Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

Why would I care about their motives if they do come up with the most efficient and viable solution to an actual problem that benefits the greatest number of people.

A vision is only social engineering if the vision requires artificially manipulating a society to steer it toward a specific social goal. The motivations of social engineering usually start with good intentions, however, the results usually create a lot of unintended and undesirable consequences.

robertv3

"artificially manipulating": Got it. I think I understand the distinction you are making.

A vision might lead a society to progress in some "non-artificial" way, a way which we would not derogatorily call "manipulating".

Another way to say this might be to distinguish whether deception is used, and/or to distinguish whether some right(s) were being violated in the process.

For example, I would say that people have a right to self-determination. You'd probably agree with that statement. I would apply the same statement to people all over the world.

But I would not only apply it to individuals; I would also apply it to collectives (groups). (E.g., some group might organize themselves together and then identify as a group with what some measure of "sufficient majority" v**e is within the group.).

(Individuals _only_, with _never_ any working together as a group, would not be good enough.)

The right to self-determination may not be absolute, though. If some person or group were to self-determine themselves to be terrorists against other folks, then they'd be violating some right of those other folks. So there probably needs to be some balancing of rights, rather than to say any particular right is absolute.

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

Certainly true. JFK's man on the moon was a vision that lead to progress for all of society. However it was not done for social engineering purposes to build a designed social order or result. Hitler was the extreme example of the opposite. Extreme social engineering. A politician using government to push a social vision. ie the Master Race.



You do not have the right to "apply this (your vision) to people all over the world". We can set an example. Even promote an idea. But if other countries have chosen a path of theology, or c*******m, or royal rule, or dictatorship, or wh**ever, it is not our place to apply (apply meaning force) our vision on them. Just as with an individual, our countries rights are limited to arms reach.

The obvious response to this is that individual rights and self determination are limited to arms length. You rights do not, nor should they ever, take precedence or overrule the rights of others. The same can be said of like minded groups or collectives of people. Once you step outside this parameter then you, as an individual or as a collective, have become a threat to a other individuals and society as a whole. You have become a threat to liberty.

robertv3

You say, 'You do not have the right to "apply this (your vision) to people all over the world".'

I read the above two paragraphs. I find that you continue in the same vein, ending with "You have become a threat to liberty."

What I had said was:

"I would say that people have a right to self-determination. You'd probably agree with that statement. I would apply the same statement to people all over the world."

Do you understand exactly what I said?

Note what "self-determination" means.

Do you still think I'm wrong to say that people all over the world have a right to self-determination?

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

I have no problem with people all over the world having the right to self determination. I said that you have no right to "apply" your vision on people all over the world. Different countries, as a society, had the right to self determination. Chinese chose c*******m. Iranians chose a theocracy. They can continue to live under that choice or chose to alter that choice if they want to. We, as a country, can only show a different way by example. That being a constitutional republic governed by the people. As long as we choose to keep it. We do not have the right to "apply" or force our ideals onto them.

robertv3

The only "vision" I had expressed for people "all over the world" was that they would have self-determination.

And you say you have no problem with that.

Yet, for _some_ reason you seem determined (in your earlier post) to say that I "have become a threat to liberty" or (in this more recent post that you wrote) to hint that I would try to "force" something on all those people.

So what is it? Is it something I actually wrote, or something you imagine that I think? And what is that?

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

Perhaps I read your use of the word "apply" as an action verb where it was meant differently. I thought that it was quite clear that that was my interpretation. I noticed that you have dropped that word "apply" in subsequent comments. My apologies if my interpretation of your intent was askew.

As far as my use of the words "a threat to liberty", I stand by my words. Anyone who wishes to use the full policing force of the government to install an agenda against the entire US population or the entire world population, especially a unproven theory such as man made c*****e c****e, is a threat to liberty.

robertv3

You say, 'As far as my use of the words "a threat to liberty", I stand by my words. Anyone who wishes to use the full policing force of the government to install an agenda against the entire US population or the entire world population, especially a unproven theory such as man made c*****e c****e, is a threat to liberty.'

If you encounter anyone who "wishes to use the full policing force of the government to install an agenda against the entire US population or the entire world population", let me know who they are. Aside from your comment, I haven't heard of such people yet in very modern times.

The _nearest_ equivalent I can think of in very modern times is Trump & Co. which might have tried to use the U.S. military to confiscate v****g machines or otherwise do things to try to find some way to overturn a proper and legally decided e******n, all for just exactly an (to borrow your phrasing) "unproven theory" such as the unproven theory that there were many thousands of fraudulent v**es cast, enough to change the outcome of the e******n.

If I go back a century or more, I might find a couple of better examples of similar things, though.

What I had said was: "For example, I would say that people have a right to self-determination. You'd probably agree with that statement. I would apply the same statement to people all over the world." Here, "Applying" the same statement means that I would say the statement like this:

People all over the world have a right to self-determination.

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

Perhaps "policing force" was the wrong term. "Policing powers" would be more correct. Though many agencies within the US government such as the IRS , the FDA or other regulating agencies do act as a policing force.

Certainly Obama's use of taxes and regulations to drive an entire industry, coal, into bankruptcy would qualify as using the policing powers of the US government.

Certainly the attempts to outlaw the purchase of new gasoline powered vehicles by a certain date qualifies as the use of government policing powers.

Certainly attempts to outlaw certain guns or even bullets is certainly qualifies as the use of government policing powers.

Certainly the imposition of carbon taxes to eliminate fossil and favor green qualifies as the use of government policing powers.

Certainly the use of laws to impose racial quotas favoring one race over another qualifies as the use of government policing powers.

Do I need to go on?

As far as using a "might have" against Trump. That is just silly. Trump believed he was trying to secure evidence he believed would possibly, rightly or wrongly, prove e******n f***d. Hardly the same as using government policing powers to manipulate society to conform to certain politically preferred ideals.

robertv3

Good post; thanks.

No, you don't need to go on. I get the gist of what you mean to say. I disagree in sentiment, at least, but am not prepared to argue the details. Broadly I say that government might properly do some of those things if doing them reflects the will of the majority of the people.

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

Enjoyed the civil discourse. Thanks.

Final thought. That's where you understanding of this country is opposite of mine. To me the very main purpose of the Constitution as amended and Bill Of Rights is to protect minorities from the "will of the majority". Admittedly it has fallen short in the past, especially toward African Americans and American Indians due to the state of humanity and the failure of human beings at that time, but, that was the dream. To me the very idea that the government has the right to harm one individual purely to benefit another is a slap in the face of the very foundation of our country.

robertv3

You make reference 'to protecting minorities from the "will of the majority"'. Good point. I've been thinking of that too, while recalling my last post.

A similar thought is "the tyranny of the majority", another phrase I've heard some time ago.

Also: sometimes "supermajorities" are appropriate requirements. There might be various levels of supermajority (67%, 80%, ...) that ought to be required for various kinds of actions. I imagine there might even be some dire actions which should require 100% consensus but no good example comes to mind.

Generally, though, the will of a majority or some supermajority of the population can rightly justify some actions by a government. I suppose it to be done without deceit and without violating some more important right.

To imagine and support such a thing, one needs at least a trace of hope (not total pessimism and cynicism about what humans organized into a group are or are not capable of) and a belief that occasionally humans _can_ organize themselves to do something good as a group.

I say that with a bit of humor, because I think humans organizing themselves into groups _surely_ are sometimes a good thing, while some people, such as yourself, at times seem prone to deny even that, with such extreme emphasis on individual freedoms and too-extreme distrust of "government" in (it seems to me) an unfortunately wholesale generalizing kind of way.

Sorry if I stepped on your "final" thought. Anyway, I think I understand the basic idea you are expressing. And:
there has to be some appropriate balance.