A question for farfromglorified...and anyone!

mammasan wrote:

Let me ask you what managerial decisions does gaovernment make for you know that would be such a burden for you or anyone else to make on their own?

My question is about enforcing your way on another and calling it freedom. And it stems legitimately from the fact that I just realized that I would have an authenticity issue if I were to face a vote, myself, at this point in time.

And I'm starting to look towards other systems that may only exist in potential at this time.

farfromglorified wrote:

What "way" is Ron Paul "enforcing"? How is he proposing to "enforce" it?

By making changes, irrespective of disputes that run contrary to the change.

mammasan wrote:

But nothing is being forced on you. You can still lead your life the same way you did prior to this new system.

I'm getting confused trying to use examples with Ron Paul. I have to talk from my perspective. I'm concerned that were I facing a vote tomorrow, I would cause radical change on people who are not prepared to change. Even though I believe my view is correct. And I assume if you support Ron Paul, you believe it is the correct view to support.

So when the radical change would cause all kinds of fallout, because numerous people would be opposed to the change (whatever percentage the "opposition" is) and it takes a system much energy to regain it's balance. This happens whenever any radical change takes place.

Are you comfortable forcing people to adapt to radical change by using your vote to make it happen (if it theoretically did happen). It might have some good purposes in some "imagined" future, and if you believe that to be the case, are you willing to forfeit balance in the presence for this imagined future? I have personally come to question this type of thinking.

mammasan wrote:

Yes I am prepared to do that because I believe the radical changes would make this a better country in the long run. Of course their would be opposition and a period of ajustment but, using Ron Paul as an example, what is being proposed is not anything that would greatly alter the way we live our daily lives. We would still have to make the same choices we make everyday, what to wear, what to eat, etc…. The only diference would be in the control we have over our own affairs and I don't know many people who would object to that. If people out there need some type of authority figure to tell them how to liv their lives they would still have that. They can turn to their religious leaders, friends, familiy members for that.

It seems that you and I tend to believe that if something is in the greater good in the long run, then it's the best choice. That is where I fall on the surface. And then my conflicts kick in. And I question that.

For example, if I were voting for Kucinich (and if I were American!) I naturally believe that although there would be costs--that his message is by far for the greatest good. And with this view, I can also see the "other side" and how many people would be adamantly opposed to many of the changes made. Obviously, I have to go with what I believe is best.

I realize those who opposed me would just have to roll with the punches and adapt if my voted-for representative became President.

The crux of it for me, though, underneath everything, is that I'm coming to find it repugnant to justify horrible stuff in the present which is very real, for a "greater good" somewhere in the future that exists only in theory. Only after much conflict for the people--conflict they are unprepared to adjust to--would this eventual growth and resolution take place. It seems like justifying the unjustifiable. The end does not justify the means.

farfromglorified wrote:

In a practical context, this is not even a valid question. To suggest that voting to enforce change on someone is wrong would presuppose a lot of things the existing system already contradicts. If it is wrong for me to vote for a new system that, say, eliminates the welfare system, why was it right to vote for establishing that system in the first place upon the unwilling?

My problem is not with change. It's with radical change. It's based on that I have been through ungodly amounts of change, and I realize how challenging change is for people, even if they choose it, and much, much worse if they do not, and particularly for those with less inner balance and coping skills. I realize in practicality, much of what I'm asking is a moot point, given the democratic system, however, I'm questioning whether I want to support such systems as they stand to begin with. Or at least the idea of such large and vast countries governing us, rather than smaller areas being self-governing.

This is like suggesting that voting to end slavery, as many nations did, would be wrong because it would impose "radical change" on slave owners. What right does a slave owner have to suggest that he should not be radically changed by a vote, considering his own actions radically changed the lives of others against their will?

You and your slave analogies....

Realistically speaking, though, I don't naturally get your gun, or slave analogies. I hear what you are saying, but such analogies are meaningless to me. Probably in the way communist type concepts are meaningless to you. I would love it if something you said could help me understand better, and still I recognize that there are just big gaps in how you or I process information.

Now, in a more philosophical sense, I'm totally on board with what you're saying here. I don't think it's a good idea to impose radical change on people who aren't ready for it or don't want it. But that's why I like Paul. He's not telling people that they can't have communal or large-scale social systems wherein people can own things and work together. If, for example, we were talking about some kind of Randite that would violently impose a singular moral system on people, I'd totally agree with you that, despite some likely agreement on my part with that person's underlying beliefs, that they had no right to literally enslave people into a single belief system. Ron Paul is not proposing to do this.

He is proposing change that is diametrically opposed to my belief system, though, as to what is in the best interests of...your...country. So while again, especially given that I'm Canadian, it is a moot point, it's about the larger philosophical ramifications for me and I love the input on this board, and the balanced responsible way people are approaching this, and I was hoping I could find a big more clarity in my own perspective.

farfromglorified wrote:

Nothing you're asking is a "moot point" -- it's built upon a very valid philosophical position. Change is a very dangerous force in people's lives. Anyone proposing radical change needs to recognize this. I'm just not sure how "radical" these changes are to begin with. Paul isn't trying to preclude people from doing the things that reflect their values, whereas some of the other candidates' positions are since they would further preclude people from living their values.

I feel uncomfortable with the idea that what Paul intends to do is "right" and therefore any changes and adaptations are just a "given" and won't go against people's values. I see it very differently than that.

If the slave analogies don't work for you, let's look at the same concept without an analogy. The existing political environment in this country is founded upon the forced changes you're rejecting here. So, if they're bad to do now, were they not bad to do then? So, one is left with the question: do we leave the existing system as-is? Based on the principles you're laying out here, it would be acceptable to do that. But it certainly wouldn't be acceptable to further expand them and enforce new radical changes on people.

Yeah, I don't respond to analogies at all--they confuse and complicate things for me all the more. This makes much more sense to me. I do agree our underlying systems are flawed as you see it. And I do appreciate your logic here. I think, also, that our current political systems are flawed, too. Meaning that as long as we vote back and forth, with huge majorities within huge countries, it will be a balancing act, back and forth through election after election, while people make a slow evolution. We won't actually really evolve in any one radical direction. And I think you and I both know that whether to impose Kucinich's way, or Paul's way, is not going to change the essential problems of evolution that occur within individuals. If we could vote for Ron Paul and change that and correct the underlying problems, I would probably be on board with that. I do understand how a simplified, more natural and environmentally attuned way would benefit everyone, but I feel it will only come about with the evolution of the people, and with them recognizing the need for this, and the same goes for co-operative systems. I agree that forcing such systems undermines the whole concept to begin with.

The "radical change can be negative" position, however, is not an irreducible axiom. To suggest that radical change is negative on individuals is to pay heed to the concepts of individual rights and responsibilities. That's the Ron Paul position. Individuals have certain unalienable rights (life, liberty, property) and inescapable responsibilities to themselves and others in their society. Therefore, it extends from those positions that past changes that violate those rights or responsibilities should be eliminated since they are negative forces in the lives of many individuals.

In an ideal this makes sense. But if he gets voted in, he'll eventually get voted out and a new contrary view will come in to balance things back, while people slowly evolve in the meantime. Do you see it differently?

Are you sure? What part of your belief system is Ron Paul saying you cannot hold or cannot directly act upon free of oppressive consequences? The only answer I can think of to this is -- "Ron Paul won't let me use the unwilling to achieve my goals" which would in turn beg the question: if it's ok to use the unwilling to achieve your goals, why is it wrong for others to change your life when you're unwilling???

If I felt there was potential that the Ron Paul way would make lasting change that would be one thing. I believe the lasting change must come from humans up, in our evolution. And I think our evolution will be a blend of becoming more like what both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich seem to be about. Which is why I love to support evolutionary front runners and am at least glad when the public gets wind of such "radical" but highly sound perspectives.