The State

[RWStanding]

The State
It is impossible to to talk rationally about ethics, economics, politics – which is to say social ethics – other than on the fundamental basis of what form of society we believe in. That belief being partly rational or pragmatic and partly by sentiment. It is my conviction that any and all society must of course have law that maintains stability, but may have no specific ethical basis beyond that. There are logically three opposing forms of society, national and otherwise. One has minimal concern for freedom and equality. The second has minimal concern for duty and responsibility. While the third has espouses minimal personal and inter-social egoism. The first may be best termed authoritarian or outright tyranny. The second personal and social anarchism or laissez-faire. The third holistic democracy. The first espouses global unity. The second global independence, The third global interdependence. In the nature of these opposing forms of society, there cannot be more than a minimal degree of ethical-political agreement. Only those nations and societies that are going in the same direction can sensibly compromise with each other, where there are inevitable conflicting needs. A compromise or ‘deal’ between a democracy, and tyranny, or anarchism, almost certainly signifies a loss to democracy. It may be pointed out that democracy requires public elections, but is defined by ethical values, and the public may be deluded in their opinions when they vote. A democracy must be ruled by social institutions, and not simply by the state, or mass individualism.

[Impenitent]

to begin: one is born into a tyranny

basic autonomy develops and one learns to make primitive choices for oneself

one learns how to communicate and deal with others (mother/father/siblings/guardians/other orphans/teachers/classmates) and more choices become available...

responsibility from choice appears

-Imp

[commonsense]

Belgium.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Belgium.

There's no need for that Zaphod!

[anthonypaulrobinson]

The State
It is impossible to to talk rationally about ethics, economics, politics – which is to say social ethics – other than on the fundamental basis of what form of society we believe in. That belief being partly rational or pragmatic and partly by sentiment. It is my conviction that any and all society must of course have law that maintains stability, but may have no specific ethical basis beyond that. There are logically three opposing forms of society, national and otherwise. One has minimal concern for freedom and equality. The second has minimal concern for duty and responsibility. While the third has espouses minimal personal and inter-social egoism. The first may be best termed authoritarian or outright tyranny. The second personal and social anarchism or laissez-faire. The third holistic democracy. The first espouses global unity. The second global independence, The third global interdependence. In the nature of these opposing forms of society, there cannot be more than a minimal degree of ethical-political agreement. Only those nations and societies that are going in the same direction can sensibly compromise with each other, where there are inevitable conflicting needs. A compromise or ‘deal’ between a democracy, and tyranny, or anarchism, almost certainly signifies a loss to democracy. It may be pointed out that democracy requires public elections, but is defined by ethical values, and the public may be deluded in their opinions when they vote. A democracy must be ruled by social institutions, and not simply by the state, or mass individualism.

Lie, cheat, and steal - all you want.

This will go in your criminal history report as fraud.