Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DeanRx

Anyway to inform moderators of inappropriate content posts ?

Recommended Posts

All society's place limits on the behavior of individuals. You talk about it as the death of freedom, I see the behavioral conventions of society giving us security. All society's have limitations on behavior. Have you read Rousseau's Social Contract?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rousseau's Social Contract is a very statist document. His praise of the "general will" is scarey to me.

 

In part it said "each of us would put "his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we [would] receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole." The resulting sovereign, "being formed wholly of the individuals who compose it, neither [would have] nor [could] have any interest contrary to theirs; and consequently the sovereign power [would] need give no guarantee to its subjects. In his imagined world, "[t]he Sovereign, merely by virtue of what it is, [would] always [be] what it should be."

 

Sounds a bit Marxist to me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But think of the alternative. I am not free right now by any stretch of the imagination. I have to drive my truck, not the truck or vehicle I want, I must drive only what I own or have permissin to operate. And how do I define ownership anyway? I have a sheet of paper that says that truck, VIN xxx whatever belongs to OldGreyEagle. Its mine because society recognizes that piece of paper is legal and binding. I sleep in the house I own, along with the bank that is. I stay there because, again I have a piece of paper that says its my residence. No one else may reside there, unless of course they break the law and come in. If I prevent them from comming in, am I infringing on their liberty? I guess I am, but my right to my security and residence trumps their right to be in the place I call home. When I go to the stores, I cannot take what I want, I am not free to pick up that which I desire, I can't even pick up that which I need. I must follow the laws and customs of the society in which I choose to live. No one has complete liberty. You have the freedom and liberty to wave your arms around in as random fashion as you wish, that liberty stops however about an inch from the tip of my nose. When I drive down the street, I am not free to drive as fast as I want nor am I free to drive on the left side of the road, although it may remind Eammon of home. Wherever we go, in whatever we do, we follow the rules, customs, the limits of society. And yet I do not begrudge any of it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as how none of this discussion has anything to do with Scouting, I'm moving the topic out of the "Program" forum to the "Issues & Politics" forum. I suppose even that could be construed as a violation of somebody's free speech "rights".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Statism generally means the government having a large role in the economy.

 

I think you misunderstand my position. I am not making an anarchist argument against government by any stretch. Rousseaus's "general will" ideas are scarey. I like Locke a lot more his conceprt of the social contract is more consistent with private ownership and individual freedom in my humble opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you misunderstand Rosseau. So we have a new term? We need to develop a new vocabulary? if you can't communicate your thoughts without making up new words, then either you are a poor communicator or your concept needs work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps. I don't claim to be an expert on Rousseau. How would you say I am wrong?

 

I am suprised you have never heard of statism. I assure you sir I did not make it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did say I heard it on the radio, so no, I don't think you made it up. However, my comment stands that if a new word needs to be coined to desribe a situation, then communication is not at the heart of the people using the new term. It just becomes another epithet. Racist, Bigot, Statist, Socialist, all terms that really get communication and understanding underway, don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you are one of those people who hate "labels." All such terms simplify a position in some way, but they make communication easier.

 

I is easier to say "socialist" then the say "an economic system involving pubilc ownership of large segments of the means of production is a society."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I am just one of those people who hates labels. I didnt realize that made me less, there was a time when not using labels was seen as a good thing. Of course its not as easy to put on a sign when you describe exactly what the position is, mono or di syllabic terms are easier to remember and shout.

 

Communication is the victim of labels and platitudes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say that made you less . . .

 

I think they make communication easier. Isn't that that why "Left" and "Right" in terms of the political spectrum were introduced in the first place?

 

How would you describe a socialist position without using the word "socialist?"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TheScout,

Rules of decorum have nothing to do with depriving liberty. That poster can go post his trash on his own web site for all the world to see. Nobody is stopping him.

 

How would you feel if an athiest stood up in the middle of your church's service and started loudly proclaiming that there is no God? Are you going to deny him liberty and remove him? Or are you going to let him stand there for an hour and ruin the service for the members?

 

I like Rousseau - well, at least his Discourse on Inequality. Haven't read his Social Contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want different things in my secular governments or a Boy Scout forum than in my religion. I want my government to promote liberty. I want my Church to crush heresy with all its power.

 

I have never read his Discourse. As I mentioned I don't like the Social Contract. I have read it and some of what I thought were good libertarian critiques of it, explaining how taking the "general will" concept to a logical conclusion can lead to a very statist (forgive me OldGreyEagle) end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OGE,

 

I was flipping thru the radio dial on the way home yesterday and Sean Hannity had his good buddy Mark Levin on. Levin has written a new book called Liberty and Tyranny. In it, he goes into great detail in describing what has to date been known as "liberals" as now being called "statists" as he says it more acurately describes those evil, tree hugging, unbathed, welfare check, America hating liberals. You know, the guys like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×