Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Statue of Liberty Shrugged?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

On 6/9/2021 at 5:19 PM, Eiuol said:

QAnon isn't unified enough to say that there is any definite belief system. There are a wide variety of nut job thoughts out there about Trump getting into the presidency again or reasserting his supposedly legitimate claim before 2024.

 

9 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

Darkwing Donald is channeling a political force that is only united by anger, and whose only agenda is payback.  In most respects, I believe he is simply the patsy of the growing mob he represents; a form of puppet king.  If elected, and I give them better than 50/50 odds of getting there, America will become a darker place.

Are QAnon belief systems so wide as to permit such a characterization of "Darkwing Donald"?

On 6/9/2021 at 5:19 PM, Eiuol said:

But there is something very fishy going on.

Of that we are in perfect accord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2021 at 9:17 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

 

I know this is a bit of a ramble but I guess I'm mainly wondering what you're afraid of.

 

PS:  Maybe we should actually start a thread to discuss exactly what QAnon is and how much sense it makes.  Lord knows there's been plenty of dissection of leftist ideas on this forum.

 

PPS:  By the way, QAnon supporters actually don't talk about the "restoration" or "reinstatement" of Trump - they believe there's a "dual presidency" right now because they never accepted that his reign ever ended.

What do I know of "QAnon" and right wing conspiracies? Little, thankfully. Only some words and rhetoric.

What I do know from long familiarity is that that "Fascist right" has been the go-to cause celebre of the MSM and others, in order to by sleight of hand, through misdirection, cover the tracks of the resurgent Socialist Left. 

And so far, thankfully, the right aren't actively responding, to the disappointment of many, I believe. Anyone can predict the, er, "active" response if the political shoe were on the other foot, mind you.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, Eiuol said:

... No one is controlling that military except for the general...

Agreed, and there is no benevolent form of a military dictatorship.

However, a charismatic general with popular support might act well as a caretaker monopoly on the government's use of force until a voluntary force of Peacekeepers (military, police, 1st responders) could be formed, effectively becoming an un-elected or appointed 4th branch of government in charge of securing America's "blessings of liberty".

The actual "blessings" would be narrowly defined and limited to an individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness within the social context of America.

The President and Congress maintain political authority over "the general welfare" of Americans. The Supreme Court has legal authority over the Constitution AND the Peacekeepers, and there's a provision to disobey orders that are contrary to the security of American Individuals, A.I.s, perhaps not unlike the first law Asimov applied to his A.I.s.

Private security is allowed to operate within accordance to "the blessings of liberty", and held accountable when it does not...

... and please bear in mind, this is a discussion of political philosophy involving the objective use of force, not a call to arms.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
clairification of intent
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/5/2021 at 3:49 PM, Devil's Advocate said:

For better or worse, the Former (to be restored) President is arguably the most influential political figure of the 21st Century, perhaps best evident in his catch phrases as adopted by current world leaders to maintain influence over their electorates. 

Apparently, it's not just the catch-phrases. (Or it just makes for good headliners.)

Netanyahu's Trump-style campaign to stop Israel's transfer of power

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

.. and please bear in mind, this is a discussion of political philosophy involving the objective use of force, not a call to arms.

You still won't explain what January 6 has anything to do with Donald Trump being restored to the presidency. You don't need to call people's arms to be a sideline supporter of insurrection. It's annoying that you won't just say what you think.

2 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

effectively becoming an un-elected or appointed 4th branch of government

Congratulations, that's a military dictatorship. If the person is appointed, who were they appointed by? There is no means to do this in the US government. And if such a thing could be done, this person wouldn't be the charismatic general that we were talking about. Shrugging off the defense of liberty means ceasing the operations of government.

2 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

The Supreme Court has legal authority over the Constitution AND the Peacekeepers

oh man, the way you worded this is just so bizarre I'm even more convinced that you are a fringe nut job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dream_weaver said:

Apparently, it's not just the catch-phrases. (Or it just makes for good headliners.)

Netanyahu's Trump-style campaign to stop Israel's transfer of power

It's all about the headlines that generate the ratings, that create and sustain a following that wins elections.  The Republican Purge is real, and the midterms will determine its success as political strategy in American politics.  An extended family member of mine recently noted, "Impeachment is just street cred for him," and that pretty much sums up my opinion of The Donald and his Dark Wing.

 

39 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

You still won't explain what January 6 has anything to do with Donald Trump being restored to the presidency. You don't need to call people's arms to be a sideline supporter of insurrection. It's annoying that you won't just say what you think.

The Donald's 1st term election was unimaginable, until it happened. Former republican opposition candidates undermining the election in Congress on his behalf was unimaginable, until it happened. January 6th was unimaginable, until it happened... and the Dumbercrats continue to campaign as though if only everyone understood what a bastard the Former President is, no one would vote for him, while those who vote for him don't care because, "He's our Bastard!"

The Former President will be restored to office as the party default if the current political trend doesn't produce someone who can beat his political base.  Do you see that coming?  Last go round I gave him and his following 50/50 odds, and this time I think if the Republicans make gains over the Democrats in the midterms, it's their presidential election to lose, if narrowly.

Lady Liberty was raped on January 6th. That's what I think.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still don't see what January 6 has to do with Trump being restored to anything.

By the way, saying the Supreme Court has legal authority over the peacekeepers doesn't make sense, what you described as peacekeepers aren't even in the Constitution except mention of the military. Police are not mentioned in the Constitution nor first responders. The president has power and legal authority over the military as the commander-in-chief, so it sounds more like you are talking about some weird constitutional theory.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Eiuol said:
6 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

The Supreme Court has legal authority over the Constitution AND the Peacekeepers

oh man, the way you worded this is just so bizarre I'm even more convinced that you are a fringe nut job.

What would be more bizarre is to note how the house and senate have ceded much political authority to the presidents and to their executive orders, while only a court order seems sufficient to put an executive-order made "law" into check or overturn an errent law once it is discovered, an example recently enacted out on the state level in Michigan.

The peacekeepers (first responders seems a bit ambiguous when conjoined with police and military) answer to their respective executive branches. The executive branch upholds the laws passed by the legislative branches, and if need be, sign into law. The supreme court is to consider the legal merits of the laws in the light of the constitution. 

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

What would be more bizarre is to note how the house and senate have ceded much political authority to the presidents and to their executive orders, while only a court order seems sufficient to put an executive-order made "law" into check or overturn an errent law once it is discovered, an example recently enacted out on the state level in Michigan.

 

12 hours ago, Eiuol said:

... The president has power and legal authority over the military as the commander-in-chief, so it sounds more like you are talking about some weird constitutional theory.

Given the Former President used his political authority to promote insurrection, given congressional leaders used their political authority to promote sedition, and given the current President is using his political authority to proclaim a right to healthcare, the Judiciary in its existing role as the final arbiter of constitutional law, is better suited to command (by court order) the appropriate use of government's monopoly on force.  It would essentially be a check on the capricious nature of a political call to arms.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2021 at 10:41 AM, whYNOT said:

What do I know of "QAnon" and right wing conspiracies? Little, thankfully. Only some words and rhetoric.

What I do know from long familiarity is that that "Fascist right" has been the go-to cause celebre of the MSM and others, in order to by sleight of hand, through misdirection, cover the tracks of the resurgent Socialist Left. 

And so far, thankfully, the right aren't actively responding, to the disappointment of many, I believe. Anyone can predict the, er, "active" response if the political shoe were on the other foot, mind you.

To an extent, I agree. The mainstream media certainly is trying to whitewash the far left (think "antifa is only an idea") while demonizing the far right. Putting that aside, though, it seems obvious that anyone of any political stripe who advocates for political violence is a bad person who knows they have no ideological arguments to offer (actually, that shouldn't even need to be specified, but just to be on the safe side). What might not be obvious is the possible utility there could be in underscoring the very fact that they have no coherent arguments (as evidenced by any appeal to intimidation) - particularly on a forum like this, where anonymity makes such intimidation impossible.

I've bookmarked the thread 

@dream_weaver linked to about QAnon and plan to jump into that (and also start one about White Fragility) on my next day off. That's supposed to be Wednesday but we'll see if I actually get a day off this week or not.

In any case, pointing out the evils of the far left is not actually a defense of the far right (which is the one nit I would pick here); it's a misapplication of Tu Quoque. Both are bad (not because of their "far-ness" but because they're wrong in potentially dangerous ways. Fortunately for us, there is a solution to the problem of being wrong. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2021 at 4:25 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

... Fortunately for us, there is a solution to the problem of being wrong.

Unfortunately for us, "You can't fix stupid." (Ron White), and from Bumper Sticker Philosophy, "My kid beat up your honor roll student".

If evil were a rating, it would draw a greater audience than Jesus.  The Former President (whose name must not be spoken) excels at one thing, shock value.  The seamless transition from TV reality personality (Your fired!) to "leader of the ""free"" world" (shithole countries), to Dark Lord of the Republican Empire (OK, that might be a bit much (is Mike Pence out of hiding yet?)), is notable because of the absence of a protagonist, which in a political context means chaos.

I stand by my earlier comment that America has become a darker place.  To borrow from Stephen King, America has hit the gutter and bounced lower...

... which is why I ask should the Statue of Liberty shrug?  Or perhaps she already has??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/19/2021 at 5:14 PM, Devil's Advocate said:

... which is why I ask should the Statue of Liberty shrug?

Not so long as we're able to argue for her long-overdue restoration. I cannot tell how far away that point is from the present (and I have been trying) but we're not there yet. When we get there I'll make sure to let you know where all the best spots are down by my river. ;)

 

Also, I don't think "dark lord of the Republican empire" is too much at all.

Ayn Rand opposed Ronald Reagan (in her own words) because of his embrace of the religious right, which she thought would destroy anything which had been good about the Republicans before that. As a millennial it's not easy for me to picture what the Republicans were before Reagan but in my own lifetime the hardcore mysticism has been one of their main vices (and by far the thing I personally find most annoying about them).

Trump seems to have actually countered that specific trend to some extent. He never pretended to be too religious, and in his wake that issue seems to be dying out among his sycophants. But I too am waiting for the other shoe to drop, in terms of what exactly replaces it.

I agree with Yaron Brook that Trump may well have already destroyed any good there was in the right wing of this country. And I think your characterization is basically correct.

 

My river is the Rum River, though. Its name currently doesn't align too well with reality, but maybe we can do something about that! Newcomers must bring their own supplies, of course. :P

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2021 at 12:14 AM, Devil's Advocate said:

Unfortunately for us, "You can't fix stupid." (Ron White), and from Bumper Sticker Philosophy, "My kid beat up your honor roll student".

If evil were a rating, it would draw a greater audience than Jesus.  The Former President (whose name must not be spoken) excels at one thing, shock value.  The seamless transition from TV reality personality (Your fired!) to "leader of the ""free"" world" (shithole countries), to Dark Lord of the Republican Empire (OK, that might be a bit much (is Mike Pence out of hiding yet?)), is notable because of the absence of a protagonist, which in a political context means chaos.

I stand by my earlier comment that America has become a darker place.  To borrow from Stephen King, America has hit the gutter and bounced lower...

... which is why I ask should the Statue of Liberty shrug?  Or perhaps she already has??

DA.

"Darker" - because of Trump - or despite him? Not to sing his praises too much, but weren't the shadows already gathering before his time, fully revealing themselves increasingly and disturbingly in only these last few months after his departure?

That's what I was catching strong hints of from the US, pre-2016.

And -possibly- perhaps his shock tactics were in a partial measure of calculated opposition to such forces, which even an unintellectual Trump could recognize were dangerous to the nation.

(Stephen King would say that, being about as Lefty as they come).

Oh and I have been to some shithole and basket case countries in Africa. It was about time they were (crudely) called out, maybe to take stock of themselves rather than this faking pretense by the delicate diplomatic community that all is fine and dandy on the continent. As long as they keep throwing guilt money at the problems there won't be change.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the episode Who Mourns for Adonais, a gods strength was measured by the quantity of its followers. The Roman goddess Libertas, or her Greek predecessor Elutheria, do not need to shrug under such a premise. 

In J.R.R. Tolkien's book, Gollum's possession of the ring of power had generated whispers of a shadow growing in the area of the mountain he was harbored within. 

Note the focus on the gods, placing them at the center of interest, the object of veneration and love, provides the metaphorical increase in power and influence.

When the 'god' is made to be the loss of liberty, its degradation, its erosion — to what would the conversed 'metaphorical increase' apply?

Yes, what goes on in the world need be taken into consideration. There is also the the adage regarding one finding what one seeks, i.e.; if one is focused on finding negative, is it any surprise that negative is found? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2021 at 10:48 AM, whYNOT said:

"Darker" - because of Trump - or despite him? Not to sing his praises too much, but weren't the shadows already gathering before his time, fully revealing themselves increasingly and disturbingly in only these last few months after his departure?

"Darker" in contrast to, "that vision of a shining city on a hill."

"Lower" in contrast to, "A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles."

Yes, the shadows were already there, but January 6th happened because of Trump.

On 6/23/2021 at 10:48 AM, whYNOT said:

It was about time they were (crudely) called out, maybe to take stock of themselves rather than this faking pretense by the delicate diplomatic community that all is fine and dandy on the continent.

Called out by a standard of, "very fine people, on both sides" of violent political protests?

Called out by a standard of, "alternate facts" and "fake news"?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2021 at 10:48 AM, whYNOT said:

And -possibly- perhaps his shock tactics were in a partial measure of calculated opposition to such forces, which even an unintellectual Trump could recognize were dangerous to the nation.

The Donald remains the most influential political figure of the 21st Century, and probably only lost his second term to a pandemic disrupting the economy he ran on.  Given his continuing influence over the Republican Party in the wake of January 6th, he probably doesn't need a second term to maintain his political relevance.

Lady Liberty, on the other hand...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2021 at 10:41 AM, whYNOT said:

What do I know of "QAnon" and right wing conspiracies? Little, thankfully. Only some words and rhetoric.

What I do know from long familiarity is that that "Fascist right" has been the go-to cause celebre of the MSM and others, in order to by sleight of hand, through misdirection, cover the tracks of the resurgent Socialist Left. 

And so far, thankfully, the right aren't actively responding, to the disappointment of many, I believe. Anyone can predict the, er, "active" response if the political shoe were on the other foot, mind you.

 

On 6/14/2021 at 6:25 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

In any case, pointing out the evils of the far left is not actually a defense of the far right (which is the one nit I would pick here); it's a misapplication of Tu Quoque.

On further reflection I'd like to apologize for attempting to pick that nit.

 

Essentially since the most recent presidential debates I've been trying to draw a moral equivalence between the far right and the far left, because of how deeply horrific I found Trump's flat refusal to promise to concede if he truly lost.  That was still horrific and I'm still not going to sing any of his praises whatsoever, but Trump is not the entire right wing; there's an important difference between even among his most insane devotees (and there are many of them I would personally term insane) and the far left wing of this country.

The right wing still tolerates dissent and open discourse.  Considering the answer I myself gave to the OP (that the Statue of Liberty should not shrug so long as open discourse is possible) I have been very wrongheaded to gloss over this difference.

Donald Trump himself remains a bad person whom I do not like.  But I shouldn't have tried to invent some way to disagree with your wholly uncontroversial post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

"Darker" in contrast to, "that vision of a shining city on a hill."

"Lower" in contrast to, "A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles."

Yes, the shadows were already there, but January 6th happened because of Trump.

Called out by a standard of, "very fine people, on both sides" of violent political protests?

Called out by a standard of, "alternate facts" and "fake news"?

 

The main news media were and are indeed "fake", not as in completely untrue and they wouldn't be so stupid as to be caught out in falsehoods, but in how they increasingly and regularly have 'groomed' what their readers/viewers could hear and couldn't according to their ideological/power aspirations. They are cynically building a false image or self-image of Americans. From my background in news and PR, seeing this 'image' being created on CNN and others was what alerted me that something foul was rising in the USA conducted by a relative minority. Everything I've intimately picked up, understood and assessed about the country over 50+years told me that America and Americans were not 'like that'.

When you have every race group of the world and mixes of races represented, as I believe you do, every normal altercation between individuals could be singled out as 'racist' and every confrontation with the law which goes bad, as 'systemic'. (And anyhow, to be properly free people have to be free to personally sort themselves out, prejudices where they exist and all). Then, for those who haven't a racist bone in their bodies, merely tell them they have "unconscious racism" (hello, Oprah) and they can be guilt-ed into believing it.

The singular Leftist technique is to turn reality on its head, to make the fly in the 100 gallons of ointment contaminate all the ointment (and 10 years ago I had no idea about CRT). An incident here and there (among a 300+million population!) is represented by them as the whole picture, and the majority of Americans being good-hearted people were obviously disturbed and influenced by that presented image of themselves (based it appears on a secularist travesty about the nation created in Original Sin). ..

Into that toxic situation arrived Trump, at least with some clue about what was happening internally to corrode the nation. He and his support base proved something of a stumbling block for a while against the hard left's ambitions, which is why the outrage, why he was attacked so relentlessly every day in the media. Again, text book stuff on how a publicity image or anti-image can be pounded home in the majority of minds until the public simply become exhausted with all the reportage (and with the subject or person). Doubtless, Trump was at times his own worst enemy, but the media onslaught was the huge factor in his bad image (not least by their dirty tricks, quoting him out of context and cutting his quotations short).

(It was most people around Africa and several Arab countries who respected Trump going on what I've seen and heard. He was as *absolutely* vilified by white Leftists in SA, as there in the US, but blacks here appreciated him. Seems they never bought the lie that he was racist - possibly they would know best).

Lady Liberty and "the shining city" I continue to claim are in the most danger now, from those most hungry for power to control minds, who came before but especially, after Trump.

He interrupted the proceedings. In between the "shadows" already present in 2016 -- and Jan 6 - was a lot of context, a huge excluded middle, DA, most of it to do with media deceit, and anti-American ideology and an explosion of critical race (etc.) theory.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

 

On further reflection I'd like to apologize for attempting to pick that nit.

 

Essentially since the most recent presidential debates I've been trying to draw a moral equivalence between the far right and the far left, because of how deeply horrific I found Trump's flat refusal to promise to concede if he truly lost.  That was still horrific and I'm still not going to sing any of his praises whatsoever, but Trump is not the entire right wing; there's an important difference between even among his most insane devotees (and there are many of them I would personally term insane) and the far left wing of this country.

The right wing still tolerates dissent and open discourse.  Considering the answer I myself gave to the OP (that the Statue of Liberty should not shrug so long as open discourse is possible) I have been very wrongheaded to gloss over this difference.

Donald Trump himself remains a bad person whom I do not like.  But I shouldn't have tried to invent some way to disagree with your wholly uncontroversial post.

HD, An apology isn't necessary. Truly, I don't have the answers as might have been presented, I try to keep my eye on the big picture and how your and my freedom can best be sustained. Because if yours' slips so will everybody's. Therefore, who and which party best defends the leadership of the free world as of now, gets my support. Imperfections accepted.

I, not as Trump's devotee or the fan of any politician, ask to what lengths you would go if you were convinced beyond doubt that the bunch about to take power were evil operators, working against the country? Would you not drag your feet, verbally, to begin with - while eventually and properly conceding, anyhow? So I don't find that flat refusal (or his accusations of a fraudulent election) to be "horrific". So long as his *actions* were not unconstitutional and he did not incite followers to rebel en masse, which he hasn't. 

I differ, and could be mistaken, I don't see too much of and have looked out for those insane devotees on the right. In numbers, street violence and vehemence I cannot see how they are even comparable to the insane ones on the Left.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I, not as Trump's devotee or the fan of any politician, ask to what lengths you would go if you were convinced beyond doubt that the bunch about to take power were evil operators, working against the country? Would you not drag your feet, verbally, to begin with - while eventually and properly conceding, anyhow?

Not if they legitimately won the vote, which is how that question was phrased in the debate.

If I lost a race against Stalin himself because most Americans voted for him then I'd concede without any gimmicks or delays whatsoever. A president is not a monarch; he is not the ultimate political authority in our system; the people are. If the people vote against me then that's that; nothing else is relevant. Granted, if I was handing power over to Stalin I'd promptly flee the country - but as a private citizen.

Now, all of this is assuming that the election was legitimate, and I haven't forgotten the questions that had been raised about it at that time. But such questions are (just like Trump's estimation of his opponent and absolutely everything else) totally irrelevant to the underlying principle here.

A president does not have the right to contravene the will of the people, nor even to drag his feet about enacting that will. He is our servant; not the other way around.

Trump did have the right to scrutinize that election and ensure its legitimacy. Having done that (and failing to really prove much of anything) he should've promptly stepped down.

 

I actually do agree that Biden's gang is full of evil operators who're working against the interests of the American people. That's the choice we made, though. We can't flip the whole Monopoly board over just because this round went badly - which is precisely what Trump would've been doing if he hadn't conceded.

14 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I differ, and could be mistaken, I don't see too much of and have looked out for those insane devotees on the right. In numbers, street violence and vehemence I cannot see how they are even comparable to the insane ones on the Left.  

And that's precisely it. The right wing cooks (such as the QAnon people) aren't the ones who're trying to shut down civilized conversations.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Jeff Dunham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2021 at 8:27 PM, dream_weaver said:

In the episode Who Mourns for Adonais, a gods strength was measured by the quantity of its followers. The Roman goddess Libertas, or her Greek predecessor Elutheria, do not need to shrug under such a premise...

In Neil Gaiman's, "American Gods",  a god's strength is generated by its users, which is likely a more accurate account of the relationship between those who worship, and the object of their fancy.  And Pankaj Mishra's, "Age of Anger", examines the power of political divisiveness in a historical context to account for today's headlines.  Both works go a long way towards accounting for the rise and sustainability of the Former President's political influence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2021 at 8:38 PM, tadmjones said:

When Trump said very fine people he was referring to the people on both sides of the debate surrounding the public display and or removal of Civil War monuments.

In that same speech he specifically condemned any and all who participated in violence.

--

Reporter: "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --"

Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."

https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/

--

There's an obvious contradiction in the claim that "very fine people" protest non-violently with "neo-Nazis" in any circumstance.  It's the same kind of argument being used to rationalize the January 6th insurrection as some odd mixture of political adversaries cooperatively breaking into the Capitol, with the ensuing violence only being attributed to "some very bad people" who weren't Trump supporters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2021 at 10:10 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

The right wing still tolerates dissent and open discourse.

I believe the truth of that is belied by the removal of Liz Cheney's conference chair.  The Republican Purge is real, and certainly isn't the action of a party that tolerates dissent and open disclosure.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...