I saw the following in a comment by my favorite trouble maker mynym, and wanted to republish him here. Nice.
They don’t even deserve Liberty, so the end of the cycle of civilization fits them:Plato says that from the exaggerated license which people call liberty, tyrants spring up as from a root…and that at last such liberty reduces a nation to slavery. Everything in excess is changed into its opposite…For out of such an ungoverned populace one is usually chosen as a leader…someone bold and unscrupulous…who curries favor with the people by giving them other men’s property. To such a man….the protection of public office is given, and continually renewed. He…emerges as a tyrant over the very people who raised him to power. –Cicero (De republica, i, 2.)
As you define decadence as anything you don't personally like Seeker – and I'm sure that Mynym's definition goes about as far – you can obviously understand my hatred for this nonsense. The decadent do deserve their freedom, especially if their decadence DOESN'T HURT ANYBODY ELSE.
This sounds more like an excerpt from a book report on Animal Farm…. what was your intent in posting?
If it was that the "decadent" were to be punished… is this with regard to the current Administration?
Your error is in assuming that a lifestyle of decadence, particularly immorality, doesn't hurt anyone.
Every year, we pay millions in tax dollars on people who are obese, people who are sexually promiscous who contract diseases, drug users, smokers etc. All of these seem to be irresponsible, if not decadent.
But real decadence is when we don't exercise common sense restraint, in effect keeping ourselves from no pleasures, becoming fat, lazy, and stupid. And then we give approval to these behaviors.
This type of wanton disrepect for character and responsibility leads to chaos ruin, and the solution for chaos? We want somone to rescue us (government is our savior) instead of taking responsibility. So we willingly hand ourselves over to someone else who we trust to run our lives. That's how despotism often occurs. And I believe that is what Cicero is talking about.
No one is saying the decadent should be punished, but rather, a decadent society is irresponsible and abuses liberty, therefore, it doesn't really deserve such a precious commodity, which is wasted on it. Even worse, they squander it, and end up asking for someone to take care of their problems for them, and in doing so, give their liberty away and wonder where it went!
Gentlemen,
Both you believe yourself to be living appropriate lives. This much is clear. You thus assume that Gays (Mynym's apparently favorite whipping boy) and whomever else that Seeker doesn't like AREN'T living appropriate lives, but rather decadent ones.
What neither of you seems to fundamentally understand is that ours is a nation predicated, at least in part, on the rights of everybody to pursue their happiness, decadent or otherwise. Seeker, Mynym, if you're happy going to church four times a week, tithing, doing whatever else, fine. But you're no more deserving of your liberty than I am (a man who thinks going to church is abhorrent, that tithing is abhorrent, and very much enjoys being free to make his own decisions).
From time to time, both of you implicitly suggest an America that very closely resembles our friends in Iran. Freedom for those who use those freedoms to do nothing. No freedoms for those actually interested in the exploration of the world. In other words, everybody can be free to be an evangelical Christian, because that is the right way. Nobody should be free to be anything but an evangelical Christian, because that is the wrong way.
For the millionth time, I have no problem with how the two of you choose to live your life, and if anybody argued that you shouldn't be allowed to make those decisions for yourself, I'd be the first person at your sides. I know deep down that I cannot count on the same kind of support from either of you, which is both concerning and irritating. How you can be so arrogant is beyond me.
(And before you go getting upset about being called arrogant Seeker, how else can I describe your implicitly held position that about every, single, topic, you are correct? If you ever budged an inch on anything, then your arrogance would dissipate, but as it is, you seem to lack the ability to acknowledge that you're wrong. Take, for example, your constant abuse of my character. You have accused me of being a jerk, of not thinking, of being a child, of being illogical, etcetera. When I impugn your character, you go crazy. You then do PRECISELY the same thing to me and then act as if you're better. It's like the preacher telling everybody else to avoid pornography while he himself is subscribing. You cannot be pissed at me for insulting you when you're doing precisely the same thing to me.)
Both you believe yourself to be living appropriate lives. This much is clear.
Actually, that's an interesting assumption – you assume that because people feel free to criticize others (like those who criticize Bush?) consider themselves some kind of perfect people. However, that assumption is a little off. We all have room for improvement. But we are not attacking specific people, but rather, the groups who are pushing for *acceptance* of aberrant behaviors, rather than resisting such impulses.
I mean, just yesterday, I was at Borders and was tempted to look at the girly magazines. It *was* tempting, and I had to resist temptation. I'm a sinner too. I just don't go around telling everyone that porno is really OK.
What neither of you seems to fundamentally understand is that ours is a nation predicated, at least in part, on the rights of everybody to pursue their happiness, decadent or otherwise.
Actually, I disagree. In fact, all of us have LIMITED freedoms so that we don't let our more base urges hurt one another. I have the freedom to hurt myself, but I certainly do not have the right to "unlimited pursuit of pleasure" or happiness. What you are advocating seems to be HEDONISM, which is exactly the kind of decadence and lack of self-control and virtue that leads to chaos.
What mynym's great quotes from the founders are talking about are the benefits of virtues like hard work, temperance, and honesty. Human nature tends towards laziness in these areas, i.e. decadence, which leads to all kinds of evils. That's the whole point. Such people inevitably surrender their freedom to others who can restore order, because they are unable to do so. They don't "deserve" liberty because they abuse it, and end up giving it away willingly.
The problem with your logic, in my view, is that you seem to equate any limits on fredom as totalitarian ("like Iran"), and any criticism of excess as an attack on freedom.
In fact, this quote says NOTHING about legislating – it merely says that personal decadence leads to ruin, and inevitably, such people look to the state to restore order rather than taking personal responsibility for their actions (i.e. virtue that they should have had in the first place), and in doing so, hand over their power willingly, creating a tyrant.
Your somewhat libertarian view of "live and let live" is idealistic and naive, and ignores not only the wisdom of history and our founders, but the reality of living in a fallen world that requires virtuous people to maintain order, not through power of legislation, but through influencing the minds of the public.
Regarding legislation however, since the pro-gay lobby is trying to push for legislation, I have no problem trying to halt such efforts through counter-legislation. But I don't prefer doing things that way. It's a sorry thing that we've come so far that we have to make laws to prevent us from making laws justifying such behaviors.
Seeker,
Can you please tell me of the America that you propose? I am on here constantly, telling you what I believe in: an America where individuals are free to do as they please as long as others aren't hurt. I believe in gay marriage, and free speech, and the freedom FROM religion as much as the freedom OF religion.
What do you believe in? What do you want your community to look like? I've asked you this several times, and you refuse to answer. So please, explain to me how our government should work, and how our laws should look. I want to understand what it is that you're gunning for.
Sam, I have refused to answer you because no matter what I say, you already have your mind made up about what you think I am and believe. You are just looking for some other reason to find fault. My pluralism is not the hedonistic, pollyannish, unrealistic, simplistic one that you parade about as the pinnacle of what you think is "American" (note that you differ with the founders on much of what they considered "American"). You can stereotype me all you want, I've stopped listening when you start in with your summaries of how awful a person I must be, and how outraged you are at my ideas and what you think I am saying.
Here's some good posts on God and government I wrote. They should suffice, and feel free to critique them. http://www.wholereason.com/2005/10/is_applying_a_b… http://www.wholereason.com/2005/03/the_five_sphere… http://www.wholereason.com/2005/10/christian_healt… http://www.wholereason.com/2005/03/the_five_functi… http://www.wholereason.com/2005/08/legislating_in_… http://www.wholereason.com/2005/09/what_is_separat… http://www.wholereason.com/2006/01/separation_of_s…
You accuse me of not being decent. So I come on here, and try to act decently. And rather than respond in any sort of substantive way, you again accuse me of not being decent. In same breath that you're questioning my decency, you call me "simplistic," and then accuse of…well, here, let me quote you, "I've stopped listening when you start in with your summaries of how awful a person I must be."
Here's what I wrote:
"Can you please tell me of the America that you propose? I am on here constantly, telling you what I believe in: an America where individuals are free to do as they please as long as others aren't hurt. I believe in gay marriage, and free speech, and the freedom FROM religion as much as the freedom OF religion."
How on Earth is this me starting in on what a horrible person you must be? (Which is exactly my point from previous posts – you feel free to insult me at your leisure. If one insult goes in your direction however, suddenly you are the victimized Christian. This is nonsense. You are just as culpable in our embarrassing back and forths as I am.)
The point of all of this is, let's have a real debate. Explain to me your vision of America. I think this site's other readers would very much enjoy knowing specifically how our laws should be written and our country should be run. I look forward to this meeting of the minds.
First, don't make me quote mine you calling me all kind of names.
Second, I don't impinge your motives (as you have mine), just your arguments themselves. However, words like "simplistic" are a *bit* insutling and pejorative, though I do find that particular adjective an accurate reflection of how I view your position (perhaps inaccurately). However, I can couch it in more friendly language in the future.
If you are genuinely interested in discussion, then I must refer back to the posts I listed.
The question is a bit open-ended.
1. Separation and balance of powers (what we have is pretty good)
2. Limited government, which includes NOT spending money on non-essentials like art (this can be privately funded, along with my dear NPR)
3. Freedom of religion, but not freedom FROM religion
4. Biblical, non-religious principles as the foundation of legislation. Separation of church and state POWER is ok, but separation of state from biblical ideas is wrong, I believe.
5. Protecting life (including for the unborn), liberty (which includes our basic freedoms of religion, assembly, speech, press), and property
6. Keeping government OUT of the moral gray areas like homosexuality by neither condoning nor condemning them (although, polygamy is outlawe – hmmmm).
7. Controlling but not making illegal the use of dangerous things, like tobacco, alcohol, porno, prescription drugs, maybe even marijuana.
8. Reversing current unjust legislation like the graduated tax (although I am for exempting the poor from taxes altogether, but I think the flat tax has merit as being fair) and racial quotas (which are reverse discrimination).
9. Creating a health care system that is a better hybrid of private, government, and personal contribution
10. Education should also run on a hybrid model, not purely govt or private – vouchers and charter schools are one way to allow the free market into education, which will push costs down and quality up. Of course, we'll have to make some rules around how we fund private and religious schools – students will have to pass competency tests in order to get government money, but who cares of they are teaching the bible or the koran as long as they are not inciting violence?
11. Sexual Mores: I think we should legally establish the one man / one woman marriage as the only valid type of marriage. However, I think that domestic partnerships, or civil unions, that don't discriminate based on the type of relationship (gay, familial, friends) should be created so that non-traditional couples or family units can get easier access to fiduciary and other legal rights. The one that Dobson recently supported I think I could support too. I understand that some feel this is still keeping gay (and other) relationships as "second class", but I think that asking for full recognition by the state as a healthy norm to be condoned is improper.
1. The balance of powers is a pretty good idea, although Bush's apparent belief that the "balance of powers" means that all powers be balanced heavily in his direction is not good for America. Our Presidents need to be checked by somebody. Furthermore, the courts generally do a good job of making decisions, allegedly acitivist or otherwise. (I assume you're still supporting our judicial system?)
2. Both NPR and Art are great ways to spend my tax dollars, as far as I'm concerned. I have a daughter who loves Sesame Street, and I find NPR's coverage to be the most balanced that I ever found. I prefer fiscally responsible government to limited – I'd hate for the local fire department to shut down.
3. Of course, I'm for the Freedom from religion. I shouldn't ever have to listen to anything religious ever again.
4. I want the Bible to have no influence on my government. The Bible will only damage our government's approach to objective fairness in my mind.
5. I want a government that values life: hence, government health care, and other carefully managed welfare programs. Poverty shouldn't prevent people from getting flu shots.
6. I too want to keep government out of moral gray areas: hence, no separate but equal. That's morally gray. Legalize gay marriage immediately, so that we can finally understand that it causes no evil, and so that we can move on. I also want the government to immediately crack down on abusive parents.
7. People should have access to their vices, if the use of those vices doesn't hurt anybody. Hence, let the prostitution, pot-smoking and porn-reading begin in earnest.
8. I have no objection to a tax-plan that makes sense. Allowing CEOs to keep all of their undeserved millions strikes me as a ridiculous however. I would only believe in a flat-tax if the rich wouldn't be allowed to stash their money overseas to avoid participation.
9. I prefer regressive measures against the Big Pharm industry, as well as health care providers. Both are obviously gouging both consumers and our government. (Our government is letting them of course, as can be seen by the Medicare debacle.)
10. I want better public schooling, managed fairly so that the best students succeed, not the whitest, richest, or most fortunate. We should have an education system that promotes intelligence, creativity and critical thought. We have an education that promotes none of these.
11. As I wrote, gay marriage should become legal immediately. Abusive parents should go to jail immediately. We need to move on to the more serious issues facing this country.