This isn’t a strong argument. The idea of establishing rights is that doing so is worth the attendant responsibilities. The tradeoff is baked right into the nature of the concept. It’s like saying: allowing someone to live places restrictions upon those they impact over time.
But this is the thing: you advocate punishing people for not obeying laws, yet this is top-down management of behaviour. Freedom is essential to prosperity, but it isn't linear; there reaches a point at which it becomes zero-sum. And let's not forget, Nature is also a tyranny.
-
-
The entire point of stating that scalability of intercession is time-sensitive was that it incorporates and addresses all these points. Top-down punishment after the fact, combined with bottom-up culture before it, is the only scalable system that limits our self-tyranny.
-
I'd be interested to know what level of weapon you would draw the line at people being allowed to own, and your reasoning for this.
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Before I jump into this, I gotta ask. Are you guys European? Canada and Australia/new Zealand are essentially European for this question.
-
UK citizen.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
