U.S. Moving Toward Totalitarianism?

 

This is the way it started for the Jews in Europe:

 

 

Does the following even need comment?:

 

 

Does the following surprise anyone?:

 

 

Peace.

 

Why should anyone have to choose between a free world and a safer one.  The key to society is a good system of ethics.

 

Let's look at Immanuel Kant's objective ethical system of imperatives.  Kant believes that the only good thing that is good all by itself is a good will.  Many good traits, such as marksmanship, collectedness, or computer skills are all good things, but can be used for bad intentions.  The challenge for Kant is how to get society to act with a good will. 

Kant does this with his system of imperatives or "shoulds".  One categorical and one hypothetical.  Hypothetical imperatives are simple.  If you desire A do B sort of thing.  (e.g. If you want to earn money, have a job).  Categorical imperatives are somewhat more complex.  Categorical imperatives are derived from duty.  This is the key to morally praiseworthy actions.  If you save your friend from a fatality of being hit by a car is that a morally praise worthy action?  Kant says no, the action of saving your friend is something done from inclination.  Duty is something that should be done, but without inclination.  If you were to save a total stranger from a car fatality, Kant says that is a morally praiseworthy action.  Why, because it is something done from duty without inclination.  You have saved a fellow citizen's life.  It effects you in no reasonable way whether that citizen lived or died.  The categorical imperative is how citizens fulfill their roles.  What to do when two imperatives clash is difficult.  Kant says nothing of this and leaves it to his students to decide.

 

Kant also supports his imperatives with his thesis of "always treat humanity as an ends, not as a means."  Here is an example: A philosophy teacher does an excellent job of educating his students on the wonders of philosophy, but does just to earn money.  Every student walks into the class a dollar sign and out of the class a paycheck.  This is using humanity as a means to get money.  Kant belives this is wrong.  The philosophy teacher who teaches his students all the wonders of philosophy for the sake of fulfilling his duty is using humanity as a means.  His students aren't dollar signs, but rather a goal.  He then earns a paycheck as a result of his hardwork. 

 

You may think that there is no logical difference between the to.  This is not true.  Kant's philosophy is non-consequential.  It is based entirely on the will, the motive, and the duty.  It's safe to say that Kant believes people should act in the interest of society, not in the interest of themelves. 

 

Rousseau has another ethical system.  Rousseau has one golden rule of ethics, to allow the maximum amount of freedom for yourself, while causing the least amount of harm to others.  This is quite broad.  This could be taken to the extreme and mean that a heroine user is morally right and a factory owner is morally wrong, because the heroine user harms only himself.  The factory owner pollutes and harms the enviroment and the people in it.  Rousseau's rule is excellent, within reason. 

 

Rousseau also has a fondness for duty.  He believe citizens should work to support a surplus.  The surplus is the key to keeping society happy.  With a surplus, there is enough to spare for every, and while working to support a surplus work is always necessary and never useless.  Rousseu belives citizens at times, do need to put the good of society ahead of their own good, but isn't the good of society a citizen's own good too?

 

Combining Rousseau's liberty with Kant's duty results in a selfess, altruistic, free, and safe society. 

 

Carl Sagan has yet another point of view.  Sagan ethics are of the "tit for tat" rule.  This is rewarding loyalty with loyalty and betrayal with betrayal.  Sagan uses the example of two friends being detained by the police.  Either you or your friend could get a lesser penalty by one confessing and one refusing to incriminate himself, but both of you could get off by refusing to self incriminate.  Sagan belives people should reward loyalty with loyalty and betrayal with betrayal.  This is consequential, and different from Kant's non-consequential ethics.  Sagan's theory is for more of a man eat man society.  There is a maximum amount of freedom, but a minimal amount of safety if society dictates. 

 

So who can save us?  Plato can!  In Plato's republic the best society is the one which acts in philosophicial dikaiasune for which there is no English translation.  The general meaning of the word is justice, goodness, righteousness, and honor.  Plato defines justice as the fulfillment of function.  (back to Kantian imperatives)  Plato's function is much like Kant's imperatives.  That society should act in the spirit of duty.  For example take a piano.  A piano works best when used as a musical instrument.  You could try to make a piano into a table, but I doubt it would be very pleasant to rest a glass of water on the keys.  A piano plays music better than it does anything else, therefore it should play music.  The just way to act is not doing just what you do best, but never doing what harms.  A musician cannot make someone unmusical through music! This means that the just man never harms another man.  Everyone acts in the interest of society.

 

Plato has the trump card, but combining Platonic Dikaiasune, Kantian Imperatives, and Rousseaun Democracy, the perfect society can exist acting in the interest of society with the maximum amount of freedom and the fullest potential of skills.

 

Perhaps I should have qualified my comment a bit.  Clearly, during the anti-Vietnam demonstrations under Nixon, things got way out of hand, given Nixon's well-known dictatorial predelections.  I guess I was referring more to the post-Vietnam protests re such things as nuclear weapons, nuclear power, environment, and various civil rights issues.  It was not that these issues did not bring out equally powerful (if different) passions to the anti-war rallies.  It was simply that, under Ford, Carter, Clinton and even Reagan and Bush pere, there was not the same kind of anti-police or anti-protestor sentiment.

 

What Bush has done is bring back that sentiment - the fear, paranoia, secrecy and increased tension between protestors and law enforcement that has not been this evident since the Nixon years.

 

Peace.

 

Yeah, guns are like freakin' Strombringer that sit there humming for you to pick them up and kill people. It turns normally shy, demure and law abiding citizens into cold blooded Manson types by sending forth Satanic vibes for them to go out and kill people. Ignore prosecutring those who illegally obtain one, as it is the demonic gun makers churning out these possessed, vile metal horrors to inflict death and destruction.

 

Or better yet, even if the UN succeeds in their gun ban for all nations so the armies of petty dictators and terror groups can prey upon the free world at will, I'll be one of the ones keeping my weapons and protecting myself. Keep in mind that it was people who used guns to gain the freedoms that you all enjoy so much, whether you are American, Canadian or European. Guns and the right to defend yourself is not only vital, it is natural. Self preservation is a basic instinct. If you think man is above base desires and instincts, guess again. If you cannot kill someone when you have the opportunity to do so with a knife, chances are you would not do so with a gun. It is not the weapon but the person wielding it that makes the decision to kill. A gun cannot make you kill. A knife cannot make you kill. Only the person can make a final decision. Does it make a difference if a burglar or a murderer kills by shooting someone or by bludgeoning someone to death? The ban of guns will not only stop people from killing, it will not hinder the ones who will kill. Only upping the risks to the criminals will deter the person from doing so. A criminal rarely invades a place where he runs the greatest risk of personal injury or death. One way to up that ante in your favour is to be armed. Yes, death rates do go up when guns are made legal in a place where are first made legal-because the first thing that happens is criminals get shot trying to commit crimes in an area they first ran rampant. You have 911 operators deciding if people are a crank call before calling police or emergency personnel-do you really want to be home alone and unarmed and hear someone trying to break into your house, having to put your life alone in the hands of a 911 operator with something up their tookus?