|
| 23 Jun 2013 04:39 PM |
The Greek philosopher Parmenides held that all outcomes were false. This presumption has translated into Parmenides’ fallacy, the failure to consider all alternate outcomes in conjunction with the present state of affairs. Parmenides’ fallacy has unique implications for the argument that expansion in government power limits personal liberty.
Consider the example of Britain in World War Two. Churchill authorized curfews, rationing, and other programs ostensibly construed to restrict individual freedoms. However, any commentator claiming that these actions came at the expense of liberty has committed Parmenides’ fallacy—he fails to consider the liberties the British would have retained had Germany overran the country. Thus, British personal freedoms actually increased relative to what they would have been otherwise.
The conclusion may be drawn that the actions of a rights-respecting democracy to curb liberty have the opposite effect; government power does not have an inverse relationship with freedom. When applied to the NSA controversy, it is worth considering that our liberty has not actually been infringed upon, for states of consent, in accordance with Parmenides’ fallacy, do not act to obstruct liberty.
You may have noticed that the major premise in my argument has been that the United States is a rights-respecting democracy, which derives its legitimacy from the consent of the people. I anticipate that many of you look askance at the actions of federal authorities (justifiably so), and perhaps do not regard the United States as a body of consensual governance. In the eyes of those who have adopted this view, my major premise (and thus the remainder of my syllogism) is invalid.
However, as a consequence of the emerging epochal struggle between market states of consent and market states of terror, we must regard the United States as a rights-respecting democracy, or at the very least acknowledge that it will be forced to act in accordance with the promotion of individual opportunity. This is a result of the very conditions of a “victory” in the war against terror—primarily, the preclusion of a state of terror such that states of consent may continue to exist. Terror is both an ends and a means—a means to its own end—and thus the war aim of the state of consent is to preclude its conversion to a state of terror.
In order to win the war against terror, states of consent must act to protects its consensual system of governance and sustain its guarantee of individual freedoms. Anything less would be to suffer a great defeat in this war. Based on the assumption that our government intends to win wars (an assumption that I hope you find less far-fetched), our government must be a rights-respecting democracy.
Please do not mistake this argument for my ubiquitous approbation for any and all government action. Rather, this has been a critique of those who support just the opposite—automatic and universal condemnation of federal efforts. The American people cannot compromise their vigilance, but must also acknowledge that in restricting their liberty, the government may actually expand it. Any proportional efforts to do so should be met with public endorsement.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 23 Jun 2013 05:20 PM |
Freedom must have limitation in order for there to be rights.
I agree completely. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Varese2
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Mar 2013 |
| Total Posts: 1641 |
|
|
| 23 Jun 2013 05:33 PM |
| your use of english is very bad |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Varese2
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Mar 2013 |
| Total Posts: 1641 |
|
|
| 23 Jun 2013 05:34 PM |
| and your argument could have easily been condensed into one short paragraph |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Cr4ft
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Aug 2011 |
| Total Posts: 3286 |
|
|
| 23 Jun 2013 05:35 PM |
*You're *English *Capitalize "You're" *Put a period at the end of the sentence. Here, let me fix it for you; You're use of English is very bad. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Varese2
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Mar 2013 |
| Total Posts: 1641 |
|
|
| 23 Jun 2013 05:37 PM |
| and i think it is unfair to compare the restriction of freedoms by the uk in world war two to us government surveillance in a relatively peaceful time (if that is what you are doing please excuse me if it isnt i will say again your use of english is horrible) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Varese2
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Mar 2013 |
| Total Posts: 1641 |
|
|
| 23 Jun 2013 05:39 PM |
"You're use of English is very bad."
it would actually be your and im not complaining about his grammar (it is perfect btw) but rather his vocabulary. maybe he uses the words he does to feed his furious euphoria |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
sinii
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Sep 2011 |
| Total Posts: 15218 |
|
|
| 23 Jun 2013 05:50 PM |
| Sorry but... comparing the apostrophes in your post and what they're actually supposed to look like, I think you copied and pasted this from somewhere else. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 23 Jun 2013 09:38 PM |
This was original work; proof to the contrary would be appreciated.
"Relative peacetime" is a rather nearsighted interpretation of the changing constitutional order. Perhaps it would also be worth noting the relatively mild character of NSA surveillance--it is constitutional even under a peacetime interpretation of the fourth amendment. In either regard, PRISM is proportional to our current state of affairs.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 23 Jun 2013 09:40 PM |
and your argument could have easily been condensed into one short paragraph
_____
I'd rather be verbose than offer insufficient support for an argument and invite straw men. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
sinii
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Sep 2011 |
| Total Posts: 15218 |
|
|
| 23 Jun 2013 09:41 PM |
| ’ is not from a keyboard. However, ' is. You must have copied it from another website. Now if you posted it on that website and then here, I have no proof you didn't. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Corridan
|
  |
| Joined: 23 Nov 2012 |
| Total Posts: 7344 |
|
| |
|
|
| 23 Jun 2013 09:43 PM |
| we will win this for mother russia |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
sinii
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Sep 2011 |
| Total Posts: 15218 |
|
|
| 23 Jun 2013 09:44 PM |
| Actually, on every keyboard, if there is an apostrophe, it's '. Mah's apostrophe comes from alt codes. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 23 Jun 2013 09:45 PM |
| Okay who the hell argues over a apostrophe this is pointless god dammit |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Corridan
|
  |
| Joined: 23 Nov 2012 |
| Total Posts: 7344 |
|
|
| 23 Jun 2013 09:46 PM |
| Are you sure I think you’re wrong it’s on mine keyboard |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
sinii
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Sep 2011 |
| Total Posts: 15218 |
|
|
| 23 Jun 2013 09:49 PM |
Corridan. On the other threads you used the correct apostrophe, now it's clear you're copying and pasting it.
"It's the only word that resembles the Hebrew name of Eve" - you
You used ', not Mah's apostrophe. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Corridan
|
  |
| Joined: 23 Nov 2012 |
| Total Posts: 7344 |
|
|
| 23 Jun 2013 09:50 PM |
| No I think I used the same one |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
sinii
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Sep 2011 |
| Total Posts: 15218 |
|
|
| 23 Jun 2013 09:51 PM |
| No, look back, you've used the keyboard apostrophe. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Corridan
|
  |
| Joined: 23 Nov 2012 |
| Total Posts: 7344 |
|
|
| 23 Jun 2013 09:53 PM |
| I did I used the same one MahPiz is using |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 23 Jun 2013 09:53 PM |
| ' apostraphe god dammit shut the damn up |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
sinii
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Sep 2011 |
| Total Posts: 15218 |
|
|
| 23 Jun 2013 09:55 PM |
No, you did not, I copied and pasted your direct quote. If you want, I'll screenshot it for you or whatever.
tankgunner, thanks, that's the keyboard apostrophe. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 23 Jun 2013 09:55 PM |
| I originally wrote this on Microsoft Word, which accounts for the subtle changes in my apostrophes. You are very perceptive. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|