Liberty

[exchemist]

But it does have an interesting history aside from Nazism.

The swastika has come to be feared and despised because of its association with the Nazis in World War II. Yet historically, the swastika was widely used as a religious symbol. To some ancient peoples, it was a pictograph of the sun revolving in the universe. American Indians used it to symbolize the workings of the winds and the waters. To the Norse, the swastika represented Thor's hammer. Early Christians used it as a disguised cross on tombs during the time when it was dangerous to display a Christian cross. Hindus use the swastika, considered a symbol of good fortune, to decorate doorways and books.


Cross - Myth Encyclopedia - Greek, god, story, legend, names, ancient, war, norse, world, Roman, represent

Yes I know: that was why the Nazis appropriated it of course. (I've even seen swastikas on the roof tiles of shrines in Japan.)

But where are where we are. In modern Germany, it is indelibly associated with nazism - and indeed is used by neonazis. It is hardly surprising that they prioritise control of far-right violent political groups over the original associations of the symbol.

 

[epronovost]

It's authoritarianism to pass a law that makes it illegal to spit.

Actually, not really. If the law has popular supportAuthoritarianism is defined by the following traits:

1) Limited political pluralism achieved through legal constrains (single party system, limited elections, etc)
2) Political legitimacy is based upon appeal to emotion, most common and obvious of which is the identification of an easily recognizable societal problems such as "underdevelopment", "terrorism", "crime wave", "ethno-cultural jeopardy", etc. that can only be fought by the government in question. (the "I'm the only solution to a problem" kind off argument)
3) Political mobilisation is either supressed or severely limited (gerrrymandering, voter supression, police repression of protests, etc)
4) Ill-defined executive powers and the limit of the power of such executive
5) Weak seperation between judicial and executive powers
6) Wide class disparity within society and especially disparity between men and women
7) Preponderance of the use of force or the threat of it to enforce the government's authority and to solve societal problems, especially the problem of point 2 (real or imagined)

Having laws isn't defacto authoritarianism, though it can be. Note that having a law and the enforcement of that law is very different. There are entire websites dedicated to obscure and stupid laws that are never enforced. The question is which laws are actually enforced, to what degree and how. To be qualified of authoritarian, a regime must tick consistently at least 3 or 4 of those boxes and the more it ticks boxes the more authoritarian it is.

 

[exchemist]

it's illegal to spit on the ground in parts of Europe (and in some left wing cities in America). It's authoritarianism.

Should spitting in the street be banned?
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

So is urinating and defecating in public. Do you think that should be allowed as well?

What's the difference? Both are disgusting, unhygienic and unnecessary.

 

[Cooky]

Actually, not really. If the law has popular supportAuthoritarianism is defined by the following traits:

1) Limited political pluralism achieved through legal constrains (single party system, limited elections, etc)
2) Political legitimacy is based upon appeal to emotion, most common and obvious of which is the identification of an easily recognizable societal problems such as "underdevelopment", "terrorism", "crime wave", "ethno-cultural jeopardy", etc. that can only be fought by the government in question. (the "I'm the only solution to a problem" kind off argument)
3) Political mobilisation is either supressed or severely limited (gerrrymandering, voter supression, police repression of protests, etc)
4) Ill-defined executive powers and the limit of the power of such executive
5) Weak seperation between judicial and executive powers
6) Wide class disparity within society and especially disparity between men and women
7) Preponderance of the use of force or the threat of it to enforce the government's authority and to solve societal problems, especially the problem of point 2 (real or imagined)

Having laws isn't defacto authoritarianism, though it can be. Note that having a law and the enforcement of that law is very different. There are entire websites dedicated to obscure and stupid laws that are never enforced. The question is which laws are actually enforced, to what degree and how. To be qualified of authoritarian, a regime must tick consistently at least 3 or 4 of those boxes and the more it ticks boxes the more authoritarian it is.

it seems like you're making it harder to call something authoritarian than it should be. I can be authoritarian in my dealings with my wife or those ranked below me at work. voters can also have an authoritarian mindset... It doesn’t make them any less authoritarian in reality, by claiming there are 7 requirements needed to be "truly" authoritarian.

...I think this is denial.

 

[exchemist]

it seems like you're making it harder to call something authoritarian than it should be. I can be authoritarian in my dealings with my wife or those ranked below me at work. voters can also have an authoritarian mindset... It doesn’t make them any less authoritarian in reality, by claiming there are 7 requirements needed to be "truly" authoritarian.

...I think this is denial.

If you re-read carefully, he said 3 or 4, not 7.

 

[epronovost]

it seems like you're making it harder to call something authoritarian than it should be. I can be authoritarian in my dealings with my wife or those ranked below me at work. voters can also have an authoritarian mindset... It doesn’t make them any less authoritarian in reality, by claiming there are 7 requirements needed to be "truly" authoritarian.

...I think this is denial.

No that's actually a specialised definition of authoritarian as applied to politics and government else you could find yourself in the place where everything and anthing is "authoritarian" if it can impose limits on behaviors and exercise force (AKA every single hierarchy possibly imagineable or social contract). A too wide definition with blurry and highly subjective criteria is open to exploits and being rendered meaningless.

 

[Cooky]

So is urinating and defecating in public. Do you think that should be allowed as well?

What's the difference? Both are disgusting, unhygienic and unnecessary.

There's a big difference between pulling your genetals out and defecating on the sidewalk, and spitting. Most people don't want to swallow their flem, and there is no smell.

...But yes, if I can't hold it, I will defecate behind a bush.

 

[Cooky]

If you re-read carefully, he said 3 or 4, not 7.

All I saw was a qualifying list, and I discarded the whole post. Authoritarianism exists well outside that list. It's a narcissistic flaw.

 

[epronovost]

There's a big difference between pulling your genetals out and defecating on the sidewalk, and spitting. Most people don't want to swallow their flex, and there is no smell.

...But yes, if I can't hold it, I will defecate behind a bush.

So because you like law A but not law B, then one is authoritarian and the other is not? That seems like an easy "Ron Paul" like view of liberty.

 

[Cooky]

So because you like law A but not law B, then one is authoritarian and the other is not? That seems like an easy "Ron Paul" like view of liberty.

The difference is that one is indecent exposure and the other is not. But like I said, I have no problem with people peeing behind a bush, if they have to... The rain washes it away.

 

[exchemist]

All I saw was a qualifying list, and I discarded the whole post. Authoritarianism exists well outside that list. It's a narcissistic flaw.

Well if you won't read information presented to you, you will continue to remain in ignorance.

Now that is denial.

 

[exchemist]

The difference is that one is indecent exposure and the other is not. But like I said, I have no problem with people peeing behind a bush, if they have to... The rain washes it away.

Who says "indecent"? That is just a social convention. As is the convention against spitting in public. Personally I find it far more disgusting to see and hear someone spit than I do to see them urinate. (I had to put up with a lot of spitting in the street when I lived in Dubai: it's a revolting habit.)

 

[Wandering Monk]

Funny how the Christian right latches on to liberty but seem to forget that God gave lots of rules that RESTRICTED liberty.

 

[Cooky]

Who says "indecent"? That is just a social convention. As is the convention against spitting in public. Personally I find it far more disgusting to see and hear someone spit than I do to see them urinate. (I had to put up with a lot of spitting in the street when I lived in Dubai: it's a revolting habit.)

I don't know why you're making this one against the other... if you want it to be illegal to spit in public, then that is authoritarian, because you could just easily try to think about something else, rather than focusing your attention on others.

...It's authoritarianism. There's no denying it.

 

[Cooky]

Funny how the Christian right latches on to liberty but seem to forget that God gave lots of rules that RESTRICTED liberty.

God is a Libertarian. He gave us the free will to follow or not to follow. He watched Adam and Eve sin in the garden, and he did absolutely nothing to stop them. Jesus Christ watched Judas betray him. Then he let people nail him to a cross and kill him...

 

[epronovost]

The difference is that one is indecent exposure and the other is not.

And why is the exposure indecent in the first place and require punishment by the law? Why is that not authoritarian? What principle did you use to judge indecent exposure laws as liberal and those against spitting on sidewalks to be authoritarian?

 

[epronovost]

He watched Adam and Eve sin in the garden, and he did absolutely nothing to stop them.

But h did something radical to punish them though and that's typical of authoritarianism. Authoritarian don't guide or educate, they set standards, let people fend off for themselves and punish those who fail to meet those standards harshly.

 

[Regiomontanus]

It is also reckoned that the Polish demographics are changing and the younger people are rejecting the church and it is the church that back the government.

Yes, that is true about young people there. It is unfortunate, IMHO.

 

[Regiomontanus]

God is a Libertarian. He gave us the free will to follow or not to follow. He watched Adam and Eve sin in the garden, and he did absolutely nothing to stop them. Jesus Christ watched Judas betray him. Then he let people nail him to a cross and kill him...

Hmm, a libertarian giving the Sermon on the Mount...

 

[exchemist]

I don't know why you're making this one against the other... if you want it to be illegal to spit in public, then that is authoritarian, because you could just easily try to think about something else, rather than focusing your attention on others.

...It's authoritarianism. There's no denying it.

My point is that it is no more or less authoritarian than a law against urinating in public, which many countries have, including, I suspect, yours.