|
| 28 Jul 2013 06:48 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 argument that these actions came at the expense of liberty has committed Parmenides’ fallacy—it fails to consider the liberties the British would have retained had Hitlol defeated 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.
The opening portion of this was published as an editorial.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
pepper0
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Sep 2007 |
| Total Posts: 12032 |
|
|
| 28 Jul 2013 07:40 PM |
| Have you ever thought that this is what the terrorists wanted? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
pepper0
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Sep 2007 |
| Total Posts: 12032 |
|
|
| 28 Jul 2013 07:51 PM |
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpifclvMEOE |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jul 2013 08:00 PM |
I used to think you were an intelligent person, Pizza. You wasted a lot of space using bombastic words that you didn't need. I ask you; what war on terror? The only reason we went into Iraq and Afghanistan was because the politicians were paid off by weapons companies. There is no "war on terror". How long is it until they decide we are terrorists for even discussing this?
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jul 2013 08:02 PM |
You also implied that terrorists might somehow overcome our country, even when they haven't overcome hardly any military bases in their OWN LAND.
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jul 2013 08:05 PM |
I'd like to point out one more thing. The government set up rules for their spy agency on means of legally obtaining information. Their own agency broke their rules, so there is no "Ethical Defense" of the NSA.
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jul 2013 08:12 PM |
I used to think you were an intelligent person, Pizza.
____
Always good to open with ad hominem.
You wasted a lot of space using bombastic words that you didn't need.
____
Somehow I forgot bombastic. I'll get it in next time. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jul 2013 08:19 PM |
You also implied that terrorists might somehow overcome our country, even when they haven't overcome hardly any military bases in their OWN LAND.
____
Market states of terror circumvent conventional forces. I could happily provide some sobering hypotheticals. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jul 2013 08:20 PM |
The government set up rules for their spy agency on means of legally obtaining information. Their own agency broke their rules, so there is no "Ethical Defense" of the NSA.
____
You're right, an ethical defense is not a legal one. Since you seem to be interested, here's a legal one:
http://www.roblox.com/Forum/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=100924069 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jul 2013 08:21 PM |
| And our own government deciding that it's okay to spy on us isn't a "sobering" example? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jul 2013 08:25 PM |
| I have a question: If they decided that, say, you tampered with your software to stop said spying. Could they arrest you for impeding an investigation? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Corridan
|
  |
| Joined: 23 Nov 2012 |
| Total Posts: 7344 |
|
|
| 28 Jul 2013 08:27 PM |
| that would imply that you were in fact under investigation |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 28 Jul 2013 08:28 PM |
I ask you; what war on terror? The only reason we went into Iraq and Afghanistan was because the politicians were paid off by weapons companies. There is no "war on terror".
____
Aaah, that was almost an important minor premise. Fortunately, I was not referring to Bush's actions, which I readily acknowledge to be something of a farce.
The war on terror should be taken to mean the epochal struggle between market states of consent and market states of terror.
How long is it until they decide we are terrorists for even discussing this?
____
Probably until they amend the definition of terrorism to be something besides the deliberate use of violence against noncombatants, or the threat of such, to achieve political objectives. (I paraphrase Bobbit and Kapitan) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jul 2013 08:30 PM |
And our own government deciding that it's okay to spy on us isn't a "sobering" example?
____
No, because it's constitutional and proportional. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jul 2013 08:31 PM |
| Fine, you go on thinking that hypothetical terrorism is worse than being constantly monitored. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jul 2013 08:31 PM |
Have you ever thought that this is what the terrorists wanted?
____
Terror is a means and an ends. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Corridan
|
  |
| Joined: 23 Nov 2012 |
| Total Posts: 7344 |
|
|
| 28 Jul 2013 08:32 PM |
"Yes, say you were." they just don't wake up one day go to the NSA headquarters draw a stick with a random name on it and start investigating that person they investigate people because they believe that they are or might be doing something illegal and trying to keep the investigators from investigating you would show that you do have something to hide and would only make you look more suspicious |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jul 2013 08:34 PM |
Fine, you go on thinking that hypothetical terrorism is worse than being constantly monitored.
____
My argument is that the latter precludes the former so that it may remain hypothetical. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jul 2013 08:38 PM |
... I understand that, that's why I said it. What was the point of that post? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jul 2013 08:39 PM |
| In any case, do you think someone planning to terrorize people for the sake of it are going to talk about it in a chat room? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
Corridan
|
  |
| Joined: 23 Nov 2012 |
| Total Posts: 7344 |
|
|
| 28 Jul 2013 08:43 PM |
"... I understand that, that's why I said it. What was the point of that post?" if you were not planning terrorism than why would you care if they spy on you? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jul 2013 08:44 PM |
| I was referring to Pizza's last post. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jul 2013 08:45 PM |
if you were not planning terrorism than why would you care if they spy on you? --- "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to hear" -- Need I say more? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|