thegreatdivide
Gold Member
Offline
Australian Politics<br />
Posts: 12490
Gender:
|
Frank wrote on Jan 12 th, 2024 at 11:12am: thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 12 th, 2024 at 10:54am: Frank wrote on Jan 11 th, 2024 at 10:06pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 11 th, 2024 at 6:26pm: Frank wrote on Jan 11 th, 2024 at 6:04pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 11 th, 2024 at 5:46pm: freediver wrote on Jan 11 th, 2024 at 3:41pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 11 th, 2024 at 1:54pm: freediver wrote on Jan 11 th, 2024 at 12:46pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 11 th, 2024 at 12:45pm: freediver wrote on Jan 11 th, 2024 at 12:21pm: Quote:I have outlined why your "individual freedom" values ideology What ideology is that? I don't think you ever said. You just started ranting about it. The ideology based on the illusion of 'natural individual rights", based on survival/competitive instincts of individuals. Whereas sweet reason, and concepts like "fairness" are cortex-based. Your task in life is to be 'reason-able', rather than blindly driven by self-interested survival instincts. Yeah, that's what your rants sound like. What ideology is that? The ideology of Reason, not accessible to your blind individual instinct-driven brain. Hence the endless wars and and entrenched poverty in our world - an entirely unreason-able outcome of human relations. So you think you have proven that reason itself is an illusion? No; and that's obviously not even what I wanted to prove, your thinking is already confused. I think I have proven reason, in consideration of universal wellbeing (as in the UNUDHR) is incompatible with "reason" based on the (individual) "freedom" illusion. (Unregulated individual freedom is an illusion if the world has more than one self-interested individual in it...). The illusion is the (individual) "freedom" ideology, arrived at by the unreason of instinct-driven thought. Note: everyone has shouted "that's not fair", sometime in their life; they are reasoning from their own perspective of "fairness". The solution (other than via resort to un-reasoning conflict) is acceptance of rule of law to adjudicate "fairness", from the point of view of justice determined by the collective, not the self-interested individual. The quality of the justice is evident in the outcomes in the community (eg, order, tranquility, versus hyper-partisanship). Point to a single jurisdiction where individual freedom is unregulated. Indeed, no where And yet, stupid, moronic parrot that you are, you rail endlessly against unregulated invidual freedom- that doesn't actually exist anywhere. You missed out the important qualifier re the "individual freedom" illusion, which DOES exist; namely " the collective will leans toward non-interference, with extreme examples causing hyperpartisanship and inequality, or graded intervention, to eradicate disadvantage". That is, in countries infested with delusional "natural individual rights" ideology, the "collective will" will result in 'survival of the fittest' outcomes. Do try to comprehend the entire argument, not just the first bit you thought you could run with, to get you out of a hole. Quote:You are a moron in your own bubble. Is that harsh? Well, it's true. Refuted above: your lack of ability to consider the several aspects of an argument at the same time, is egregious. Unregulated individual freedom is indeed impossible except in a state of anarchy (as even you agree); but the delusion re 'natural individual "rights"' is nevertheless widespread among followers of Western classical liberalism, resulting in disastrous outcomes for social harmony, as we see in our world. Suggestion: have a go at refuting my argument, rather than just frothing at the mouth with your ad hominems, as usual. Quote just one person who wants totally unregulated individual freedom. Just one. [You are proving my point: you are incapable of considering the several aspects supporting my argument that the wide-spread delusion re "natural individual rights" results in rendering ineffective the boundaries to individual freedom that governments MUST establish (by Rule of Law) to engender well-ordered societies.] More than "one person who wants totally unregulated individual freedom", I can cite the widely-held Libertarian creed , namely, " voluntary agreement is the natural state of Man" ie Anarchism (the delusional philosophy) renders Rule of Law unnecessary and "totalitarian".
|