Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Shameful Display of Anarchy and Violence

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

Does that mean we are a not a "real civilized" country? Meaning, a revolution is necessary?

Harrison was the one (if were interpreting him correctly)  suggesting that for something to be a civilization, the founders of that civilization must recognize the importance of a principle to not initiate force. But this doesn't make sense, unless we say that a "real" civilization is one that meets the standards of an "ideal" civilization. The fact is, we shouldn't use the standards of an ideal to define the real. Plenty of places are real civilizations, even if they were not founded on a principle of not initiating force. The problem is further compounded if we say that the presence of initiation of force invalidates the claim of someplace being a civilization. 

There are definitely shootings all around us every day. Perhaps not your neighborhood, but they happen every day all over the place in this country. Still a civilization. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 593
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

14 January 2021 We will crush their violence enacted under their feast of self-delusion and contempt for our Constitutional rule of law. The republic will prevail. The citizens on both sides are

As America prepares to certify our next President, a large band of hooligans have taken upon themselves to storm the Capitol.  This in the name of Freedom?  Are these hooligans striving to look for th

Also there's an argument to the effect that, well look, the representatives in Congress deserve this. While, strictly speaking, this is correct, it doesn't follow merely from that fact that this is th

Posted Images

10 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Are you saying this principle was discovered and implemented by the founders of each and every civilization that ever existed, stretching back before recorded history? It's not even grasped by every civilization that exists today. Indeed many implement the reverse idea, they initiate force to suppress dissent and maintain an obedient society. I think you're imagining some ideal civilization and using that as the basis for real civilizations.

No, the majority of people throughout history have not been able to explicitly articulate such a principle, and yet most children have a pretty solid pre-verbal awareness of how to actually implement it.  So did everyone who felt like the events of this past year were like something out of another (horrible) universe and that they shouldn't have been possible in ours - whether they were consciously able to identify the nature of their fear or not.

8 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

That's awful what happened, but I'm not understanding how it changed your mind about government. You couldn't count on the police to protect you, so you thought life would be better with police--or worse without them? Without them you could carry a gun or knife and kill anyone who bothered you, problem solved. You could do that now with sufficient cause.

Sorry; I really didn't explain that part very well.

 

When we form a government each of us delegates our right of retaliation to it.  Ayn Rand argues that in any semi-free country there is no good reason to do otherwise.  I used to disagree with that (imagining there could be situations where it made sense, for example, to not delegate that right and settle the matter for oneself) but no longer do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Well, yes.  And strictly speaking I don't think an abusive father could be described as "loving", either (no matter how delusional); if your views on the nature of a particular value are so distorted that you honestly can't tell what moves you towards it from what moves you away from it then you don't understand (and consequently can't really claim to "love") it at all.

They weren't exactly shy about their own beliefs.  Their "love" for Trump and for America was written all over their signs and shouted (I believe literally) from the rooftops.  The fact that they play as fast and loose with the English language as the New Left of the 60's does not make it impossible to ever discover what actually is inside of their skulls; it only adds a few extra layers of difficulty to it.

 

I am picking apart the naive (and intrinsicist-collectivist) mindset which insists that everyone in a mob has the identical morals and unified to a single purpose. That is what the propaganda wants everybody to believe. Obviously - in order to demonize Trump. Therefore, ALL of his voters. Then point zero one percent - simply becomes 100 per cent. (For concrete bound and illogical people).

That's not how things work with crowd violence. There are individuals who commit the worst offenses, there are those who encourage them and there are those who just stand around and watch - even some who object and try to stop them. There are those who stayed home. That's my informed observation, which goes just as well with BLM supporters in the riots. I have made a lot of the (grown up) children who comprise the New Left, and that also applies to some among the right conservatives. Well, of course they have theirs too. For some of the activities for *some* of people at the Capitol, it simply looks like little kids rampaging round the house and breaking things while the adults are away.

If the media had channeled every and all the incidents of the wide-spread and lengthy summer riots (which they clearly limited from their viewers - to put BLM in a positive light) we would see the same mob dynamics as above. With a continuous stream of imagery from every town and city those protestors would have lost their popular support. The country's viewers would have gotten equally furious at the violence and destructiveness and perhaps "demonized" the Democrat mayors, governors and politicians. In contrast, here we all are analyzing to pieces each act of every (violent or aggressive) person at the Capitol which took place in a few hours time frame.

I return to one thing, reporting. The media have had an enormous power upon recent politics, and its emotional effectiveness on the great population which Objectivists should be immune to. They should know how unreal, one-sided and even fake, are much of their doings. How much we get to see, how much we are allowed to see and do not get to see, by their manipulations. An independent thinker does not take The Media as his source of reality. As a constricted supply of information, yes.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

I am picking apart the naive (and intrinsicist-collectivist) mindset which insists that everyone in a mob has the identical morals and unified to a single purpose.

I don't think that's the claim, the claim has been more like "This mob is united and motivated by one particular concrete belief, namely that the election was stolen. They may vary in ultimate purpose or final goal, but overall functioned to attain some shared end". And then me and others have provided evidence why you should think that there is *some* shared goal at least among those who initiated force. 

44 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

An independent thinker does not take The Media as his source of reality.

Is this just a general warning against trusting the media? Or are you saying that this is where everyone here is going wrong? You wrongly assumed earlier that I'm using the media without questioning them to get my narrative and view. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

I don't think that's the claim, the claim has been more like "This mob is united and motivated by one particular concrete belief, namely that the election was stolen. They may vary in ultimate purpose or final goal, but overall functioned to attain some shared end". And then me and others have provided evidence why you should think that there is *some* shared goal at least among those who initiated force. 

If it were only a (presumed) stolen election - poor losers - which they claim was the opposition's beef, the Dems, media and so on, wouldn't have a leg to stand on. That was their own unified, purported motivation for attacks on Trump's presidency. A stolen election.

Very poor losers.

Nope, they had to have more. They needed to dig up the "evil" lurking under this.

In a free country one is allowed to believe an election was cheated; one is even allowed to protest on that belief. What a miniscule proportion of people ¬do¬ while protesting their belief is only what concerns us and the law.

Therefore, I stand on what I've said, while all members of the crowd and millions more who didn't attend, very likely believed there was some or much fraud, basically, so what? Until anybody does anything illegal and/or violent, you can think what you want. Only some broke into the Capitol of which only some were destructive and only a few were violent. A "shared goal" - to protest what many think is true - has nothing causally to do with the final outcome. A shared goal says nothing about individual morals. Nor, the over all morality of a tribe.

We and everybody implicitly know that the premises and outcomes of the media's message is vilification of all conservatives, and it is disingenuous to avoid that fact. 

You could look at endless, explicit claims by commentators and politicians also. Watch this imagery: We can see that ALL Trump support is anti-democratic and anti-constitutional and anti-patriotic. They are domestic terrorists, and ALL Trump supporters are potentially the same and we must protect the nation from this new menace by force. 

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

I am picking apart the naive (and intrinsicist-collectivist) mindset which insists that everyone in a mob has the identical morals and unified to a single purpose. That is what the propaganda wants everybody to believe.

Mob destruction is wrong even if BLM says there were a few bad apples or if the Capitol rioters say there were a few bad apples.

The intrinsicist-collectivist argument is a straw man in this forum, as no one is arguing a uniform robotic mob in either case.

The objection is to the right to violence, the right to take the law in your own hands ... when there is a law enforcement that can enforce the law, where there is enough legally protected free speech to exercise.

The crux of the argument is that some do not believe that this "system" can protect them, as if this is a war ridden Somalia

That is the paranoia at the heart of the problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

which they claim was the opposition's beef, the Dems, media and so on, wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Stop talking to us like we are regurgitating what the media says, and engage what is actually being said. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Stop talking to us like we are regurgitating what the media says, and engage what is actually being said. 

You mean chase down every rabbit hole as you prefer? Right, I do think that most of what has been brought up here is dependent on the media's "narrative". If you haven't learned anything from my Press experience, too bad, maybe someone has.

I will engage where and what I please.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

If you haven't learned anything from my Press experience, too bad, maybe someone has.

You're telling me not to trust the media, because I'm accepting the media, even though I said before that the media has never been fair or balanced and told you that I'm not reaching my conclusions from the media? 

Like I was saying before, you (everyone)  should believe people when they tell you what they believe. Find a different reason why we (ET, me, DA, in particular) disagree besides "they believe everything that the media tells them". It accomplishes more and would be more interesting for you and everyone else if you don't engage the strawman.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

You're telling me not to trust the media, because I'm accepting the media, even though I said before that the media has never been fair or balanced and told you that I'm not reaching my conclusions from the media? 

Like I was saying before, you (everyone)  should believe people when they tell you what they believe. Find a different reason why we (ET, me, DA, in particular) disagree besides "they believe everything that the media tells them". It accomplishes more and would be more interesting for you and everyone else if you don't engage the strawman.

Really? You argued strenuously months ago when I said that the Washington Post was knowingly misrepresenting a news item. The untrustworthy media was not a "strawman" then.

Probably you won't agree with this now: it is not the facts *alone* that the mainstream media deliberately misrepresent. Those may be or may not be accurate and can be checked. Things have developed way past that. The organ of media has dominance over and is pushing a *moral philosophy*, a specific ideology and political dispensation that comes with it. One that's inimical to the country and any Western nation. "Fair and balanced" was left behind a long time ago. Now, only power and mind control is the priority.

Imagine differently, that all the main media were in right wing control and promoting Creationist, pro-life, prayers in school, agendas. You'd switch off, ignore them and probably ridicule them as I would. In simple terms, the reverse has occurred, ideologically and ethically, but this Left moralist "agenda" has long been widely accepted seriously - everywhere. And does anyone, except some conservative intellectuals condemn these reports? Criticism seldom heard from O'ists who should be equally lambasting them. (I recall that the ARI people aligned with the msm, strongly critical of Trump's tirades about 'fake news'. He was right, essentially).

Basically, the US MSM has sold Americans out. Out here in SA society/politics it's ideological narrative (CNN's, especially) has had and will have prolonged, dangerous effects. "If the USA can go that way, why not we too?" While I doubt anyone is concerned about us here.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Easy Truth said:
17 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

There are dozens of violent crimes every day in Los Angeles.

Does that mean we are a not a "real civilized" country? Meaning, a revolution is necessary?

The crime rate is a symptom of bad culture and bad government. If we need a revolution, it's because our political leaders are evil (or they tolerate evil). But they represent the citizenry. So who's going to revolt? A group that doesn't accept our representatives. A minority group. And today we basically have two minority groups willing to revolt, Antifa and a loose collection of Trump-supporting rightwingers, though some feel betrayed now by Trump because he didn't support the insurrection.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

You argued strenuously months ago when I said that the Washington Post was knowingly misrepresenting a news item.

Because I believe you were criticizing the wrong thing. Of course the media will use a mixture of facts and sensationalism. If we want to consume the media, we need to carefully distinguish which are the facts and which are sensational statements. As far as the headline went, it was a strict fact, without reference to any specific judgment. It's not a misrepresentation to state a fact exactly as it is. The sensationalism comes in when it is combined with the rest of an article where judgments are made or implied. You never did ask me about what I thought about the Washington Post as a media entity. Just because they might produce a valid headline isn't to say that they don't use the valid headline as some sort of signal to pretend that they are somehow wonderful and properly objective sources. 

10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Criticism seldom heard from O'ists who should be equally lambasting them.

That's why I think sometimes about starting my own online news magazine. I just don't know enough people who are good writers for what I imagine. Although in more recent times I felt more compelled to think more about this.

10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

"Fair and balanced" was left behind a long time ago. Now, only power and mind control is the priority.

There never was fair and balanced. Never.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Imagine differently, that all the main media were in right wing control and promoting Creationist, pro-life, prayers in school, agendas. You'd switch off, ignore them and probably ridicule them as I would. In simple terms, the reverse has occurred, ideologically and ethically, but this Left moralist "agenda" has long been widely accepted seriously - everywhere. And does anyone, except some conservative intellectuals condemn these reports? Criticism seldom heard from O'ists who should be equally lambasting them. (I recall that the ARI people aligned with the msm, strongly critical of Trump's tirades about 'fake news'. He was right, essentially).

I will grant you that the left leaning pundits have a dominant position in the media (TV radio).

But I will not grant you that the left is widely accepted SERIOUSLY. If it were, South Africa, with a communist constitution would have already outlawed ownership. If it were, Europe would have had actual socialist medicine as in no private institutions. 

Leftist ideas may be in fashion but the majority of the world do not want communism. Even leftists will attack communism. Meanwhile, there is no laissez fair capitalism in the world, only different degrees of crony capitalism i.e. some degree of fascism. 

The actual danger is what Rand thought, fascism with leftist slogans. That is the imminent danger in this country (US).

Collectivism is the problem, but you label what you don't like as collectivism. What you do like i.e. Trump's agenda is collectivism too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2021 at 3:42 PM, Eiuol said:

Harrison was the one (if were interpreting him correctly)  suggesting that for something to be a civilization, the founders of that civilization must recognize the importance of a principle to not initiate force.

I suppose the distinction between "public" and "private force" is a better way of framing it (I was using the non-initiation principle as somewhat sloppy shorthand) and it's not the founders who ultimately count, but everyone actively living in a certain geographical area.

On 1/30/2021 at 3:42 PM, Eiuol said:

There are definitely shootings all around us every day. Perhaps not your neighborhood, but they happen every day all over the place in this country. Still a civilization. 

Totally.  And the Holy Roman Empire was also a civilization with an absolutely insane frequency of violence.  But if you compare such violence to what it was like in pre-civilized prehistory (or, for example, in contemporary Scandinavia) I think you'll see a marked improvement, if memory serves.

 

On 1/30/2021 at 9:48 PM, whYNOT said:

I am picking apart the naive (and intrinsicist-collectivist) mindset which insists that everyone in a mob has the identical morals and unified to a single purpose. That is what the propaganda wants everybody to believe. Obviously - in order to demonize Trump. Therefore, ALL of his voters. Then point zero one percent - simply becomes 100 per cent. (For concrete bound and illogical people).

That's not how things work with crowd violence. There are individuals who commit the worst offenses, there are those who encourage them and there are those who just stand around and watch - even some who object and try to stop them. There are those who stayed home. That's my informed observation, which goes just as well with BLM supporters in the riots.

I do see what you mean about demonizing all Trump voters (and frankly all non-Communists) but I also see something else.

 

During the BLM riots last summer I heard many people asking various leftists to comment on Antifa and demonizing them for saying anything less than "violence is always bad".  I don't think that was unwarranted or illogical - most normal people were trying to figure out who was willing to side with the barbarians in spirit (if not, as Ted Wheeler did, in actual fact) and who was still sane.  Picture a room full of adults watching a mob of children beating each other senseless, and just one of the adults asking the others: "we're gonna put a stop to this obvious misbehavior, right guys?"

In case anything I've said so far has reminded anyone of leftist ideas, let me state for the record: violence is bad and responding to ANY idea with your fists is the surest proof there is that you do not have any logical argument on your side.

See?  Not difficult and now you can rest assured that I am still one of the sane ones.

Although some Democrats are, in fact, simply trying to demonize all Republicans, I think many others (and I'd go so far as to guess that it's actually the majority) are simply asking for the very same thing right now.  Do you denounce the people who wielded politically-motivated violence on the Sixth or are you one of their sympathizers?  And as quick and easy as it was to spot the Democrat sympathizers last summer (as the ones who were physically incapable of saying "violence is bad" without adding something about the pureness of those misguided rascals' motives) it's just as easy to spot their Republican counterparts right now.

And, since I've already outed myself as someone who usually leans to the right, I'll just say that violence is still bad when Republicans do it.  When the only response you have to somebody else's words is to rough them up, you need to go home and rethink your own life.

On 1/30/2021 at 9:48 PM, whYNOT said:

I return to one thing, reporting. The media have had an enormous power upon recent politics, and its emotional effectiveness on the great population which Objectivists should be immune to. They should know how unreal, one-sided and even fake, are much of their doings. How much we get to see, how much we are allowed to see and do not get to see, by their manipulations. An independent thinker does not take The Media as his source of reality. As a constricted supply of information, yes.

Absolutely.  Finding accurate information on any current event has been a real thorn in my ass over the past year.  Information as such isn't a problem; the problem is that I know that 99% of it is partisan spin.  And yet, since we do still have a free press in this country any Tom, Dick or Harry who wants to compete with the msm is entirely free to do so.

When I couldn't find accurate and up-to-date information on the lockdowns and the rioting I started watching Tim Poole every day.  I haven't watched him basically since the election, but I have found other ways of figuring out what's going on - and it sounds like you have, too.

 

From what I've heard this is an issue that troubles you a lot more than it does me.  Have you ever considered creating your own sort of media?  If you ever do get into producing it I promise I will consume it.

 

Edit:  I'll have to add another Tu Quoque for this one, but it seems perfectly logical to me.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Tu Quoque counter
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I will engage where and what I please.

Absolutely.  But this isn't Fascistbook or Twitter; this is OO.  If you fail to respond to a truly valid and good point someone made then you can proceed to say whatever you want afterwards and most of the people here will treat your posts like we treat the front pages of the msm: an occasional source of some useful information, but mainly good for ridicule.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Find a different reason why we (ET, me, DA, in particular) disagree besides "they believe everything that the media tells them".

Is there any way someone could summarize the conversation so far for me, please?  I'd been planning on reading the whole thing but I've only read to page four (plus everything since I first jumped in), I just finished working an eleven hour shift and someone quite plainly said something awful enough to make DA quit entirely.  I know I'm asking for something and can't really promise anything in return, but if anyone had the time and felt inclined to help me out, I'd appreciate it very much.

Edit:  Actually, I could share some totally irrelevant Electro-Swing music as recompense!

 

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Edit.
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

In case anything I've said so far has reminded anyone of leftist ideas...

And, since I've already outed myself as someone who usually leans to the right...

It seems to me that this kind of thing gets said regularly around here without proper challenge. The idea of "left" versus "right" is mostly a fiction. It's not a distinction that has much real meaning. It's "traditionally right" (in America) to be hostile to certain social freedoms (e.g. abortion, sex, drugs) and "traditionally left" to be hostile to business freedoms, but what they both have in common is that they are both unprincipled and generally destructive to freedom. (I say "traditionally" because, being unprincipled, these things can quickly and easily flip from one side to the other, turn on a dime. The left was pro-free speech until it wasn't; the right valued law and order until the 6th. They aren't really defined by ideals, so much, but tribal affiliation.)

Distinguishing between "left" and "right" is crucial for understanding modern American politics, it's true, but from the position of the Objectivist Politics? They're better defined, understood -- and rejected -- by their statist commonalities. The difference between Biden and Trump, for instance, isn't that one is pro-rights while the other is anti-rights: they both of them, and their parties, represent mainstream America. Mainstream America is not in a place where it will elect someone pro-rights to high office, or support/sustain them if they somehow managed to get there.

Neither is it heading in that direction. America does not even understand what's at issue, yet. Insofar as we have taken it upon ourselves to spread the foundations of Capitalism and individual rights -- reason and reality (let alone rational egoism) -- we are utterly failing. Currently, the left is being overwhelmed by identity-politics progressives and the right is failing to fight off a bugnuts-crazy, conspiracy-minded takeover. We are caught between Scylla and Charybdis, and they are growing.

As for a right or left "lean," it's kind of like saying that one has a slight preference for cyanide over strychnine. I mean, I guess? I've heard it has a sort-of almond thing, going on. But the difference is mostly inconsequential in the long term. In my experience, the left throws better parties and plays better music, for whatever that's worth. (Though I do have a soft spot in my heart for the various fundamentalist Christmas parties and holiday concerts I've attended over the years; it's often wholesome in such an earnest way that it touches that deep-seated It's a Wonderful Life/Charlie Brown Christmas place in me.)

1 hour ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

...something awful enough to make DA quit entirely.

It mostly accounts to me and where I'm at in my life, Harrison. Since becoming a father, my patience for my daughter's bullshit has gone up dramatically, but my patience for the bullshit of everyone else has gone down by the same measure. But you know, I never quit for long (enough).

Edited by DonAthos
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

So which group do you fall into?

Neither. Eiuol gets me.

I think there are four basic positions. You sympathize with Antifa or the Capitol rioters, you sympathize with both, or you have zero sympathy for either side. I sympathize with the Capitol rioters but I'm not in that group. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DonAthos said:

It seems to me that this kind of thing gets said regularly around here without proper challenge. The idea of "left" versus "right" is mostly a fiction. It's not a distinction that has much real meaning. It's "traditionally right" (in America) to be hostile to certain social freedoms (e.g. abortion, sex, drugs) and "traditionally left" to be hostile to business freedoms, but what they both have in common is that they are both unprincipled and generally destructive to freedom.

Craig Biddle (of The Objective Standard) suggested that the left-right spectrum be slightly redefined, so that the "right" was associated with freedom from the coercion of other people, and the "left" is associated with the coercion.

I generally like that idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2021 at 5:40 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

When we form a government each of us delegates our right of retaliation to it.

We delegate part of that right, not all of it. Within legal limits parents may use retaliatory force on their children to teach them moral lessons, and within limits adults may use retaliatory force on other adults to make citizen arrests and such.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, necrovore said:

Craig Biddle (of The Objective Standard) suggested that the left-right spectrum be slightly redefined, so that the "right" was associated with freedom from the coercion of other people, and the "left" is associated with the coercion.

I generally like that idea.

This is a common gambit you see, but not a good one. The purpose of the political spectrum is not to track what people ought to believe but what people do tend to believe. The binary mind cannot handle this, so they use "argument by redefinition" and then commit fallacies of equivocation when applying. That is what Biddle is doing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Is there any way someone could summarize the conversation so far for me, please? 

 

Frustration. A useful starting place to understanding where everybody is coming from, whether pulling down statues to marching on the Capitol. Frustrated, because people are not getting the justice they feel they and their 'group' deserve.

Defining "deserve", and identifying where it is objectively valid and when subjectively felt, then to evaluate their possible merits, makes for the tough thinking part.

What is central to separating the Left and the Right is the answer to - *who*, or what, is judging? (Who sees me?) The Left are almost entirely society-and-state directed, so look there for their justice: Justice must be done and seen to be done for us in the eyes - e.g. the media - of the People and through the government's special intercession on our group's behalf. Historical injustices (to 'our people', that mystical concept) play well to their expectancies and entitlement for an extra dose of compensating justice in the present. These victim-hood narratives are seized upon, virtuously advocated and usually cynically exploited for political power, pretty much defining the global Left.

With a common overlap into justice from-society-and-governments, the Right look ultimately to their Creator as the absolute Judge while believing also they deserve justice on Earth. They have the added, valid frustration, of being alienated from the bulk of the media's attention and respect, knowing that the msm ignores their existence, or judges them unfairly or mocks them and their values. 

You might detect a recognition sometimes from a person in both camps of his need for objective justice, namely that one should individually make and earn one's own just ends - or - justice in reality. I think the conservatives, being less collectivist, predominate here. But this faint acknowledgement will usually be buried under the tribe's mystical and mythical identity.

A proper system of individual rights naturally eradicates group distinctions and 'group justice' and it seems presently we are moving further from that just system. Perhaps, eventually, this period of extreme trial and colossal error could bring this about by practical and moral necessity.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...