Xilizhra wrote...
Because one does not have to ensure collective security by means of vicious bigots or a system that promotes and pampers them.
Modifié par eluvianix, 12 novembre 2013 - 06:34 .
Yep, there we go using that word again.Xilizhra wrote...
Because one does not have to ensure collective security by means of vicious bigots or a system that promotes and pampers them.
Br3ad wrote...
Yep, there we go using that word again.Xilizhra wrote...
Because one does not have to ensure collective security by means of vicious bigots or a system that promotes and pampers them.
Second, it's common knowledge that security, or more properly order, is inversely related to freedom. We give up freedoms so the government can insure order. The more freedom that we have, the less order, and vice versa.
Modifié par eluvianix, 12 novembre 2013 - 06:37 .
The system and people are those that make the issue what it is. And mages are quite frequently not made any more secure by templar rule, either.Ok, the system is flawed, that is non-debatable. But at the core of issue, system and people aside, it is still a matter of one's perception of security versus another's individual freedom.
Not entirely. Some order is needed for the maximum amount of freedom, otherwise many will exercise their freedoms by removing those of others.Second, it's common knowledge that security, or more properly order, is inversely related to freedom. We give up freedoms so the government can insure order. The more freedom that we have, the less order, and vice versa.
Medhia Nox wrote...
@Br3ad: And that's not even considering the level of societal controls in place.
America, for example, is largely an indentured service state where one is required to either recant most material luxuries or enter into a debt contract with the culture.
Don't believe that? Try to do anything like buying a house or car without having any credit.
Modifié par Medhia Nox, 12 novembre 2013 - 06:40 .
Uh, no. The maximum amount of freedom is the ability to take others freedom without consequence. To insure that this doesn't happen, we give up freedoms for order. Someone must pay for the order and this usually comes in the form of someone else's freedom. We are not free to take, and thus we loss that freedom so we no longer have the maximum amount of freedom. Do you understand now?Xilizhra wrote...
Not entirely. Some order is needed for the maximum amount of freedom, otherwise many will exercise their freedoms by removing those of others.Second, it's common knowledge that security, or more properly order, is inversely related to freedom. We give up freedoms so the government can insure order. The more freedom that we have, the less order, and vice versa.
Medhia Nox wrote...
@eluvianix: If you refuse to enter the debt culture of the United States - you will reach a ceiling in things you can successfully obtain.
Unless you are fabulously wealthy and can buy things without the need of credit.
The point is only to illustrate that any illusion about some sort of wierd utopia where everyone and everything is free and wonderful is a delusion... even if it seems like some strive for it with their mage rebellion.
Modifié par eluvianix, 12 novembre 2013 - 06:42 .
Modifié par Medhia Nox, 12 novembre 2013 - 06:43 .
eluvianix wrote...
I am under no illusion that this will be a utopia, not by any stretch of imagination. It will be won through blood and pain, on both sides. But at the end, it will be a better system than what we started with.
Medhia Nox wrote...
@eluvianix: It is your last sentence I am dubious of.
At least, if I try to percieve the story not in the eyes of a video game designed to tell me I'm correct and wonderful in everything I think.
I understand, but I was speaking of something else: namely, the maximum total freedom of the population as a whole can only be ensured by not allowing the freedom to take others' freedom.Br3ad wrote...
Uh, no. The maximum amount of freedom is the ability to take others freedom without consequence. To insure that this doesn't happen, we give up freedoms for order. Someone must pay for the order and this usually comes in the form of someone else's freedom. We are not free to take, and thus we loss that freedom so we no longer have the maximum amount of freedom. Do you understand now?Xilizhra wrote...
Not entirely. Some order is needed for the maximum amount of freedom, otherwise many will exercise their freedoms by removing those of others.Second, it's common knowledge that security, or more properly order, is inversely related to freedom. We give up freedoms so the government can insure order. The more freedom that we have, the less order, and vice versa.
eluvianix wrote...
Xilizhra wrote...
Because one does not have to ensure collective security by means of vicious bigots or a system that promotes and pampers them.
Ok, the system is flawed, that is non-debatable. But at the core of issue, system and people aside, it is still a matter of one's perception of security versus another's individual freedom.
Populations are a form of order. It would not be there in absolute freedom and thus it is of no concern.Xilizhra wrote...
I understand, but I was speaking of something else: namely, the maximum total freedom of the population as a whole can only be ensured by not allowing the freedom to take others' freedom.Br3ad wrote...
Uh, no. The maximum amount of freedom is the ability to take others freedom without consequence. To insure that this doesn't happen, we give up freedoms for order. Someone must pay for the order and this usually comes in the form of someone else's freedom. We are not free to take, and thus we loss that freedom so we no longer have the maximum amount of freedom. Do you understand now?Xilizhra wrote...
Not entirely. Some order is needed for the maximum amount of freedom, otherwise many will exercise their freedoms by removing those of others.Second, it's common knowledge that security, or more properly order, is inversely related to freedom. We give up freedoms so the government can insure order. The more freedom that we have, the less order, and vice versa.
Modifié par HiroVoid, 12 novembre 2013 - 07:02 .
If this is true, then lulz.HiroVoid wrote...
Didn't Gaider mention abominations in Rivain were basically just considered living natural disasters?
HiroVoid wrote...
Didn't Gaider mention abominations in Rivain were basically just considered living natural disasters?
And yet they were doing fine till the Seekers came knocking.Medhia Nox wrote...
@HiroVoid: Which just means the Rivaini are complete idiots.
Jaison1986 wrote...
HiroVoid wrote...
Didn't Gaider mention abominations in Rivain were basically just considered living natural disasters?
Link?
EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Seems like people are working under the assumption that "freedom" is inherently good...
If that were the case then slavery would still be common around the world.EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Seems like people are working under the assumption that "freedom" is inherently good...
Modifié par Medhia Nox, 12 novembre 2013 - 07:11 .
Retour en haut