| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Trevoke
The missing liberty
Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Post Count: 1924
Location: Madra
25000 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 4:17 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| Urn wrote: |
| Although the idea of anarchy is irrelevant to the issue of freedom of choice or choice due to the fact that our choices are purposefully limited in order to prevent anarchy in the first place. |
Yes. We WILLFULLY give up some 'choices' in order to prevent chaos or anarchy from taking place. And by the way, anarchy is a form of 'government' if taken to the proper meaning. Chaos is chaos. Anarchy is a 'lack of leader'.
_________________
There are weapons you cannot hold in your hand.
You can only hold them in your mind.
-- Bene Gesserit Teaching |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Urn
Azure Flames
Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Post Count: 2590
Location: Mido Shallows
7756 Potch
0 Soldiers
970973 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Yes. We WILLFULLY give up some 'choices' in order to prevent chaos or anarchy from taking place.
|
We obviously agree here.
| Quote: |
Anarchy is a 'lack of leader'.
|
I cannot consent that anarchy is equivalent to a "lack of leader". It is a state of order or lawlessness, but this does not directly correlate with the absence of a leader in entirety. A leader could be present, but not able to properly rule. This would be a failure to properly rule and not total absence of a ruler. This is prevalent in examples of leaders leading their country into a state of anarchy.
| Quote: |
And by the way, anarchy is a form of 'government' if taken to the proper meaning.
|
I agree with you wholeheartedly with this point.
Chaos is many things, but it certainly is itself. So, I agree there. But, is this relevant to the discussion of the freedom of choice?
_________________
~ Humbly walk the path of death
KOOLUK SUPPORTS TINTO MINERS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Starslasher
Chunks of Chaco-late.
Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Post Count: 6482
Location: Dunan Delta
1177790 Potch
300 Soldiers
35 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'll first start off my post about my opinoin on the Freedom of Choice, as it is the primary topic of discussion.
I believe that the Freedom of Choice is concerned on the issues of desire, not necessity. The very first post, beginning with Sai (in arguement with Nutflush), was about making it the law to wear your seat belts. While i've spent most of my life not wearing seat belts in the car, it is truly important to minimize risk. You will need to wear your sealt belt to increase your chances of dying. But of course, that is your chioce if you want to wear it or not.
However, then there is the freedom to take narcotics. Yes, it is illegal in most parts of the world, but there really isn't anything to stop you from taking it, simply because you want to. It is up to you if you want to go through the consequences of withdrawal. But that is given that you want to go through it. :roll:
The idea on Freedom of Choice is a most optimistic one. In a democracy, you are given the freedom of choice to to anything you want. But the concept behind it is that you will do what is right and choose what is proper. But if the Unemployment Agency gives you a cheque, it is entirely up to you if you want to use it to get yourself a new suit for a job interview or help feed yourself until you get a job, or to blow all that money in Las Vegas. Obviously, the former is the better option, but you are free to choose the latter.
In my belief, the freedom of choice should be limited, but only for certain neccessities, such as financial issues.
Anarchy would be fine, only as a transitional government (eh, it should probably be state, shouldn't it?), as a temporary state until a new government can be established.
_________________
Guardian of Greenhill & Devoted Protector of Oulan
Bork! Bork! Bork! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ardi
Joined: 18 Jul 2005
Post Count: 3
Location: manila
0 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Starslasher wrote: |
| However, then there is the freedom to take narcotics. Yes, it is illegal in most parts of the world, but there really isn't anything to stop you from taking it, simply because you want to. It is up to you if you want to go through the consequences of withdrawal. But that is given that you want to go through it. :roll: |
a complete disagreement on above stipulated statement. for as long as you do illegal things, you're taking the risk of deviating the real essence of freedom. yes, freedom literally means doing what you would want to do. but hey! take a look around, and try to scrutinize your phrase " freedom of engaging yourself to use narcotics" its definitely a big NO.
this message didnt mean to offend you. i'm just stating my opinion.
_________________
catch a bird and lift its wing to let him fly is a type of foolishnes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
