Great quotes. I'd disagree a little with the conception of the golden mean. It's probabilistically true, in that on a scatter plot virtually all things are between other things, but that's not profound, and sometimes not even useful when resolving particular issues. A mean is constructed between any of many ideals, always subject to change based on the whims of extremists that disagree with the mean. it cannot truly guide you, it only slows others down, and judging by no other merits as I often hear in platitudes, restricts you from extreme ideas which may or may not be valuable. As a lazy example, extreme non-rape is a virtue that we might not arrive at if only strictly chasing the golden mean and worse still may reach the opposite of, if chasing some natural derivations as some other animals have. Therefore you require your own ideals, the mean is insufficient for direction. Not to say the mean is useless; it's purpose is inertia, which can be both good and bad depending on the scenario, as judged by the non-mean ideals you actually use to evaluate your position."The problem was not too much government as such. It was rather that in the absence of government, a party stepped in to impose an order that government no longer could."Why would you distinguish between these totalitarian parties as being not of government? They were extremely rigorous and overly enforced governance; totalitarianism. Even the Burke quote you provide identifies government as opposing freedom.Everywhere else you're arguing "Yes, but...", but here you're arguing "No".
We finally agree on something!
@Nomoturtle You have quite a bit here and it being Sunday I regret that my time is limited.However, a few thoughts in response. Your point about the mean does not contradict anything I said. My reference was to the balance between freedom and order. On any other given set of issues, the mean may or may not be desirable. (For example, a compromise peace with Nazi Germany in WWII would NOT have been a good thing.)My point is that, in a democracy, societies are constantly balancing and rebalancing freedom and order, shifting that balance within the prism of an existing value structure. In a democracy, then, an individual's ideals, in this context, are weighed and balanced against the ideals of others. This does not necessarily mean sacrificing one's values, but in any harmonious democracy it is apt to mean compromising them to some degree.As to the party, I did not have time to quote it, but in 1940 Hitler gave a speech before the Reichstag in which he said, and here I paraphrase a bit, we salute the men of the armed forces, we salute the forces of order, we salute the worker, we salute... it went on in this vein until he added, "ABOVE ALL, we salute the party..."The party was seen as distinct from of the government. The party - and this was true of the Fascists and certainly the communists - was the master of the state. It was the vanguard of the "truths" espoused by the party ideology and the government was its servant.This then was my reference and why I made the distinction. Government is essential to man and he cannot exist without it. The secular religions - for religions was what they were and what they are - of Fascism, Communism and National Socialism - subordinated all, including government, to the "truths" they espoused. Hope that helps.
Well, me may agree - but I'll bet we don't on the details, and they are not small. Nevertheless, for today --- CHEERS!
Strangely we’ve discussed false dichotomies before about socialism and you didn’t seem to understand it there. Glad that’s cleared up!
Actually, you don't appear to understand the definition of socialism, but we'll get to that another day.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Be the first girl to share an opinion and earn 1 more Xper point!