The bad moral value of force

@SunshineGirl God is the greatest philosopher. Nietzsche was the second greatest philosopher. Rousseau thought we are born free when we aren't, and Hobbes believed that we need to be controlled by the state, so we do not descend into war and chaos. He does seem to assume the worst in people. Hobbes was apparently afraid of being burned at the stake for heresy. The last person in England to be burned for heresy was in 1612, and Hobbes harbored these thoughts from 1666 onwards. How likely is it that he would have been burned?

War is imposing your will on others when they have not asked for it. It is assuming evil intentions and not giving us the freedom to make our own decisions, which concern our own lives and our own families.

Rousseau is a writer of fiction. He said good things about raising children, but he put all five of his children in an orphanage. They were deprived of their mother breastfeeding them and were not shielded from negative influences. He said those things, yet did that. Their chances of survival in an orphanage in infancy were no more than 45 percent.

@emiliya Unlikely, although he did have some contact with Galileo. His social contract theory was developed in response to a devastating war. His patron was on the losing side and this may have placed him in danger until the restoration of the monarchy in 1660.

Rouuseau used fictional narrative to express his ideas, as did many enlightenment philosophers. He differed from Hobbes in believing that man in a state of nature was a "noble savage" corrupted only by the ownership of property and division of labour which leads to inequality and oppression. His philosophy is overwhelmingly positive and makes no mention of evil.

The social contract guarantees that the individual will not be subordinated to the will of others. Sovereignty is vested in the general will of the people, which ensures that individuals are collectively authors of the law. This is the moral foundation of a improved system of government . . in contrast to Hobbes who envisages a benign dictatorship to save individuals from original sin and their inherently flawed and violent natures.

@emiliya At the time Friedman called himself a liberal, the term meant FREE MARKET LAISSEZ FAIRE CAPITALISM.
Liberalism took the Nazi turn in the early Sixties due to the Port Huron Statement.

@Reason10 It has been applied in different ways for centuries. The Canadian Liberal party was based on what is now called Libertarian ideas in the 1800s.

One thing that has never had anything to do with the term is nazism.

@Roundandroundwego
WRONG.

The LEFT WING Adolf Biden regime has brought WAR to the world and has brought this planet closer than ever before to WWIII.
As far as anti violence?
This is YOUR goose stepping left wing side of the aisle.

@Reason10 Pictures from a Trump rally.

@Reason10 Oh and vandalism is not violence.

But we know right wingers love corporate power.

@SatanBurger Many of us fight evil with evil. Have you ever been hurt and wanted to get back at the person?

The left responds to supposed racism with racism. If a person says they do not want to use a gender pronoun the other wants, we start looking at laws and making it illegal for them to do that. This is evil. Compelling others, through the law, to use language you prefer is of the devil. Trying to get rid of capitalism because most of the world is poor is evil. If it isn't yours, it is not yours to take. Socialism is greed and it is necessary for the government to interfere more. Is this kind of government interventionism good?

Wealth means freedom. Maybe poverty means freedom too, if you can get enough food and resources together to live in the middle of nowhere. What is not freedom are government handouts, taxes, the government educating our children, the government telling us what words to use, and the government doing everything for us.

@emiliya Respecting people's pronouns is about respect for the person and honestly doesn't take much beyond getting to know the other person.

I could see if you didn't know that person's pronouns and they jumped on you about it maybe.

But the cases I've seen in the news of conservatives refusing to use pronouns is just the conservative being outright disrespectful because they refuse to acknowledge trans individuals and their rights.

Deep down refusing to use pronouns is refusing to understand the person you're talking to because you don't acknowledge trans rights nor understand advanced biology enough to really understand them.

You talk a lot but talking a whole bunch and having genuine understanding of a complex subject is two entirely different things.

It's not evil to demand respect but if you refused to acknowledge someone's right to exist and the issues that affect them, you would think it's evil because you would see it as an attack on your religious freedom.

But just because something is seen as evil by you doesn't mean it actually is.

@SatanBurger It is hard to tell with some of them. Am I too blame if a male or female still look like their sex? If they still look like their sex, some people are going to call them a man when they are a man and a woman when they are a woman. I might indulge them if they are nice to me and give me reason to. I am a human being, so if they do something to upset me, and I fail to turn the other cheek, I may just refer to them by their real pronoun. What is for certain is that no one should be compelled by law to call them by their “preferred pronoun.” We need fewer laws, not more of them. We need more free speech, not less of it. The world needs less interference from their governments, not more of it.