Why "Imagine" is just tyranny reborn
I'm begining to really like Frank Beckworth, if only because he is as depressed as I am about the baby boomer and hippie notion that nobody should ever question progress.
Proposed Amendment 28
Section 1. That the following language be stricken as unworkable from the US Constitution, Article I, Section 10: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress." Section 2. And be replaced with "All States, for the protection of their citizens, may reject any Treaty, Alliance, or Confe...
Comments
The keyword is "Imagine". We know we will probably never get there but it is worth striving for. It would be nice to have a world where international conflicts could be more on a par with soccer games instead of wars. It would be good if religious extremists did not assume that they will spend eternity in Paradise for conducting suicide attacks and flying planes into buildings. It would be good if people became less greedy and more generous. I don't see tyranny in any of those aspirations.
I'd love for international conflicts to go entirely virtual. But "less greedy and more generous"? In a world where nothing is worth dying for, why would people be more generous? if anything, I'd see people being LESS generous- generosity is a virtue that takes training and self sacrifice, and if nothing is worth sacrificing for, there's no need to be generous.
Who ever said in an ideal world, nothing would be worth striving for? Dying for. Not striving for. There is a big difference.
" In a world where nothing is worth dying for, why would people be more generous? "
Why wouldn't they? It happens all the time already. People can be generous to other people without dying for them. You wouldn't know what to do with yourself in an ideal world. It would just irk you seeing everyone happy and living in peace and harmony.
In a world where nothing is worth dying for, then there is NO NEED to go out of your way to help anybody, for any reason.
I don't believe peace and harmony is possible anymore- the attitude of the left wing forcing conformity with their ideals has destroyed any hope of peace for me.
What? There is no striving for something that doesn't require one to die for it?
"In a world where nothing is worth dying for, then there is NO NEED to go out of your way to help anybody, for any reason."
Boy. Everything has to be one extreme or the other. Why can't I go out of my way for someone without dying for them?
"I don't believe peace and harmony is possible anymore- the attitude of the left wing forcing conformity with their ideals has destroyed any hope of peace for me."
That's silly. People can agree to disagree and still peacefully coexist. What kind of Christian are you?
Yes, only the extremes make any sense to me at all. The grey stuff in the middle just seems like rationalization, rather than rationality "I want to do X and I don't want anybody to tell me I'm wrong".
The concept of self-sacrifice *requires* that you do something to harm yourself. The concept of true generosity requires self-sacrifice.
I don't believe in win-win scenarios either; most of the time, when somebody claims a scenario is win-win, it is because they are withholding some vital bit of information from the losing party.
Is working two jobs to put your kids through school self-sacrifice? Do you do harm to yourself working two jobs? Not necessarily.
I don't know anything about Asperger's. But I see that you are extremely intelligent but also incapable of dealing with shades of gray. It is all or nothing with everything.
Extremely intelligent without being able to deal with the abstract is one of the more accurate stereotypes of people with my condition. Some of us think it may be the next stage in human evolution- but from my Catholic side, I sincerely hope not. Empathy is a myth to me completely outside of my experience, compassion mimicked only at a huge cost of brain thinking cycles. Agape? That's the hardest love of all, because it demands self-sacrifice and that is *extremely* hard for me to do.
The only way that could happen through natural selection would be that those without the trait would be less likely to reproduce than those with it. That would require eugenics on a massive scale.