Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ArGee
Truth has no eyes. It is there to be discovered. We have to decide whether we have discovered it however we make such decisions, but it doesn't boil down to my truth vs. your truth. That's a haven for forensic cowards.

Truth is not merely subjective or objective, I agree, but no one has a complete grasp on absolute Truth except God.

Otherwise I won't consider it authoritarian to give people an opportunity to live in the dignity that is theirs by virtue of their humanity.

Our history shows we have not just talked about it, but created it.

Our democracy is killing 1.5 million children per year in the name of women's dignity, we seem to have a bad habit of spewing pornography at every other turn and the government keeps on getting more bloated by day. Where is the dignity in that?

Imperfect execution does not make the concept imperfect. Our goals are correct and we have a tendency to correct the imperfect executions over time.

Spoken like a true Trotskyite. William Buckley wrote some years back that "specific ideologies come and go but that rhetorical totalism is always in the air, searching for the ideologue-on-the-make."

John Nash's Governing Dynamics recognized some of the problem there and has corrected it in a large measure.

Um, writing a book, at best offers a different perspective on problems, issues and solutions; that doesn't correct a thing in the real world.

Except they were wrong. All governments impose a political ideal on another person. We are discussing whether an ideal, once proven, should be expanded to other nations as well.

Wrong in your opinion, and of course anyone who disagrees ought not stand in your way. What was Stalin's old line? If you want to make an omelet, you've got to break a few eggs. For someone who talks so much about human dignity, you leave precious little room for self-determination, once again, back to the French Revolution and Their hypocrisy.

An ideal in politics can never be "proven" for the simple reason that proof is a scientific term and if one is going to approach politics as a science then you need to have a control group and an experimental group and make sure that all other factors are even. This doesn't happen in the real world of course because there are so many variables. This is why political science isn't.

Now for the sake of argument you could prove that with a group of specific people that democracy was better, it does not follow that then you may impose it on other peoples and cultures. To get some perspective on this imagine if I felt the same way about Christianity that you feel about democracy. Pax vobiscum.

27 posted on 02/17/2005 10:50:38 PM PST by TradicalRC (I'd rather live in a Christian theocracy than a secular democracy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]


To: TradicalRC
Truth is not merely subjective or objective, I agree, but no one has a complete grasp on absolute Truth except God.

Then he would be a good place to start, don't you think? And starting with G-d is as clear a difference between the French Revolution and the American Revolution as anyone can point to - besides the result. Our democracy is killing 1.5 million children per year in the name of women's dignity, we seem to have a bad habit of spewing pornography at every other turn and the government keeps on getting more bloated by day. Where is the dignity in that?

As I said, imperfect execution does not mean an imperfect ideal. You point to things that have escalated terribly since the 1960s - oddly since the time G-d was tossed finally out of the public square. If you wanted me to admit that it takes a partnership with G-d to create a good government you had only to ask. I know it is true.

Wrong in your opinion, and of course anyone who disagrees ought not stand in your way.

Once again, truth isn't a matter of my opinion.

What was Stalin's old line? If you want to make an omelet, you've got to break a few eggs.

And for all that, Stalin didn't make anything but burnt toast.

For someone who talks so much about human dignity, you leave precious little room for self-determination, once again, back to the French Revolution and Their hypocrisy.

So liberating a people so they can create a government of self-determination is leaving precious little room for self-determination? As I said, once we liberate a people to choose their own form of government and they choose to live under a tyrant then I'll modify my stance. Until then, freeing people from tyrrany so they can make their own choice remains a moral imperative - even if they haven't the strength to free themselves nor the freedom to ask for our help.

Shalom.

28 posted on 02/18/2005 5:15:00 AM PST by ArGee (Having homosexual sex makes as much sense as drinking beer through your a$$.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson