"Freedom" thread or something

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Didn't read your post, but Political philosophy v parental philosophy Kinda different things.

Yes and no.  Read my post.

Really - the sentiments expressed in this thread remind me very much of my son and daughter.  "Who put you in authority over me?  I didn't agree to that.  I didn't agree to the rules that have been set up.  I shouldn't have to abide by them if I didn't agree to them."

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Yeah superficial similarities between arguments can be found everywhere. Not interested.

A family is a miniature society.   So it's a great analogy for political arguments.

Our children do not pay taxes to us and all of their needs are met by us, the parents.  Therefore we are the authority over them.

My little six-year-old rebel is in the corner as we speak. 

dtguitarfan wrote: Look, I've tried other analogies, such as comparing society to the human body with each person being a cell in that body.  But you won't accept any analogy that doesn't support your already formed conclusions.  It's quite a predicament that you've put yourself into, denying the way that reality all around you works.

There's way to talk other than analogies. Like you can actually talk about the object itself, as we are all intelligent adults discussing pretty concrete things. Analogies are useful only to model a point. They become detrimental once you start to use the analogy to further a theory.

Leaked document reveals somewhat the scope of civilian deaths due to drone attacks in Pakistan.

I'm glad they hate us for our freedom and not stuff like this.

Ah, but your usage of the analogy does not work.  Government is not an entity, it is an office, much as "parenthood" might be described as an office (though the way we usually use the word does not conjure up this sort of way of thinking).  You can absolutely say that some of those in our history who have held the office of "parent" have actually been children.  I will absolutely agree with such descriptions.  What I will never agree with, however, is the logic that says that because this has happened, we should abolish "parenthood" entirely.

Also, who built the house in your version of the analogy?

Epignosis wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Ah, but your usage of the analogy does not work.  Government is not an entity, it is an office, much as "parenthood" might be described as an office (though the way we usually use the word does not conjure up this sort of way of thinking).  You can absolutely say that some of those in our history who have held the office of "parent" have actually been children.  I will absolutely agree with such descriptions.  What I will never agree with, however, is the logic that says that because this has happened, we should abolish "parenthood" entirely. It was your analogy.  You were the one comparing government to parenthood.  I instead compared government to a disobedient child, which is more accurate, since the people are paying the bills.

Is there any one person you can point to in our country who is paying ALL of the bills?  In other words, is there anyone you can point to who is not able to pay their bills because they are already, and have been for quite some time, benefiting from living in "the house"? 

Yeah, our "house" is falling apart.  It needs lots of work.  But I realize that I have benefited from living in it, whereas you seem to think we can go out and live outside of this "house" and still have the kind of life we've been living.  Or perhaps you are attracted to "Little House on the Prairie", so much so that you want to force everyone else to live that way along with you.

I can understand a dream of less Government, but i find it hard to belive it will ever happen. Most people love rules, as long as the rules work their way. Love strong leaders, as long as its the one they belive in, Noone love taxes , but everyone want every benefit they can get from the "system".

Most people belive in Liberty, and free marked, but the thing is, we still want to keep others away from the pie, if it looks like they a taking our share. Free marked in the classical sence, is just not possible anymore, the marked simply do not contain a lot of indepandant suppliers, fairly compeeting against each other.

People will never agree to what freedom is, because the consept of freedom depends on the view.      

Epignosis wrote: I can't point to one person in my literal house who is paying all of the bills.  My wife makes cakes and I teach.  Together, we get by, and together, we make the rules for our children.  As for your question, I'm not sure I understand it- it sounds like you are asking two different things.

You ask why I feel Libertarianism leads to "Little House on the Prairie".  But you answered your own question right here.  In order to have the level of society we have now - with sophisticated industry and things like "internet" and "subways" and such - we have to work together.  We can't adhere to this rampant individualism that I see inherent in the brand of Libertarianism you adhere to.  We need each other in order to have this level of sophistication, and I don't see that working without taxes.  You talk about people paying for their police service and being able to choose which service they want.  That was the purpose of my analogy where my daughter pays for my wife's service and my son pays for my service, and then we all end up fighting to no end.

dtguitarfan wrote: Epignosis wrote: I can't point to one person in my literal house who is paying all of the bills.  My wife makes cakes and I teach.  Together, we get by, and together, we make the rules for our children.  As for your question, I'm not sure I understand it- it sounds like you are asking two different things. You ask why I feel Libertarianism leads to "Little House on the Prairie".  But you answered your own question right here.  In order to have the level of society we have now - with sophisticated industry and things like "internet" and "subways" and such - we have to work together.  We can't adhere to this rampant individualism that I see inherent in the brand of Libertarianism you adhere to.  We need each other in order to have this level of sophistication, and I don't see that working without taxes.  You talk about people paying for their police service and being able to choose which service they want.  That was the purpose of my analogy where my daughter pays for my wife's service and my son pays for my service, and then we all end up fighting to no end.

I didn't answer my own question at all (there are plenty of single parents who get by just fine).

There are multitudes of people who work together without being forced to do so.