Can you be Anti Authoritarian on the left?

[Asclepias]

Yes. They will put your ass in jail if you starve your children. How free will you be then?

That's because I broke the law. What does that have to do with freedom? Freedom doesn't mean the right to commit murder.

Laws limit freedom. Actually freedom would be being able to kill someone with no consequences. Are you really that dumb or is someone paying you to pretend to be?

 

[Asclepias]

I believe this was going somewhere than it dissolved back into venting.
Let me just ask one more question.

On a scale how close is the value of your household "yourself,wife,kids" compared to all of your countries society?
would you be willing to hurt one to help the other?
You cant choose both would you truly choose your household over the "greater good"? or vice versa

Give us a realistic scenario.

 

[Oddball]

No such thing as freedom unless you are completely alone. Once you team up you loose your freedom as you are now responsible for more than just yourself.

I never requested to join your "team".

 

[Asclepias]

No such thing as freedom unless you are completely alone. Once you team up you loose your freedom as you are now responsible for more than just yourself.

I never requested to join your "team".

Not my problem. You would only be the water boy on my team anyway.

 

[Oddball]

No such thing as freedom unless you are completely alone. Once you team up you loose your freedom as you are now responsible for more than just yourself.

I never requested to join your "team".

Not my problem. You would only be the water boy on my team anyway.

Irrelevant to the point made....How does it come to pass that the mere existence of people in any geographic area mean that they "teamed up"?

 

[Asclepias]

No such thing as freedom unless you are completely alone. Once you team up you loose your freedom as you are now responsible for more than just yourself.

I never requested to join your "team".

Not my problem. You would only be the water boy on my team anyway.

Irrelevant to the point made.

Your made point was irrelevant so I just followed suit.

 

[Mac1958]

Keeping it short since that seems to get more of a response.

Mostly a question to those who self identify as being more left wing.
And hopefully is treated with honest responses and not just emotional venting.


Also is there a forum "topic" for just asking questions and getting honest responses from both sides of the spectrum? you know, learn why a side thinks the way the do?

It depends on what you mean by "The Left".

For example, real liberals believe in freedom of expression, (including, perhaps most importantly) that with which we disagree, and will always advocate for it.

That is absolutely a core liberal value.

Conversely, the phony illiberal leftist authoritarians will issue "consequences" at every opportunity for speech they don't like, from shutting it down to punishing it.

 

[JokerX27505]

I believe this was going somewhere than it dissolved back into venting.
Let me just ask one more question.

On a scale how close is the value of your household "yourself,wife,kids" compared to all of your countries society?
would you be willing to hurt one to help the other?
You cant choose both would you truly choose your household over the "greater good"? or vice versa

Give us a realistic scenario.

At the top of my head.
Poorish family, have a wife or at least someone you feel closely responsible for.
You have the ability to vote for some sort of law that you believe will help people in the country but EXCLUDES you and your loved one however passing this law involves you giving resources that will negatively affect your ability to take care of your loved one. Do you feel a duty to help pass this law or toss it?

 

[Oddball]

No such thing as freedom unless you are completely alone. Once you team up you loose your freedom as you are now responsible for more than just yourself.

I never requested to join your "team".

Not my problem. You would only be the water boy on my team anyway.

Irrelevant to the point made.

Your made point was irrelevant so I just followed suit.

It was completely relevant...You claimed people "teamed up"...Well, I've never received any offer, nor have I sought, to join any "team".

 

[Asclepias]

I believe this was going somewhere than it dissolved back into venting.
Let me just ask one more question.

On a scale how close is the value of your household "yourself,wife,kids" compared to all of your countries society?
would you be willing to hurt one to help the other?
You cant choose both would you truly choose your household over the "greater good"? or vice versa

Give us a realistic scenario.

At the top of my head.
Poorish family, have a wife or at least someone you feel closely responsible for.
You have the ability to vote for some sort of law that you believe will help people in the country but EXCLUDES you and your loved one however passing this law involves you giving resources that will negatively affect your ability to take care of your loved one. Do you feel a duty to help pass this law or toss it?

That doesnt sound very realistic. If it excluded my family I wouldnt think of it as something that helped the common good. Can you be more specific?

 

[Asclepias]

No such thing as freedom unless you are completely alone. Once you team up you loose your freedom as you are now responsible for more than just yourself.

I never requested to join your "team".

Not my problem. You would only be the water boy on my team anyway.

Irrelevant to the point made.

Your made point was irrelevant so I just followed suit.

It was completely relevant...You claimed people "teamed up"...Well, I've never received any offer, nor have I sought, to join any "team".

Go back to sleep kid.

 

[Crepitus]

No such thing as freedom unless you are completely alone. Once you team up you loose your freedom as you are now responsible for more than just yourself.

I never requested to join your "team".

There's the door.

 

[Oddball]

I never requested to join your "team".

Not my problem. You would only be the water boy on my team anyway.

Irrelevant to the point made.

Your made point was irrelevant so I just followed suit.

It was completely relevant...You claimed people "teamed up"...Well, I've never received any offer, nor have I sought, to join any "team".

Go back to sleep kid.

You're the dude who said "team up", so I'm following your model....So when did I apply for or get asked to join "the team"?

Quit your amateurish deflecting and answer the question.

 

[Oddball]

No such thing as freedom unless you are completely alone. Once you team up you loose your freedom as you are now responsible for more than just yourself.

I never requested to join your "team".

There's the door.

Ahhhh, the old "Murica, love it or leave it" bullshit....Good thing you're not an authoritarian!

 

[JokerX27505]

I believe this was going somewhere than it dissolved back into venting.
Let me just ask one more question.

On a scale how close is the value of your household "yourself,wife,kids" compared to all of your countries society?
would you be willing to hurt one to help the other?
You cant choose both would you truly choose your household over the "greater good"? or vice versa

Give us a realistic scenario.

At the top of my head.
Poorish family, have a wife or at least someone you feel closely responsible for.
You have the ability to vote for some sort of law that you believe will help people in the country but EXCLUDES you and your loved one however passing this law involves you giving resources that will negatively affect your ability to take care of your loved one. Do you feel a duty to help pass this law or toss it?

That doesnt sound very realistic. If it excluded my family I wouldnt think of it as something that helped the common good. Can you be more specific?

More inclined to help those you are closely responsible for like household family at the cost of others you don't know but perhaps make a larger number or vice versa. If you had to choose an image of yourself doing your definition of "good" would you be more likely to picture yourself helping yourself a Sprouse or a community.

 

[fncceo]

If those desires are ever at odds do you choose safety, and quality of life for the majority of people over freedom? Or do you believe freedom is always the answer for safety, and quality of life for the majority of people?

No such thing as freedom unless you are completely alone. Once you team up you loose your freedom as you are now responsible for more than just yourself.

You an retain freedom amongst a group of people who do not ask or desire you to take responsibility for them and who similarly don't attempt to take responsibility for you.

Mutual respect is the key to freedom.

What does mutual respect have to do with freedom?

When you respect someone, you are able to not concern yourself with their decisions. Right or wrong, as long as they don't impact you personally, allowing people to decide their lives for themselves is freedom.

You cannot respect anyone who you have to support. Likewise, they help but to have contempt for you if they rely on you for that support.

Disagree. Humans depended on each other for support for eons.

Humans have interacted for mutual benefit for eons.

The idea that certain classes of persons must receive support in perpetuity to survive is relatively new.

Adam Smith in his book, 'Wealth of Nations', illustrates how the butcher, baker, and candlestick maker, cooperate completely out of mutual self interest.

 

[Asclepias]

I believe this was going somewhere than it dissolved back into venting.
Let me just ask one more question.

On a scale how close is the value of your household "yourself,wife,kids" compared to all of your countries society?
would you be willing to hurt one to help the other?
You cant choose both would you truly choose your household over the "greater good"? or vice versa

Give us a realistic scenario.

At the top of my head.
Poorish family, have a wife or at least someone you feel closely responsible for.
You have the ability to vote for some sort of law that you believe will help people in the country but EXCLUDES you and your loved one however passing this law involves you giving resources that will negatively affect your ability to take care of your loved one. Do you feel a duty to help pass this law or toss it?

That doesnt sound very realistic. If it excluded my family I wouldnt think of it as something that helped the common good. Can you be more specific?

More inclined to help those you are closely responsible for like household family at the cost of others you don't know but perhaps make a larger number or vice versa. If you had to choose an image of yourself doing your definition of "good" would you be more likely to picture yourself helping yourself a Sprouse or a community.

My definition of common good would have me picturing doing something for my community that benefited everyone including my family.

 

[Oddball]

No doubt this will soon come in handy....

 

[Crepitus]

No such thing as freedom unless you are completely alone. Once you team up you loose your freedom as you are now responsible for more than just yourself.

I never requested to join your "team".

There's the door.

Ahhhh, the old "Murica, love it or leave it" bullshit....Good thing you're not an authoritarian!

All I'm saying is is nobody is forcing you to be on this team. We don't need you, there are billions of folks who would do virtually anything to have your spot.

 

[Asclepias]

No such thing as freedom unless you are completely alone. Once you team up you loose your freedom as you are now responsible for more than just yourself.

You an retain freedom amongst a group of people who do not ask or desire you to take responsibility for them and who similarly don't attempt to take responsibility for you.

Mutual respect is the key to freedom.

What does mutual respect have to do with freedom?

When you respect someone, you are able to not concern yourself with their decisions. Right or wrong, as long as they don't impact you personally, allowing people to decide their lives for themselves is freedom.

You cannot respect anyone who you have to support. Likewise, they help but to have contempt for you if they rely on you for that support.

Disagree. Humans depended on each other for support for eons.

Humans have interacted for mutual benefit for eons.

The idea that certain classes of persons must receive support in perpetuity to survive is relatively new.

Adam Smith in his book, 'Wealth of Nations', illustrates how the butcher, baker, and candlestick maker, cooperate completely out of mutual self interest.

Not true. I dont know who Adam is but he has no clue what he is talking about. The elderly, medical, musical, teachers, etc received support in the earliest of human societies.