We shouldn't be talking across each other. And we should n't need to add extraneous nonsense to our posts (you wouldn't go to dinner with Ayn Rand). You realize, of course, that she wouldn't even speak to you so we can leave that...
When I said that, "everything the "Government" does HURTS SOMEBODY." I was speaking to an issue. I had complimented your value of protecting the weak. But my point was that nbobody gets hurt mwhen an individual voluntarily takes an action to hold and keep a value (in this case compassion). But the government is not an individual. Essentially it is a force which robs something (money, assets, work, talent) from some to give to others. Even if you and I were to compromise and agree that it is POSSIBLE for this to be a net benefit (whether or not it is principled)...it still does not answer the natural objection that there is (in existentialism) no OBJECTIVE MEANS FOR DETERMINING a GOOD democracy or a GOOD liberalism. THE POINT I TRIED TO MAKE TO YOU WAS THAT (OBVIOUSLY) DEMOCRACY AND LIBERALISM CAN BOTH BE ALL SO UGLY AND OH SO BAD.
You keep talking to me about what an objective society can achieve. But I was talking to you about the theme you brought to this thread: THE VALUE OF EXISTENTIALISM. I cannot disprove to you such value at an individual level but my point t to you is that you CANNOT USE YOUR PHILOSOPHY (which has no objective basis) BEYOND the individual level.
Democracy does not make Government "good". "Liberalism" (which has championed EVERY POSITION) does not make government "good". To champion a social "good" you must have a philosophical or social measurement of good which stands up to either REASON, FORCE, FAITH, OR NUMBERS. TAKE YOUR PICK, MY FRIEND!
You talk about "basic human dignity". But who is to define this? In this polemic, greg or e is three feet in front of you. He, at least, can define human decency in terms of governance and not merely as to how the sunlight struck your brow when you walked through the woods and engaged some moment in time. If he enslaved a people or burned them at the stake he would have a rationale beyond the SUBJECTIVE. He would have at least a false objectivity based on a tin brain and a straw heart. |
