[Winter wind]

Quote by: grandpa Ah, condescension.

My apologies, but I have someone in my AP class that speaks the same way you type and, no offense, it annoys me a little. Mostly because it isn't concise enough.

Quote by: grandpa I don't think there is anything earth shatteringly horrible or idiotic about addressing elementary truths. Governments are abstract collecttivist entities. They are fallible, which is precisely why they should have very limited power. A powerful (in the sense of coercive) system can only exist with delusion and ignorance. It's also reasonable to assume there would be few laws in a truly democratic society, for law enforcement tends to mean elite positions of power. This certainly doesn't mean human beings will abolish literally all rules or all standards, but we should realize that society itself has abstract properties. The legitimacy of a given rule can certainly be questioned. Yes, we have to call organizations of people something, and "society" is an adequate word, but its organizations are indeed abstract, fallible and alterable. As for trusting individuals, I also do not have limitless trust in them. That's why I do not respect the authority of any one individual, or any one group, or any one opinion. A wide range of alternative views ought to be considered, when possible (and it often is). For example, when you go toa doctor you may still get a second opinion. That principle can be applied quite generally. Environments in which people simply carry out orders do not encourage such critical thinking, nor are they intended to. You mention stealing, which certainly deserves discussion. Is it wrong simply because thieves don't follow the rules? How wrong is it? Is it correct to punish all instances of theft? Is it possible for punishments to be worse than the alleged crime? It's true that all organizations (even informal ones) have governing tendencies, and these bodies make choices regarding things life theft, murder, rape. However, some of these organizations are themselves systems of theft, and some politicians are undoubtedly criminals. In fact, it's not absolutely crazy to consider warfare de facto criminal behavior. Quite simply, if we acted like the state, we'd all be in jail. Yes, the government is responsible for "collective communication," but on a selective, ideological basis. This is true for a leader like Saddam Hussein or for US presidents. It's also true for our education system, which often does promote the status quo. That's the problem I'm highlighting here, not some bizarre theory that all rules and standards can instantly be scrapped. You're presenting a false dichotomy, and predictably. We're taught that if we challenge all authority, it means instant chaos. No, it doesn't. It means basic intellectual principles being applied. It's simply analysis.

This kind of proves it....

I'll chop it up as best as I can.

I don't think there is anything earth shatteringly horrible or idiotic about addressing elementary truths. Governments are abstract collecttivist entities.

By that logic, so are humans, because they are made up of many little cells, that are made up of many tiny atoms, which are made up of...
So everything except the smallest unit of something can not be abstract.

They are fallible, which is precisely why they should have very limited power.

Everything is fallible. Even science.

A powerful (in the sense of coercive) system can only exist with delusion and ignorance.

What about laws. Retribution for crimes. only a coercive system of government can employ this.

It's also reasonable to assume there would be few laws in a truly democratic society, for law enforcement tends to mean elite positions of power.

Yes, but when the guy next door decides to blow my head off for my tv, what stops him from going through with that decision? The elitist, law enforcement.

This certainly doesn't mean human beings will abolish literally all rules or all standards, but we should realize that society itself has abstract properties. The legitimacy of a given rule can certainly be questioned.

Yes! I agree, which is why I think the government should not be thrown out of education, just questioned. If they don't comply, find someone who shares your ideas of education and get people to vote for him/her. In America, you get to question the system and even change it, if you get the attention you need.

Yes, we have to call organizations of people something, and "society" is an adequate word, but its organizations are indeed abstract, fallible and alterable.

Again, you are just an organization of cells. Therefore you are abstract too. Should we de-centralize you?

As for trusting individuals, I also do not have limitless trust in them. That's why I do not respect the authority of any one individual, or any one group, or any one opinion. A wide range of alternative views ought to be considered, when possible (and it often is).

Which is also why I think that government is a necessity, made possible by something like mutually assured destruction, otherwise people would take at the expense of others, and those who did it the best would make a group around them self instead.

For example, when you go toa doctor you may still get a second opinion. That principle can be applied quite generally. Environments in which people simply carry out orders do not encourage such critical thinking, nor are they intended to.

A second opinion isn't encouraged?
It's called the two-party system and elected representatives. The government isn't just a single body, there are factions that fight within it.

Critical thinking encouraged, simply because the government only functions best when people are questioning it so that improvement is forced.

You mention stealing, which certainly deserves discussion. Is it wrong simply because thieves don't follow the rules? How wrong is it? Is it correct to punish all instances of theft? Is it possible for punishments to be worse than the alleged crime?

Well, this is true, but your option is for them to get off free. I'm against mandatory minimums for this exact reason. While judges are a single person, they should be allowed to exercise common sense. And if you disagree, then appeal the case. A second opinion.

It's true that all organizations (even informal ones) have governing tendencies, and these bodies make choices regarding things life theft, murder, rape. However, some of these organizations are themselves systems of theft, and some politicians are undoubtedly criminals.

Yes, but then once you realize they are criminals, you get to vote them out and charge them with corruption or whatever. If you don't realize they were criminals, the public wasn't paying enough attention.

In fact, it's not absolutely crazy to consider warfare de facto criminal behavior. Quite simply, if we acted like the state, we'd all be in jail.

Considering it is weighted according to percent of income and that the welfare washes back into those that are poorer, wouldn't you say that is more of a Robin Hood kind of theft?
It isn't crazy to think of welfare as criminal, just wrong. welfare is legal by the standards of the government, and if you don't like it, again, you get to vote people out who are for welfare.

Wait, oh, warfare, well ok.
Warfare can be seen as self-defense, and when it isn't, it should be criminal. (or when "your neighbor's house is on fire" as FDR put it.)

Yes, the government is responsible for "collective communication," but on a selective, ideological basis. This is true for a leader like Saddam Hussein or for US presidents.

Just by saying collective communication and Saddam Hussein in the same breath doesn't mean collective communication is bad.

Please, Saddam was poor at collective communication, if he even did it at all.

It's also true for our education system, which often does promote the status quo.

This is true which is why we need to move for a new education system that does not promote the status quo.

That's the problem I'm highlighting here, not some bizarre theory that all rules and standards can instantly be scrapped.

I like the other rules and standards, just not the education one. So I want to work within the other rules and standards to accomplish my goal, (which shouldn't be hard as long as I can get a big enough podium to make my noise.)

you're presenting a false dichotomy, and predictably. We're taught that if we challenge all authority, it means instant chaos. No, it doesn't. It means basic intellectual principles being applied.

And you, good sir, are putting words in my mouth.
I think that challenging all authority (as long as its productive and not annoying) is wonderful. I think abolishing authority would be bad. For two reasons, one because people will have no cohesiveness. No center to come together and discuss things, or try and work together for a common goal. Second because in the vacuum of power someone, always, always, tries to fill that gap. Take a playground where the teacher is off on a "cookie break". Without anybody watching over, bullies can do what they want. So you don't have chaos, just a bunch of bullies with the monopoly on milk money. Without someone with power, someone else always rises, and has a tendency to be the one out for himself.

It's simply analysis.

simply... -_-'