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

[lobosrul5]

When you find an example of the first kind of person, let me know.

... Kim Jung-Un, Vladimir Putin, Ali Khamenei.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

... Kim Jung-Un, Vladimir Putin, Ali Khamenei.

Nope.
They are only okay with State Control because they are the ones controlling it, not because they ideologically believe it should be so for everyone, including themselves.

 

[wobs]

Which one comes through the door and which one comes through the window?

 

[theprestige]

... Kim Jung-Un, Vladimir Putin, Ali Khamenei.

Nope.
They are only okay with State Control because they are the ones controlling it, not because they ideologically believe it should be so for everyone, including themselves.

Exactly. A more apt example would be a run-of-the-mill communist.

 

[Olmstead]

Exactly. A more apt example would be a run-of-the-mill communist.

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".

 

[The Great Zaganza]

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

 

[arthwollipot]

The optimist says that the glass is half full.
The pessimist says that the glass is half empty.
The engineer says that the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[Ziggurat]

There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who can read binary and those who cannot.

 

[Norman Alexander]

There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who know binary, and those who don't.

 

[Ziggurat]

There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who know binary, and those who don't.

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who ninja, and those who get ninja'd.

 

[Mongrel]

There are two kinds of people in the world, those who can extrapolate from imperfect data.

 

[SteveAitch]

There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who can read binary and those who cannot.

There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who know binary, and those who don't.

Ho hum, some nerd had to do the binary joke.

I just thought it would be me...

 

[bruto]

Oh, I definitely work from the libertarian end. Freedom is the default principle. The state should infringe only when strictly necessary.

You must really hate our current administration and the platform they ran on.

 

[theprestige]

You must really hate our current administration and the platform they ran on.

Hating political compromise all day every day is no way to go through life.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Ho hum, some nerd had to do the binary joke.

I just thought it would be me...

Acknowledging the elephant in the room.

 

[Agatha]

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

 

[novaphile]

There are two kinds of things in the world.

Submarines, and targets.

 

[bruto]

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.

 

[Matthew Best]

 

[Puppycow]

... 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?

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.