The Common Good? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Modern liberalism. Civil rights and liberties, State responsibility to the people (welfare).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Spider Jerusalem
#1132345
Then they can be executed, or put into hard labor. If they got so much energy then they need to use it wisely. Or they can choose not to, that's thier perogative.

But they have no right to use it destructively or haphazardly. Sex isn't a right, it's a privlage. Atleast in a civil society. Therfore there should be liscences, warrants, contracts, etc.

If people think sex should be as free as breathing, then they don't need to live in a civilized society and instead need to be out in the wilderness climbing up trees to get breakfast and hunting game.
By Zyx
#1132365
Sex isn't a right, it's a privlage.


Best Quote 2007 8)

Sex is not a privilege to be handed down by the government, sex predates government, sex predates humans. There was life, and then there was sex.

It may or may not be a right, but it is not something that government should have any say in.

If people think sex should be as free as breathing, then they don't need to live in a civilized society and instead need to be out in the wilderness climbing up trees to get breakfast and hunting game.


What part of civilized society mandates no sex? Whether I eat sitting on a table, or drink water from a fountain how is this at all related to my sex life?

Society was not built around the pretext of controlling "sex" -- nor for elitist goals of exclusively seeding the planet.
By Spider Jerusalem
#1132374
So what gives the goverment the role to mandate anything?

If goverment has no place regulating something as important as sex, why then is it so damn important to you that they mandate

economic redistrubution
ownership
trade agreements
law and order
transportation
speech
hygiene standards (by the way, it's safe to say being overly sexual is of poor hygiene...)

hell, for that matter why do liberals think goverment has a right to mandate every other way we use our bodies? If people are free to have sex why can't I smoke in public?

Why can't I buy alchahol till i'm eighteen? (By the way i'm 21)

Why can't I legaly ingest harder drugs like cocaine or hash?

There is no consitency on the left. They make exceptions for irrelevant things, but valiantly defend someone's right to something way more dangerous.

The goverment regulates everything else I can even thinkof, but somehow preventing sexual deviance is crossing the line..
By Zyx
#1132394
Before you can even have sex legaly you have to pass a mental exam. Depending on how badly you fail, you either don't get your liscence till you take the test again, or even face sterilization.

Darwin's theory comrades.


Umm . . . you are regulating reproduction, that's just bizarre and twisted.

So what gives the goverment the role to mandate anything?


Government is a treaty of cohabitation, and legal resolutions.

I guess were children having sex a real problem that had real terrible effects we'd probably address it, like we do, but sterilizing a teenager is just stupid.

If people are free to have sex why can't I smoke in public?


Smoking is an unhealthy and costly luxury that siphon's a communities money and human capital toward unproductive and unbeneficial existences. Besides one CAN smoke in public.

Why can't I buy alchahol till i'm eighteen?


Arbitrary rhetoric to suggest that alcohol usage should be decided by a rational person. Suppose you developed a habit in your younger days that is too difficult now to do away with, would you like how government allotted the freedom for you to have developed this habit?

Why can't I legaly ingest harder drugs like cocaine or hash?


Your own personal wellbeing and the wellbeing of others.

Dude legislation is responsive, meaning when bad shit happens the law responds to it. Back when there was no drinking age it was noted that kids were dipshits, rowdy and irresponsible, blah blah, so they said ok, so they should not drink . . . but then some people said they need to drink so they said ok then when you are 18.

Government was not invented in a day, it is refined like a science according to observations made.

Also

by the way, it's safe to say being overly sexual is of poor hygiene...


is false.

If a dude has sex with his wife everyday he does not have lower hygiene then a dude who has sex with his wife once a year.

This is 2007, not 1007.
By Spider Jerusalem
#1132439
Nice strawman "oh his wife" i'm obviously not talking about married people. I'm talking about idiots who think they're "playas" or whatever and spreading thier seed making asses out of themselves. I shouldn't have to deal with them exsisting. I pay taxes, I cooperate with the laws of the land, I'm owed a good castration of several idiots.

Liberalism is communism without the balls to admit it, and it never made sense to me why most communists are so socialy libertarian. It doesn't make any sense.

Communism is about having people work to thier maximum potential for the bennefit of the community. Each according to his need and ability. That has nothing to do with wants or freedoms.

Therefore illicet sex is not only irrelevant but counterproductive to a succesful communism. Illicet sex only hinders the working class because it spreads disease, thereby hindering the labor unions, it steers thier attention away from helping the community, there is no place for sexual recreation in a liberal society. So liberals contradict thier own agenda.

I'm not really suprised. Americans are retarded.
By Zyx
#1132494
i'm obviously not talking about married people.


It was not obvious . . . you are correlating STDs with sexual promiscuity . . . one can lose one's virginity and gain an STD. Sex is not inherently dangerous, unsafe sex is definitively dangerous; "Liberals" are pushing for sex education, it is the conservatives who make "these idiots" walk about.

I pay taxes, I cooperate with the laws of the land, I'm owed a good castration of several idiots


Castration is a bit serious mind you. You need to attack the problem not the problem makers, castrating some promiscuous people, like killing some murderers, does not change the fact that murderers and promiscuous people will erupt, you need to educate children in school about safe sex and what not, and these children will not spread STDs.


Liberalism is communism without the balls to admit it, and it never made sense to me why most communists are so socialy libertarian. It doesn't make any sense.

Communism is about having people work to thier maximum potential for the bennefit of the community. Each according to his need and ability. That has nothing to do with wants or freedoms.


You just said liberalism is about "having people work to their maximum potential for the benefit of the community." by your liberalism is communism, communism is . . . and then you said that that is not liberalism. Look man, don't use random sentences as logical devices, they do not make sense.

Therefore illicet sex is not only irrelevant but counterproductive to a succesful communism


No one is trying to make a successful communism, you just randomly asserted liberalism was communism, and that we are not being successful communist. What, we never said we were communists!

Illicet sex only hinders the working class because it spreads disease,


What are you talking about here? Unsafe sex spreads diseases! There is very twisted logic in this post.

If you mean that prostitutes spread diseases and should be castrated, then you forget that that is there only source of income, not to mention their trade, though illegal under the law, if legalized would probably insist on better regulations hence less spreading.

If you mean young teens having sex then you need to address the fact that these kids live in conservative towns in which the children are not taught about sex and are not parented close enough to prohibit them from "illicit?" sexual activities. You can not have your cake and eat it too. Either conservatives need to have schools educate their children about sex, or conservatives need to educate their kids on sex, properly, and monitor their socializing.

Look up; Syphillis in Conyers, Georgia.

Americans are retarded.


What a liberal phrase! :muha2:
User avatar
By Citizen J
#1132521
What an incredible devolution of the subject.

My first observation is that Spider Jerusalem, apparently, has not had any nookie in a very long time. I told you sexual repression comes out as violence. :lol:
Seriously, you so full of hate that I mildly doubt your stability.

Second, you're ranting. You're becoming incoherent. I suggest you dial down the rampaging emotions and restore some sense of stability in your posts.

In the meantime, I'm afraid Spider Jerusalem has lost credibility here folk.
By Spider Jerusalem
#1132581
Why do liberals say it? "Lose credibility"

Seriously, do they think anybody actually cares what a liberal thinks? What do liberals support?

Slavery? We work our asses off paying taxes and for what? To teach people how to be idiots and criminals? Sex education is bassicaly in a liberal's mind "here's how not to get STDs so you can be a whore responsibility" talk about having your cake and eating it too.

Liberalism also thinks we should punish the concept not the people. What the hell... you can't stop an abstract concept such as illicet sex, i'm not stupid, I know it's going to happen. But by punishing the individual, you insure it's done in the least amount possible, also it sends a clear message of it won't be tolerated and thus is not done as often do to fear. And yes, I think people should be afraid. God knows I have to be afraid for my life and not even comforted cause the goverment is wholly neoliberal and unrealiable.

Liberalism is haphazard and irrational logic of a police state without the perks of social stability. They worry about fascism and oppression only because they want the social freedoms of libertarnsm without the work involves or the self-dependance. It's complete jargon that I'd expect even a child not to consider.

They support chaos, unjust labor, criminal mercy, and murder against the unborn.

And have the audaisty to act as if what they think makes a damn bit of differance. Frankly Citizen J, if I didn't lose credibility from your backward standards, I'd think I've done something wrong.

To know you think less of me is a sign i'm thinking logicaly and in the best interest of society. By the way, liberalism in the 60s was all about emotion and passion.

So apparently you're not liberal, you're just a dick.
By Zyx
#1132594
Sex education is bassicaly in a liberal's mind "here's how not to get STDs so you can be a whore responsibility"


So what is your complaint? You do not want people to have sex is that it? I thought you were complaining against unsafe sex. Besides compare American statistics with European statistics. Mind you the image of whatever you have in mind is not the correct image, those sex craved whorish children you are thinking about are upper middle class/ middle class suburbanites who are getting no decent education in sex. You want to kill every suburbanite be my guess but its really stupid if you are pushing forward your stupid agenda and not even knowing who are your enemies. So the girl down your street that said good morning to you is probably sleeping with your dog at nights because you refuse to acknowledge that she needs to be taught something about sex and sexual expression.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/onap/facts.html

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1123322



Liberalism also thinks we should punish the concept not the people.


Aye tell me why you disapprove of cultural factors affecting adult activities. You say kill the guy who shot a gun at his teacher ignoring that the gun was only obtained because American society allows guns to be obtained easily, and also he only shot his teacher because American culture fosters a behavior of putting blame on teachers.

What the hell... you can't stop an abstract concept such as illicet sex,


Yeah you can, look at the other nations that achieve at not being such sex-craved monsters as Americans . . . you can think that Americans are genetically more sexual than others, but the rest of us liberal minded people think that American culture is over sexualized. See the difference?

Remember not too long ago kids were seen applauding at lynching events--should these kids be branded racists and killed for complying with the crime--or should lynching be illegalized?

murder against the unborn.


You misunderstand that a person has a personality, if fetuses are humans then so is bacteria.

To know you think less of me is a sign i'm thinking logicaly and in the best interest of society.


What best interest of society, a woman is impregnated and does not want to carry a child but you wish to make her go through 18 years of punishment while the child's father rumbles around to cause another unwanted pregnancy?

Maybe you do not understand the commitment to a child that can be avoided by a simple operation; besides the potential for life is not life. I think nothing of my sperm cells, nor do I think anything of a woman's period as a waste of life, nor do I think anything of my hair strands that can be cloned.

Problem with conservatives is they do not know a care a thing about people having privacy; they'd rather we all be bible huggers isolationist with control over the entire world then be a free and educated society.

Godbots are why America is stupid.
By Spider Jerusalem
#1132610
Neoliberals are why America is stupid. We pay taxes to supply adoption centers for mothers ill prepared to parent a child.

If a fetus is a bacteria, then by an equivalent stick a person is an animal.

And last I checked animals don't have rights.
By Zyx
#1132622
If a fetus is a bacteria, then by an equivalent stick a person is an animal.


Actually I was going to say tree, or tiger, or something BUT I decided that I actually would not kill these things over a fetus. Also, humans are animals hence our belonging to the animal kingdom. Unless you mean the definition of animal as non-human non-plant? Humans are animals though by the scientific definition.

Also animals do have "rights" but they are not all entirely outlined in our law system.

Neoliberals are why America is stupid. We pay taxes to supply adoption centers for mothers ill prepared to parent a child.


Also this is a REALLY stupid statement. You are saying that we should not have adoption centers and thus have ill prepared mothers parent children. That is a really stupid thing to argue for. You can at least sugar coat it. You are in a political ideology all your own sir.
By Spider Jerusalem
#1132637
When did I say we shouldn't have adoption centers?

You're only hearing what you want to hear. All I said was "we pay taxes for a reason".
By Zyx
#1132654
Your use of "tone" is degenerate. I was mislead into thinking you were making a complaint since you preceded your statement with an insult.

I guess I should not think that you make pointless statements outside of your ideological nonsense.
By Spider Jerusalem
#1132659
Guess not. :p

By the way, why should I take what you say seriously, I mean look at you avatar... Madonna, yeah, great political figure. :hmm:
By Zyx
#1132666
I mean look at you avatar... Madonna, yeah, great political figure


What's so bad about Madonna? Besides who else publicizes the Aids crisis in Africa or encourages sexual expression? She's a good girl, I chose her though because I like her not so that I can be judged as an authority.

Listen to those with Reagan and Bush avatars all you want, Madonna is still a great person and I'd rather be looked down and silenced as her fan than respected for idealizing someone who could not give a rats ass for the suffering outside of his/her household.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#1156309
Madonna is an excellent avatar.

She is a celebrity, which is the modern media-age equivalent of a saint.

This is how the money society beatifies its best - it puts them on Letterman and finds them a coke dealer and sushi chef.

This is an example of "the public good" in that is was always assumed that the public would benefit if certain "admirable" examples of human achievment were recognised and reified by church (or media) decree.

Is celebrity culture an example of the common good contaminated by commercial interests?
User avatar
By MeMe
#14732288
@ all
After the first few reactions the present thread already becomes off-topic. However, the topic itself is worth yet some more considerations.
Individualis wrote:Liberals like to bring up "the common good" as an excuse for their repeated violations of individual rights. If a liberal would be so gracious as to oblige, I'd like this term defined.

Often the common good is equated to the public services. These public goods yield positive external effects. That is to say, once the public good is realized, it is beneficial for everybody. A typical example is a dike, which contains the river or the sea. The problem with the public good is, that nobody can be excluded from its "consumption". Therefore the people are tempted to become free riders: they consume the good, but refuse to pay for it. The state tries to solve this problem by collecting taxes from his citizens.
Citizen wrote:The common good is the concept of serving the needs of the many over the needs of the few. Which is, for the most part, a logical statement in the philosophy of ethics.

An illustration of this case is the access to health care for all, in order to prevent contagious diseases. Some citizens may reject this arrangement, for instance because they are prepared to accept the risk, or it conflicts with their religious belief. The state will enforce the arrangement on these rebellious citizens.
Citizen wrote:But what about things like narcotics, abortion, or health care? Should everyone have free and easy access to any or all of them 'for the common good'? Some would say yes, and others would say no.

The answer of Adam Smith is that an objective observer exists. The objective observer is benevolent, and does not favour some groups above others. In other words, it is possible to determine in a rational and reasonable way, whether a certain collective good is beneficial for all. Since (and probably already before) Smith the existence of the objective observer is often assumed. For instance, central planning assumes that the planning agency can balance the interests of all citizens.
Individualis wrote:Why should the needs of the many be of a higher priority than the needs of the few? What is it about being part of a group that is larger in number than another group that gives it the right to take from the smaller group? Is it mere strength in numbers?

The philosophical answer is that the citizens have together founded the state, and they seal this act by signing a social contract. The social contract appoints among others the sovereign of the state. In a democracy this will be the elected parliament.
QatzelOk wrote:For example, most North American households have a car, and desire better highways and more free parking.

This is a common want.

But it is far from the common good. It is pretty close to the biggest "common bad" that mankind has ever witnessed.

Examples must be used with care, since they tend to lead to off-topic discussions. On the other hand, a reply to an active PoFo member (here, QatzelOk) is probably a common good. Cars do indeed not qualify as a common good, because they are consumed by only the owner and not subject to free riding. Moreover, nobody is forced to buy a car. However cars do apparently elicit a common want. Cars enhance the human freedom to travel, and in this way open new worlds to mankind. The highways increase the usefulness of cars, and therefore highways are a common good. On the other hand, the pollution and the noise of cars and the stress due to traffic jams are negative externalities, which harm the common good. Evidently this requires some compromise with regard to car use. This is a practical question of policy and its execution.
QatzelOk wrote:Is celebrity culture an example of the common good contaminated by commercial interests?

Perhaps you overestimate the knowledge and wisdom, that is available on PoFo? :?:
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#14733133
MeMe wrote:Cars do indeed not qualify as a common good, because they are consumed by only the owner and not subject to free riding. Moreover, nobody is forced to buy a car. However cars do apparently elicit a common want.

You have to be careful with confusing "common good" with "commonly-owned objects."

Cars seemed like they would become part of the common good in the early 20th Century. But after almost 100 years of their proliferation, kids can't play in city streets, the earth is baking from pollution, a million people get mowed down by cars every year, and the consumption of these products creates a (literally) murderous divide between people in developing countries that don't have all the colonialist plunder that rich countries use to treat themselves with.

To be "common," cars would have to not risk driving humanity to extinction through pollution and wars-for-oil.

People tend to forget that the French now have a s[…]

Neither is an option too. Neither have your inte[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls There is no ethnic cleansing going o[…]

They are building a Russian Type nuclear reactor..[…]