Quote of the Day
And thus the conservative/libertarian ideology. When you recognize that everyone has a tendency to evil, you resist the notion of concentrated coercive power for any group. When you think only the other guy is evil, it becomes your mandate to have all of the coercive power for your group only.
October 8th, 2010 at 10:57 am
Wow, quoted twice. Sarah will be justifiably proud!
October 8th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Nice illustration of Hobbsian philosophy … but you are missing the one that our founding fathers followed: Locke.
The philosophy that assumes most people are basically good, therefore we should have only as little government as is needed to deal with the tiny minority of people who choose evil.
They rejected the Hobbsian notion for good reason … the Europeans have embraced Hobbes as their new god.
Do Not Want.
October 8th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Why does the quote assume evil must have a group. There is such a thing as stand alone evil.
October 8th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
単独で立場の複合体
October 8th, 2010 at 11:46 pm
@John Smith, are you saying that a man, who stands alone, is evil? I don’t mean to argue your point, just want to clarify. I am not a big ‘conspiracy’ person. I, for one, think that Mr. Oswald might have been just as lucky as the certain religious individuals who hi-jacked a few aireo-planes some time back.
October 9th, 2010 at 1:58 am
Oswald did not act alone.
No man with a Mannlicher-Carcano is ever truly alone.
October 9th, 2010 at 2:33 am
@ Jerry. No Jerry I am not saying that the stand alone man is evil. However I am not saying he is good either. A stand alone is a person who values personal goals above goals of any said group. From a group standpoint the stand alone is not good and quite possibly evil. This being due to the inherent unpredictability of the said individual. Groups can be predicted with disturbing accuracy yet a stand alone cannot therefore hinting at greater danger. What men fear most is the unknown. Evil by definition tends to most relate on how it involves ones self. Evil for one is not evil for another. In other words the ‘good’ or ‘evil’ of a stand alone is merely dependent on ones point of view.
Conspiracy involves a group by its very nature. A conspiracy of one would could only be achieved by a schizophrenic. Oswald never occurred to me in the quantification leading to stand alone ideas.. This of course being because he was not a stand alone. Hence irrelevant data goes unnoticed. Stand alones tend not target the government in a direct sense but ancillary operations conducted by a stand alone can attract unwanted attention from federal services.
October 9th, 2010 at 2:48 am
There is no “group”, there are only individuals, and some of those individuals claim to speak for the group. This country ( the US ) was founded on individualism. If that frightens you, stick to your hive-mind culture.
You may fear the unknown, but I do not.
I define Evil as initiating an act of violence against another. If you definition is different, I reject it unilaterally, and could care less about your moral relativism.
Speak for yourself. Don’t claim to speak for “men”.
October 9th, 2010 at 6:51 am
When did conservatives start resisting the notion of concentrated coercive power?
October 9th, 2010 at 8:47 am
Not paying too much attention are we kristopher? The founding fathers were a a group of individuals that got together for what they believed was the common good. That means they were a conspiracy. That precludes individualism. Stand alones would not have joined that conspiracy… If this country were truly based on individuals the entire british army would have been able to fight one person at a time because a true individual does not join another group no matter what aside from infiltration. In other words the america you so flippantly underscore would not exist seeing that no individual could survive such an onslaught.
‘I define Evil as initiating an act of violence against another. If you definition is different, I reject it unilaterally, and could care less about your moral relativism.’
That is group speech not of the individual because it does not precisely make sense. If you did not care you would not have made the statement in the first place. You are not an individual simply because you leave no room for anything. That is hive mind. The whole idea behind individualism is to allow room for changes or individual ideas. Your ideas are set in stone just as a groups would be. Alles und ordung??? By the way kristopher were the founding fathers evil??? They were, by your definition of what evil is. As for fearing the unknown you already do simply because you hide behind a definition that you know is clearly false with no attempt to change if FEARING the consequences. While I am at it perhaps it has not occurred to you that I know of more than one person that feels the way I do??? Hence MEN… You see knowing that someone exists is a far cry from joining a club or even being friends… If you had paid any attention to what I typed you would have realized that. But then again you cannot nor will ever be able to….
October 9th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
I was paring attention to your words, Mr. Smith. I just think your position is dead wrong and false to fact.
Just because you say the founding father were not individualists does not make your statement true. All of the rest of your blather is based off of this mistaken premise.
You also have problems with the concept of individuals deciding, on their own, that VOLUNTARY cooperative effort is needed. Congress did not have any authority to force individuals to face the Redcoats. Each volunteer had to make that choice on his own.
October 9th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
Would the guys arguing in the back of the class take a moment, and a deep breath, and agree or disagree with the following:
Sarah would have been every bit as accurate if she had ended the sentence, “it becomes your mandate to have all of the coercive power.”
October 10th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Disagree.
I have no desire to disarm other individuals. Self-defense is a basic human right.
October 10th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Definitely disagree. I do not care about whether the public is armed or not. I will be armed. There is no such thing as human rights. Only the rights that the governing group allows you to have…. Say for instance if the nazis had won do you think this false spectre of human rights would exist??? History is written by the victors not the losers. Also if the founding fathers were not a group mind why did they all sign the declaration of independence??? Individuals that stand alone cannot represent anyone but themselves. My argument is that a true stand alone position is one where the common good does not apply. The only way to know how to do the right thing for everyone is to agree upon it. Therefore a collective agreement. Hence no independence. Voluntary anything goes against the very premise of being independent. If you decide to work with a group you are no longer independent. The two are contrary to each other. Once you agree to work with a group for the common good the thoughts you once had are no longer your own but the groups as a whole. Group thought is intellectual communism… If you never contribute to the group how are you not independent???
October 11th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Great quote, but I consider it a paraphrase of Romans 3:23, which is the foundational principle of limited government with checks and balances. Why? Because, “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”