A lie often repeated will soon start to be believed. Said Hitler. Seems like you are keen on applying his tactic — Agustino

And we have Godwin liftoff. Agustino - you've got the memo!

It's so easy to be a leftist - all you have to do is scream XYZ meme to everything your opponents say. Because that is how intellectual discussions have to be carried out when you don't have any real arguments :)

Shouldn't you have written "ineffectual discussions"? I agree with Landru; discussion is ineffectual when it comes to these kinds of matters. There is simply no will for it. There are only memes here; and the memes of the left are by far the more palatable.

"By their fruits you will recognize them. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?" Matthew 7:16

↪Landru Guide Us It's so easy to be a leftist - all you have to do is scream XYZ meme to everything your opponents say. Because that is how intellectual discussions have to be carried out when you don't have any real argument — Agustino

I'm not aware of any "leftist" who does this but me, regrettably. It's the only way to deal with conservatives and block their bizarre and dishonest way of framing issues.

So stay hopeful. I'm sure you'll find a lot of progressives who will actually think your memes are real arguments and foolishly rebut them with facts, allowing you to go on and on and on with one discredited meme after the next.

This has been a long thread, so perhaps I have missed it, but how exactly are you defining who is a "leftist" and "rightist?" I loathe these discussions, as I said before, precisely because I find these categories woefully inadequate and rarely defined by the people who use them. Nevertheless, I would probably categorize myself, in the very broadest sense, as a classical liberal in the vein of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Jefferson. Though I diverge economically from classical liberalism towards some form of socialism or mutualism (like Proudhon's idea). Foreign policy wise, I'm very close to the neoconservatives, but said movement was basically formed by a bunch of former Trotskyists.

So based on all this, would you consider me a leftist? If so, why, and if not, why not?

There is room for conservative ideology to justify interference and harm on the grounds that the group being interfered with and harmed is not included in the group to which the rights apply (note: this is not exclusive to conservatism) — Soylent

This does not follow. It does not follow that because it is not wrong (ie, no rights are broken) to interfere/harm another group that this is right. Therefore, a conservative may not use this as justification, and if they do, then they're committed to a fallacy.

Hitler wasn't much of a socialist.

True, early on he took over a little German political group which maybe had some socialist-type intentions, but that was more opportunist than anything else. The neglect of socialist programming became a small issue in the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, abbreviated NSDAP), AKA, the Nazi Party. — Bitter Crank

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html

Hitler's policies implied a lot of governmental control over the economy - at least in terms of economics, he was clearly not laissez faire.

While this seems like a sensible response, it ignores a potential (and potent) harm of social and psychological displacement. It shouldn't be expected that a person is asked to leave friends and family in exchange for security. The two needs (social and safety) are basic needs, and a society that fails to meet the basic needs of individuals in that society loses legitimacy (from within). — Soylent

This presupposes that there is a way not to harm anyone while resolving this problem. I argue that the majority of the people in that community feel harmed by homosexual practices because this goes against their cultural values. Therefore, such practices are outlawed. However, out of compassion for homosexuals, the only remedy is for a society which appreciates them, and can truly provide a satisfactory environment for such individuals to flourish to take them from the society which is incapable, due to other commitments, to do this for them.

is that the ability to freely express one's opinion either way would itself be made impossible in certain cultures/countries. Therefore, by merely expressing your opinion, you have rejected said cultures and so cannot be inclusive to all of them. Some of them must be destroyed in order for you and others like you to live. — Thorongil

Again - this doesn't follow. I may have the ability to express myself freely right now, and therefore make use of it - but it doesn't follow that I necessarily must believe that I SHOULD have such an ability to begin with. In my previous post I was just saying that I agree with you - I value the ability to express myself, and I think others should have access to it - but I'm not in a position to impose this upon other communities, who decide on different values.

Yes, but I'm not beholden to everything Socrates allegedly said. His cosmopolitanism is worth keeping, whereas his other positions can be argued over on their own terms. — Thorongil

This needs to be argued.

Yes, morally bankrupt societies usually don't survive long, but they often attempt to bring down everyone and everything with them when they implode. Free societies have an obligation to prevent atrocities and protect the people living under barbaric regimes. — Thorongil

I think free societies have an obligation to protect their citizens, and so to the extent that oppressive societies seek to increase their strength in order to subjugate them, etc. they have a right to take action to stop this from happening. So yes - by and large, I agree with you here.

I know in today's completely warped political discourse, those who would be in favor of greater military action are alleged to be on the right, but in fact, and historically speaking, this would be a leftist position. — Thorongil

What do you mean are historically speaking left? Could you provide some examples please? Thanks!

There are only memes here; and the memes of the left are by far the more palatable. — John

Justify both statements please.

"By their fruits you will recognize them. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?" Matthew 7:16 — John

Agreed.

I'm not aware of any "leftist" who does this but me, regrettably. — Landru Guide Us

Yes, because unlike you, many of the other Leftists here are willing to be rational and discuss this issue openly. You just want to impose your views. I'm going to stop addressing your posts until you bring in some real content. Thanks for whatever participation you could offer to the thread so far Landru. But I don't think it helps either of us to continue our discussion - you obviously have an extremist view thinking that the right is always evil and wrong, and, while I respect you and your view, I would kindly ask you not to impose this on me.

This has been a long thread, so perhaps I have missed it, but how exactly are you defining who is a "leftist" and "rightist?" — Thorongil

I'm not - because if I did it would be very messy. Meaning is use, hopefully the meaning will elucidate itself through the way this thread has been progressing (and I encourage you and everyone else to read the whole thread - the only way to truly understand what is currently going on). It's very difficult, because as you and others have said - these positions have kept changing historically, and they're not, at the moment, very useful or informative. Further difficulties are added by mine, as well as other members vague use(s) of the term(s). But we have no other terminology, so unfortunately, what can I do?

I loathe these discussions, as I said before, precisely because I find these categories woefully inadequate and rarely defined by the people who use them. — Thorongil

Me too. Which is why this is the first (and probably the only) political thread that I'll engage in, in both PF and TPF.

Nevertheless, I would probably categorize myself, in the very broadest sense, as a classical liberal in the vein of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Jefferson. — Thorongil

Ok.

Though I diverge economically from classical liberalism towards some form of socialism or mutualism (like Proudhon's idea) — Thorongil

I disagree that Proudhon's ideas of socialism are practical. The vast majority of mankind can never ever achieve the moral perfection necessary to thrive under such freedom. Therefore, there must be rulers - preferably as Plato said - philosopher Kings. Sure - they will prevent them from ever reaching moral perfection - but then, the masses could never do it to begin with. At least this way, those who can achieve moral perfection, and who wish to strive for it, can do so, and are respected for so doing.

So based on all this, would you consider me a leftist? If so, why, and if not, why not? — Thorongil

I would call you right-wing. The only reason why I have some reservations is because of Proudhon and the fact you seem to, at least to me, think that the masses can achieve the wisdom of sages - otherwise there would be little debate about it.

Yes, because unlike you, many of the other Leftists here are willing to be rational and discuss this issue openly. You just want to impose your views. I'm going to stop addressing your posts until you bring in some real content. Thanks for whatever participation you could offer to the thread so far Landru. But I don't think it helps either of us to continue our discussion - you obviously have an extremist view thinking that the right is always evil and wrong, and, while I respect you and your view, I would kindly ask you not to impose this on me. — Agustino

Once you expose the rightwing memes, the next gambit is this: "You're mean on me"

I'm going to keep exposing your memes regardless, making you look like the fool you are

Hitler's policies implied a lot of governmental control over the economy - at least in terms of economics, he was clearly not laissez faire. — Agustino

And so this makes him a socialist?

Jesus man. Words mean nothing to conservatives

Justify both statements please. — Agustino

Political allegiances are like tastes for certain kinds of food, or aesthetic taste in general. When you 'argue' with a leftist you each valorize your own tastes. All philosophical positions of any kind are based on starting assumptions which are themselves not rationally justified; they are accepted as axioms. When it comes to what is accepted as axiomatic by political disputants, what is 'self evident' to each one is arrived at by 'what feels right' to them, in other words it is biased by their conditioned preferences; into which many complex influences feed. A persons taste in food, clothes, even art, is not much of a moral matter; we might find certain things others like in these areas distasteful, even disgusting, but when it comes to politics, including sexual politics, it is much more closely aligned with the ethics of human life in general. There are no serious discussions going on in this arena, just the usual mud and meme-flinging.

I don't have to justify my preference for left wing values; I simply have an emotional preference and consequent feelings of support for dispositions of compassionate concern and love of freedom as opposed to dispositions of malicious or indifferent exploitation and domination. For me it comes down to aestheticization of ethics, as it did for Nietzsche.

Political allegiances are like tastes for certain kinds of food, or aesthetic taste in general. When you 'argue' with a leftist you each valorize your own tastes. All philosophical positions of any kind are based on starting assumptions which are themselves not rationally justified; they are accepted as axioms. When it comes to what is accepted as axiomatic by political disputants, what is 'self evident' to each one is arrived at by 'what feels right' to them, in other words it is biased by their conditioned preferences; into which many complex influences feed. A persons taste in food, clothes, even art, is not much of a moral matter; we might find certain things others like in these areas distasteful, even disgusting, but when it comes to politics, including sexual politics, it is much more closely aligned with the ethics of human life in general. There are no serious discussions going on in this arena, just the usual mud and meme-flinging.

I don't have to justify my preference for left wing values; I simply have an emotional preference and consequent feelings of support for dispositions of compassionate concern and love of freedom as opposed to dispositions of malicious or indifferent exploitation and domination. For me it comes down to aestheticization of ethics, as it did for Nietzsche. — John

Good - according to your theory your ethics cannot be enforced upon others since you yourself admit it's the product of your emotional preferences, and hence something unique to you and therefore not universal :) - hence my critique applies directly to you.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html

Hitler's policies implied a lot of governmental control over the economy - at least in terms of economics, he was clearly not laissez faire. — Agustino

Neither you nor the Independent have convinced me one wit that Hitler was a socialist in anyway more than having that one word in his party's title. I don't think Joseph Stalin was much of a socialist either -- certainly of no kind that I would care to associate with.

Socialism is a process: not an event, not a political party, not a person. What Marx was talking about was the self-liberation of the working class. Lots of amped up and impatient people want to skip over all sorts of necessary steps and jump-start the Revolution. The revolution of the working class can not begin until the working class is ready to do it en masse by and for themselves.

Ghastly dictatorships, rule through violence, ruthless exploitation of human resources, genocidal drives (or, at the very least, ethnic cleansing) and so on all have many exemplars. Workers' self-liberation through revolution, not so much.

Hitler wasn't even a very good social democrat in his politics. Subversion was his game from the get go. He didn't persuade Germans to accept Nazism, he threatened their persons with dire consequences if they didn't--and he delivered. The Nazi Party was a thug-scum operation from the beginning--the SA was organized early on to take political debate to the street with the help of Nazi fists and truncheons. The SA set up private dungeons for short-term storage of good Germans who might not be getting the point through subtler arguments.. A few days in their little lock-ups usually convinced Germans that resistance was futile. Then there were the concentration camps proper, of which there were many hundreds. Most of them were for the purpose of maintaining political power, not racial purity.

Stalin was despicable. If he wasn't quite as bad as Hitler; even if he was a lot better than Hitler, he was still appallingly cruel, vicious, paranoid, ruthless, and drenched in blood. Maybe Soviet methods needed to be ruthless, cutting as many corners as they were on Karl Marx's idea for workers self-liberation. Russia scarcely had a working class when the Soviets opened up for business, so a lot of ground had to be skipped over (meaning, lots of people had to be forced to cooperate or be shot).

Socialism is a process: not an event, not a political party, not a person. What Marx was talking about was the self-liberation of the working class. Lots of amped up and impatient people want to skip over all sorts of necessary steps and jump-start the Revolution. The revolution of the working class can not begin until the working class is ready to do it en masse by and for themselves. — Bitter Crank

A process that is by its very nature oppressive and conflictual, as the working class is supposed to overthrow the capitalist class and impose its values on them - thus creating values which are universal, as Marx put it (that is in fact how Marx attributed universality to those values - a universality achieved by the fist). In the process, of course all family values will be overthrown - the family will be removed as a social structure - and we're all going to be forced to live in "free love", sharing our lovers with the whole rest of mankind, because we are now all equal. In the process we will all become like isolated islands, who sometimes touch, but never for long. Of course, I'm most certain that our nature will not interfere with us while we seek to achieve this - I mean how dare our instinct to exclusivity with our lovers interfere with our socialist dreams? And even if it does, it's easy - all those in whom such an instinct dares to manifest must certainly suffer from some type of mental illness, and thus they deserve our pity and "help". Afterall, our scientific studies, that we have done amongst our healthy-minded (which of course means socialist) circles, prove that such instincts and desires are most unnatural, and certainly an abnormality. People displaying them are simply the victims of capitalist oppression... After we "help" them, they will will surely realise the magnificence of the socialist dream. And on an economic level - how dare someone desire to have something his neighbour doesn't have? I mean isn't that the most selfish, and unnatural of desires, born out of capitalist oppression? On a cultural level - how dare someone want to play a game which has winners and losers? Surely such people deserve our pity and "help", then they will certainly see the glory of our socialist dreams. They will be dignified working and owning their own labour, and everyone will be satisfied with what they have - our games will have no winners and no losers, and now everyone will be entirely equal and will not be haunted by emotions of oppression.

Finally, communism has been achieved. We all shag our sisters, live in free love, and have the same lack of resources that everyone else has. None of us is any different, and we all receive the same treatment. In this world none of us desire to feel superior to anyone else, and even if we do, we don't have the means. There is no more shame, as everything has become acceptable - if you want to fuck the communal dog, then that is most certainly acceptable, how dare anyone oppress you for it? What a wonderful world, I'm sure that if this was reality I would most certainly not want to put a bullet in my head.

Ghastly dictatorships, rule through violence, ruthless exploitation of human resources, genocidal drives (or, at the very least, ethnic cleansing) and so on all have many exemplars. Workers' self-liberation through revolution, not so much. — Bitter Crank

Yes, welcome to reality - this is what is required to achieve your socialist dream. You just do not have courage and do not want to be pragmatic about the issue. How else, if not through oppression, could the Marxist values ever become universal?

Stalin was despicable. If he wasn't quite as bad as Hitler; even if he was a lot better than Hitler, he was still appallingly cruel, vicious, paranoid, ruthless, and drenched in blood. Maybe Soviet methods needed to be ruthless, cutting as many corners as they were on Karl Marx's idea for workers self-liberation. Russia scarcely had a working class when the Soviets opened up for business, so a lot of ground had to be skipped over (meaning, lots of people had to be forced to cooperate or be shot) — Bitter Crank

Stalin was worse than Hitler. At least Hitler had an agenda - Stalin just ordered a certain percentage of the population from X region to be killed and signed the papers himself. For no reason, except his own paranoia. The difference between Hitler and Stalin is the difference between evil and insanity. Insanity is worse. But yes - poor Marx - he had always failed to realise the opposition that our nature has towards socialism - but Stalin knew it. He did what was required in order to change our nature and achieve socialism. He should be the hero of all socialists as he dared do the only thing that was necessary to achieve the socialist dream. Long live comrade Stalin!!

And we had regimes which didn't. What do you mean to say, that the world is very diverse in its customs and what it deems acceptable or not? Sure it is! But just like one culture deems it unacceptable to use hallucinogenic drugs, another culture deems it unacceptable to engage in gay sex. What's wrong with that? Cultural norms - that's all.

Utter crap.

It not just "cultural norms." It is the ethical position that the given group of people ought to be locked-up killed. And you are here supporting it in any instance where the present causal power happens to enforce it. Your argument is directly opposing those how do take issue with such polices in their own country. This is what Landru meant by the "back-track." You make a claim, that is it ethical for a society to kill gay people if a culture happens to enforce it, but then do everything to deny that's what you are actually saying, even as you proudly continue asserting it.

No, all that needs to happen is that oppressed groups stop being oppressed, not that they gain advantages. That is like desiring that the poor replace the rich - nonsense.

What I mean is that, when one group has power over another, the removal of oppression takes this away. The oppressed group gains something they did not have before. By definition, the oppressed gain an "advantage" compared to be they had when oppression ends.

Oppressors lose something they had. Sometimes this might mean, literally, that the poor replaces the rich: consider instances of economic exploitation where ending oppression involves employers losing profits to pay their workers an non-explotaive wage. The rich lose money to remove this oppression. Other times people merely read the loss of power as the formerly oppressed gaining an unjust entitlement, despite the fact they haven't lost money, property, or position, etc.etc.

Good - according to your theory your ethics cannot be enforced upon others since you yourself admit it's the product of your emotional preferences, and hence something unique to you and therefore not universal :) - hence my critique applies directly to you. — Agustino

What I think you are failing to see is that an oppressor is one whose ethics are enforced upon others. For me this is the essence of the right wing base assumption; that might makes right, that you may exploit others to your heart's content if you remain within the law. For me, your 'position' is a poorly though out moving self-contradiction.

You make a claim, that is it ethical for a society to kill gay people if a culture happens to enforce it, but then do everything to deny that's what you are actually saying, even as you proudly continue asserting it. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is factually incorrect. I never claimed it is ethical to kill gay people if a culture happens to be anti-gay and enforces it. What you may ARGUE I claimed (and even that is unlikely given my arguments), is that such a culture would not be wrong to outlaw gay practices (in either case, this does not imply it is right to do so, or that it should do this). It remains for you to show how X not being wrong necessitates that X is either right, or that it should be done.

Furthermore, you have strawmanned what I said. Gay people can exist all they want in Iran - what is outlawed is not being gay - but rather practicing homosexuality. Someone can still be gay and yet remain abstinent from homosexual practices if the laws of the country where they live demand this. Now this means that someone could campaign for homosexuals to receive rights, but cannot do so in a manner that breaks the law - ie, having gays kiss, hold hands, or any other practice that is judged to be homosexual according to the law which outlaws such practices. The law cannot be protested against by BREAKING the law. The protest must remain within the confinements of the law. Now - if the state punishes one of its peoples in a way that is not according to its own laws, then it loses legitimacy, and the people are entitled to usurp the powers of the state. Does this warrant foreign intervention? Maybe.

What I mean is that, when one group has power over another, the removal of oppression takes this away. The oppressed group gains something they did not have before. By definition, the oppressed gain an "advantage" compared to be they had when oppression ends. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes - also by definition that is not an "advantage". If me and a fellow worker should both be earning 5$ because that's what our work is worth, and I trick management to pay me 7$ while paying him 3$, then the resolution of this is not in him gaining an advantage - since a priori his salary should have been 5$, which is what it will become. In this case, he gains justice, and I lose my unfair advantage.

What I think you are failing to see is that an oppressor is one whose ethics are enforced upon others. — John

I agree, that has been my whole argument as well.

For me this is the essence of the right wing base assumption; that might makes right, that you may exploit others to your heart's content if you remain within the law — John

I disagree that this is the base assumption of right-wing politics, at least in the manner I think of it. If it were - then I'd agree with you. I think the base assumption of right-wing politics is to live and let live, whereas left-wing politics attempts to force everyone in a single pattern of acceptable values.

I disagree that this is the base assumption of right-wing politics, at least in the manner I think of it. If it were - then I'd agree with you. I think the base assumption of right-wing politics is to live and let live, whereas left-wing politics attempts to force everyone in a single pattern of acceptable values. — Agustino

What exactly does "live and let live" mean to you? Also, do you not agree that there is necessarily a limited range "of acceptable values" (when it comes to any kind of human intercourse at least) if the aim is to live together in a civil-ized fashion?

What exactly does "live and let live" mean to you? — John

It means exactly that no one culture is imposed over another. For example, we don't go in the Middle East to tell them what rules they should have about head scarves for women or not.

Also, do you not agree that there is necessarily a limited range "of acceptable values" (when it comes to any kind of human intercourse at least) if the aim is to live together in a civil-ized fashion? — John

Yes - but it's also culturally dependent to at least a large degree - even though so far in this thread I've argued it's completely culturally dependent for philosophical ease of argument. Some things may not be culturally dependent such as torturing members of a minority just for fun is wrong, regardless of whether it is accepted by a large majority. But a lot of issues, (such as headscarves being mandatory for women) is culturally dependent and should be allowed to be so.

PS: Notice, that this also means that failure to, for example, wear a scarf, can be punished as the respective culture decides. Why? Because everyone can wear a scarf. Same with homosexuality in this case - everyone can be gay, and yet not engage in homosexual practices. Because of these reasons, what punishments are is irrelevant. What matters more is what is condemned and what is not condemned by law. If having black skin is condemned - then something is wrong (in other words no culture can justify condemning having black skin), because people don't get to decide whether they have black skin or not: hence people are "destined" to break the law, which clearly is cruel towards them, cause they don't even have a chance. But they certainly get to decide whether they commit adultery, engage in homosexual practicies, or wear a scarf (ESPECIALLY when they are aware of the consequences of doing so). There's no comparison there. Hence in one case justice is done by the application of the law in punishing individuals, and in the other - it is a case where the law is used to justify murder (necessarily killing someone for reasons not under their control).

If a culture were to punish people merely for HOLDING gay preferences (without engaging in homosexual practicies), then again this would necessarily be morally wrong regardless of the structure of that culture - because people don't get to decide what their preferences are in the first place, hence they cannot be held accountable for it in front of the law or anyone else.

I think the base assumption of right-wing politics is to live and let live, whereas left-wing politics attempts to force everyone in a single pattern of acceptable values. — Agustino

The implicit "relative values" that you ascribe to the right seem more appropriate to the "left" and the narrow, single pattern of values seems more appropriate to the right -- at least the way I think of left and right. But let's not debate that, because thinking leftists and rightists both maintain wider margins in their definitions. The caricatured left and right aren't the real left and right.

I know people who fall on the left and right (using anybody's definition) who are a lot like their opposites. You do too, most likely. There are leftists who are quite rigid in their morals, have strong family values, and so forth. And there are right wing folks who are not models of conservative probity and propriety.

Again - this doesn't follow. I may have the ability to express myself freely right now, and therefore make use of it - but it doesn't follow that I necessarily must believe that I SHOULD have such an ability to begin with. — Agustino

I'm saying that the "should" here is implicit by the very act of your exercising such an ability in the first place. You agree in practice, in other words, that you should be able to express yourself freely, if not in principle.

In my previous post I was just saying that I agree with you - I value the ability to express myself, and I think others should have access to it - but I'm not in a position to impose this upon other communities, who decide on different values. — Agustino

Why not?

This needs to be argued. — Agustino

In brief, cosmopolitanism is a logical consequence of the fact that we possess natural rights but also the necessary condition for said rights to be expressed and to flourish. A woman in Somalia has exactly the same right to life, liberty, etc as any one else in the world. Citing her culture, religion, or other invented institution as a means by which to deny her these rights is therefore unjustified. Moreover, those who do possess the free exercise of their rights have themselves the right to protect those in whom they are being denied.

What do you mean are historically speaking left? Could you provide some examples please? Thanks! — Agustino

To stick with American foreign policy, if we go back to WWII, we find that those on the right, including Republican congressmen and presidential candidates, were largely against intervening in Europe, whereas FDR and his administration were largely for doing so prior to Pearl Harbor. Truman, another Democrat, then intervened on behalf of Korea shortly thereafter. Later, Democratic President Kennedy initiated the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba and the US intervention in Vietnam. (Unlike in WWII or Korea, these latter two decisions proved disastrous, of course.) Clinton, rather belatedly, intervened in Bosnia to stop the war and genocide there. And finally, in the case of Iraq, despite a purportedly conservative president initiating the war, we can see that the old right wing establishment, including figures like Pat Buchanan and Henry Kissinger, were opposed to it and that Democrats in Congress were essential in approving it. Bush also had the backing of a Labour Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, in the UK.

So based on this brief history, it seems to me that the left has largely been responsible for and favorable of strong military intervention in the world, and the right has largely tried to remain isolationist, which is indeed an inherently conservative position to take. It is somewhat surprising how swiftly and drastically this has changed in recent years, whereby the right is now strongly in favor of military intervention and the left now espouses a conservative isolationist policy.

I disagree that Proudhon's ideas of socialism are practical. The vast majority of mankind can never ever achieve the moral perfection necessary to thrive under such freedom. — Agustino

This may be true, and is actually a succinct statement of pessimism of a kind, but this is no excuse not to try to educate people, morally or otherwise. A free and open society in fact demands it. By the way, Proudhon may have popularized the term "anarchy" but he was certainly no anarchist in the sense of wanting to eliminate the state. Especially later in life, he saw its necessity, and I agree with him and presumably you that a state is necessary.

Therefore, there must be rulers - preferably as Plato said - philosopher Kings. Sure - they will prevent them from ever reaching moral perfection - but then, the masses could never do it to begin with. At least this way, those who can achieve moral perfection, and who wish to strive for it, can do so, and are respected for so doing. — Agustino

The latter can only do so and be respected for it if they have the freedom to do so in the first place and the masses are enlightened enough to recognize and respect their moral and intellectual accomplishments. Ergo, unlike Plato's vision, this requires a free and open society, one that still has rulers and a state to be sure, but one whose sovereignty lies with the people.

I would call you right-wing. The only reason why I have some reservations is because of Proudhon and the fact you seem to, at least to me, think that the masses can achieve the wisdom of sages - otherwise there would be little debate about it. — Agustino

I'm not massively familiar with Proudhon, but from what I do know and have read of him, he seems to be slightly misunderstood. His ideas on property are not in fact all that dissimilar to antecedent classical liberal theories on the same, and as I said above, he is not technically an anarchist. I also don't think the masses can achieve the wisdom of sages, not at all. However, I do say that they should have the ability to do so should they so choose. That's the key point. I really do appreciate the rightist critiques of the Enlightenment, democracy, the notion of progress, etc. de Maistre in particular has quite hilarious, witty, and cogent take downs of the silly optimism contained in much liberal and leftist thinking. Yet his and his ilk's defense of the kind of Pre-Revolutionary aristocratic, autocratic, and theocratic ways of governance do not represent a better alternative.

So I'm still not at all sure why you think I'm a rightist.

What you are saying is equivalent to insisting that black people hide their skin colour if they want to enjoy citizenship ( they can't help their skin colour but they should hide it if it is deemed offensive).

People have no control over their sexual orientation, and to require people to repress their sexual feelings, not to express them, would be an act of unacceptable oppression, pure and simple, and as such completely unsupportable. I would like to know what your motivation is for making such idiotic claims.

You agree in practice, in other words, that you should be able to express yourself freely, if not in principle. — Thorongil

No I don't. I simply take advantage of an opportunity I happen to have. I may not agree with having such an opportunity in the first place.

Why not? — Thorongil

Because just like I have my freedom, others do too.

Ergo, unlike Plato's vision, this requires a free and open society, one that still has rulers and a state to be sure, but one whose sovereignty lies with the people. — Thorongil

This is infantile. The masses will never be sufficiently enlightened, hence why they need rulers in the first place. I wonder - have you encountered real human stupidity? I come originally from Eastern Europe. I have encountered stupidity... some people, you explain to them something a hundread times - they don't care. I tried to explain to this old friend this relatively simple mathematics equation when I went back once: it was as if I talked to a wall. I had to give up. It is simply impossible. The village priest says something - that is the truth. They really don't give a fuck about anything else. They live in a state alike to that of the animals. The only way they can be controlled, and they can be stopped from slaughtering each other is through religion. It is an infantile dream of liberals that you'll ever convince those people that homosexuality is wrong - the only way to convince them will be to kill them. These people will live the way they have learned to live, regardless of what you do. You cannot even educate those people. They need to be governed by taking into account their intellectual level.

Most of Western society is the same. It's full of animals - who are totally confused and incapable to think, who just follow the crowd, wherever it is going. The only difference is that the Western crowd aren't peasants living in the countryside.

The Bible said "For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief". And if I think about it - even though I belong to no Church, and cannot be considered a Christian in any traditional sense - much more an atheist - this principle is correct. It befalls the elite to bear the sadness of the world and to take upon responsibility for everyone else. Everyone else doesn't care about knowledge - this harbringer of sadness, which is only acceptable to the elite. As the Romans said... bread and circus. That's all that they know or want to know.

However, I do say that they should have the ability to do so should they so choose. — Thorongil

Don't waste your time. Those who wish to do so, don't need your help. And those who don't wish so, cannot be helped by you.

What you are saying is equivalent to insisting that black people hide their skin colour if they want to enjoy citizenship ( they can't help their skin colour but they should hide it if it is deemed offensive). — John

How can you misinterpret this so badly I wonder... When I clearly said that having a law outlawing black skin would be IMMORAL because black people have no choice in their skin color, and cannot help but break the law.

People have no control over their sexual orientation, and to require people to repress their sexual feelings, not to express them, would be an act of unacceptable oppression, pure and simple, and as such completely unsupportable. I would like to know what your motivation is for making such idiotic claims. — John

They have no control over their sexual orientation. I agree. But they have control over whether they engage in gay behavior or not. And not engaging in gay behavior doesn't mean they repress their sexuality. They have outlets through masturbation and fantasy, and ways to sublimate this desire through fighting for legalising homosexuality within the bounds of the law. You make it sound as if homosexual people are like animals who cannot control their impulses... Isn't that demeaning?

How can you misinterpret this so badly I wonder... When I clearly said that having a law outlawing black skin would be IMMORAL because black people have no choice in their skin color, and cannot help but break the law. — Agustino

I didn't say that outlawing having black skin, but rather outlawing showing it, would be equivalent to outlawing, not being gay, but expressing it. It is you that is interpreting poorly.

There is no good reason why homosexual (or any other kind of sexual) people should "control ( read as 'repress' or 'redirect') their impulses" as long as those impulses are directed towards others who are of appropriate maturity to consent, and it is this lack of good reason that determines that any requirement that they do so would be oppressive, and should not be supported by any rational person.

I didn't say that outlawing having black skin, but rather outlawing showing it, would be equivalent to outlawing, not being gay, but expressing it. It is you that is interpreting poorly. — John

You are peddling nonsense... as if it were possible for a black person not to show any skin...

There is no good reason why homosexual (or any other kind of sexual except) people should "control ( read as 'repress' or 'redirect') their impulses" as long as those impulses are directed towards others who are of appropriate maturity to consent, and it is this lack of good reason that determines that any requirement that they do so would be oppressive, and should not be supported by any rational person. — John

Yes there is good reason - that being against the law for starters.

They could be required to cosmetically disguised their skin colour or completely cover their faces and bodies with cloth. Women in some cultures are required to do little less than this.

Being against the law is not a good reason, on its own, for judging any practice to be ethically or morally right or wrong; and if you think it is then you are an ultra-conservative idiot.

Being against the law is not a good reason, on its own, for judging any practice to be ethically or morally right or wrong; and if you think it is then you are an ultra-conservative idiot. — John

Then you think people should consider themselves above the law?

The proper aim of enlightenment in my view is to be above the law, in the sense of no longer thinking that one's behavior be should be prescribed, or proscribed, by others, and also in the sense of no longer arrogating to oneself the right to prescribe what others should do. This is workable, though only for those in whom an appropriate feeling and respect for the rights of others is in place.

The proper aim of enlightenment in my view is to be above the law, in the sense of no longer thinking that one's behavior be should be prescribed, or proscribed, by others, and also in the sense of no longer arrogating to oneself the right to prescribe what others should do. This is workable, though only for those in whom an appropriate feeling and respect for the rights of others is in place. — John

And the enlightenment is the "correct view" that ALL of mankind will always have for the remaining of its history?