Historic Quotations Post II:
In terms of a defense of democracy and its virtues, I can think of no greater summation than the Four Freedoms speech made by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in January of 1941:
( cut for quotation length )
( cut for quotation length )
These abstractions allow the state to function but they are also, by nature, dehumanizing. They need to be viewed with suspicion, and used with caution. Above all we must never lose sight of the fact that they are abstractions and not reality. Monsters lie down that road.
After all, it's one thing to say "let the world burn" or "hang that nigger". It is another thing to say "let Molly burn" or "hang Tony Crawford".
I have no idea how this answers my question. The 'good' is 'individuals interacting with each other out of mutual agreement or, barring that, at mutual need or respect'? Well, this is a view of humanity that's not really supported in history outside of... uh, nothing. Communists and libertarians hold the same view that they believe humans can actually have mutual agreements without the use of coercion by outside forces. History refutes this fairly elegantly.
Again, I'm not seeing how a republic is a necessary evil if the alternative is assuming that people will have mutual agreements without it. The 'mutual agreements' society is actually much worse because often people are not able to make mutual agreements to survive. Sometimes one has nothing to offer, should these people be left to die? If I was a have-not, your society would terrify me.
Reply
There are people peacfully coexisting and coming together all over the place. What else would you call a community, or nation? Do you really think that the only thing preventing your friends and niehbors from murdering you for the shoes on your feet is the fact that it is illegal for them to do so? Your society terrifies me.
It's not that a Republic is a neccesary evil, it's that ALL governments, or rather the abstractions required for them to function, are a neccesary evil. Some forms are just less prone to mass corruption and murder than others.
Sometimes one has nothing to offer.
Everyone has something to offer.
Reply
Then, by all means, remove the laws that make it illegal to do so.
It's not that a Republic is a neccesary evil, it's that ALL governments, or rather the abstractions required for them to function, are a neccesary evil. Some forms are just less prone to mass corruption and murder than others.
It's funny that in terms of potential for harm, direct democracies come pretty close after dictatorships.
Everyone has something to offer.
Well, time to cancel the disability check program.
Reply
It's funny that in terms of potential for harm, direct democracies come pretty close after dictatorships.
Not funny at all, simply true.
As I said before, it's not that republics are good it's that they tend to be less bad.
Reply
Reply
Likewise, if people really are as worthless and irredeamable as you say why do you give a fuck? I would expect you to consider "piles of skulls bleaching in the Sun" to be an optimal result.
Reply
Point the second, the USSR knew that more than the USA did.
Point the third, by the time the Soviets could have defeated us in nuclear war their whole system was on the verge of falling apart and did fall apart.
Point the fourth, the USA's the only state able to destroy human civilization right now and the absence of another enemy able to match us in aid destruction makes it harder to have one state self-terminate humankind.
Point the fifth, nihilism is for pussies who are self-absorbed and think real life is all about them getting what they want when they want it.
Reply
You can't have it both ways so which is it?
Reply
Leave a comment