... the state - with its centralization of power - is a major, major vulnerability if it falls into the wrong hands. — BitconnectCarlos

If it falls into the hands of the wrong individuals. This is why democracy is the best form of government for the people because it tends to be resistant to the concentration of power.

Could you elaborate? — BitconnectCarlos

Many nations are unlike the regimes that you mention, therefore it can't be said that the evils committed by individuals are utterly dwarfed by the evils committed by governments.

We're lucky to be living in the US, at least compared to other nations. Other states are not so kind. — BitconnectCarlos

So the evils committed by individuals are not utterly dwarfed by the evils committed by governments.

Genius Asian to the rescue.

People don't usually bother you unless you're right on a trial or place with foot traffic. There was a fair amount of people on the beach that day, for instance, but no looky-loos because I chose a spot about 25 yards or so away from the beach hordes.

I'm just talking about states here. I'm not including drug cartels, organized crime, or corporations in this count. — BitconnectCarlos

Okay, just the sates and just American deaths by war vs individuals in the 20th century.

Roughly half a million Americans were killed in war during the 20th century.

Say there are only 10k murders per year in the states during the 20th century, that comes to one million and twice the number of those killed in war.

What am I missing?

So apparently we are talking about all governments everywhere. So what qualifies as a government? Is a corporation a kind of government? A drug cartel? Organized crime? Any organization with a governing body?

Good point, if the mods screened all my posts for logical fallacies and deleted any they found then I wouldn’t have the choice of be being irresponsible in that way. However, they do allow a margin of freedom, in fact, so it is up to us to be responsible.

Does this example help you understand?

If you look at the 20th century the numbers killed by government are beyond enormous - more than even the worst murderers could dream of. — BitconnectCarlos

So is there any actual data to back up this claim? And are we talking about all governments everywhere? If so, what exactly constitutes a government?

Okay war, I just looked up some quick estimates and it looks like there were over 16k reported murder and non-negligent manslaughter cases in the U.S. in 2018. 15 Americans were killed in the Afgan war in 2018. What am I missing?

5" x 7" plein-air at Pismo beach.

The choice between coercion by the individual and coercion by government is an interesting one, but there's not a doubt in my mind that the evils committed by individuals are utterly dwarfed by the evils committed by governments. — Tzeentch

This is interesting but unclear what exactly what you mean. Could you elaborate?

If you’re struggling to say that there are degrees of freedom I doubt anyone will dispute this profound insight. There are people more free than me, for instance, and I can only hope that they’re more responsible than I am.

Jennifer Griffin is a Fox News correspondent.

Emptiness is meaningful for Buddhists.

Boy, was I ever stupid. — god must be atheist

Don't be too hard on yourself, trolling isn't as easy as most seem to think. I have faith in you though, so dust yourself off, stand up straight, and go get 'em, tiger!

Slaves have responsibilities. ... They need to do what they are told. — god must be atheist

Are they free to not do what they're told?

It’s a handy example and I think neatly illustrates the differences in our views or moral frameworks. I wouldn’t say that one is better than the other, to be clear.

Moral obligations to do what? To care for one's fellow man? On a personal level I can get behind that. But I don't need to be coerced into doing that. — Tzeentch

Apparently you do, at least in the case of practicing good driving habits.

Considering the fact that we do not choose the society we live in, what moral obligations responsibilities towards it can we truly be said to have, other than the ones we take up voluntarily? — Tzeentch

I've taken the liberty to modify your question a bit. Hope you don't mind.

We could liken the individual faces in Banno's face/tree to moral intuitions. Some may stand out, like liberty/oppression, and others like care/harm, fairness/cheating or loyalty/betrayal may fade into the background, and I suppose that we can't take responsibility for what we deny.

It’s hilarious too because they are now admitting the potential for fraud after months of claiming there was none. — NOS4A2

How could anyone claim that there's no potential for it?

Trump goaded them into adopting a desperate dumpster fire of a narrative.

Rather, once again he's proved that he's the "Law & Order" president who's above the law and order.

If I'm following correctly you're saying that we can't blame people for not being intelligent because intelligence is a privilege. I get that but I don't get how this realization empowers the promotion of not making it a privilege. Call me a cynic but typically when people realize that they have an advantage or privilege, they fight tooth and nail to keep it.

You were talking about a dangerous (to yourself and others) habit
— praxis

I fail to understand how using one's own eyes to see is a dangerous habit. I wish more people would engage in it. — Tzeentch

I won't argue the point other than to show the results of a two-minute search. Study shows more than two people are killed every day by red light running.

I apologize for my earlier tactlessness, by the way.

Okay, I am mostly on board with this. Freedom requires individuals to take personal responsibility, sure. In view of this, how do you look at the fact that individuals do not choose the society they are born in, nor do they choose to be born in the first place? — Tzeentch

I can't tell what the point of the question is. I'll say that we're a social species and as such are born with moral intuitions. We're also largely shaped by whatever society we happen to be raised in and part of that shaping is developing a moral framework, which is based on our moral intuitions. There are moral frameworks, for example, that prioritize the moral intuition of liberty vs oppression, such as Libertarianism. Other frameworks favor other moral intuitions.

Calling me unworthy of freedom based on the minimal interaction we've had seems rather silly, and it's hardly a decent way to start a conversation. Your earlier comment seemed reasonable enough, so why not continue in that way? — Tzeentch

You were talking about a dangerous (to yourself and others) habit and for the meager benefit of arriving at your destination a few seconds or minutes early. There's nothing silly about that.

Living in society requires cooperation. Ideally, the cooperation is mutually beneficial. In order for the cooperation to be mutually beneficial, the more autonomous a citizen is the more responsible they would have to be. If a citizen just wants to freeload and take advantage of the cooperative nature of a society they can be as irresponsible as they like, at least until their freedom is curtailed.

... That's a sign that there are major systemic problems, not just a bunch of personal failures. — Pfhorrest

Good point.

I don't stop at a red light when there's no traffic to be seen, and I have no issue with people using their own judgement to do the same. — Tzeentch

That’s irresponsible because, if you look at driving like a skill, it forms a bad habit that puts yourself and other motorists at risk. Much of the mundane tasks in our lives are done on autopilot, so you’re basically training yourself (and your ‘autopilot’) badly. Again that’s irresponsible, which indicates an abuse of your freedom, and suggests that you’re not worthy of it.

Also, as I initially touched on, there’s the issue of who pays for the traffic lights, roadways, the land they occupy, etc. If they’re not paid for with taxation then you would have to pay a private party or parties in order to travel. Either way you have to pay.

Religion has been on earth for thousands and thousands of years and it never figured out, and does not know how to produce healthy humans. — JerseyFlight

Its purpose is to bind groups with common values/purpose in a system of meaning, not to produce healthy humans, and certainly not to promote “the developmental quality of individuals”, because that would lead to independence, which is in opposition to the point of religion.

Knowing that knowledge is a privileged enterprise empowers us to create a more intelligent species.

I don’t follow this reasoning and skimming through the responses to date doesn’t help. Also, it’s unclear if the point is to create a more intelligent species or a healthier one.

Eleanor Roosevelt was never an American president.

What responsibilities does a slave have?

What I said is that coercion is something inherently problematic. When we apply that to politics, it results in the position that government is, at best, a necessary evil (↪JerseyFlight, ↪Pro Hominem, pay attention next time). Thus I believe government interference in individual's goings-on should be minimalized at every opportunity. A classically liberal (read: not the "modern" use of the word), perhaps libertarian, view. — Tzeentch

In a perfect world everyone would be responsible and cooperate for mutual benefit. But it’s not a perfect world and those with an advantage take advantage and typically do whatever it takes to keep their advantage. People also tend to be shortsighted and unwilling to make sacrifices for those outside of their family, friends, tribe, or nation, and much less for people who don’t even exist yet.

Eleanor Roosevelt famously said that with freedom comes responsibility.

Yahad watched closely as his charge blinked his eyes in a rapid pattern.

“Indeed, Sir, I couldn’t agree more."

I am wondering how one justifies that a person who is not interested in the things a state (supposedly) provides, nor is interested in having those things provided to him by a state, is still forced to pay for them. — Tzeentch

I’m afraid that I struggle to derive a fundamental warrant. I suppose it comes down to whether or not a particular state is worth it or provides sufficient value. From what I understand, Democracies tend to provide the best value for its citizens because they’re the most resistant to concentrations of power.

There are many threads here - colonialism, racism, and to complicate matters, someone has created a list of 'the worlds most beautiful people', needless to say, not every country is listed, giving the impression that the peoples of the world can be ranked on a scale from beautiful (10) to ugly (0). Note the countries listed but without exception these people rank from light skinned to deep tan. — FreeEmotion

There’s nothing the least bit complicated about a crappy website like that. It couldn’t be more shallow and meaningless.

This is what the American constitution says: "...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

Without some kind of government it would be exceedingly unlikely that you would secure any of these things.
— JerseyFlight

What if an individual isn't interested in securing those things? Under the current system they are simply forced to pay for them anyways! — Tzeentch

You’re not interested in those things? You’d prefer to not pay taxes and live in a society where everything is privately owned? In a world like that you’d still have to pay for travel, security, and everything else.

So you’re pro life and the state deciding wether or not women are allowed to abort a pregnancy?

I’m saying polarization is a natural feature of democracy, and can address injustices. — NOS4A2

It can also be used strategically as in populism to acquire power, or to ‘divide and conquer’ at a level above that.

is it not true that a country is judged on how high in the development scale it is by how everything looks - even down to the people, their appearance, their posessions, their housing. — FreeEmotion

I would say yes, in that the aesthetics of a society expresses its values.

Everything in developed societies tends to look neatly arranged, as you say, and rather utilitarian and uniform. Efficiency, order, and predictability is valued over aesthetics. The iron cage of reason, they call it, ugly and meaningless.

foetus — unenlightened

An embryonic nemesis?

In summary, an analysis of language suggests that babies, ergo fetuses, don't have personhood and therefore abortion should be ok but the way people in general and mothers in particular resent people who refer to their babies as an "it" indicates the opposite - fetuses are persons.

What gives? :chin: — TheMadFool

That despite reason there’s an inescapable intuition of life and kinship.

So Trump visits Kenosha and heads straight to a burned-out furniture store because money and material wealth are the center of his value system. Screw the people who died. Screw the issues behind the protests. All that matters is wealth and power.

Lamenting a divided government from a man who fervently hates his own president. Funny. — NOS4A2

Hate is a strong word, even directed towards the Divider-in-Chief. I don't care for the notion that a citizen should love or respect their leader merely because of their position. For most adults, respect needs to be earned.

Funny, coming from someone who so fervently supports a man who has a habit of circumventing Congress whenever they become inconvenient.

I believe polarization is an important aspect of a country’s progression and politics. — NOS4A2

So you're a progressive now?

The more divided a government is the more ineffectual it can be, and who benefits from an ineffectual US government? Some must, perhaps your employer, for one.

non-deterministic space-time anomalies — Nils Loc

They can be potent.