• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

There's two kinds of people in the world...

theprestige

Penultimate Amazing
theprestige
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
79,965
Location
The Antimemetics Division
... Those that believe the government should prohibit everything, and make exceptions only when strictly necessary for the greater good...

... And those that believe the government should prohibit nothing, and make exceptions only when necessary for the greater good.

Which kind of person are you?
 
Lithrael said:
What are we even talking about here? The legal system already is a list of specific things you're not allowed to do while you are allowed to do everything else, not a list of what you're allowed to do and you're not allowed to do anything else.
Click to expand...

I suggest the easiest way of finding that out clearly would be to have @theprestige answer his own question first, as it applies to him. That way we find out exactly what he means.

That might, in addition, go some way in helping us find out if there's any subtext to this. There has been, in threads started in the past by him. It would be a mistake to imagine he's necessarily on the up and up, in terms of what he actually wants to discuss. I say this from past experience. (On the other hand, this time he may well be looking for a good-faith discussion, no reason why that shouldn't be so. In which case, again, his clearly answering his own questions as it applies to him, might go some way in informing us on that.)

In any case, volunteering information about oneself before asking others is probably a matter of simple courtesy. It's discourteous not to. On the other hand, it might simply have been oversight. But if a clear unambiguous answer is not now forthcoming, to how he answers that question himself, then that would be both discourteous, as well as a fairly clear pointer that this is not a good-faith OP.

----------

You know where I'm coming from, @theprestige . Which thread specifically. I'd been fooled one time, by taking you at face value. Fool me twice, shame on me.
 
There are only two kinds of people: those who build a Titanic and then complain that there aren't enough lifeboats
and those who tried to have as many lifeboats as possible even though they already made the ship (almost) idiot proof.

There has never been a Libertarian who just accepted his losses and took responsibility for the harm they have done - they always cry for a bailout after having cried about government interference.

Grow up
 
There's two kinds of people in the world ...

... compassionate people whose instinct is to cooperate rather than compete

... selfish people whose instinct is to compete rather than cooperate

There's been a sort of evolutionary arms race between them ever since our species first appeared. The first kind is selected for until that results in a stable society which benefits all; being the second kind then becomes more advantageous, as individuals now benefit most by stealing more than their fair share. Eventually they steal so much that the society becomes unstable and collapses, so the first kind once again gets selected for. And around and around we go.
 
There's a BBC series on at the moment looking at how civilisations fall:

www.bbc.co.uk

Civilisations: Rise and Fall

Four mighty civilisations - Rome, Egypt, Japan's Samurai and the Aztecs. Their legends remain - now priceless artefacts reveal what led them to fall into the echoes of history.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

So far I've only seen the ones on Rome, Egypt and the Aztecs. Whilst external factors always seem to to be the trigger for the actual fall (I was surprised at the part climate change played in the Pharoahs' downfall), the one common factor facilitating the final collapse does seem to be increasing wealth inequality. The final programme is about the fall of the Japanese Samurai empire, about which I currently know very little.
 
It's very situational for humans. What one sees as harmful is fun to another.
With an authority level setting limits at least the worst and most destructive behaviors can be curbed.

But if a poll of 5 million folks was taken at what is that limit of control you'll get 15 million answers.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Oh, I definitely work from the libertarian end. Freedom is the default principle. The state should infringe only when strictly necessary.
Click to expand...

That seems reasonable. The second and third sentences, that is. Likewise.

Of course, the devil's right there in the details of sussing out what is "necessary", and just how "strict" is the necessity we're talking about here. So I'm not sure that really resolves anything. But still, it's a good enough place to begin the sussing out from, sure.

And given your libertarian tag, which says you're at one far end of the spectrum, we'll probably disagree over many of those details. But we're agreed over the principle of it, which would be your second and third sentences, and the second option in your OP.
 
8enotto said:
It's very situational for humans. What one sees as harmful is fun to another.
Click to expand...
Yes, and what I'm saying is that there's two basic approaches one can take, to such a dispute. One approach is to take freedom as the default, and carefully examine the claim of harm, to see if it justifies curtailing someone else's fun. The other approach is to take conformity as the default, and carefully examine the claim of fun, to see if it justifies overriding someone else's perception of harm.

8enotto said:
With an authority level setting limits at least the worst and most destructive behaviors can be curbed.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely not true. History is rife with examples of the setting of limits by authorities being by far the worst and most destructive behavior visited upon a society.

8enotto said:
But if a poll of 5 million folks was taken at what is that limit of control you'll get 15 million answers.
Click to expand...
Sure. It's all about compromise. Two different people, one "default-libertarian" and one "default-authoritarian" coming to exactly the same compromise position on a specific issue, from opposite ends of the spectrum I've described.

I'm not talking about there being two diametrically opposed rulesets, and no exceptions, and you're either devoted to one or the other. I'm saying there are two basic approaches, both amenable to compromise, each with a distinct priority when it comes to resolving conflicts. When seeking compromise and conflict-resolution in public policy, do you default to freedom, and make a necessary (to you) exception in this case? Or do you default to conformity, and make a necessary (to you) exception?

And I guess I'll say that "I'm not either, I'm in the middle" is a cop-out. We're all in the middle. We're all making exceptions and compromises where we think it's necessary or unavoidable. My argument is that we've all approached the middle from one or the other default position, and that the default position informs how we view compromise - which of the two rules we're making an exception to.
 
To be clear I am all about minimal control by authority, the bulk of societal norms by choice of the public.
Let the government do military and international dealings, and punish the worst offenses among the public.

But I am not so stupid as to bellieve that most of the people would make the best choices for society all the time.
 
Chanakya said:
That seems reasonable. The second and third sentences, that is. Likewise.
Click to expand...
Sure. The first point is the axiom, the starting position. Part of my thesis is that it's just that - a starting position. You can and should be moving from that starting point to reasonable compromises in practical application.

Chanakya said:
Of course, the devil's right there in the details of sussing out what is "necessary", and just how "strict" is the necessity we're talking about here. So I'm not sure that really resolves anything. But still, it's a good enough place to begin the sussing out from, sure.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It's not about resolving anything. Working out the details of what compromises you'll accept between conflicting viewpoints is up to you. Understanding where you're starting from, and what you consider a rule versus an exception, is in my opinion a worthwhile effort.

Chanakya said:
And given your libertarian tag, which says you're at one far end of the spectrum,
Click to expand...
That's my point: I'm not "at one far end of the spectrum". I'm in the middle, having rules and making exceptions, compromising where I can. My thesis that there's two basic, opposing frameworks for how we approach our place in the middle.

Chanakya said:
we'll probably disagree over many of those details. But we're agreed over the principle of it, which would be your second and third sentences, and the second option in your OP.
Click to expand...
Yep.
 
Which one comes through the door and which one comes through the window?
 
theprestige said:
Exactly. A more apt example would be a run-of-the-mill communist.
Click to expand...
Economically, sure. But that same communist could easily have very "libertarian" views on sex and drugs and so on, while someone with libertarian views on the economy might be a fundamentalist Christian.

Which kind of goes against your notion of two kinds of people, rather than people having different ideas about which parts of life should be "free".
 
Last edited:
There are, it has been said, two types of people in the world. There are those who, when presented with a glass that is exactly half full, say: this glass is half full. And then there are those who say: this glass is half empty.
The world belongs, however, to those who can look at the glass and say: What's up with this glass? Excuse me? Excuse me? This is my glass? I don't think so. My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass! Who's been pinching my beer?
And at the other end of the bar the world is full of the other type of person, who has a broken glass, or a glass that has been carelessly knocked over (usually by one of the people calling for a larger glass) or who had no glass at all, because he was at the back of the crowd and had failed to catch the barman's eye.

- Terry Prachett
 
This thread has become a call-out of one specific poster; please stop this and return to general, non-personalised discussion.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
I must confess I am not an absolutist about much of anything. I think few rights can be absolute without impinging on someone else's rights, and few if any values are unalloyed. I think some degree of compromise is the only way to get through life. Where one draws the line between absolute freedom and the common good is, of course, a matter of disagreement among many, but once that necessary exception is made compromise is on the table. To question, dispute, or reject a specific compromise is an inevitable component of the necessity for argument in life. To reject compromise itself is fanaticism.
 
theprestige said:
... Those that believe the government should prohibit everything, and make exceptions only when strictly necessary for the greater good...

... And those that believe the government should prohibit nothing, and make exceptions only when necessary for the greater good.

Which kind of person are you?
Click to expand...
Given those two choices, I'm firmly in the latter camp. I'm not sure that I've ever met someone who actually believes the former.

Restating the latter, IF something is to be prohibited, there ought to be a good reason why.

I cannot see a good argument, nor can I recall hearing or reading anyone make the argument that the default position on anything should be to prohibit it unless it is "strictly necessary" not to. So the first of these two binary options seems like it might be a strawman, and most people are actually much closer to the latter view than the former.

Then there's the word "necessary" itself. Is it "necessary" to save lives? Why do we mandate the wearing of seat belts or motorcycle helmets, for example. Is it really "necessary" to do that? Maybe we should just let people make their own choices about how much risk is acceptable in their lives. Maybe more people die as a result, but that's their own problem, right? Then there's things like recreational drugs. Maybe it isn't "strictly necessary" to regulate these, but it might be desirable for the greater good. Especially given that the negative consequences of drug use and drug addiction aren't always limited to the users themselves.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Emily's Cat
Relationship of Marxism to Progressive Policies and the Virtues or Risks Thereof
2 3 4 5
Replies
198
Views
1K
steenkh
steenkh

Back
Top Bottom