laws are the sole means by which liberal governments protect Liberty. The fewer laws you have (and the smaller the government) the less free you are.
Libertarians have it back to front. 'No government' by logical extension can't protect anyone's Liberty (seeing as they don't exist to be able to protect anyone) and 'Small government' can only protect small amounts of Liberty (the minimal protections they provide actually enables tyranny).
A liberal looks at individual laws and checks them to ensure that the specific law in question only exists to prevent harm or prohibit an unreasonable interference in another persons freedoms, and that the law in question is proportionate to the harm it seeks to prevent.
As long as every individual law conforms to the above, the amount of laws, or the size of government is utterly irrelevant. A government can be as big as it needs to be to ensure freedom.
FFS the difference between libertarianism and anarchism has been explained to you repeatedly
Give yourself a card.
- Moderator
- #697
You know I'm not a socialist Meds.
Speaking of a meritocracy, you've never defined 'merit' for me.
Tell me what merit qualifies one for entry to this meritocratic ruling class of yours?
Wealth? Power? Land ownership?
Seriously, define your idea of merit for me.
- Moderator
- #698
Yeah. And my post above explains why those explanations are logically flawed.
People aren't more free with less laws. They're just subject to a different form of tyranny; imposed on them by the powerfull and the wealthy.
Lol. Cheers for the laughs. Sun is out in Blighty, I'm going for a beer.
I am happy to take my chances in the jungle old boy. Thanks for your concern
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
