But that's basically a statement of conservatism. Preserve our heritage...

It's as anti-reason as "If it ain't broke don't fix it."

An opposing response is that human society is often in a state of moral failure without strictly being broken.

"Institutionalized slavery" means there are laws governing it or it's recognized. But slavery varies. Sometimes it's social welfare. Sometimes slaves are war trophies. Need to reference a particular case of it (un and andrew).

I think the point being made by your opponents in this thread is that because in any society there are people whose tolerance or intolerance doesn't matter by virtue of their defenselessness, the legitimacy spoken of in the OP is false legitimacy. Furthermore, the fact that human society is generally afflicted with injustice (and I would add corruption), the endurance of institutions may (and possibly inevitably) testifies to the dominance of the unjust and the corrupt.

Your opponents don't explain whether this translates to an obligation to be ready for change or to actively seek it.

My own view is that government exists not only because people tolerate it, but because it's part of who we are, and we embrace it as a path to the manifestation of our greatest potential. The fact that we err and fail doesn't change that. I think a society needs people who are risk averse. We need people who fear change because change can be catastrophic. But not everybody is conservative. Sometimes change is the only choice.

I hope you drop by the forum and share your thoughts. Otherwise... vaya con dios.

bc i like it. — csalisbury

For all practical purposes, yes. What you think about as you march around with your sign... doesn't really make any difference.

At all.

But let's turn aside from the victim for just a second and look at you. You continue to tolerate victimization in your world along with just about everybody else.

Why is that?

How do people demonstrate that they don't tolerate something? — csalisbury

Depends. Intolerance that actually results in a policy shift carries a threat of social breakdown (or as in the case of the Civil Rights Movement endangers national security).

I understand that you're aiming at saying that slaves can't march in protest. That's true. Neither can sexually/physically abused children, 19th Century American women who were treated like whores because they'd been left by their husbands, Lakota children who were taken from their parents to be raised white... and on .. and on... and on...

Why the fixation on slaves? There's probably a kid in your neighborhood who's being abused right now. Think about it... like right now. And no one is coming to help. Why? Because we're tolerating it.

What a mess. — csalisbury

1. Institutions that endure are, by and large, providing acceptable outcomes for citizens.
2. What worked in the past is likely to work in the future.
3. Avoid change.

Un's answer to this was: slaves are helpless. You confirmed that this response has something to do with the OP. It doesn't.

This was my first post in this thread;

The argument is basically saying that a government that doesn't undermine the stability of its own society and meets certain basic needs will endure. I don't see how this is an argument for conservatism, though. Liberal thought comes to prominence mainly when the old ways aren't working anymore and new ideas are required. Only a society that never faces changing circumstances would be immune to this occasional need. — Mongrel

The moral responsibility of every person and every generation is to eliminate victimization. Where that isn't possible, people should at least work in that direction.

If you'd like to explain exactly how the USA could have eliminated slavery in 1776, I'd love to hear it. If you know a way we could fix the inner cities: again: tell me how to do it.

Legitimacy is not about moral responsibility. You did know that, right?

& for Georgian slaves too? — csalisbury

About as well as our present system works for inner cities.

Do you find this situation intolerable? — csalisbury

Yep.

Your post was contrarian and you know it. — csalisbury

No it wasn't. My impression is that neither you nor un actually read the OP.

Slavery worked fine for Georgia. It was a source of strife for the USA even as the Declaration of Independence was being written (read Jefferson's first draft along with his comments about the future of slavery in the USA.)

God you're fucking jerk.

Does it apply 10 years before the civil war? Or did it never apply? And if didn't apply, ever, then why didn't the slaves emancipate themselves earlier? And if it did apply at some point, then slavery was justified at that point. — csalisbury

I'd apply myself to addressing that if I thought you were really interested. It would have to be tomorrow, though. If not.. I think we can agree on some really basic common sense:

What's worked in the past is likely to work in the future.

Emancipation took place two years into the Civil War. That's some heavy duty intolerance.

Irrelevant.

But all of history testifies to no set of institutions ever remaining stable, because things are intolerable, and the argument fails all over again. — csalisbury

It is reasonable to think that habits and strategies that have worked in the past will work in the future. And it is true that change should not be invested in simply for the sake of change. Liberalism isn't about change for the sake of change, though.

I'm not sure why you think a governmental institution has to be immortal in order to meet the needs of its citizens. Could you explain that?

Obviously slavery has nothing to do with your intentions with the OP nor with the argument you laid out. If slaves are actually helpless then their contribution to collective intolerance is zero.

As it is, they aren't helpless as the history of slave revolt testifies.

Personally, I find it to be more beneficial for the society to keep the status quo and to only improve on the current institutions, previously described as basic. There should not be a direction for a society, meaning there should be no desire for changes, as those changes are unpredictable and would only lead to creating a new ideology and revolutions. — Kazuma

The argument is basically saying that a government that doesn't undermine the stability of its own society and meets certain basic needs will endure. I don't see how this is an argument for conservatism, though. Liberal thought comes to prominence mainly when the old ways aren't working anymore and new ideas are required. Only a society that never faces changing circumstances would be immune to this occasional need.

Oh. Well, 'nuther mystery solved. Carry on.

Godzilla rises from the Pacific and decides he fucking hates Tokyo.

Why won't it happen?

And btw... if you can't explain why it won't happen, that means it's inevitable.

There are many unknowns, but not knowing everything does not equate to not knowing shit. It might not happen, It might be worse than I suggest. We might build a new barrier, or someone might bomb this one. But again, what I don't know, plus what science does not know does not add up to an argument. We do know that sea levels are rising and that the rate has been increasing. — unenlightened

Add up to an argument? Dude. Sea levels were rising right before the Younger Dryas. There's a 100% chance that everybody alive now is going to die. There's a 100% chance that the next century is going to be different from this one. If you want to dwell in some certainty that the present situation is the worst thing that's ever happened.. ok. It might be.

Sea levels are rising. Ice is melting. These are not back somersaults but facts. Climate change measures, feeble as they are, are under attack. — unenlightened

So how did you solve the cloud problem professor? Exactly how much higher is the mean temperature going to get? When exactly will London be flooded? How long will it take? How long will it last?

Meantime: remember that Rome ceased to be a republic and basically became a monarchy. Under what circumstances did that happen and what else what happening at exactly the same time some distance to the east? Who in 1 BC would have guessed how things would be three centuries later?

You did know there's a delay between the time the CO2 is released and the when the effects are actually felt... I'm sure you did.

Several people already pointed this out: you didn't just leap to conclusions, you back somersaulted into a handstand onto the annihilation of 99% of the human population.

That's emotion.

The human race may, by simply following its nature, become extinct by its own hand. There's no recipe for accepting that. But maybe at some point in contemplating it, the beauty of the humanity might peep through for just a second. I'd much rather die with love in my heart than with anger. Especially when I already said: it's anger for things they couldn't help.

What do any of us know about the future?

So sea levels rise, and London is flooded. The financial district will have already moved uphill - to Switzerland, perhaps. Millions of refugees head for the hills where they will be regarded as immigrants threatening 'our' survival. Civil war ensues, and because the arable land is also flooded, mass starvation mops up most of those who haven't been killed in the conflict. Rinse and repeat simultaneously all round the world. — unenlightened

You're kind of where I was when I was in my 20s. You're in your 60s? I'm guessing that means you're stuck there.

Trade unions are losing power because heavy industry is being automated. It's a long way from complete, and will probably never be quite complete, but robots get cheaper and cleverer, and the miners, he dockers the car workers will never get back the power they once had. So workers' rights are eroded and wages are going down, and social care is being eroded. It doesn't matter which party is in power because the economy dictates. — unenlightened

Yes. This has been happening since the 1980s. The proletariat is either automated or its Indonesian children. Neither is likely to stage a global revolution. It's true Trump's message wasn't much more than nostalgia with some vague threats of trade war. This is not exactly a news flash.

Try HG Wells. If anybody actually watches the whole thing... I tend to agree with his long-term predictions.

It's all about sexual deviancy, dude.

It's less important what you call it. The point of the Borat movie is that the supposedly "civilised" Americans are more often more racist, more bigoted, and more sexually deviant than even he himself, the savage, — Agustino

That's correct. Plus we have a ginormous nuclear arsenal and the ability to deliver warheads anywhere anytime with ICBMs, medium range missiles, bombers, and submarines. Think about it.

OK.

What would you call that.. anti-Jewish sentiment? I guess you could call it anti-Semitic, but that would include hatred of the Phoenicians.

Take away the end of this world, the Kingdom of Heaven, the final judgement, and so on, and the preaching of Jesus loses it's fizz. If this is an unredeemed and irredeemable world, it makes no sense to celebrate meekness and poverty. — Bitter Crank

Exactly.

Ressentiment. My translation doesn't use that word, but I can see how getting a little jargonny about it is a good idea.

but it is also frequently an expression of justice. — TheWillowOfDarkness

N drops the scenario straight onto the Jews. There's no doubt that the Jews had a unique problem with the concept of justice because their religion teaches that they have a special relationship with God. They have a deal or covenant in which God protects them if they meet his requirements as laid out in the Mosaic law. Anytime bad things happened, the Jews would try to work out how they had failed God so they could get it right. Eventually that technique was strained to the point of absurdity.

Christian apocalypticism actually starts about 200 years before Jesus was born. A statue of Zeus was installed in the Holy of Holies in the temple in an attempt to Hellenize the Jews. Scholars say that it was around this time that the book of Daniel was written and circulated. The concept of the World to Come is taking shape as an answer to the problem of God's justice. They probably weren't even aware that they were modifying an element of the Zoroastrian religion.

The World to Come is a time when the Gentiles are supposed to finally get what's coming to them. The Jews will be raised up to their proper place at the right hand of God. By putting resolution of injustice somewhere off in the future, Good becomes other worldly. This world of wounded flesh is all bad and just a passing shadow pending the arrival of the Messiah.

Christians say the Messiah did come, but obviously nothing significant changed. What a drag. Maybe he'll come again... yea, that's it.

what is your avatar pic of? — m-theory

It's just photoshop art that I did a long time ago.

:)

Perhaps this would be a contrary answer to N.

If there is some underdog morality which has attempted to establish itself via democracy, revenge isn't the goal. The impetus is to manifest a shared vision of a world where opportunity is available to all. Where little black girls and little white girls will join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual...

God I'm jaded.

So I guess you're saying that Nietzsche misunderstands the world. There is no "resentment morality." Mmmm... yes there is. Maybe it doesn't quite have the range and potency N thought it did. It does exist, though.

Humiliation? Real power is accumulated over generations. So though aristocracy doesn't really exist anymore, rich families do. I don't know if they subject their offspring to humiliation. I doubt it.

would not say it is the liberal view to "revile anyone who has self-love and to teach that the proper mode is to be poor, helpless, and full of self-loathing." — m-theory

I agree with that. Some folks just naturally root for the underdog. Those people are more likely to end up being liberal (in my neck of the woods, anyway.)

A person who has a lot of power was probably willing to do a lot of evil things. Maybe not all powerful people are evil, but generally, they're ruthless, greedy, and careless about the well-being of others.

Does this sound like proper judgment to you?

How do you know what a person deserves?

What is justice?