avant at sollegro.com
Mon Feb 25 17:55:53 UTC 2019
Quoting Dan the Book Man:
> I disagree. Now more than ever I would hope for others here to see
> its promoting individual freedom and autonomy for everyone that
> should be the focus.
Part of the problem is that as the means of production in our economy
become more autonomous, we, the people, become less so. Do not kid
yourself, people struggling to meet the first couple of tiers of
Maslowe's hierarchy of needs are not free to do anything but continue
the struggle. Why should the freedom of the rich outweigh the freedom
of all others in society?
Without options and opportunities, freedom is a fairy tale.
> The divisiveness you’re seeing is mostly different cliques of
> statism fighting it out.
The old libertarian canard of statism aside, the government is a
necessary compromise between absolute freedom and the rule of law. I
don't see how modern society could function without a state. For
example, without a state, how could you prevent me or whoever from
selling pirated copies of your Kindle books online without paying you
any royalties? Would it be practical for you to come knocking on my
door with a firearm to demand that I cease and desist? What if I have
more and bigger guns? If statism was inherently bad or irrational,
then Somalia would be utopia. News flash: It is nowhere close.
Copyright, police, military, courts, and roads -- all these things
have value and they are all provided by the government.
> And, to be sure, I actually don’t think most people in the US even
> understand philosophical or ideological differences. My perception
> is most people tend to line up with various teams (red or blue?) and
> at best take a laundry list approach...
Yes, and because of this both mainstream parties have become little
more than a loose collection of hot button issues with no guiding
principles. Because the guiding principles they once espoused, no
longer apply to the modern world. Now it is all just emotional
reaction. The "red and blue" comment made me think of how in the
waning days of the Byzantine Empire, chariot racing teams in the
hippodrome were named after colors such as the blues, the reds, the
greens etc. The various colored teams each had their own fan-base of
racing hooligans who, when they were not rioting, became the de facto
political parties of the Eastern Roman Empire.
> And one must be fearful of unity simply to avoid disagreements. That
> can lead to suppression of all rival views. That’s surely not the
> future you’re aiming at, is it?
Dissension and rival view points are fine as long as the underlying
infrastructure is functioning properly. My point is that a
conversation would be more fruitful than a winner-take-all political
More information about the extropy-chat