Absolutely depends on perspective. I guarantee we'd argue about what constitutes as individual freedomsNo it's not, authoritarian means less individual freedoms, and more state control over individual's lives.
The right wing will fight for peoples right to express themselves in ways that promote hate and division, as well as spread complete fabrications regardless of being proven false. Not surprisingly, they also fight against the teaching of history, that is completely documented, and verified, because it would give credence to those their follows spread hate and division, and fabricate stories aboutThese are all good points, and I agree with you, the republican party is no better than the democrats.
I don't think you understand what authoritarianism means, there's nothing authoritarian about freedom of expression, and the right to defend one's self independently of the state.
I'm not defending the right, I'm all for both freedom of expression and teaching history.The right wing will fight for peoples right to express themselves in ways that promote hate and division, as well as spread complete fabrications regardless of being proven false. Not surprisingly, they also fight against the teaching of history, that is completely documented, and verified, because it would give credence to those their follows spread hate and division, and fabricate stories about
I say we revise the 2nd amendment in that case.As for the second amendment, this has been a tool used to control follows. There has never been any real laws either way by either party, yet both make threats about the their opposition, and promises that coincide with their party. The only freedom the second amendment gives anyone is the ability to keep guns, the ability to use them for personal protection has been extremely biased. Need examples?
Really? What about the democratic party do you not like? I have never heard you criticize them.Oh, and I'm sure you do not agree with me. I feel the republican party is far far worse then the democrats, and I don't have a very good opinion of the democrats
I've got two problems with that, 1: I don't trust the government, 2: As individual rights are good the more individual rights you sacrifice the less good it gets, freedom is being able to govern your own life and live for yourself rather than being a cog in some great machine.@anarchist100
That is one way of looking at it.
Another is sacrificing individual freedoms for the common good.
IMHO this has not only become very topical but it is also a good lens for viewing all of The USA's problems.
"We face a choice between a society where people accept modest sacrifices for a common good or a more contentious society where groups selfishly protect their own benefits."
Robert J. Samuelson, Newsweek
The face mask debate has shown a spot light on this as anti-maskers shout about their inidividual rights while disregarding the common good.
the ethics of the common good is also coming up in discussions about business' social responsibilities, environmental pollution, our lack of investment in education, and the problems of crime and poverty.
eschewing meat can be expressed as a common good vs individual rights argument. As illustrated by the Fox News anchors exhorting their right to eat hamburgers no matter what the cost to the environment is. The Democrats are coming for your BBQ!!!!
The Common Good vs Individualism
This article looks at societal issues as a result of the lack of interest in the common good of society and the emphasis on individual success.www.scu.edu
I've got two problems with that, 1: I don't trust the government, 2: As individual rights are good the more individual rights you sacrifice the less good it gets, freedom is being able to govern your own life and live for yourself rather than being a cog in some great machine.
I was directly responding to your statement:I'm not defending the right, I'm all for both freedom of expression and teaching history.
Absolutely agree, however I feel it's a problem only disguised as a "right"I say we revise the 2nd amendment in that case.
The neo-lib democrats have largely been placeholders for the republicans next term. That said, they've still done more for human rights. I haven't needed to criticize them as they've just been so far better than what we've been through. stopping the bleeding is pretty important however it gets doneReally? What about the democratic party do you not like? I have never heard you criticize them.
That's fine for living off grid, the whole primitivism/anarchy life, but when you try and run a country, with it's utilities and roads and schools and....the individuals right to "freedom" is quite disputed. Ones persons freedom often takes from anotherI've got two problems with that, 1: I don't trust the government, 2: As individual rights are good the more individual rights you sacrifice the less good it gets, freedom is being able to govern your own life and live for yourself rather than being a cog in some great machine.
I truly have no desire to live as a part of a civilized society, which is why I am an anarcho-primitivist, I want to live for myself and direct my own life.Sometimes, the common good outweighs individual freedoms, like wearing a mask or going the speed limit
To a degree, we all relinquish some autonomy by living in an organized society. Political philosophers in the social contract tradition, such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, ask us to imagine life before the advent of government. In this fictional “state of nature,” humans would find themselves in a “war of all against all,” to use Hobbes’ famous phrase, as we each compete for survival. The strongest would dominate the less strong and no one but an even stronger person could stop them from taking what they want. Life in these conditions, says Hobbes in an equally famous phrase, would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
that's a pretty good argument for anarcho-primitivism.That's fine for living off grid, the whole primitivism/anarchy life, but when you try and run a country, with it's utilities and roads and schools and....the individuals right to "freedom" is quite disputed. Ones persons freedom often takes from another
The whole world was built on denying individual freedoms
It is. You just never know what might have been, thinking if we haven't been colonized/cilivizedthat's a pretty good argument for anarcho-primitivism.
Bill failed. Dear America, Please get rid of the filibuster now for the sake of the world as well as the US.
I think that is a legitimate fear. In fact, I think that idea led to the filibuster in the first place: the only way to enact laws that last is by consensus and negotiation.And the next time the Republicans control congress, the Democrats are screwed without the filibuster.
I disagree. Short term fixes are rarely worth it.Changing the rules may not be a good long term solution. but not doing anything is worse.
I disagree. Short term fixes are rarely worth it.
The Democrats need to find alternative solutions.
And I wouldn't be surprised if Mitch is intentionally trying to provoke the Dems into killing the filibuster.
He's proven to be skilled long term strategist.
This is one of the big problems. Nothing gets done if one side refuses to even come to the table. And when the GOP does, its demands are completely unreasonable most of the time. I don't know what the answer is. The Trump hold on the party is distressing....
Plus there is an idea that is spreading: the Republicans are no longer interested in negotiating or governing - just obstruction and maintaining power.
Changing the rules may not be a good long term solution. but not doing anything is worse.
This is one of the big problems. Nothing gets done if one side refuses to even come to the table. And when the GOP does, its demands are completely unreasonable most of the time. I don't know what the answer is. The Trump hold on the party is distressing.