amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Perhaps you expected, ‘between Right and Left, perhaps not, but it is not just a political difference, subject to civility and correctness with an air of compromise, it is much more complex and difficult a venture.
The astute cannot but be aware of the wide disparity in thought at the highest political arena in America, if not the world, and, in microcosm, here on this forum.
I propose an attempt, not to bridge that abyss, but to define it, clarify it and suggest an acknowledgement of the polar differences and why they exist.
The political differences between right and left is far more than political, it is philosophical, metaphysical and perhaps even, in a generous definition of the word, ‘spiritual’, in nature; that is to say, in other words, that the differences go to the very core of our each, individual and collective existence.
If one can be both ‘civil’, and ‘absolute’, at the same time without incurring rancor, then that is my quest.
I would express two fundamental premises that define a basic approach to life; one, that human life is the fundamental tenet upon which all other rights emerge, and that the ‘right’ to that life is innate, axiomatic and self evident. In simple terms, we each have the right to our own individual life.
The second premise deals with the lives of all individuals and postulates that the use of ‘force’, threat, or intimidation, is not acceptable in any relationship of mature adults, and that the police power of the State is empowered to act to protect the individual from the use of force in a normative social setting.
To me, it is ‘RIGHT’ to acknowledge those basic principles, and WRONG, to violate them; regardless of the end result intended.
Thus, my definition of the political ‘right’ includes the above premises and as I view the ‘left’, they do not accept or acknowledge those fundamental and basic tenets.
The ‘Left’, seem to advocate the necessity of violating or sacrificing those basic values that I postulate as inviolable, to achieve a greater good for the betterment of society in general.
Thus, as I see it, we, and not just we few here, have arrived at a position that is insoluble by civil means, and that even polite discussion must, by definition, degenerate into verbal conflict.
I represent no one but myself in these discussions; I belong to no political party or organization, nor am I a ‘Randroid’, worshipping Objectivism, although it is the nearest formal set of premises to those I hold.
What I ask for, from the Left, is an open admission that your philosophy advocates the sacrifice of individual life, liberty and property, the means of achieving your ‘end’ of social justice and your views of a proper or ideal society that all should strive for.
I do not expect to get that admission, but your failure to state and justify your means to an end, will suffice.
In truth, I do not expect you to respond at all, for to do so would expose your amoral foundation and lack of respect for the basic values and virtues of human life.
For the next fourteen months, until the November election in 2012, the Right versus the Wrong, will occupy much of the debate and discussion here, there and everywhere and I implore those of you on the Right, to challenge those on the Wrong, to state and justify their basic principles as to why people should sacrifice their individual heritage to serve the greater good.
Your commentary, should there be any, will also provide opposing views for a novel in progress as I could never, in my own mind, justify the sacrifice of any individual for the greater good and I sincerely look forward to your justification of such actions.
Good luck!
Amicus Veritas
The astute cannot but be aware of the wide disparity in thought at the highest political arena in America, if not the world, and, in microcosm, here on this forum.
I propose an attempt, not to bridge that abyss, but to define it, clarify it and suggest an acknowledgement of the polar differences and why they exist.
The political differences between right and left is far more than political, it is philosophical, metaphysical and perhaps even, in a generous definition of the word, ‘spiritual’, in nature; that is to say, in other words, that the differences go to the very core of our each, individual and collective existence.
If one can be both ‘civil’, and ‘absolute’, at the same time without incurring rancor, then that is my quest.
I would express two fundamental premises that define a basic approach to life; one, that human life is the fundamental tenet upon which all other rights emerge, and that the ‘right’ to that life is innate, axiomatic and self evident. In simple terms, we each have the right to our own individual life.
The second premise deals with the lives of all individuals and postulates that the use of ‘force’, threat, or intimidation, is not acceptable in any relationship of mature adults, and that the police power of the State is empowered to act to protect the individual from the use of force in a normative social setting.
To me, it is ‘RIGHT’ to acknowledge those basic principles, and WRONG, to violate them; regardless of the end result intended.
Thus, my definition of the political ‘right’ includes the above premises and as I view the ‘left’, they do not accept or acknowledge those fundamental and basic tenets.
The ‘Left’, seem to advocate the necessity of violating or sacrificing those basic values that I postulate as inviolable, to achieve a greater good for the betterment of society in general.
Thus, as I see it, we, and not just we few here, have arrived at a position that is insoluble by civil means, and that even polite discussion must, by definition, degenerate into verbal conflict.
I represent no one but myself in these discussions; I belong to no political party or organization, nor am I a ‘Randroid’, worshipping Objectivism, although it is the nearest formal set of premises to those I hold.
What I ask for, from the Left, is an open admission that your philosophy advocates the sacrifice of individual life, liberty and property, the means of achieving your ‘end’ of social justice and your views of a proper or ideal society that all should strive for.
I do not expect to get that admission, but your failure to state and justify your means to an end, will suffice.
In truth, I do not expect you to respond at all, for to do so would expose your amoral foundation and lack of respect for the basic values and virtues of human life.
For the next fourteen months, until the November election in 2012, the Right versus the Wrong, will occupy much of the debate and discussion here, there and everywhere and I implore those of you on the Right, to challenge those on the Wrong, to state and justify their basic principles as to why people should sacrifice their individual heritage to serve the greater good.
Your commentary, should there be any, will also provide opposing views for a novel in progress as I could never, in my own mind, justify the sacrifice of any individual for the greater good and I sincerely look forward to your justification of such actions.
Good luck!
Amicus Veritas
