Gov Perry apparently wasn't kidding concerning Texas Secession

By the way, Skaven, I'm curious… And it's not totally out of topic since you live in a country that had seceded from another! How is life in Taiwan? I have the impression that it's basically a chinese country with a japanese lifestyle, am-I wrong? You got a fairly… "strange" relation with mainland china. I think the official propaganda is still "We are the true china, the people republic are just rebels!" ?

Originally Posted by Rithrandil
I wonder about that myself, but I do chalk up our current attitudes to technology. I mean, if we didn't have the ability to do surgical strikes (and none existed elsewhere) I doubt we'd care as much if we decided to carpet bomb a city.

I don't think there's any single cause you can point to. One thread in Western thought has been universalism, though — the odd notion that yes, Victoria, all men *are* created equal. Lately that's even been extended to *women,* wouldn't you know.

Thing is, I think lots of people have started to actually believe that. Once that happens, it becomes drastically more difficult to paint your enemy as sub-human or inhuman monsters that deserve to be killed. And from there on out, the rules of war change — you get all kinds of stuff, from the cognitive dissonance currently displayed so spectacularly by the Most Moral Army In The World (tm), to the torture flap the other thread is going on. Try telling Genghiz Khan or Belisarius that you're *not* supposed to torture captives, pillage cities, or do a bit of recreational raping after a solid victory!

although I do believe the government can put restrictions on private contracts if it's in the best interests of society

Causing 'direct physical harm' is not the threshold for limiting contracts. China makes decisions based on "what is best for the people in charge of the party", not what is best for society. Governments have an interest to act in the best interests of society.

Your opinion doesn’t matter because of your own argument. As soon as you say “best interest of society” you take opinion out of it. You make yourself irrelevant and your argument hot-air. Who’s best interest? What demographic of society? The minority or the majority? In what sense? Long-term or short-term? Are the bill of rights in the best interest of society? Why? They can all be abused. Is abuse in the best interest of society?

Is best interest quantifiable? The problem with “best interest” is it will always be opinion. And what have we all heard opinions are like? And everyone will say their opinion is truth and they are right, etc, and try to force their opinion, there way of life, their way of thinking, their way of seeing an issue on the world; because its necessary for everyone’s “best interest.” The Blue Bloods, the church, telling man he can’t think for himself, can’t be his own master, can think his own thoughts. Invalidate him, marginalize him, make him cower, make him listen, make him conform.

Now freedom, freedom isn’t in the best interest of anyone’s society, but it is quantifiable if used and argued correctly (primary source freedom). Either you can or can’t. Simple. Elegant. Maddening. Dangerous. Annoying. Ugly. The most beautiful thing in the world.

Your convoluted and flawed argument shows you to be a surface thinker and unable to follow a complicated argument even at its simplest and basic level.

Originally Posted by Unrestigered
Your opinion doesn’t matter because of your own argument. As soon as you say “best interest of society” you take opinion out of it. You make yourself irrelevant and your argument hot-air. Who’s best interest? What demographic of society? The minority or the majority? In what sense? Long-term or short-term? Are the bill of rights in the best interest of society? Why? They can all be abused. Is abuse in the best interest of society?

I'd refer to the Preamble of the Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I define those values as best interests of society - as does every court in the land and most other people in this country, with the (un)noteworthy exception of yourself. Your opinion would throw out pretty much all domestic, state, and federal laws. If you like anarchy, great, but in our country at least the laws are meant to protect the best interests of society as defined in the Constitution and by our legislatures.

Originally Posted by Unrestigered
Is best interest quantifiable? The problem with “best interest” is it will always be opinion. And what have we all heard opinions are like? And everyone will say their opinion is truth and they are right, etc, and try to force their opinion, there way of life, their way of thinking, their way of seeing an issue on the world; because its necessary for everyone’s “best interest.” The Blue Bloods, the church, telling man he can’t think for himself, can’t be his own master, can think his own thoughts. Invalidate him, marginalize him, make him cower, make him listen, make him conform.

And this is not what you are doing?

Originally Posted by Unrestigered
Now freedom, freedom isn’t in the best interest of anyone’s society, but it is quantifiable if used and argued correctly (primary source freedom). Either you can or can’t. Simple. Elegant. Maddening. Dangerous. Annoying. Ugly. The most beautiful thing in the world.

Complete and absolute freedom to do anything (that is, anarchy) is not in anyone's best interest. Controlled freedom is in the best interests of all societies, but perhaps not in the best interests of some governments (China, etc).

Originally Posted by Unrestigered
Your convoluted and flawed argument shows you to be a surface thinker and unable to follow a complicated argument even at its simplest and basic level.

Ah yes - anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot and what you think is obviously not just your opinion but some sort of scientific fact or divine law. Well then, your lack of an argument shows you to be an asinine windbag at best and a troll only out to provoke reactions at worst.

Originally Posted by Zaleukos
Having enemy armies all over your country and seeing it split in two, as well as having your leaders hanged as criminals, probably did more than Dresden to cure German delusions of grandeur.

My mother did her doctorate in Germany and got to know a lot of germans very well, from what she's said over the years I think a big part of it was the generation that were children during war and were far more deeply effected by it than their peers in France or England - there's a whole generation with brittle teeth and bones from lack of calcium, who grew up malnourished many of whom lost relatives - I can see why they didn't want it to happen again.

I'd refer to the Preamble of the Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I define those values as best interests of society

Okay, lets see if this holds true:

I think all that drug illegalization does is throw a bunch of otherwise harmless people in jail and turn them into actual criminals when they are released. It also costs a lot of people and puts a hell of a lot of money into the pockets of drug cartles and other really, really bad people. Making alcohol illegal created organized crime in the states, after all.

Oh no!!!! There goes domestic tranquility, a common defense, posterity, and the general welfare. Oh no!!! Dissention in the ranks.

Does freedom of speech insure domestic tranquility? And how can anything be more than perfect? Has the second amendment insured domestic tranquility? I bed if we got rid of one amendment you don’t hear much about, and we quartered troops in everyone’s house, we could insure domestic tranquility.

If what is best for society is for Texas to secede they can’t, because it’s against the law. But what if it wasn’t against the law but was still best for society?

And this is not what you are doing?

Huh? I might not be the nicest person, or say things in the most pleasant way, but the last thing I want is to force people to somehow act or think or engage in activities in which I agree with (besides when it comes to what people consider to be rpgs, but it’s silly and ridiculous and makes no sense). I will always judge people and their thoughts and actions, and maybe I’ll put voice to those judgments, but I’ll never want to take anyone’s freedoms away, nor impose my beliefs on them. Unless you are saying arguing is imposing my will somehow?

Complete and absolute freedom to do anything (that is, anarchy) is not in anyone's best interest. Controlled freedom is in the best interests of all societies, but perhaps not in the best interests of some governments (China, etc).

No. Try and think please. Either you can or can’t. You are free to do that which you are free to do. No drama. No “best for society” gibberish. Either I can or can’t. No talks of vulgarity, morality, decency, bullshit unqualified opinion with powerful counterarguments of the “facts” and garbage. I can or can’t. No bullshit justifications. Let me decide if it’s right or wrong, or I should or shouldn’t. Replace the false and never true “what’s best for society” with “what’s too destructive for society” and go from there. Let people make their own choices, for good or ill.

Ah yes - anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot and what you think is obviously not just your opinion but some sort of scientific fact or divine law. Well then, your lack of an argument shows you to be an asinine windbag at best and a troll only out to provoke reactions at worst.

Of course. I’m the one agreeing, disagreeing, opinionating and claiming to know what is best for society while doing it? If you cannot see the flaws in your arguments then you are doomed. I don’t have time to explain more in-depth, but think about your logic, and follow it to its conclusion, which you can't so just even try and make sense of it, which you can't. What does it tell about the quality of your thinking?

Originally Posted by Unrestigered

I'd refer to the Preamble of the Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I define those values as best interests of society

Okay, lets see if this holds true:

I think all that drug illegalization does is throw a bunch of otherwise harmless people in jail and turn them into actual criminals when they are released. It also costs a lot of people and puts a hell of a lot of money into the pockets of drug cartles and other really, really bad people. Making alcohol illegal created organized crime in the states, after all.

Oh no!!!! There goes domestic tranquility, a common defense, posterity, and the general welfare. Oh no!!! Dissention in the ranks.

My opinion, yes, but also an opinion which is backed up by research, facts, and decades of our current drug control policy that has not come close to achieving its goals. Creating actual hardened criminals and depriving people of their freedom? I'd view that as not in the best interests of society. But hey - this is why we have elections, and debates, and research; because ideas can be argued and discussed.

Originally Posted by Unrestigered
Does freedom of speech insure domestic tranquility? And how can anything be more than perfect? Has the second amendment insured domestic tranquility? I bed if we got rid of one amendment you don’t hear much about, and we quartered troops in everyone’s house, we could insure domestic tranquility.

Freedom of speech ensures liberty. The second amendment may ensure liberty but also allows people to protect themselves. Or hunt. Who is talking about repealing the bill of rights? I'm not making this argument.

Originally Posted by Unrestigered
If what is best for society is for Texas to secede they can’t, because it’s against the law. But what if it wasn’t against the law but was still best for society?

If it wasn't against the law then we wouldn't be having this conversation. But hey - you're the one who made the false argument that Texas had the legal right to secede based on the Resolution that admitted it into the United States (it doesn't).

Originally Posted by Unrestigered
Huh? I might not be the nicest person, or say things in the most pleasant way, but the last thing I want is to force people to somehow act or think or engage in activities in which I agree with (besides when it comes to what people consider to be rpgs, but it’s silly and ridiculous and makes no sense). I will always judge people and their thoughts and actions, and maybe I’ll put voice to those judgments, but I’ll never want to take anyone’s freedoms away, nor impose my beliefs on them. Unless you are saying arguing is imposing my will somehow?

You've been saying other people's opinions don't matter, what others think doesn't matter, what they agree or disagree with doesn't matter. You haven't really been including yourself in those statements, so sure, you're imposing your will.

Originally Posted by Unrestigered
No. Try and think please. Either you can or can’t. You are free to do that which you are free to do. No drama. No “best for society” gibberish. Either I can or can’t. No talks of vulgarity, morality, decency, bullshit unqualified opinion with powerful counterarguments of the “facts” and garbage. I can or can’t. No bullshit justifications. Let me decide if it’s right or wrong, or I should or shouldn’t. Replace the false and never true “what’s best for society” with “what’s too destructive for society” and go from there. Let people make their own choices, for good or ill.

You're free to act as you wish, and decide what is right and wrong, and make your own choices. You're not free to choose the consequences of those actions and decisions. You can make whatever choice you want if you are willing to pay the price. Try and think, please. No one is controlling your body and your thoughts. Laws are already based on what is best for society. Human understanding changes, and of course we have no way of knowing what objectively is "best" for society and there are many disagreements, but that is why we have elections, debate, public discourse.

Originally Posted by Unrestigered
Of course. I’m the one agreeing, disagreeing, opinionating and claiming to know what is best for society while doing it? If you cannot see the flaws in your arguments then you are doomed. I don’t have time to explain more in-depth, but think about your logic, and follow it to its conclusion, which you can't so just even try and make sense of it, which you can't. What does it tell about the quality of your thinking?

Yes, you are. You obviously disagree with the way society is going from your myriad of posts about the "blue-bloods" telling you how to think and instituting tyranny over the country. You're saying the US is filled with cultists, wanting a country with "intellectual freedom". You're making value judgments about how society should work. You're doing the exact same thing as everyone else here.

Ah, Roqua never changes; he's like a puppy who never grows up!!

And you can only hope he's had all his shots.

Originally Posted by Unrestigered
Who’s best interest? What demographic of society? The minority or the majority? In what sense? Long-term or short-term? Are the bill of rights in the best interest of society? Why? They can all be abused. Is abuse in the best interest of society?

You have a point in that this is a huge problem with a consequencialist outlook on how to build society. It's hard to tell which political system works better than any other and usually it does come down to oppinion even if we try to avoid it.

However, if you're interested in my view on your solution to this problem you simply have to read my signature.

Übereil

Originally Posted by Ubereil
However, if you're interested in my view on your solution to this problem you simply have to read my signature.

Touché!

Irony anyone?

Then:
Texas Governor Rick Perry: "I believe the federal government has become oppressive. I believe it's become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of its citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state."
Yesterday:

Austin — Gov. Rick Perry today in a precautionary measure requested the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provide 37,430 courses of antiviral medications from the Strategic National Stockpile to Texas to prevent the spread of swine flu. Currently, three cases of swine flu have been confirmed in Texas.

“As a precautionary measure, I have requested that medication be on hand in Texas to help curb the spread of swine flu by helping those with both confirmed and suspected cases of this swine flu virus, as well as healthcare providers who may have come in contact with these patients,” said Gov. Rick Perry. “We will continue to work with our local, state and federal health officials to ensure public safety is protected.”

Bring on that oppressive,intrusive interference.