Christian

Australia and New Zealand imprison people that destroy forests? 
So, the government won’t allow anyone to build more houses in either country? 
Does the government also ensure absolute zero population growth?

I mean, that could explain why houses are so expensive in New Zealand. 
If the government doesn’t allow new houses to be built and the population is growing, then eventually a house will end up being more precious than gold could ever be valued.

Just a quick look online shows that forestry is New Zealand’s third largest export sector of the economy and employs approx. 20,000 people. 
So, I have to assume that logging is not illegal in New Zealand. 
Environmental web-sites show statistics that New Zealand’s tree cover has decreased 11% since 2000. 
I mean, we live in a globalized age. You can tell me anything you want about New Zealand, but I can find facts online about the country….

A village in the Amazon’s laws are as ethical as any other, but it doesn’t necessitate that there is morality, no. 
Morality is not something that can be forced upon anyone by law, otherwise, it is no longer morality. Morality requires free will.

With the Indian law, it doesn’t matter if the law is religious or secular in nature. The majority decides. If the majority decide that religious considerations are what is to be acceptable within the law, then that is the law. Secular or religious makes no distinction in your view. It is solely the majority opinion that is important.

Homosexuality being illegal had nothing to do with the government? 
Who makes and enforces laws? 
It also addresses the same point about the people being at the mercy of majority opinion. 
That’s my whole point about limits being placed on governments.
While the idea of government making law without consent is certainly a frightening proposition, the idea of the majority making decisions for individuals is in the same way dangerous. 
What I do in my own personal life should not be left to the whims of a faceless, mindless mass majority.

As far as government making laws without consent, that’s basically the exact purpose of a bureaucracy. 
Let me tell you about bureaucracy…There are laws in Windsor which state that any vehicle which doesn’t move within five days shall be declared an abandoned vehicle, which is illegal within city limits…for some reason. 
So, one day, a city cop places a notice on my car. “This vehicle was reported as an abandoned vehicle and is being given a warning. You have 48 hours to move this vehicle or face fines.” 
The fucking car is parked on the street in front of Julie’s house and it was a fucking pandemic! Of course I hadn’t moved my car for five days. I was busy following the fucking draconian lockdown laws! 
So, Julie calls the city government and explains the situation. 
“Well, we cannot make exceptions.” the city bureaucrat: she says. 
So Julie replies, “Well, what if the car is moved one inch? Does that count as moving the vehicle?” 
“Yes, it technically would.” 
“Ok. Well, how does anyone even know if a vehicle is moved one inch within five days’ time?” 
“It would be hard to prove, I suppose, but it would be within the bounds of the law. So, no fine would be enforced.” 
Well, fuck! 
There is your government in action, making life “pleasant” for “ people”!

When a government declares war against another country is this the will of the people? 
Is this the will of the government?
Were the people yelling, “Let’s go fight Iraq!” during the W. Bush administration? 
“W. Bush was just a simple public servant doing what the majority asked of him.”
Or, did the government declare war and then work to convince the masses that it was in their interests to fight a war? 
In fact, the government used outright lies in order to convince the people that Iraq was a threat.

-Reagan acted like an underhanded thug to involve the US in Nicaragua, after Congress explicitly voted “no” to US involvement in that country. 
Reagan had to attempt to keep the US government’s involvement in Nicaragua a secret from the public.

-Obama had to skirt or outright break the law in order to get the US involved in Syria and Libya, because he knew the public were not going to support any more wars.

Here’s another scenario…apparently, 90% of Canadians want the US/Canada border open. 
The Canadian government says that for safety reasons, they won’t open the border yet. 
Who do we listen to? The will of the people is to open the border. The so-called “experts” say that it’s unsafe for the people. 
If government just exists based on the will of the people, then the border should be opened. 
Yet, the government seems to believe it is best for the people not to open the border. 
Where do you draw the line? Are the majority always right? Is the Law always right? Whose side is the right and good?
“Natural law” provides an answer, because the individual has rights. 
In the current system, the government will provide answers based on experts, rather than even the whims of the majority. 
Because the government has no actual restraints.

Want more? Go through the news section for the day. 
How about an African-American man in Texas facing up-to forty years in prison for illegally voting in the last election while a felon? 
How about a woman in Utah who is facing “hate crime” charges due to stomping on a pro-police sign due to being upset about her friend getting a ticket? 
And, this is because I browse Left-Wing news media. I’m sure there is just as much bureaucracy held unaccountable throughout Right-Wing news media. 
Making life less “impossible” one more bureaucrat at a time!

So now, let me ask you…how exactly do laws about the forest makes peoples’ lives “better”? 
This isn’t whether you or I like the forest, or think that forests are a good thing. I certainly do, personally.
Simply, how does it make someone’s life better? If private interests could buy/use the unused land and use it to make money or create jobs…doesn’t this actually make peoples’ lives better?

How do humane animal butchering laws make a person’s life better? Humans want to eat meat, I guess. I don’t think slaughtering the cow a certain way is going to make any PERSON’s life better. 
Maybe a truly democratic way to make this decision is to allow the maker to decide this ethical decision. One maker markets their product as “cruelty free”, another one doesn’t care. 
Let the free market decide. 
If the masses really are that concerned, they will only buy the “cruelty free” meat and put the unethical ones out of business. Right? That sounds democratic to me. 
If no one cares and buys either meat, then I guess the masses never cared about the issue at all…so, it was never truly democratic.

I am also incredibly confused about “global warming”…. 
George W. Bush, democratically elected, said that it wasn’t true. 
Barack Obama, democratically elected, said that it was happening. 
Donald Trump, democratically elected, claimed it wasn’t true again. 
Joe Biden, democratically elected, says that it is happening again. 
Within a few years, a Republican is going to be back in office, most likely. They’re probably going to tell me it is a lie too. 
I mean, having to follow the majority on this issue is making me feel like a split personality.

The mass or the mob has no concept of reason or even rationalism. Only individuals have reason or can use rationalism. Everything that you think you know about rationalism comes from the writings of individuals. 
Without those ideas of reason being introduced in to society, Western Europeans would still be living under the tyranny of the Catholic Church and the monarchy. 
Ideas of reason which came down to us originally from the teachings of Jesus.  
Jesus taught that all mankind were equal, which led to skepticism about monarchy. If everyone is equal, then how can an aristocracy claim it is superior to everyone else?
Instead of individuals being allowed free will to come to the teachings of Jesus, the Catholic Church decided what was moral for everyone. This led to the idea of “freedom of religion”. 

The Individual creates concepts based on Reason such as “separation of Church and State”, the masses create irrational tribal violence like the French Revolution.

Regardless of what actual laws exist in the state of nature, without restraints being put on governments, there are no limits to what governments can do to individuals. 
That’s why “natural law” is important, because it starts from the premise that individuals have inherent rights. 
When you discard that idea, you end up with ideologies such as Communism and Nazism, which believes that the individual has no rights above the State.

That’s the exact problem with the hubris of humanity. 
First, humanity felt limited by religion. 
So, next came the Enlightenment, which said that human reason was sufficient, and that all individual humans have inherent rights that concepts such as morality or tradition cannot override. 
Now, humans discard any restraints such as Reason and say that whatever the masses say or whatever is considered in the best interests of society must be the best policy. 
The Enlightenment and liberalism are outdated concepts, holding back the masses. 
It’s almost like going in a full-circle.
Individuals no longer have inherent rights to protect them. 

Written by “ignorant tribesmen”? Jesus as a “patriarch”? You don’t really know about history at the time of Jesus’ life, do you? 
”Rationalism” never allows ignorance to stop one from acting superior though, does it?

A person reads the Bible and decides that medical treatment is not in their interests. 
Aha! That’s not reasonable. 
Another person goes to the doctor and is told this and this is wrong and they are going to die if they don’t follow this advice. So, they listen and follow orders.
Aha! That is reason. 
Except, in neither case did the person decide what was best for them…did they? 
The supposed figure using “reason” to make their decision was doing what they were told by an expert. 
Perhaps they would have made a different choice for their own self had they not been taught that “doctors know best”. *
Listen to the advice of a religion or a scientific expert, no one can be said to make their own choices. 
You’ve just taken a side and said, “Science good, religion bad!”, which is the exact same as a religious fundie saying, “Religion good, science bad!”. 
I know very little less to be proud about than to listen to others. 
“I am so smart! I listen to doctors instead of priests. How proud I am!”.

*For example, some people may find it morally unjustified to undergo a high-cost invasive medical procedure while thousands and thousands of the world’s poor are dying of something like cholera. 
It’s hard to see everyone as equal while pets in “first world” nations are receiving better medical care than the world’s poorest humans.

You don’t have to think about the “morality” of anything, you have only to follow the majority. The masses will decide what is good or right for you. 
It must be a simple life to have your every decision decided for you, instead of reasoning out what is good or right for yourself.*
That type of thinking would have ensured that John Locke or Montesquieu would have never considered even one idea.

People like Locke and Montesquieu already figured out how to make a society work amongst masses of humans…the solution was simple. Break up the mass in to individuals as much as possible. 
Everyone has a right to ownership of property and their own selves. 
In order to make society work among masses of people is simply to allow individuals the greatest freedom possible, so long as they don’t interfere with other individual’s similar freedom. 
There’s no need for the government to regulate humans every step in the name of “society” or the “wisdom” of a majority.
Society is simply a number of separate individuals (there is no concrete thing-in-itself known as Society or the Mass that exists outside or above Individuals). As long as the individuals  stay out of each other’s way, that is a working society. 
The State simply functions to provide equality before the law.
It’s simple…you kill someone, purposely hurt someone, rape someone, steal someone’s property…the State will intercede (solely on behalf of the wronged party, and not on behalf of an abstract known as “The State”) to make society continue to function. Otherwise, anything goes in society, because the individual has the right to do or say anything else. 
Humans are not a scientific experiment!  
Democratically, if people choose to add other privileges (not rights) to this, as long as they don’t interfere with those inherent rights, is up to a majority. That is all the “rights” given to any majority.

*One day: “Ah! Homosexuality is illegal! Society is safe.” 
The next day: “Ah! Homosexuality is legal! We are an intelligent people.” 
There are no rights. There are simply whims and followers.

Poor Little monkeys thinking they are superior because teachers taught them some facts at a school…while the other little monkeys kill each other in the name of nebulous concepts such as “nation” or “economy” or “democracy”. 
Nothing has changed since pagan times. Hierarchy. Collectivism.

It was the mass or the mob which said that Jesus was a menace to the good of society and murdered him.

Jesus was the model of individuality. He came to show us the proper way to act. As an Individual, he did not allow himself to be constrained or controlled by any external authority. In return, he taught that God had one command, which was to love everyone as you love yourself. That is the only restraint placed upon the Individual by what you call “ignorance”. 

Now, “rationalism” says to obey the Law…whether they think it is right or good. Now, “rationalism” says that people should kill others they have never even met in the name of a “higher good”. 
Which one sounds “rational” and which one sounds like simplistic superstition?

It was such a great trade-off, wasn’t it? For the worth of turning away from Jesus and his simple message for realizing a better world; instead we can all now worship human creations, like the State, and have “rational” institutions tell us how to live our lives, what we can do with our own property, how to raise a person’s very children…isn’t progress wonderful?

All the important concepts written about “rationalism” come down to us from Jesus’ teachings. 
Later, apes copied these concepts, claimed them as their own, and then patted themselves on the back for doing such good work.

I’ve started on Alexander Trocchi’s collection, The Holy Man.

Trocchi was involved with the UK Underground. 
His stories are about people who don’t fit in with society. People who feel like they don’t have any place in “mass society”. Many of them deal with drug users.

I’m not sure where you get that idea about the society being “unsustainable”. 
If it were, I don’t think Orwell would care that much. The system would collapse, and people would be free again. 
Orwell isn’t worried about the sustainability of Ingsoc.

We see in the scenes between O’Brien and Winston that members of the Party are living a superior life to the masses. They have access to nice dwellings, wine, cigarettes…. 
It’s not that these things are outside the reach of the society, just that they are reserved for the ruling class (the Party).

The neverending wars are continued for the sake of using up the economic surplus. If the economy/society were allowed to advance, less people would depend on the State, so therefore, keeping the people on rationing is important for the Party to retain power. 
The Ministry of Truth releases reports every year talking about how the society is doing better than ever, when in reality, the State is ensuring that there is never any advancement. It lies to keep the population believing that the Party is working for the people.

It’s also in the scene with O’Brien and Winston where O’Brien reveals how cynical the Party is, when he shares that the Party doesn’t exist to help society, but solely so that it can amass power for the sake of power.

O’Brien reveals that even the opposition is part of the State. It exists solely to weed out “thought criminals” like Winston, so they can be indoctrinated.

The end of 1984 is so terrible not because we think that the system is going to soon collapse, but because even someone pure like Winston has learned to love Big Brother.

There’s no way out. Even if you rebel against the society, the State will find you and make you love the system.

What’s so frightening about Brave New World is that no one can think of a different life. 
Humans are genetically engineered to enjoy their place in life and accept the society. 
The very idea of free will has been abolished. 
It’s a workable society, but only for beings who have given up everything that makes us human.

I didn’t get that feeling, no. Everyone is provided the very basics of survival.

The idea is that the State could provide a truly better life, but explicitly doesn’t do this because it would erode its own power. Everyone should be dependent on the State and not themselves.

At one point, the novel says that the only hope for defeating the State is for a revolution of the proles, but that this will never happen.

There’s the stuff about the State providing lots of sports, beer, and pornography for every prole, so they won’t think about aspiring towards a better life.

Plus the immortal line, “The future is a jackboot stomping on a human face...forever”.

Wasn’t 1984 as well? 
In fact, isn’t that the biggest complaint against the novel, that the novel itself is “dystopian”? There is no way out. The world envisioned by Orwell is going to continue on and on and on, forever.

I never said that laws should not exist. I said that there is a distinction between morality and ethics. I said it is entirely possible to have ethics in human laws, but not morality.

How do we know that God is “good”? Because humans would have no conception of goodness without God. God’s only command is to love everyone as you love yourself. 
Human nature is naturally inclined to selfishness. To only care about oneself. The only reason humans want to do anything is based on what the individual can gain from it.
That is rational. 
It is only because of God and God being “good” that humans can ever aspire to being anything greater than we are when born in to this material world.

It is human to say, “That black man doesn’t look like me. He cannot be as good as me. He has no right to food, land, money, or jobs that rightfully belong to my tribe.” 
It is because of God that we can say, “That black man is the same as me.”

It is human to say, “That poor man is a failure! Ha, ha! I am superior to him!” 
It is because of God that we can say, “That poor man needs help. How can I give up my time and my energy to help him?”

It is human to say, “I want those who wronged me to die!” 
It is because of God that we can say, “I forgive them.”

-”Everything that leaves the hand of the Creator is good, everything touched by the hand of man degenerates.”-Jean-Jacques Rousseau

To me? I believe in God, so I believe in morality. It is a personal issue. 
To you? You don’t believe in God, so you don’t believe morality exists. It is an abstract, not something worth following in your own personal life. 
Either view is acceptable from my position since I give primacy to individual rights.

Otherwise is to deny free will, and without free will there can be no morality, whether personal or anything else. There can only be automatons, blindly following diktats (i.e. anti-Christ).

I explicitly said the opposite of what you contend…not that morality is a prerequisite for human laws, but that it is impossible to try to base human laws on morality, and would be a gross intrusion of the government on society to attempt to force morality through human laws (which was your earlier contention).

Morally, divorce is wrong. I’m not talking about the human concept of a piece of paper, but marriage as the joining together of two individuals. Once two people love each other, that bond should never be severed. That is morality. 
In human society, it would be WRONG to FORCE two people to stay together, so divorce should be legal in society. 
“Natural law”.

Morally, a marriage should be based in equality. It is what Jesus said in the gospels. Morally, a partner should never beat another partner. 
In human society, abuse occurs. The government cannot force a person to be moral and treat their partner as an equal. Therefore, immorality is condoned, and “natural law” says that each individual has the right not to face physical harm. So, we base human laws on that rather than morality.

Lawn mowing a Saturday night? Surely one of the biggest ethical issues facing society! Murder, rape, private property, robbery…running a lawn mower on a Saturday night! One of the great conundrums faced by Montesquieu as he attempted to help work out a system of government which would preserve society while giving freedom to individuals. 
If society is going to fall apart due to a guy mowing his lawn on a Saturday night, then the pretence of civilization is, indeed, fleeting. 
If every aspect of everyone’s life wasn’t constantly regulated by the government…it’d be Mad Max!
“I killed my neighbour?” 
“Why?” 
“He was mowing his lawn Saturday night.” 
“Understandable. The law must intervene and stop this abominable behaviour from occurring again, otherwise, there will surely be far more homicides in society!”
Here’s an idea. If someone mows their lawn on a Saturday night and it bothers you, then talk to the person. Don’t expect the government to pass more bureaucratic laws. 
I’d have to guess this is a local ordinance, rather than a Law that exists on the books of the New Zealand government.

I grew up and lived most of my life in the country and people actually respected privacy! It was paradisiacal, let me tell ya.
Anyway…

With Indian laws about cows…those laws are based on religious assumptions, first of all. So, it sort of defeats your point. 
Secondly, if people are starving to death and the law says they cannot kill cows…how is this “moral”?

People are starving to death in African nations, and some people kill stray dogs…and not in a humane manner. Would you then pass laws, for the “aims of society”, that these dogs must be killed “humanely”, or that it is wrong to kill dogs at all…even though the stray dog is simply (metaphorically) this man’s “roast beef from the local Wal-Mart”?

With laws about humane killing of animals…They’re just hypocritical laws anyway to make people in society feel good, as if they are evolved. To make room for human civilization, people destroy forests all the time, causing innumerable deaths to animals in a very inhumane way. Does anyone hold those who kill the forests accountable for the inhumane killing of animals? No.
Bureaucracy always has a tendency to trickle down and hurt “little guys”. 
Is humane killing of animals for food a good thing? Yes. 
(Although, ask a devout Jew or Muslim about what is defined as “humane”.)
I am a vegetarian though, and I find it a bit repugnant that humanity gives in to its base animal instincts and kills animals to eat. Surely a sign of a fallen world which has lost part of our spiritual heritage. 
Do I think the government should stop you from eating meat? No!

The idea of “natural law” says that stopping a person from slaughtering livestock is outside the bounds of government. 
It is not something that government should even try to involve itself, because it is meddling with freedom of the individual.

However, with your giving up on concepts like “natural law”, you allow the majority opinion to decide what is “supportive of societies aims”, so if a government is elected tomorrow which declares that “slaughtering of cattle” is “against societies aims”, then the concept can change overnight. 
If you remember correctly, homosexuality was illegal in pretty much every country in the world because it was considered to be “anti-social”, it could corrupt society to allow gay people to do what they please with their own bodies. Without “natural rights”, the freedom of gay people to do what they want is dependent on the opinion of a majority.
There are no actual rights in society, everything is decided on the whims of a majority. The government has no real boundaries.

6 hours ago, Avaunt said:

No, I haven't read that. I only read a few "popularizing science" collections of his.

Well, do you have some novels to read!

Brave New World and the Island too!

Both are two of my favourite books. I like both better than The Ape and the Essence, but Ape was relevant. 
The Island is one of the few utopian novels which is (a.) believable and (b.) doesn’t read like it’s going to end up a dystopian society in the near-future. 
One of the chief architects of the dystopian sub-genre, I guess he’d be well-suited to write one of the best utopian stories.

55 minutes ago, dogpoet said:

What about that business in 1812?

The United States declared war first though.

This is all beside the point…whether you think that World War II was something worth fighting or not, World War II was a hell of a long time ago. 
Louis Paul Boon’s point was that after WWI, most of the world’s armies began disarmament. They didn’t continue to increase military spending. After WWII, this wasn’t the case. Countries kept a standing army and continued to increase military spending. 
So, we’ve ended up with neverending militarism from WWII to the present. 
This is a far cry from liberalism’s intentions of a world without any standing armies, or Socialism’s intent of an united world without borders.

Switzerland, regardless, has no standing army and is still very independent and free. (They even made the smart decision to not join the EU.)
The United States has never actually been invaded either, but has the largest military in the history of the world. 
We are isolated…Canada is to the north and Mexico to the south, those are the only borders. Is Canada or Mexico a grave threat to the United States that requires a standing army? 
The US/Canada border is the longest undefended border between two nations in the world. So, I’m going to say that’s a huge “no” about Canada.
Yet, the US (and other countries as well) have been continually at war with nations which have never threatened to invade their country.

So, if some of us want to feel pessimistic about the way the world is going and see it as continuing to slide towards fascism, I’m not sure how you can say, “Cheer up, bucko! At least Mussolini and Hitler (and the USSR) are gone!”.

Also, you claimed that Right-Wing populism wasn’t becoming more prominent, but when I point out popular elected governments that are Right-Wing populist, you say they were democratically elected and responsible.

The Nazi Party was originally democratically elected in Germany too. They had a majority in the Reichstag when Hitler was given power.

Which sort of just reinforces my point, as if they were not popular, they wouldn’t be getting democratically elected. 
If this were the year 2000, Trump would have never won an election. In fact, he tried to run on the Reform Party ticket and no one really paid attention. It’s only after 2008 that these parties have seen their popularity grow, just like fascists like Mussolini and Hitler became popular after the Great Depression.

Then, you grant me Putin, but say he’s not really a Right-Wing populist…even though he very much is a Right-Wing populist.

Haven’t you listened to some of his speeches?  
“The Liberal World Order is officially over!”, “American President Donald Trump, for all his faults, is a good man. He will help bring about the downfall of the globalists and globalization.”

Oh, and as far as Trump being “responsible”, I hope you’ll join me in telling all these Big-L Liberal extremists who think that they lived through Orwell’s 1984, just because Trump was president for four years. 
I’m assuming they haven’t read the book. “Guys, Big Brother wasn’t a narcissistic blowhard who yelled at other countries and had a tantrum when he didn’t get his way, ok?”.  
It’s that whole “government is spying on everyone, all the time” thing that was already in place before 2017.
It’s like, “We lived through 16 years of W. Bush and Obama…Trump isn’t that different, just a bit crazier.”

Since this is the book thread, and Louis Paul Boon, as a writer, has kind of faded in to the background…Have you read The Ape and the Essence by Aldous Huxley? 
It’s a bit dated dealing with nuclear war (Although, who knows? There are more than ever), but it’s moreso a novel by a pessimistic pacifist dealing with a post-WWII world.

It is certainly immoral! I never contradicted that as being the case.

However, you yourself reject religion, while I do not reject religion. 
Without God, there can be no morality. There can be ethics, but not morality. I’m not saying that atheists are bad people or that so-called religious people are good people.
Therefore, how can there be any code of religion within a secular government? 
There cannot, and one cannot have it both ways. Even though I am religious, I have no interest in seeing my religious views promoted or corrupted by a material institution. 
Ipso facto, the government must be run on human laws, and the safest and best regulator of human laws are to base them around “natural law”…or liberalism.
Liberalism is based on the concept of the greatest freedom possible for the greatest number of people possible. 
Otherwise, the concept of “morality” can be simply changed by voting, and no one has any authority to challenge what is right or wrong, because the only basis of this “morality” is majority opinion. 
Hence, torture is wrong one year because the current government says so, but the next year, torture is acceptable because that is what the newly elected government says. 
How can you argue? “Morality” is based on whatever the government decides on a whim, and there are no limits placed on a government. 

“Well, torture is wrong.” 
“How do you know?” 
“You shouldn’t hurt someone.” 
“The majority opinion is that these people don’t have the same rights to not be hurt. How can you argue with the wisdom of the majority?”

If the government is limited by a concept like “natural law”, then one can always say that torture is wrong because a human has an inalienable right to not be physically harmed.

You yourself said in a different thread that you would not allow your neighbour to live with you. Yet, homeless people are in need. Can the government force you to take this person in to your home? 
What if they die on the street because you were selfish? Should the government try you for a crime because you chose to not allow a stranger to live with you?
In a religious moral sense, you have every duty to give up everything for the sake of helping this person. It is immoral to see a homeless person and not do everything in your power to make their life better. This is in the Gospels.
Would you agree that the government can force you to do the same?

As far as my views on parents, it doesn’t mean I like it. The government has no right to get involved in anyone’s private lives though. The more separation between private and public, the better. 
Giving parents more rights than the government ensures plurality of opinion. There are idiotic atheists who say that “parents teaching their children that evolution is not true are child abusers”. I certainly don’t want these mental defectives running a person’s life.
As another example, a husband may abuse his wife. If the wife doesn’t want to leave the husband, I do not believe that the government has any right to interfere and force the woman to leave a bad situation. 
It’s not a perfect society, but seeing the abuses perpetrated by intrusive governments on the lives of private citizens makes me always err on the side of caution.

The State used to take it upon itself, in the name of the “public good”, to sterilize those it deemed unfit (i.e. too stupid) for raising children. It was called eugenics. 
That immorality is what occurs when you give the government too much power over private lives.

Keep in mind that I also said “until a child can make their own choices”. At that point, I believe that children have all the rights of anyone else. They can divorce their parents. They can choose their own family…they may want to live with a kindly aunt instead, or the neighbour agrees to raise them. The parents no longer have any rights over the child once they can make their own choice.

However, if you are a friend or relative and see something you don’t like, you have every right (in fact, I’d say you have a moral imperative, not just a right) to make your case to this person and try to change their views or actions. Then, it’s up to them if they want to listen or not.

Condoms are non-invasive. No, no one needs them…but they’re pretty damn nice! 
Not everyone is Gnostic (unfortunately), so people do have sex and the world has a lot of fucking people. I’d rather allow for sexual freedom. 

Medical procedures can be invasive. 
Some people would choose to die instead of have them. Individuals must have the right to die, or they do not have the right to ownership of the body, meaning slavery, Communism, and Nazism would be acceptable…as the State has rights over the individual.  
Why choose where you want to work? If I don’t own myself, the State can tell me where I should work. Etc.
No one has the right to decide what is best for someone. 
I’m sure you agree.

Now, I agree that children are a different issue. They cannot make their own choices. 
While children have certain rights in society that everyone has (right to not be murdered, raped, made slaves, etc.), the right to receive medical care without consent is a right that would be against the traditions of liberalism. 
Liberalism is based on equality before the law. Everyone has the same rights.

A person should not be held before the law for what they did not do.
If someone is about to be shot by a gunman, I have no legal responsibility to stop the gunman. I could be shot and killed.  
Now, apply it to a homeless man who is starving in the street. If I don’t give him money, he might starve to death. I don’t give him money, and he does starve to death. Am I to be held accountable for this man’s death? I could have easily saved him, but chose not to help him.
So, if I don’t have the legal responsibility to save someone in harm (even if it would be nice), then it cannot be considered a criminal act to not save a child’s life versus taking a knife and killing a child. 
We’re responsible for our actions, not our inactions.

Therefore, children must be seen as more the property of the parents in this situation rather than anything else. 
If a child goes to the hospital and the doctor wants to do this and this, the PARENT must sign forms saying they legally agree. If the child is maimed due to the doctor’s action, it is the PARENT who has the right to sue, not the child. 
Therefore, it has to be considered that the parents have the right to make the choice for their child, until they can choose for themselves, even if it’s a poor choice.

Which means that you agree that liberalism has failed. 
The noble aims of liberalism are no longer something worth preserving or even striving towards. 
Nevermind Socialism. 
Which is exactly what Louis Paul Boon bemoaned.

Iraq is in the middle of a long civil war brought about by the meddling of the United States and England. 
First, they backed Hussein in overthrowing a democratic government. Then, the neocons decided to overthrow Hussein in a war as part of their long-game plan to reorganize the world in their image due to Hussein getting close with Russia. 
If you leave the world alone, there will be far less refugees and far less violence. 
Everyone is responsible for their own actions though. It takes two sides to fight. If someone refuses to fight, then there are no wars.
Iraq is a lesson in non-intervention, not a call for militaries!

Switzerland has existed without a standing army for quite a long time and was never conquered. 
In fact, the “barbaric” Nazis, who make such powerful boogeymen, refused to invade Switzerland while it remained neutral, which it did throughout the war. 
Funny how that works. 
A country refuses to take a side and fight a war and they are left to live their lives in peace. 
It’s much easier to say that there can be no peace and so we will always be ready for the next war, rather than attempt to strive for the ideals of liberalism. 
That was one of the main goals of liberalism…to have no standing armies. 
Switzerland has an armed militia, where citizens are prepared to defend the country in case of invasion. Yet, no standing army. 
Because Switzerland took that tenet of liberalism seriously.

The solution to wars is, as liberalism stated in the beginning, free trade. 
If two nations are economically intertwined, then it is against the interests of that nation to go to war with the other nation. 
The two will be more willing to cooperate than fight. 
Yet political parties across the spectrum want to push protectionism rather than allow unregulated free trade, because they want to protect their own national interests rather than work for mutual cooperation. 
Nationalism, Corporatism…hallmarks of fascism.

Of course having an armed force is a deterrent against fascism! The Conservatives have argued that for decades. “If Germany had the legal right to own guns, there never would have been a Nazi Germany”. 
That’s why the US has the “right to bear arms” in our Constitution. Which was written to be a document of liberal values.

Italy became fascist and Germany became National Socialist using legal means. They didn’t take power using force…that is more the way of Communism than fascism.

Do you think Idi Amin and his followers were pacifists? 
He wasn’t a Right-Wing populist either, he was a Left-Wing nationalist. He was backed by the USSR and East Germany. 
Remember when the USSR was fighting the Nazis during World War II?

- Donald Trump was elected in the United States and is one of the most popular presidents in history.
-Everyone knows Steve Bannon now, while less than a decade ago, no one knew the guy. 
-White Supremacist Stephen Miller was part of the White House administration a year ago. That’s going to raise the guy’s profile and help legitimize him.
-Putin has an iron grip on Russia. 
-Most of “Eastern Europe” has seen the election of Right-Wing populist governments which either praised Trump or Putin. 
-Le Pen was nearly elected in France during the last election, after all these years of trying. He came in second place.
-The UKIP in Britain only failed to see its popularity increase because the Tories finally agreed to take up their biggest popular platform and leave the European Union. 
-The president of Brazil, who makes Trump and Boris Johnson look like “bleeding-heart” Liberals.

Protecting society from “potential harm” is a hallmark of fascism. 
It’s a violation of the original core principles of liberalism, which have continued to be shed while giving a thin veneer of retaining liberalism…like elections or legalizing gay marriage.

The goal of Socialism was an united world without borders dividing humanity. 
Therefore, you admit that Socialism is both impossible and undesirable. See why Louis Paul Boon was pessimistic yet?

The United States taking people from their homes and jobs because they were living peaceably in the country without the proper State paperwork is about as illiberal as one can imagine. 
Rand Paul recognizes this…because he is a liberal.
Yet, you side with the Obamas and the Trumps of the world. 
This is exactly the point made by Louis Paul Boon. People have given up on the very hope of Socialism and internalized fascist mentality.

Of course no one expects you to let your neighbour live in your house if you don’t want her to! That’s why liberalism enshrines the right to private property! 
The State, however, cannot own anything, because the State is not an individual. Under liberalism, only individuals have the right to private property. With the State, there is no Private-sector to own property.
Although, if you were a Christian, you would certainly allow her to live in your house. 
Which is where I think the world went wrong, not that the world turned its back on Socialism, but that it turned its back on Jesus. 
This is about Louis Paul Boon though, not me.

That is true.

Children are certainly a problematic matter under the rubrics of liberalism. They are unable to choose for themselves.

I agree, in theory, that unless a person has a medical condition preventing them from getting a vaccine or a real religious reason, such as Amish people who refuse any medical technology*, that a parent should do what is necessary for the sake of their children.

*That’s a huge annoyance on my part with the anti-vaccine Christian types who see no problem with popping a Tylenol or going to the hospital when they are sick. They’re fucking hypocrites! If you’re against the vaccine, if you have a heart attack…stay home and deal with it!

Anyway, I’d much rather allow the parents to make their choices for their children, rather than a “one size fits all” government regulation.

It’s like parents who don’t want their children exposed to homosexuality, so they want the government to ban programming that features content about homosexuality. 
Surely it’s better to say, “Let each parent decide for their child until their child is old enough to make their own choices.”  
Don’t force the parents’ decisions on everyone.

Yes, it’s going to sometimes cause a negative result, but it’s not our children, so I can’t be bothered to care that much.

4 hours ago, dogpoet said:

Thanks, John, awesome photo. My bad about confusing which Ireland you're in.

Tigger, maybe there's a more useful religious analogy than objections to harmful dietary elements over this? Some of the nonsense that the anti-vaxxer/no masks for anybody contingent in the 'States are coming out with increasingly reminds me of the drivel halfwits in the bible belt are fond of spouting about prophylactics. I'm sure you're familiar with the sort of idiot who thinks that because they don't like to use a rubber themselves, nobody should be allowed to buy the things, let alone use them.

I’m not sure that many people are saying this.

Are they telling people not to wear masks or get the vaccine? Well, ok. That’s freedom of speech.

Isn’t it that the majority of the people are saying that you cannot force them to wear masks or get a vaccine? Which, fair enough, I guess. 

It sounds like the opposite of your analogy. Instead of those authoritarians who think no one should be allowed a condom, the people against masks or vaccines are (metaphorically now) arguing that the government can’t force them to use a condom.  
Which is sensible, although not probable.

Anymore probable than the government passing anti-mask laws, where if you are caught wearing a mask, you’re going to face the law!  
That doesn’t seem like a sensible reading of their views.

Where did I say that, Dog?

People voluntarily cooperate every day of their lives in myriad situations.

Have you noticed the rise in Right-Wing populism around the world?

Have you noticed immigrants being kept in detention camps?

There have been constant wars since the end of World War II.

Look at the prison population of the United States. For all intents and purposes, African-Americans are in the catergory of an internally-colonized State.

Has there been any progress? Yes. Gay and transgender people have rights today that seemed unimaginable not very long ago. That’s one. 
Are these gains fleeting? Perhaps, as the alt-Right movement gains strength with their goal of taking society back to the “good ol’ days” before progress ruined everything.

The world has moved a long way from the initial promises of liberalism, of which democracy wasn’t solely indicative of the goals of liberalism. 
Perhaps the very fact liberalism’s present has fallen so far from its original noble intentions and goals is a telling indictment of the futility of humanity’s striving for utopia.

Well, if one were “defending their nation with their life”, they wouldn’t have renounced aggression. 
It would, once again, show the vanity and hubris of humankind. The same sorts of attitudes that led to the evils of colonialism and Communism.

The idea that humanity can ever achieve perfection is a dangerous and delusional one. Humanity must always strive to be better.

Louis Paul Boon’s point is that after World War II, it seemed that the countries of the world began to pursue policies similar to fascism, not that there were more outright fascist governments, which was obviously not the case. 
Even Juan Peron was overthrown during the 1950s.

Instead of disarmament after WWII, as happened in most every country after WWI, the idea of a standing army in every country was now accepted. Just as militarism was embraced by Nazi Germany.

Industrialism/corporatism and consumerism were now things for most governments to pursue, which were Nazi German policies.

While Boon was writing before the civil right’s movement (which he would have supported), he was Belgian and not solely concerned with America.  
He said that after the Nazi defeat, he began to hear people saying they were “Proud to be Belgian” and flying Belgian flags, things he didn’t hear or see prior to WWII. Nationalism being a core principle of fascism. 
The United States introducing the Pledge of Allegiance in schools would be another manifestation.
I could also mention that the United States government began to accept civil rights at the same time they began a decade-long war in Vietnam.

Also, the USSR would invade Hungary in 1956.

Boon saw all of the above as signs that the people of the world had turned from his beloved ideal Socialism and were instead internalizing fascist ideology.

10 hours ago, JasonT said:

I'd love one of those Daisy BBs that were advertised on the backs of comics when I was a kid.

You’ll put out your eye.

That’s why I responded to John McMahon’s post about Ireland. 
I wouldn’t want to hear about other countries thinking it was acceptable either.

I didn’t just bring it up out of nowhere.

Then, the argument is invalid. Someone who is vaccinated could be infected and spread the virus also. Therefore, they shouldn’t be given any more rights than anyone else.

Here in Canada, currently restaurants and bars are open with limited capacity. 
Edit:I should say “here in Ontario” actually, as Canada is set up closer to the US model, where provinces can make their own rules. 
Alberta has removed almost all restrictions, for example.

It’s certainly a better option than the government rewarding people who get a vaccine and punishing those who don’t get a vaccine.

I’m glad that you care about the rights of all people, even those who have a very good reason for not getting a vaccine.  That certainly helps your case.

One point is that the mask was a small inconvenience. No one had a risk of dying from wearing a mask for a few hours.

This is a separate matter from the mask issue. With the pre-vaccine masks, no one had an immunity from the virus. Anyone infected with the virus could have infected anyone else.
Now there is a vaccine that people can choose to get, if they want to avoid being infected by the virus.

You are arguing that the State has the right to force someone to protect themselves, in this case. 
So, if someone is in pain, the State has the right to force them to take pain medication for their own good?

People who have been vaccinated should have no cause for concern. 
If someone doesn’t want to get the vaccine and chooses to potentially expose themselves to a virus…why are you concerned about them?

I decided to read My Little War by Louis Paul Boon. 
I’ve wanted to read his novel Summer in Termuren for a while, but it’s out-of-print and seems impossible to find. 
I settled for this one instead, which is a slim 120 page book. 
It’s sort of a sequel to Termuren, even if though it was written first. 
It deals with the same sorts of themes, but is set during (and directly after) World War II, while Termuren covers the WW I and post-WW I period.

It’s a highly pessimistic story.  
It has, like most of Boon’s fiction, a strongly anti-war theme, as it works to take any glamour or pleasure out of war…yes, even World War II. 
Boon lived in Belgium and under Nazi occupation. He saw first-hand the horrors of war, very closely. 
Not solely about the fighting, but even moreso what war does to the psyche of the civilians outside the battles.

Boon continues (or should it be begins?) to share his vision of the 20th century as one long march to fascism, with his view that even after the defeat of the Nazis, the world seemed to continue to look more fascist.

His bleak vision of “progress” is made more apparent in Termuren than this one though.

The back-cover describes Boon as something of a precursor to William Burroughs and Charles Bukowski, with Boon interjecting little personal meta-commentary snippets in to the fictional text.

5 hours ago, JohnMcMahon said:

Irish government looks like it's going to try and restrict indoor dining and pinting to those who have had both their shots only which is just not going to fly here. 

The immediate thing that jumps out for me here is that bars and restaurants tend to be staffed by younger people who won't have had the chance to get both shots in the timeframe being considered.  If you're not going to allow non-vaccinated people dine indoors then you can't expect non-vaccinated staff to work there either.

On a related note, I've had my second shot and while it fucked me up for a day and change I'm pretty good now and thus immortal.

So, what I’m wondering about is people who get vaccinated and don’t save any paperwork.  
Are we really expected to believe that everyone is going to be so well-organized and responsible? 
I think a lot of people would’ve gotten the vaccine and thrown out the paperwork. 
I’m not sure how it works in Ireland, but in the US and Canada you can get the vaccine in drug stores or large chain stores, which won’t be saving records (like a doctor’s office would).

Also, what about people who shouldn’t be vaccinated due to health reasons? 
Sure, you could say they could provide a doctor’s notice. 
However, with the way everyone freaked out about the virus, I have serious doubts that doctors would even err on the side of caution, instead telling the person to take the risk and get the vaccine… 

Which raises another question, namely if a person with a health condition could get an exception, then why shouldn’t people just not vaccinated be allowed the same? Why make exceptions at all?  
It puts in to question the very reasoning behind even creating such attempted restrictions.

Are they trying to create a two-tier society?  Untouchables.