NationStates Jolt Archive

"That we are to stand by the president, right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

-Theodore Roosevelt



Agree, disagree?

agree

another quote I like: (though on a completely different vein)

"I contend that we are both athiests. I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours" -I can't remember

"That we are to stand by the president, right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

-Theodore Roosevelt



Agree, disagree?

Tedddy for the win!

"That we are to stand by the president, right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

-Theodore Roosevelt



Agree, disagree?

Agreed … might does not make right. The fact that you have power does not put you above questioning. It is our duty to make sure that we have a just government first and for most.

To many people are negligent of their duty using the excuse of being “patriotic”.

Agree.

Lovely quote. :)

"If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal." - Emma Goldman

Yeah, I love that one. Stinkin' liberal ... wait, wasn't TR a Republican? :p

Agreed … might does not make right. The fact that you have power does not put you above questioning. It is our duty to make sure that we have a just government first and for most.

To many people are negligent of their duty using the excuse of being “patriotic”.

Amen.

Another one good one:

"Criticism in a time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government."

-Senator Robert Taft

"Convictions are far more dangerous enemies of truth than lies"-Nietzsche

"The eyes are useless if the mind be blind"-Arab proverb

"Now you do your worst, and we shall do our best"- Winston Churchill

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."

-George Orwell

"That we are to stand by the president, right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

-Theodore Roosevelt



Agree, disagree?


My fav quote is the one in your sig :)

My fav quote is the one in your sig :)

LMAO


Other good ones:


"Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom."

~Ludwig von Mises


"The State thrives on war – unless, of course, it is defeated and crushed – expands on it, glories in it."

~Murray Rothbard


"Old men declare war. But it is the youth that must fight and die."

~Herbert C. Hoover


"All government wars are unjust."

~Murray Rothbard

so were people just smarter way back when, or just less stupid, than we are now. Becuase people these days never say intellegent things like that.

agree

another quote I like: (though on a completely different vein)

"I contend that we are both athiests. I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours" -I can't remember


a silly quote. Faith is about believing, even if you pick just one. Atheism is about denying. The focuses are different and can not be compared.

also...what about paganism? or Hinduism? many gods in those religions.

wherever you go, there you are."
-Bukaroo Bonzai

'You're working hard to put food on your family.'
-George W. Bush

A character in a spoof comedy sounds smarter than our president. :(

a silly quote. Faith is about believing, even if you pick just one. Atheism is about denying. The focuses are different and can not be compared. Good point.

also...what about paganism? or Hinduism? many gods in those religions.

Thanks for answering your above point.

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

a silly quote. Faith is about believing, even if you pick just one. Atheism is about denying. The focuses are different and can not be compared.

exactly.

the christians deny the muslim, hindu, and all the classical gods, and yet believe that their own exists.

Just as they deny all the gods but their own, I deny theirs.

hence the "I contend that we are both athiests."

also...what about paganism? or Hinduism? many gods in those religions.

the message is the same, the plurality is not.

'You're working hard to put food on your family.'
-George W. Bush

LMFAO

agree

another quote I like: (though on a completely different vein)

"I contend that we are both athiests. I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours" -I can't remember

I prefer this quote.
Whoresome.

wherever you go, there you are."
-Bukaroo Bonzai

'You're working hard to put food on your family.'
-George W. Bush

A character in a spoof comedy sounds smarter than our president. :(

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

I'm surprised I haven't seen this one before...

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/multimedia/foolbush.mov

Best quote ever. Truly shows Bush for what he really is.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them"


-- Galileo

agree

another quote I like: (though on a completely different vein)

"I contend that we are both athiests. I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours" -I can't remember
That's illogical. Atheism is the lack of belief in any God, theism is the belief in a god, even if only one.

the christians deny the muslim.
The Christian God is the Muslim God, silly!

I'm surprised I haven't seen this one before...

You haven't? It's one of the funniest quotes ever.

That's illogical. Atheism is the lack of belief in any God, theism is the belief in a god, even if only one.

It's not illogical - just over your head.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

I pity everyone who voted for this sack of trash. -.-

agree

another quote I like: (though on a completely different vein)

"I contend that we are both athiests. I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours" -I can't remember

Didn't Fass say that?

"Solutions are not the answer." -Richard Nixon

You want good quotes? just check my sig, all Adolf Hitler oddly enough.

"That we are to stand by the president, right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

-Theodore Roosevelt


That quote makes Britney Spears cry ...

I'm surprised I haven't seen this one before...

There are a tone of them

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

That's illogical. Atheism is the lack of belief in any God, theism is the belief in a god, even if only one.
not illogical at all. Even if theism believes in 100 different gods, they still reject the gods of other religions.

Didn't Fass say that?
He had it in his sig for a while. It was said by Stephen Roberts, iirc

a silly quote. Faith is about believing, even if you pick just one. Atheism is about denying. The focuses are different and can not be compared.

The way I see it, you have it backwards. Faith is about denying. Denying reality in favor of fantasy. Atheism is about seeing the world as it really is. You can't deny what doesn't exist.

But to each their own I guess.

My favorite quote: " 'What I believe' is a process rather than a finality. Finalities are
for gods and governments, not for the human intellect. " - Emma Goldman

No, the best quote ever is:

DGNT II (10:43:11 PM): Cthulu is not nice.
SmarterChild (10:43:11 PM): Are you sure Cthulu is not nice?

"That we are to stand by the president, right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

-Theodore Roosevelt


Agree, disagree?

Strongly Agree!!!


Dissent is patriotic.

"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despiceable an ignoreable war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder." ~ Albert Einstein

I don't necessarily agree with the last sentence, but the rest is certainly very true.

More good quotes:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."
- John Adams

And this one is great for this topic:
"We have too many high sounding words, and too few actions that correspond with them."
- Abigail Adams

"All your base are belong to us." --Cats

"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
"The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
"`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't."
Douglas Adams

Is that from God's Debris?

agree

another quote I like: (though on a completely different vein)

"I contend that we are both athiests. I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours" -I can't remember

- Sir Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-1971)

Since we're getting into faith-based quotes:
"Faith: not wanting to know what is true."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

"Religion hinges upon faith, politics hinges upon who can tell the most convincing lies or maybe just shout the loudest, but science hinges upon whether its conclusions resemble what actually happens."
- Ian Stewart

"God for you is where you sweep away all the mysteries of the world, all the challenges to our intelligence. You simply turn your mind off and say God did it."
- Carl Sagan

A quotelist without Pratchett ? Unacceptable ;)

HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET— Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME . . . SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

MY POINT EXACTLY.

YOU NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?

For the non-Pratchett readers: the capital letters indicate that the personification of death is speaking.

"A witty saying proves nothing." -- Voltaire

Is that from God's Debris?

Nope, straight from Hitch-Hiker's guide to the galaxy it is finished off with the line "And as an encore man goes on to prove black is white and get kills on the next Zebra crossing"

You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go! - Oliver Cromwell

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few. - Benjamin Disreali

Nope, straight from Hitch-Hiker's guide to the galaxy it is finished off with the line "And as an encore man goes on to prove black is white and get kills on the next Zebra crossing"

OK, I confused my Douglas Adams with my Scott Adams. I was going to say, I read God's Debris twice and it didn't sound familiar. But since I've never read Hitchhiker's Guide, I don't feel so bad. :p

A quotelist without Pratchett ? Unacceptable ;)





For the non-Pratchett readers: the capital letters indicate that the personification of death is speaking.

Death is a'right but Vetinari is the man!

' 'I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people," said the man. "You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides. "
He waved his thin hand towards the city and walked over to the window.
"A great rolling sea of evil," he said, almost pro-prietorially. "Shallower in some places, of course, but deeper, oh, so much deeper in others. But people like you put together little rafts of rules and vaguely good intentions and say, this is the opposite, this will tri*umph in the end. Amazing!" He slapped Vimes good-naturedly on the back.
"Down there," he said, "are people who will follow any dragon, worship any god, ignore any iniquity. All out of a kind of humdrum, everyday badness. Not the really high, creative loathesomeness of the great sinners, but a sort of mass-produced darkness of the soul. Sin, you might say, without a trace of originality. They accept evil not because they say yes, but because they don't say no. I'm sorry if this offends you,'' he added, patting the captain's shoulder, "but you fellows really need us."

OK, I confused my Douglas Adams with my Scott Adams. I was going to say, I read God's Debris twice and it didn't sound familiar. But since I've never read Hitchhiker's Guide, I don't feel so bad. :p
Well, you should feel bad - real bad - for having not read Hitchhiker's guide.
Go do so asap, heathen!

"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child." - Dan Quayle

Yeah, I love that one. Stinkin' liberal ... wait, wasn't TR a Republican? :p

He was a sitting President who lost the Republican primary.

The Repubs hated him. That is why his face ended up on Mount Rushmore. If Republicans hate you that much, you must be great.

a silly quote. Faith is about believing, even if you pick just one. Atheism is about denying. The focuses are different and can not be compared.

also...what about paganism? or Hinduism? many gods in those religions.

Yeah, thing over your head, that was the point.

Believing in christianity is having faith in christianity while at the same time, NOT having faith in any other religion. Athiesm is exactly the same thing, except you don't have faith in anything to begin with for the same reasons the Christian doesn't believe in Norse Mythology.

so were people just smarter way back when, or just less stupid, than we are now. Becuase people these days never say intellegent things like that.


Maybe neither? But then more people spoke from their principles, their philosophy, or their ideals. Now people tend to speak to the media. It seems to me that the more we seek to be memorable the more we play to the gallery, and the more pointless we can seem. One of my own favourites, that has inspired me since I heard it delivered, is too long to post here, but it keeps me going:
link (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm)

"That we are to stand by the president, right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

-Theodore Roosevelt



Agree, disagree?

There's a very good reason TR is one of my favorite Presidents.

"That we are to stand by the president, right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

-Theodore Roosevelt



Agree, disagree?

I agree. Blindly agreeing or simply going along with whatever the president does is more wrong then can be stated in mere words. Republicans should remember that when they accuse Buch critics of being un-American.

If a path to the better there be, it begins with a full look at the worst.

-Thomas Hardy

There's a very good reason TR is one of my favorite Presidents.

He was once one of mine, as well.

A quote I rather like and agree with:

“Patriotism is not short frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.”

-Adlai Stevenson

A quote I rather like and agree with:

“Patriotism is not short frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.”

-Adlai Stevenson

Not bad at all. :)

"God is dead. We killed him."
--Friedrich Nietzsche

The quote's probably off a bit. It's been over a year since I read Thus Spake Zarathustra.

"God is dead. We killed him."
--Friedrich Nietzsche

The quote's probably off a bit. It's been over a year since I read Thus Spake Zarathustra.

It's The Gay Science but I'm pretty sure that's right if a little on the short side.

Trilby63;11762798']It's The Gay Science but I'm pretty sure that's right if a little on the short side.

A short version is in Thus Spake Zarathustra, said by the Man Who Killed God.

There's a bit more, but not much.

A short version is in Thus Spake Zarathustra, said by the Man Who Killed God.

There's a bit more, but not much.

According to wiki..
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it?

I could never read Thus Spoke Zarathrustra. Too mucheth of alleth of thiseth. I don't suppose you know if the orginal german version is any better?

Trilby63;11762818']I could never read Thus Spoke Zarathrustra. Too mucheth of alleth of thiseth. I don't suppose you know if the orginal german version is any better?

Can't read German. It helps to get a good translation, that dispenses with that sort of thing. I can't remember the translation I read, but I can find it in a few days.

"A society that will trade a little freedom for a little security will lose
both and deserves neither." ~ Thomas Jefferson

a silly quote. Faith is about believing, even if you pick just one. Atheism is about denying. The focuses are different and can not be compared.

also...what about paganism? or Hinduism? many gods in those religions.

To say this is to misunderstand atheism.

Atheism is the belief that no god exists, it is not a denial of your god, or all gods, but the belief that there is nothing out there. It cannot be anything more than a belief because, whilst gods existance cannot be proved, it cannot by its very nature be disproved. The reason why Athiests take president over thiests is because their rules, if properly laid down, are a moral framework over which form the only sense of right and wrong anyone can have in a world without any in built definition. Theistic rules are moral additions which they by their faith may live by, but not by their faith force others.

More importantly, the quote i bring to the table everytime the subject of patriotism arises.

"Patriotism is not enough, i must have no hatred or bitterness for anyone." - Edith Cavell.

I don't know who said it but..

Government is another way to say "Better than you."

Someone mentioned this quote by Hitler a while back:

"Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."

......Wow.

Now i begin to see how that man's words successfully brainwashed so many people into believing they were doing the right thing by hurting others.

In a non-war-related context, that quote has a lot of nobility and strength about it, i guess.
He definitely had a way of making war sound brave and good and necessary, in order to make good people do bad things in the belief that they were actually doing good things.
...and the "those who won't fight do not deserve to live" part just happens to serve as a very effective guilt-trip.

Sorry, rambling...
Just found that quote interesting because of the insights it provided as to exactly what the German population at that time were being immersed in (or rather, overwhelmed by).

"That we are to stand by the president, right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

-Theodore Roosevelt



Agree, disagree?

I completely agree, man. If the president is wrong, he is wrong.

"To question your government is not unpatriotic -- to not question your government is unpatriotic." - Chuck Hagel

Some more Pratchett:

Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness.

- "Pardon me for living, I'm sure."
- NO-ONE GETS PARDONED FOR LIVING.

In fact, no gods anywhere play chess. They prefer simple, vicious games, where you Do Not Achieve Transcendence but Go Straight to Oblivion; a key to the understanding of all religion is that a god's idea of amusement is Snakes and Ladders with greased rungs.

On nights such as these the gods, as has already been pointed out, play games other than chess with the fates of mortals and the thrones of kings. It is important to remember that they always cheat, right up to the end...

"That we are to stand by the president, right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

-Theodore Roosevelt



Agree, disagree?

I think that it's alright to disagree with the rightfully elected President, but it is not alright to bring harm to this nation just to harm the administration that has been rightfully elected by the people.

~ Romandeos.

"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall - think of it, always."
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

"Men often hate each other because they fear each other; they fear each other because they don't know each other; they don't know each other because they can not communicate; they can not communicate because they are separated."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

"When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die."
Dietrich Bonhoeffer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer) (<--- read wikipedia article to understand the meaning)

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Thomas Paine

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
Samuel Adams (this one would be my national motto, if it would fit)

"That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant."
John Stuart Mill

"The proposal of any new law or regulation which comes from [businessmen], ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."
Adam Smith

"All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and allowed to live only so far as the interest to the ruling class requires it."
Karl Marx

"To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
'Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!' cries she
With silent lips. 'Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!'"
"The New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus

Now i begin to see how that man's words successfully brainwashed so many people into believing they were doing the right thing by hurting others.
If you're interested, here (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html) is Mussolini's definition of fascism. Nazism is a little different, but in their application of Social Darwinism they didn't differ much.

Just found that quote interesting because of the insights it provided as to exactly what the German population at that time were being immersed in (or rather, overwhelmed by).
It was rather more complex than that...

At the moment, this is probably my favorite quote:

I know that oppressed people do nothing but boast without pause about the peace and repose they enjoy in their chains, and that they call the most miserable slavery peace, but when I see the others sacrificing pleasures, repose, riches, power, and life itself to the preservation of the only good so disdained by those who have lost it, when I see animals born free and abhorring captivity smashing their heads against the bars of their prison, when I see multitudes of entirely naked savages despising European pleasures and enduring hunger, fire, sword, and death merely to preserve their independence, I feel that it is not appropriate for slaves to reason about freedom.

If you're interested, here is Mussolini's definition of fascism. Nazism is a little different, but in their application of Social Darwinism they didn't differ much.

Thanks for the link :)

It was rather more complex than that...

Yeah...actually my Grandma grew up in Nazi Germany, and she's told me a couple of things about what it was like.
i know it was far, far more complex than just some man standing up at a podium giving speeches, but for some reason these days i'm interested in trying to understand the psychology behind that one aspect.

...but for some reason these days i'm interested in trying to understand the psychology behind that one aspect.
That's a very good topic to spend your time thinking about. I mean, I can't claim to know the answer either.

Günter Grass recently published his memoirs, and that is something that features in it.

Part of it was plain politics. Part of it was the economy. Part of it was history. But a major part, especially for the young ones, was this total and complete break with the past that the Nazis started.

I mean, I'm having difficulties thinking of an accurate translation for the word "bürgerlich"...maybe petit bourgeoisie comes close. This oppressive, middle class, normal routine - it has always and will always annoy the shit out of young people.

The Nazis broke with all of that. They were dedicated to destroying traditional German society and replacing it with something new and radical. Propose something similar today, and people will flock to it just the same.

So much of the Nazi movement was about kids rebelling against their parents' society. I'm not sure whether enough attention is paid to that sort of thing...and it's not necessarily something our grandparents today would talk about much. Because the fact that their generation, the kids and youths then, were such big supporters of the system doesn't necessarily sit well with them.

At the moment, this is probably my favorite quote:

Along a similar theme:


"But I like the inconveniences."

"We don't," said the Controller. "We prefer to do things comfortably."

"But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin."

"In fact," said Mustapha Mond, "you're claiming the right to be unhappy."

"All right then," said the Savage defiantly, "I'm claiming the right to be unhappy."

"Not to mention the right to grow old and ugly and impotent; the right to have syphilis and cancer; the right to have too little ot eat; the right to be lousy; the right to live in constant apprehension of what may happen tomorrow; the right to catch typhoid; the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind."

There was a long silence.

"I claim them all," said the Savage at last.

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

"That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant."
John Stuart Mill

Mill himself did not hold to this principle, and despite a long period of adherence to an even more radical version of it, I am no longer inclined to hold to it either.

The problem is that mere societal non-restraint of action does not necessarily translate into genuine freedom of action. My freedom can be compromised internally as well as externally, by addiction, by ignorance, by a bout of furious emotion, and so on, and to break me from this unfreedom, even if it temporarily involves external restraint, does not compromise my rights.

My freedom can be compromised internally as well as externally, by addiction, by ignorance, by a bout of furious emotion, and so on, and to break me from this unfreedom, even if it temporarily involves external restraint, does not compromise my rights.
That "unfreedom" is what makes us human. I'd hate for anyone to start regulating furious emotions because it compromises people's freedom to do...well, what do they do if their urges and material situation aren't expressions of freedom, but limits to it?

That "unfreedom" is what makes us human. I'd hate for anyone to start regulating furious emotions because it compromises people's freedom to do...well, what do they do if their urges and material situation aren't expressions of freedom, but limits to it?

No, you misunderstand me.

Let me clarify two things. Firstly, I do not mean that I support much, if any, state regulation of these actions; that would far too quickly lead to tyranny.

Secondly, no, "urges" can be part of freedom; it is when such "urges" get to the point of non-thought where the point comes into play. If, in fury, I am about to break an expensive vase that I intend to give as a gift to a close friend, there is nothing wrong with someone restraining me in an attempt to save me the trouble of buying a new one. (If I calm down and still intend to break the vase, she no longer has any right to stop me.)

To give another example, perhaps I have been devastated by a recent event and wish to commit suicide. If I am in my right mind - if I have genuinely considered the issue and rationally reached the conclusion that I should kill myself - no one has the right to stop me. If I am not in my right mind, however, to permit me to kill myself is not much better than to permit me to die from other causes; I do not truly will my death.

For a third example, this one concerning ignorance - perhaps I am about to try a drug whose effects I do not really understand, a drug that is highly addictive and will make me a slave to whoever controls the supply of drugs. I do not desire to lose my freedom; that will, however, be the consequence of my action. If a friend who knows the consequences better than I do restrains me, that is not a violation of my rights, it is an affirmation of my status as a being whose freedom and welfare should be protected. Again, however, if I learn the consequences and understand them, and undertake the action anyway, then there is no excuse for restraint.

Edit: And a fourth, the one that swayed me - perhaps I am already an addict, having had an addiction foisted upon me against my will. My addiction is so strong, however, that I cannot think rationally concerning it; I resist all attempts of others to help me break it, because I crave it so greatly. This addiction harms me greatly - it ruins my health and deprives me of meaningful autonomy, making me servile to the neighborhood drug dealer, who makes me his slave. If my friend chooses to ignore my resistance and break my addiction forcefully, she is not depriving me of freedom; she is merely breaking my chains.

-snip-
Hmm, I see.

Still, one always needs to weigh up this sort of thing with the notion of individual responsibility.

"But I like the inconveniences."

"We don't," said the Controller. "We prefer to do things comfortably."

"But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin."

"In fact," said Mustapha Mond, "you're claiming the right to be unhappy."

"All right then," said the Savage defiantly, "I'm claiming the right to be unhappy."

"Not to mention the right to grow old and ugly and impotent; the right to have syphilis and cancer; the right to have too little ot eat; the right to be lousy; the right to live in constant apprehension of what may happen tomorrow; the right to catch typhoid; the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind."

There was a long silence.

"I claim them all," said the Savage at last.

That's absolutely brilliant. :cool:

Still, one always needs to weigh up this sort of thing with the notion of individual responsibility.

One is not responsible for what one does when one is not in one's right mind.

That's absolutely brilliant. :cool:

The whole book is.

The whole book is.

*runs to the library*

'I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous!" And God granted it.' - Voltaire

Hmm, I see.

Still, one always needs to weigh up this sort of thing with the notion of individual responsibility.


Quite right, because such justifications as Soheran lists already have been used, by individuals, small groups and governments, for interfering not only to protect a person from acting while not in his or her right mind, but simply as a general principle to bring about individuals' conformity to Society. Once Soheran's principle of whether one is or isn't acting "in his/her right mind" is named as the individual's defence against Society's infringement of personal liberties, the individual turns out to be defenceless more often than not. After all, who will determine the individual's state of mind in the end? The individual may be, to use Soheran's descriptions, "in a fury", at the "point of non-thought", "acting in ignorance", or enslaved to an addiction. I said "may be", because who will decide? By definition the individual may be incapable.

To use Soheran's examples, is the person in a blind rage enslaved by rage or not? Is the person driven by despair in his/her right mind or not? Is the person about to begin an addiction making an informed decision or not? Is the addict a slave to the drug, or not? Who do we ask?

People in a rage insist they know exactly what they're doing most of the time. People in despair tend to believe they've never seen the world more clearly than at that moment of darkness. People about to begin drug use are most often confident that they've considered all the relevant facts, and anyway, they know people who use it 'and it isn't hurting them'. And the craving-driven addict is surely not to be trusted when he or she begs not to be freed from the drug they can't live without. The point is, the state of being "not in one's right mind" deprives a person in some measure or perhaps totally of the capacity for "insight". In case there's anyone here unfamiliar with it, this is a psychological term for the capacity by which we recognize the truth about our state of mind. The cliche that "the one kind of person who is certain he is sane is the insane person", though exaggerated, is close enough to true. So, we can't trust the individual to know if he's in his right mind, can we?

That leaves only Society to decide. Unfortunately, the history of this indicates that it has been a danger to individual liberty at every turn. Women used to be imprisoned in asylums for "hysteria" for not conforming to their husband's will, and in all ages people generally have found their freedom restricted by an evaluation of the group that they need to "protect the person from themselves". In the end the individual has precious little protection from the State if it wishes to interfere (and when does the State not wish to interfere?)

As paradoxical as it may seem, individual freedom can actually be more effectively protected by not pretending to exalt the individual to the status of final arbiter of his or her own freedom. If we openly admit that personal behaviour is an interaction with the Society of which one is a part, and that therefore the adjudication of personal freedom must be an interaction too, it becomes possible to define where the boundaries of Societal and personal power meet. Personally I would lean towards the priority of personal will; I'm with The Savage on this one. But it must be done openly, so that ample time and thought can be given to carefully defining the points of interaction and the particular circumstances in which Society may override personal freedom. Apart from those very well-defined exceptions, the rule should be that Society will keep its hands off.

I think Thoreau is relevant here, and I like to keep my copy of Essay on Civil Disobedience close at hand. When I grew up it was on my school's recommended reading list. In today's world I wouldn't be surprised if it's on a list of books to be quietly but firmly discouraged. This essay is still available and should be taught as part of the national credo. Some quotes:

"'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."

"What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn." [speaking of State-sponsored injustice]

"Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison."

"...the State never intentionally confronts a man's sense, intellectual or moral, but only his body, his senses. It is not armed with superior wit or honesty, but with superior physical strength. I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest."

and last but not least:

"There will never be a really free and enlightened State, until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly."

-- Henry David Thoreau, Essay on Civil Disobedience.

A witty saying proves nothing-Voltaire

a quote I like that I saw in the game Civ 4, can't remember who said it originally:

"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding
bureaucracy."
(don't know who said it, the wording may be slightly different)


Another quote which seems very true when politicians get involved.

"The chief cause of problems is solutions."

And people who have done a bush:

When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment results. ~ Calvin Coolidge (ex-president, discussing the United States economic situation in 1931)

China is a big country, inhabited by many Chinese. ~ Charles de Gaulle

If Lincoln was alive today, he'd roll over in his grave. ~ Gerald Ford

Things are more like they are now than they have ever been. ~ Gerald Ford

I love sports. Whenever I can, I always watch the Detroit Tigers on the
radio. ~ Gerald Ford

If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. ~ Dan Quayle

There is a mandate to impose a voluntary return to traditional values. ~ Ronald Reagan

Wait a minute! I'm not interested in agriculture. I want the military stuff. ~ Senator William Scott, during a briefing in which officials began telling him about missile silos

(I got these from here http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Politics)

My freedom can be compromised internally as well as externally, by addiction, by ignorance, by a bout of furious emotion, and so on, and to break me from this unfreedom, even if it temporarily involves external restraint, does not compromise my rights.

Thank you for this wonderful demonstration of neo-con double-think.

"It doesn't matter if people take away my actual freedom, so long as they call something else freedom and give me that."
"They may take away my right to speak my mind and walk freely down the street. But they will never take away my right to waste away in a jail cell for criticizing the government!"

And while a lot of people are using quotes like thos to attack George Bush, there was a remarkably similar exchange that took place during the Clinton administration:

Bill Clinton: How can you claim to love your country, but hate your President?

Rush Limbaugh: Because this is a DEMOCRACY!

Folks in power do tend to think rather highly of themselves.

"That we are to stand by the president, right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

-Theodore Roosevelt



Agree, disagree?

Yep of course, isn't the whole reason you lot got to keep guns so that you can rise up and overthrow the shit goverments?

Quite right, because such justifications as Soheran lists already have been used, by individuals, small groups and governments, for interfering not only to protect a person from acting while not in his or her right mind, but simply as a general principle to bring about individuals' conformity to Society.

Who said anything about "conformity to Society"?

It seems to me that the conformist pressures and conditioning of society are among the greatest and worst of the internal obstacles to freedom, and indeed, are quite relevant to my point. If someone has been trained to obey blindly, does it not serve their welfare and freedom more to break them of this habit than to tolerate it as an expression of their "individual liberty"?

Once Soheran's principle of whether one is or isn't acting "in his/her right mind" is named as the individual's defence against Society's infringement of personal liberties, the individual turns out to be defenceless more often than not. After all, who will determine the individual's state of mind in the end? The individual may be, to use Soheran's descriptions, "in a fury", at the "point of non-thought", "acting in ignorance", or enslaved to an addiction. I said "may be", because who will decide? By definition the individual may be incapable.

To use Soheran's examples, is the person in a blind rage enslaved by rage or not? Is the person driven by despair in his/her right mind or not? Is the person about to begin an addiction making an informed decision or not? Is the addict a slave to the drug, or not? Who do we ask?

We don't ask it about every action. We need not be concerned for the protection of freedom in every small instance; that is indeed a recipe for tyranny. But, to borrow one fairly famous example, if someone seeks to sell herself into slavery, it is hard to come to any other conclusion, at least in most cases (and the law, ever imperfect, must concern itself with "most cases.")

Thank you for this wonderful demonstration of neo-con double-think.

"It doesn't matter if people take away my actual freedom, so long as they call something else freedom and give me that."
"They may take away my right to speak my mind and walk freely down the street. But they will never take away my right to waste away in a jail cell for criticizing the government!"

Are you really willing to say that an addict has genuine freedom regarding her addiction?

Do you think people who murder in cold blood should be punished equally to those who murder in a fit of rage?

Were you in one of the situations I gave, can you honestly say that you would not prefer certain kinds of intervention than to be granted vacuous "liberty"?

If you'll allow me.

Are you really willing to say that an addict has genuine freedom regarding her addiction?
Yes. Before the addiction came the first use of the substance, and she had choice regarding that.

I drink from time to time. If I become an alcoholic, that's my fault. I'm consciously choosing to run the risk of alcoholism.
Do you think people who murder in cold blood should be punished equally to those who murder in a fit of rage?
Absolutely. I'm not going to penalise someone for being calm and rational. In fact, I would deem the perpetrator of the crime of passion to be more dangerous, but since they both committed the same crime they should face the same consequence. That's what gives the law prescriptive force.

Quite right, because such justifications as Soheran lists already have been used, by individuals, small groups and governments, for interfering not only to protect a person from acting while not in his or her right mind, but simply as a general principle to bring about individuals' conformity to Society.

Who said anything about "conformity to Society"?

It seems to me that the conformist pressures and conditioning of society are among the greatest and worst of the internal obstacles to freedom, and indeed, are quite relevant to my point. If someone has been trained to obey blindly, does it not serve their welfare and freedom more to break them of this habit than to tolerate it as an expression of their "individual liberty"?
Once Soheran's principle of whether one is or isn't acting "in his/her right mind" is named as the individual's defence against Society's infringement of personal liberties, the individual turns out to be defenceless more often than not. After all, who will determine the individual's state of mind in the end? The individual may be, to use Soheran's descriptions, "in a fury", at the "point of non-thought", "acting in ignorance", or enslaved to an addiction. I said "may be", because who will decide? By definition the individual may be incapable.

To use Soheran's examples, is the person in a blind rage enslaved by rage or not? Is the person driven by despair in his/her right mind or not? Is the person about to begin an addiction making an informed decision or not? Is the addict a slave to the drug, or not? Who do we ask?

With respect Soheran, I have the feeling you've missed my point. It seems to me to that a flaw in your previous post was that you were saying that the individual's state of mind was to be the determination of whether or not the State had the right to over-rule an individual's decisions. In other words, and to answer your question "Who said anything about 'conformity to Society'?", I would answer that happens when we say "it's the individual's decision unless he's not in his right mind". As I tried to explain in my other post, when the individual is unable to decide on his or her soundness of mind, Society steps in to do it. "Conformity" is one of Society's main criteria, perhaps their main criterion, for deciding.

I simply wanted to argue against making the small concessions that end up being used as leverage for forcing us to make the large ones. I saw a loophole in the way your argument could be -- and in the past has been -- exploited, and wanted to point it out. Unless we establish clear definitions and boundaries beforehand (i.e., as a matter of law), we leave a huge vulnerability in the individual's right of self-determination.

Let me see if I can express my concern more clearly: if my right to make my own choices depends upon me being in my right mind, then the only thing necessary to suspend my right is to label me "not of sound mind" (choose your specific version of the label). Since not being in my right mind carries with it the likelihood that I will be incapable of deciding my state of mind, the power of deciding that will fall to someone else. "Someone else" turns out, by logic and by expediency, to be Society or the State.

In history Society has nearly always taken that power to itself, either de facto (for example in simpler societies and in small groups, through ostracism and/or confinement in the family home) or de jure (as in our modern societies, with power of involuntary committal and "sectioning" may be exercised through doctors or law courts). Either way, trying to make responsibility a property of the individual's "right mind" tends to mean in practice that Society can find -- or make -- opportunities to declare a person "of unsound mind" and suspend his liberty, if ever and whenever it chooses, whether for something as small as setting aside a will or something as large as indefinitely confining a social or moral or political spokesperson whose opinions they consider "dangerous".

The only way to protect the individual from falling victim to inappropriate use of the declaration that he or she is "not of sound mind" is to fix beforehand and in some detail exactly where the boundary between personal and societal power must be. "Sound mind" has to be defined, as must recognized departures from it. Who will decide, and the means of their decision, has to be defined. And when and under what circumstances they are allowed to make that decision, has to be fixed. The process by which that decision is to be made must be established. All these potential weapons against individual freedom must be carefully limited.

If any of these are left undefined by law, Society can and will be tempted to find ways to interfere when it might be financially or politically or otherwise expedient. The individual will not have a guarantee of safety.

We don't ask it about every action. We need not be concerned for the protection of freedom in every small instance; that is indeed a recipe for tyranny. But, to borrow one fairly famous example, if someone seeks to sell herself into slavery, it is hard to come to any other conclusion, at least in most cases (and the law, ever imperfect, must concern itself with "most cases.")

As for not being concerned to protect freedom "in every small instance", I would appeal to the way we learn from history that today's small infringements of freedom will turn all too often into tomorrow's large infringements. Once we surrender the right to have our freedom protected in a small thing we surrender the primacy of our right to be free. Everything else is just a matter of scale, and whenever Society or the State regard the individual's freedom as an obstacle to its own aims, individual freedom will be a natural and easy target.

"After all," they say, "you've already conceded that I have the right to search you for weapons. Why shouldn't I have the right to read your mail and tap your phones if I get a court order?" That in its turn could lead to "You've already conceded that I have the right to read your mail and tap your phones without a court order?" Oh wait; that's already happening.

I watched this happen under the McCarthy-Nixon-Hoover paranoia, and again under Nixon's presidency. I fear I'm seeing it again now, as certain people encourage us to decide that mere physical safety is worth surrendering personal liberties. To me it's a dangerous trend.

True, "we don't ask it about every action". That's safe, as long as we lay down the ruling principles that will be presumed to apply to "every small instance".