Trickle Down?Follow

Go away, knoxsouthy.

Elinda,

I feel like the wheels have come off the crazy train if that's what you're asking. Of course being referred to by 3 or 4 different names isn't helping either.

Again. Are malpractice suits "good"?

Their neither good nor bad. What they are is necessary. It's not ok when a physician ***** up and injures someone. There isn't some sort of magic forgiveness field that comes into play because a doctor crippled you instead of a tractor made with wooden screws or whatever.

Being part of society is a new and exciting development.

Wow what? You implied I was being inconsistent with my position on self-reliance. You're free to disagree, but my position is quite consistent. I believe that each individual in society should be as self reliant as possible. I believe that personal freedom and personal responsibility go hand in hand. For a society to have as much freedom as possible for it's members, those members must be as self reliant as possible.


Why is that shocking?

Because you tried to define the term explicitly contradictory to its real meaning? Your definition of self reliant involves you depending--relying--on everyone else to be self reliant. Do you not see the contradiction there?

It's also "wow" because it's an utterly horrible way to live and completely opposes your goal of freedom. The people with the greatest degree of self reliance are subsistence farmers who make their own tools and grow their on food. They are dependent on no one else. The people with the greatest degree of dependence on others are the wealthy. They rely on employees to do their job, banks to hold their money, and governments to protects their assets. The wealthier you are the more people you depend on.

Furthermore self reliance is almost entirely inversely related to freedom. The more self reliant you are the more you are forced to do yourself simply to survive. Because I rely on the police to protect me I can dance around the street with a sack full of money. If I relied on only myself to protect that money I'd be forced to defend it myself which limits how much I can dance around on the street with it. Because I rely on the FDA to assure me of the quality of food I can buy whatever I want carelessly and know it is safe. If I had to check food quality for myself I could only buy the limited number of products from limited suppliers that I had checked myself.

Edited, Feb 6th 2009 7:49pm by Allegory

No?

Yes, it does. What's the saying about a mind being like a parachute?

That is completely backwards. Your entire argument is flawed because it proceeds from this false premise. I'm really curious what you think freedom is.



Circumstance does not hinder freedom. See. This is why I commented that you seemed to be equating freedom to economic status. More correctly, you seem to relate it to economic stability. To be "free of concerns", is not the same as having freedom. Freedom (in this context) means not having your outcomes determined by someone else. Random chance isn't "someone else". A government telling you where you can live and how much of your labor you get to benefit from *is*.



None of which infringe on your freedom. As long as no one is preventing you from planting when you wish, or harvesting when you wish. The problem is that the kind of "freedom" you are pursuing requires a massive infringement of real freedom. You can't be free of the whims of consequence without constructing some system to prevent bad things from affecting you. And that protection always comes with a price. You become reliant on them (dependent even), and then you become a slave to whatever system you've constructed (like the welfare state).



Wow. Just wow...

You are less free in that situation. Your ability to avoid starvation is no longer dependent on your own actions and decisions, but those of someone else (or many someone elses). How do you not see that this reduces your freedom? If those people choose to charge you more for their protection, how do you prevent them from doing so? You're reliant on them now and have no power, no "freedom".



Wrong. Your use of the word freedom is incorrect.

It's possible that the confusion comes from the use of the word "freedom". It can have different meanings depending on the context. I'm specifically using it as a synonym to "liberty". So being "free from worry" is not the correct usage here. We're talking about being free from someone else's control. That's "freedom" in the context of socio-political philosophy. Using a different meaning results in you arriving at exactly the wrong answer.

Maybe if we replaced the word "freedom" with "liberty" it would be more obvious to you where the flaw in your argument is?




Again. You're using the wrong meaning of "freedom". When I talk about it in this context, I mean the following:



Not having to provide for yourself is *not* freedom. On the contrary, the government's intrusion into your life in the process of providing for you reduces your freedom/liberty. That's what you (and many many others) fail to see.



False. There is no way for "increased reliance" to bring about increased freedom. You are reliant on someone or something else. How does that equate to freedom? You're certainly not "free" from that dependence, right? And when the thing you are reliant on is the state, this is a direct reduction of your own liberties.




How can you be "exempt from external control" if you are reliant on someone else? That makes zero sense. Being reliant on someone or something else means that person or thing has control over you. If you are reliant on it for food, then it controls your ability to eat. If you are reliant on it for housing, then it controls your ability to have a place to live. For each and every thing that you are reliant on someone or something else, you are controlled by that someone or something.


Ergo, your "freedom" is directly related to the degree of self-reliance. If you rely on yourself, then you control those aspects of your life. Thus, you have more freedom.

The only thing more amazing then the fact that I have to explain this to you is the sheer number of people who are just as confused about the meaning of freedom.



No. You give them power over you. You give up your choice and control. You abrogate responsibility to others, and lose the associated freedom at the same time. How is this not inherently obvious?



Sure. But now your freedom from eating bad food is controlled by someone other than yourself. You're redefined freedom to mean "someone else takes care of me". That's not freedom! Sheesh...



Wrong. I give up some of my own freedom in order to allow the government to create laws which I believe on balance will protect the remainder more than those I've given up. I agree not to steal from others and in return gain the promise that they wont steal from me, and a legal system which enforces it. I'm also bound by the same laws and subject to the same police powers though. That's a reduction of freedom.

You are trading liberty for safety. Sadly, somewhere along the line, someone convinced you that freedom and safety were the same thing, so you believe you haven't actually given anything up. Amazing...



And you've lost the freedom to ensure that they are taught what you want them to learn instead of what someone else does. That's a loss of freedom.

Edited, Feb 6th 2009 7:26pm by gbaji

You can still teach them yourself (well, not YOU specifically). Or send them to the private school of your choice, or keep them home and indoctrinate them into whatever idiotic philosophy or religion you prefer.

America's great that way. No matter how stupendously misguided your ideas might be, you can still believe them wholeheartedly. Oh, and jam them down your offspring's throats as well.

Edited, Feb 7th 2009 4:22pm by Deathwysh

But on a serious note ... I read this as its short and concise and makes a point. Wall of text is horrible people

Jesus H Christ. That's not quite the stupidest thing I've ever seen, but it's up there.