Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: miko2d on December 04, 2002, 11:57:20 AM
-
The necesities of government reguation and involvement as the complexity of life grows is an obvious matter for most rationally-thinking people.
So let's see if you know your sources better than your political opponents.
"We first asserted that the more complicated the form civilization assumes, the more restricted the individual freedom should become."
Who said that?
P.S. I modified the wording slightly to prevent the web search - not that I expect you to cheat... ;)
P.P.S. Republicans, libertarians, etc. please abstain from answering the question - just indicate whether you now the answer or post initials.
miko
-
Why is it important to know the source for an idea which is completely obvious to anybody who is paying attention? :)
-
Oops... PCT.
-
If you modified the wording, then YOU said it.
-
funkedup: Why is it important to know the source for an idea which is completely obvious to anybody who is paying attention?
In some respects - like inherent validity of an idea - it does not matter. In others - like being able to follow through its development and examples, it is very helpfull.
It also helps when referring to something you expect people to know when any confusion may lead to a mixup and misunderstanding - like how many blacks know that "republican and democrat" refers to "Lincoln and Wallace" rather than "Wallace and Lincoln"?
Anyway, that's just a one-question quiz on a slow day. No particular importance.
midnight Target: If you modified the wording, then YOU said it.
Not really - not at all, actually.
How could I modify the wording and still stay exactly as true to what was said as the original? Explanation would be a clue, so you figure it out for an extra credit! :)
miko
-
Engels and Marx?
Shuckins
-
Whoever said it, the word 'should' is ambiguous. In the US it often means 'ought to', but in correct English it means 'will' or more likely 'will have'.
ra
-
Only the word 'the' in that statement is not ambiguous. ;)
'ought to' is much more obvious choice here than 'will' though the latter would not change the meaning significantly. Anyway, I am not asking anyone to analyse it's meaning but to identify the author of that important insight.
H. Godwineson - no. More recent. No beard.
Sandman - is PCT an initial? Then no. Who is P.C.T. BTW?
miko
-
Publius Cornelius Tacitus
-
Originally posted by miko2d
P.S. I modified the wording slightly to prevent the web search - not that I expect you to cheat... ;)
miko
Not really - not at all, actually.
How could I modify the wording and still stay exactly as true to what was said as the original?
:rolleyes:
-
How could I modify the wording and still stay exactly as true to what was said as the original?
Oh, come on - it's so simple.
The original statement that you can find on the Internet is a translation from the language in which the person in question was speaking.
So by providing an alternative translation/modifying the original one, I stayed as true to what was said as the original translation. Maybe even closer for all you know.
That reveals that the person was not an English-speaker and you lose a chance of a bonus credit!
miko
-
Looks like the neo-Marxists on this BB are not real neo-Marxists, only a wannabies.
-
Which ones on this board are neo-Marxist? Which ones want to be?
-
Oh... and the initials are BM.
-
All right, here is the answer, Sandman is right:
"We were the first to assert that the more complicated the forms assumed by civilization, the more restricted the freedom of the individual must become"
Benito Mussolini
-
Arguments do not depend on their authors.
Nor is this statement necessarily true.
It also assumes a hell of a lot about the "Freedoms" of an individual.
Take flagburning, for example.
You might argue that a member of a tribal society is more free to burn a flag say a citizen of modern Italy. But flagburning as a concept has no relevance in tribal societies.
For a better example, take slavery, the privation of basic human freedom.
In a simple society, slavery's a pretty obvious thing. One person has no standing in society. A simple society can also guarantee that freedom pretty easily, by excluding those who keep slaves.
Now, look at our (US) society. Large corporations vie for an increasing share of citizens' productive capacity by on the one hand demanding "small government" -- when they mean dismantling agencies designed to limit their access to said capacity through such things as labor laws, privacy laws (how many "free loan-checks" have you gotten in the mail lately?) and antitrust laws, while on the other seeking to increase government regulation when it gives them a competitive edge. "Public Health" regulations, for example, are a great way for centralized chain groceries to chase out mom-and-pop butchers. Lifting restrictions on broadcast laws paves the way for Clear Channel to drive out of business all but a very small handful of local radio stations. "Environmental" laws can make billions for the oil companies if they're worded right. The examples go on and on.
So yeah, like the Republicans say, we need Big Government and we don't need it, but for the opposite reasons. We need government to guarantee our freedoms. We don't need it to sell them to the highest bidder.
So I argue that the more complex society is, the more potential freedom we can allow the individual, and the more we need government to guarantee that freedom. But not any government can do that. We need a good one.
That's why I'd like your help in installing a benevolent dictatorship.