01-31-2021, 10:06 AM
This is a great post needing a serous reply. I'll do my best.
My benchmark for honoring freedom was stated by Robert Jackson, the last Supreme Court Justice to "read the law": "the Constitution is not a suicide pact". To me, that means there are inherent limits to everything -- even rights. The printed word, no matter how well considered, is no replacement for basic common sense. Case in point: section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), that has lead to unintended horrors yet to be addressed. This wasn't evil in action, but an attempt to grant the widest possible freedom to the internet, and it failed miserably.
These are all great points, but they demand a reflective response: reverse the parties and ask how tolerant of their adversaries those kulaks will be in return for tolerance of their views? I suspect, based on recent history alone, that tolerance will be demanded of all the non-kulaks, and never granted by them in return. That's the history of the 1830s, 40s and 50s. Your question applies even moreso to the 1870s, 80s and later. In short, intolerance is intolerance. It may be that, in their righteous anger, these kulaks refuse to comply with the majority, and I have no doubt that the majority will never support the kind of nonsense being pitched by the extreme right. Will they relent and, if not, how should they be handled? Personally, I would carve-out a chunk of Red Country, and bid them adieu -- but it's not up to me, is it.
(01-29-2021, 05:14 PM)mamabug Wrote:(01-29-2021, 03:12 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I suggest you take a good look at the ideology you are holding onto, and see where you might be willing to let go of some of it for the sake of achieving consensus.
I will never let go of the ideology that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I will never cease to be a Bill of Rights near-absolutist that sees any infringement upon it as something that should only be allowable under the most extreme circumstances. I will also never cease to revile those that seek to use the private sphere to abrogate those ideals simply because they are not subject to the limitations we impose on our government.
If I have to let go of that ideology to achieve consensus, it isn't worth it. Whatever comes out of that 'consensus' simply won't be American, no matter how prettily you dress it up. That you think 'accepting people who are different from you to live freely in your country' is *still* a left-wing value shows either how disconnected you are from the up and coming generation of progressives or that you are deep in cognitive dissonance.
Everything else is up for negotiation, but without that fundamental acknowledgement that people who have different opinions than you politically ARE NOT EVIL, I see little hope of a consensus even forming.
My benchmark for honoring freedom was stated by Robert Jackson, the last Supreme Court Justice to "read the law": "the Constitution is not a suicide pact". To me, that means there are inherent limits to everything -- even rights. The printed word, no matter how well considered, is no replacement for basic common sense. Case in point: section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), that has lead to unintended horrors yet to be addressed. This wasn't evil in action, but an attempt to grant the widest possible freedom to the internet, and it failed miserably.
mamabug Wrote:Eric the Green Wrote:And, in it's time, in the Wars of the Roses, and in the following Elizabethan era, the way of progress was indeed through the Tudors and then the rule of the King or Queen over the Papists. Then, next time, was the way of partial Parliamentary rule over corrupt absolute rule by kings. Then, it was a new Republic rather than the King of the colonies. Then, it was a union dedicated to freedom rather than one section dedicated to slavery. Then, as still today, it was the rule of the common man over big business, and, maybe also like today, human dignity over racism and world conquest by dictators. But this time, a livable planet also hangs in the balance.
For Russia, the way of progress lay through Stalin. For China, Mao. For Weimar Germany, it was (like it or not) Hitler. You talk about 'the path of progress' in the events above, but you refuse to acknowledge the amount of injustice and bloodshed it took to get there. Henry VIII killed more people than his daughter did all to secure power to himself in what was, effectively, an anti-globalist movement.
I ask you again - what happens if all these reactionary elements and kulaks refuse to jump on board with the DNC vision? What if they keep voting for populists, keep obstructing, keep trying to use every (and let's say peaceful for now) means necessary to make sure their voices are heard and opinions counted? How much are you willing to violate their civil liberties and unequally apply the law so that they can't live freely in this country? So that their voices and ability to argue their point is silenced? And, if it comes to that, how much blood are you willing to see spilled?
The main thing I have been warning against is this. That those in favor of what they call 'progress' will use their sense of moral certainty to enact otherwise unconscionable violations of civil liberties upon their *political* opponents and justify it all because they are on the side of good. It is already happening using unaccountable and unelected billionaires as proxies, the danger in a 4T is this becomes normalized through the government and the judicial system as well.
These are all great points, but they demand a reflective response: reverse the parties and ask how tolerant of their adversaries those kulaks will be in return for tolerance of their views? I suspect, based on recent history alone, that tolerance will be demanded of all the non-kulaks, and never granted by them in return. That's the history of the 1830s, 40s and 50s. Your question applies even moreso to the 1870s, 80s and later. In short, intolerance is intolerance. It may be that, in their righteous anger, these kulaks refuse to comply with the majority, and I have no doubt that the majority will never support the kind of nonsense being pitched by the extreme right. Will they relent and, if not, how should they be handled? Personally, I would carve-out a chunk of Red Country, and bid them adieu -- but it's not up to me, is it.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.