Quote:
Originally Posted by XYZ
Reduction = restriction. You think of that as a personal "objective" "of mine"...
You apparently assume that a "system" is necessary to reduce problems and do "problem solving". You apparently also assume that individuals, if left alone WILL do "violence" to "other individuals".
|
I did not assume that, which is why I used the qualifier "mine", and not "yours".
A system is necessary for justice and freedom to prevail. Anarchy only promotes "freedom" for those with the biggest stick.
You also misread the context of my use of violence, as the context was the system doing harm to the innocent individual. Violence doesn't necessarily imply physical harm; one of the definitions is "an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights". This is the definition I invoked.
Quote:
|
No, the root problem is that Peter is being robbed by others who approve of "robbing Peter to pay Paul". Given politics and voting, that WILL happen - Peter will be forced to pay for Paul.
|
Root means that no further cause can be attributed to the state of being. Peter being robbed to pay Paul can never be the root problem, because he would never be robbed if Paul didn't "need" to be paid.
The beginning of both peoples problem still lies with Paul's poverty, hence the root problem.
Quote:
|
We could always limit or eradicate ANYTHING by political force.
|
Clearly untrue. The flu cannot be eliminated by political force. Things would actually be much easier if political force were effective because the solution to any problem could be government intervention. As we know, government intervention often has unintended consequences and fails to achieve the objective.
Quote:
|
The measure of shadenfreude of which you approve is that someone will be forced to pay more than you will be forced to pay.
|
I've never heard that word before, and I'm surprised English doesn't have an equivalent. It's an important concept, and something that isn't in the conscious thought of most people.
Knowing
why I feel a certain emotion is an important first step in being able to evaluate if the feeling is reasonable. If a feeling is not reasonable, then it takes considerable willpower to deny that emotion the power it holds.
How can people be taught that beliefs are important, but also disposable when evidence contradicts the belief? Is it a teachable trait?