I could say the same. I admit, my primary desire is to promote free societies over controlled societies. The negative effects of individuals is much easier to contend with than are the negative effects of government, while the positive effects of individuals are much more beneficial and less costly than those of government. Controls applied to a society are most rational, reasoned, cost effective and acceptable when they created locally. In this way small experiments can be carried out which allows us to limit failures, and build on successes, which then spread based on desirability and not government mandate. I simply accept criticism, understanding that it is unlikely to produce any agreement by responding to it. I do on occasion point out when an opponent and I appear to agree on something as that is most often the only areas that can be discussed more fully and lead to some form of agreement. I might ask you the same question. Rather than try and say what I "think" your philosophy is, wouldn't it be best for you to clearly state it? For me to state what I think it is would simply open an avenue of unnecessary argument leading to nowhere. Essentially my "ideas" are that humans are individuals, and in a society government has a responsibility only to protect, and not to provide for a subset of that society. It is the individuals of the society that make it a society, and government has no rights to try and mold the society in a form it desires against the will of the people. Laws under the constitution are meant to equally protect both the majority as well as the minority from one another. Although a myth, Lemming behavior has been associated with "mass suicide" due to a follow the leader like behavior.
Indie No answers and little or nothing of substance on the issues being discussed. OK please expand, explain? In what way am I the same, what questions of any great significance haven’t I answered what issues am have I show myself unwilling to discuss? * Please clarify because you see this is little more than a slogan you might as well be saying blue cheese is better than yellow cheese – just saying something doesn’t make it so. Again just saying something doesn’t make it so, can you back this up in some way? Which only means you will not discuss things you know will not stand up to scrutiny that you cannot answer criticisms because if you did it would quickly become apparent that your ideas are deeply flawed. Which begs the question, if you can’t defend your views why do you hold them? * Again it makes me wonder why you are here? Actually I’ve answered that many, many times over the years I’ve been here so that holds no problems for me. I’ll try to keep it brief since the last time someone asked they complained at my lengthy replay. In 2001 after the 9/11 tragedy I went online to try and understand the American response to the attack. My views got me thrown off and banned from virtually every American discussion board then up and running (or so it seemed) anyway I ended up here because I wasn’t banned but welcomed. Basically I’m here to learn and understand and have remained to try and learn and understand the political views of Americans. And for me the best way to learn and understand is through debate. Also for a number of years I’ve been moderator here so I also come here as a duty. Thing is why are you here, I mean you don’t seem to want to debate your ideas and only seem to want to pump out dogmatic slogans that don’t really stand up to scrutiny. Which makes you seem more like a spammer than a debater. Hold on, you claim to know what ‘my philosophy’ is - if that is true it would seem only a simple task to post it however if you are saying you don’t then you were lying, which is it? I mean I’m happy to post my views and do, but I’m not a mind reader I don’t know how they are interpreted by others you claim that you have come to an opinion about what you think my philosophy is and I’d really like to know your opinion, why are you being so coy? LOL – so let’s get this right you are using a myth to try and back up your ideas, what’s more you even know it is a myth but you are still going to use it to try and back up your views. Don’t you think that is rather telling?
Indie Again this sounds like a string of slogans rather than thought through ideas. Yes but they virtually all live in communities But as I’ve pointed out before - “What is meant by ‘protection’? Protection from what? Protection from harm, protection from exploitation, protection from hardship, protection in sickness – its a vague term that is open to interpretation. I mean if someone is born into power and wealth which gives them protection from exploitation and hardship and another is born into poverty which opens them to exploitation and hardship, then there is in that society an inequality of protection. The society is benefiting one over the other and if the ones getting the greater benefit are few compared to the others then that society is benefiting the few and not the many?” (post 157 - http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?p=6374934&highlight=protection#post6374934) Society is a community of individuals I mean I don’t think you can have a society of one, so society is a collective that can make collective decisions. In many places the people of a society have collectively moulded their society and government, through the means of the democratic process. But while most societies create some type of government there can be many types some that express or try to express the will of the people and some that don’t. I prefer some type of representational democracy in which hopefully the will of the people can be expressed. You on the other hand prefer a ‘Constitutional Republic’ which as pointed out can quite happily have only a few people with voting rights. I agree that regulations and laws should be in place to protect everyone but most of the ideas you promote would seem to favour the few over the many and could very possibly as I’ve pointed out open the way for exploitation and hardship for the majority. * As I’ve said your ideas seem rather ill informed and poorly thought through, don’t seem to stand up well to scrutiny and which even you seem unwilling or unable to defend from the criticism that they could do more harm than good.
I'm not quite sure what you consider to be the issues. My primary question is what are we trying to accomplish? While some may say that blue cheese is better and others may say yellow cheese is better, it remains the right if the individual to make the choice. How should government become involved if one cheese maker produced blue cheese and another produced yellow cheese and the consumers preferred one much more than the other? Subsidize one or tax the other higher? I had to go back and look at what I said, but does that really need to be backed up in some way for you to make sense of it? Competition, while sometimes resulting in failure and sometimes in success, allows us to try different methods in order to achieve success. Should we look at society as the sum of all people in the world, all the people within the boundaries defined as a nation, state, city, or what? I tend to look at the world as being made up of a great many very small societies, each unique in various ways. When government begins to clump them together, it ignores many of the differences that exists between them, and what may be good for one may be bad for another. That view being? I'm a U.S. citizen, and you appear to be a British subject, so I might ask why are you here? Are we discussing 9/11? The OP says "Effort or Luck?" I suggest that effort while not guaranteeing success more often prevails over luck. While you may claim that those who achieve the greatest success were very lucky, and that some of them were born lucky, effort had to occur at some point previous. We dwell too much on what others have. How can I possibly know what your philosophy is, other than the little you expose here? One individuals philosophy is not something another individual can ever know conclusively. Myths are often founded in some relevant truth or facts. I've had friends and coworkers who often voted along party lines exclusively, taking no interest in knowing what the candidates stood for. That to me exhibits a Lemming like behavior. Often I was told they voted for who they did because the Union asked them to.
Indie OH please this is just another example of evasion, this one from the child’s playground. I’ve presented my criticism many times simply pretending you don’t know what they are is a bit pathetic don’t you think, I mean how does acting dumb improve your standing? That doesn’t answer the question, I asked - In what way am I the same, what questions of any great significance haven’t I answered what issues have I show myself unwilling to discuss? Just like your other views you seem to make accusations you are unable to defend. And what I’m trying to do is debate your ideas and view which you seem very reluctant to do and I’m wondering why that is. But they know why or they haven’t thought through why. That’s my point you make statements that you seem unable to defend or even expand on. I once lived in France and I can go on for hours on the subject of cheese (the French like to talk about food). But the thing is that you make statements but when asked to expand and explain you become all coy and refuse to say more. Quote: Again just saying something doesn’t make it so, can you back this up in some way? You said –“Controls applied to a society are most rational, reasoned, cost effective and acceptable when they created locally. In this way small experiments can be carried out which allows us to limit failures, and build on successes, which then spread based on desirability and not government mandate” Your reply still didn’t back this up. Views, plural, the views you’ve been promoting, you know the whole ‘free market, small government etc etc etc that you’ve been sprouting slogans on…are you honestly saying you don’t know what you’ve been saying…although yes that would explain why you never seem able to defend it. One again I can only see that petulant teenager. The spark that brought me to hipforums was 9/11, the thirst for knowledge kept me here. But I notice you don’t answer the question, why are you posting on a debating site when you never seem willing (or refuse) to debate? So you were lying when you claimed that you did know what my philosophy was? Or was it just you once again blurting out something that you later can’t defend? The only way to examine and explore other peoples views is through debate something you seem to abhor. LOL – and so you’re still trying to use the myth of “Lemming like behaviour” to back you ideas up even when you know that it isn’t Lemming like behaviour at all. I think you are trying to say that some people don’t question and instead just stick dogmatically to ideas that may make thinks worse rather than better – and the thing is that seem to be you.
Okay, you're a debater. You tell me how all the worlds problems can be solved, and who should be the authority to do it.
Indie I think this is the third time you’ve tried this particle evasion tactic and I’m going to say basically what I’ve said the other times, I given my views in a number of thread of which you have been a participant and have linked to other ideas I’ve expressed, you are free to read and comment on them any time you wish. Now could you please answer the questions asked of you and address the criticism of your ideas that have been raised.
Instead of a constant display of belligerence, try settling down and simply ask the question(s) you feel I've not answered to your satisfaction. Perhaps even then I will still not satisfy you, but at least I would know what I'm supposed to be responding to. I've answered in ways I felt to be adequate, as there are no facts that would satisfy us equally that I am aware of. We each, you and I, see everything from a point of view that is nearly totally opposite.
I think this is the second time you’ve tried this evasion tactic. If you want to answer questions just go back and answer them, if you want I’ll make it easy and say from post 50 or so? As to answering ‘to a satisfactory’ level well many you’ve just completely ignored some and others have been simply evasions not answers.
If it's not worth your time to ask it again, it's not worth my time to go back and look to see what you asked just to continue an argument.
Migration behavior in lemmings is not precipitated by a follow the leader like behavior. Lemmings undergo mass migrations because of population pressures. There are no leaders in lemmingville, lemmings do not have such societies.
Indie LOL - Which is simply more evasion. If you can answer, please answer if you can’t or are unwilling to, don’t make excuses.
Not bored, interested. I’m trying to understand why someone would have a set of views they don’t seem to have thought through or defend, this isn’t something rare it seems to be a common phenomena. To me Individual is a representative of that phenomena, if I can understand him maybe it might go some way to understanding the phenomena.
(For future reference) Indie did eventually answer the question posed above * Indie – So the answer to the question - is it justified for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages they didn’t deserve rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged - Is yes? So any unearned advantage is justified; anything anyone gets that has nothing to do with their own merit is justified. The problem with that is it seems to go against a lot of what you’ve said and so deeply (if not catastrophically) undermine your philosophy. You seem to be saying that things that advantage some are good and right but things that advantage others are bad and wrong? And you are going to base that around wealth, people that have it are entitled to every advantage it brings but those that don’t are not entitled to any advantage that may come from such things as the government programmes you have so often denigrated. Is that it? http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=361461&f=346&page=5
I answered a firm YES to the original question, although what you claim I "seem" to be saying comes from your mind alone, not mine. We haven't yet made clear what the advantage is we are talking about, or is it simply to be defined for the purpose of this conversation as wealth and nothing else?
Indie But that yes is important it seems to indicate that your views are flawed been either incompatibly contradictory or just plain hypocritical. * Advantages and we have talked about them or at least I have. Maybe if you actually read others posts rather than ignoring any view you don’t agree with you’d already know that. Do we have to do it all over again because you’ve forgotten? Can I have reassurance that this time you’ll take some notice?
Obviously the wealthy and the poor will always have their advantages and disadvantages...there will exceptions to the rule, obviously. But, imho, generally speaking the the rich and the poor will stay where they are. Now where the real issue is, imho, is those that are not rich and not poor. That is where the wealth of talent can be lost...and where social mobility can thrive.
You're entitled to your opinion. Assuming the question remains "So the answer to the question - is it justified for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages they didn’t deserve rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged - Is yes? ", correct? I will proceed assuming the only advantage in question is that of wealth, unless you wish to clarify it further. In a free society the earnings of individuals varies depending upon the work or career field they pursue. Some people who are low paid invest wisely and some do not. Some people who are highly paid spend extravagantly and others do not. In each case what a person earns after taxes, which are applied progressively, should be theirs to spend, save or invest as they wish, should it not? People have families, and therefore should not a person be responsible and care first for their immediate family? Charity is the act of giving to someone or those in need who are unrelated. If it is truly charity, it is given by choice. Government cannot be charitable in the true sense of the word as it has nothing of its own to give. I assume your argument would be that people don't give enough unless forced to by the government, and that essentially is the equivalent of legalized theft. What right has government, or the use of democracy, to attempt to redistribute perceived advantages, mandate sharing, or become the decider of what an individual deserves or does not deserve? By your definition, my brothers and I were born disadvantaged however we each have prospered greater than our parents and grandparents, so how could that be possible?
