Marxist
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2001
- Posts
- 18,322
Me: Hey Bill, what's shakin'?
Uncle Bill: Shakin'? I'll tell you what's shakin'! What I do in many cases is point out the inconsistencies or contradictions of opposing points of view and question their validity on that basis. And it is my judgement that those incongruities are their failings. If 2+2=4 today, it does so tomorrow. That's an immutable fact of arithmetic (which I admit some may question). Granted philosophical issues are seldom so clear and precise, but history can be a good measure of the quality and beneficence of a philosophy. And history has demonstrated that men living in freedom have achieved far more in a mere 200 years than did men living in slavery for the whole of mankind's history.
Me: Umm....yeah Bill. Listen, why don't we go down to Baskin Robbins and talk some of this shit over a sugar cone. Maybe we can get down to just some basic questions.
Uncle Bill: What is not asked or considered is the question, "How can the violation or negation of the rights of one man be of benefit to society at large?". Since society is an abstract entity comprised of a number of individuals living in some proximity, does this mean that the lives of some may be legitimately forfeit for the whim of someone else's perception of the common good? Stalin, Lenin, Hitler all proclaimed their genocidal pursuits were for the common good in one fashion or another and as leaders of the collective, they were legitimized and justified in their declarations and actions. Today, the degree is less brutal, at least in America, but the principles are the same.
Me: Maybe not...Hey, look man, my...uh girlfriend is hollering at me...I'll check you later....
Uncle Bill: If you consider it particularly good that America has become Balkanized and it has become commonplace for politicians to play the class warfare game on their constituents, then I suppose it has. If you consider the deterioration of the public education system in general as good, then I suppose so. If you consider it a good thing that government has become more intrusive into the everyday lives and most private decisions of individual citizens, then yes, I can agree with you. If you consider it a good thing that there is likely more group oriented resentment as a result of political activity, then you are again correct. If you consider it a positive value that government has become more abusive, more tyrannical, more confiscatory and less inclined to acknowledge and protect the rights of Americans, then you are again right. If you consider that theft is a valid means of financing one's goals, then again you are correct. If the persecution of innocent people to achieve political purpose is noble, then I concede your point. And the collectivist mind can accept all these things by declaring they are somehow beneficial for mankind as a whole. And it is the move toward collectivism that has enabled the political pursuit of all these things via the welfare statism of FDR, LBJ, et al......
Uncle Bill: Shakin'? I'll tell you what's shakin'! What I do in many cases is point out the inconsistencies or contradictions of opposing points of view and question their validity on that basis. And it is my judgement that those incongruities are their failings. If 2+2=4 today, it does so tomorrow. That's an immutable fact of arithmetic (which I admit some may question). Granted philosophical issues are seldom so clear and precise, but history can be a good measure of the quality and beneficence of a philosophy. And history has demonstrated that men living in freedom have achieved far more in a mere 200 years than did men living in slavery for the whole of mankind's history.
Me: Umm....yeah Bill. Listen, why don't we go down to Baskin Robbins and talk some of this shit over a sugar cone. Maybe we can get down to just some basic questions.
Uncle Bill: What is not asked or considered is the question, "How can the violation or negation of the rights of one man be of benefit to society at large?". Since society is an abstract entity comprised of a number of individuals living in some proximity, does this mean that the lives of some may be legitimately forfeit for the whim of someone else's perception of the common good? Stalin, Lenin, Hitler all proclaimed their genocidal pursuits were for the common good in one fashion or another and as leaders of the collective, they were legitimized and justified in their declarations and actions. Today, the degree is less brutal, at least in America, but the principles are the same.
Me: Maybe not...Hey, look man, my...uh girlfriend is hollering at me...I'll check you later....
Uncle Bill: If you consider it particularly good that America has become Balkanized and it has become commonplace for politicians to play the class warfare game on their constituents, then I suppose it has. If you consider the deterioration of the public education system in general as good, then I suppose so. If you consider it a good thing that government has become more intrusive into the everyday lives and most private decisions of individual citizens, then yes, I can agree with you. If you consider it a good thing that there is likely more group oriented resentment as a result of political activity, then you are again correct. If you consider it a positive value that government has become more abusive, more tyrannical, more confiscatory and less inclined to acknowledge and protect the rights of Americans, then you are again right. If you consider that theft is a valid means of financing one's goals, then again you are correct. If the persecution of innocent people to achieve political purpose is noble, then I concede your point. And the collectivist mind can accept all these things by declaring they are somehow beneficial for mankind as a whole. And it is the move toward collectivism that has enabled the political pursuit of all these things via the welfare statism of FDR, LBJ, et al......
