Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
OMG!!
Log In to post a reply

46 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
duckbreath
254 posts

Re: the Big Questions
Oct 21, 2003, 12:24
It's convincing argument. I think when you are talking about ecological disaster of this scale it almost makes philosophysing about rights, freedom, politics etc a waste of time. People need to know the effects of their consumption in these terms definitely.

I guess we will end up disagreeing about this but I still find it hard to accept the necessary connection between representative government and corruption. To me it seems we can educate people to elect leaders who have these concerns in mind. There are good people across the whole political spectrum who bitterly oppose market capitalist intervention in the political system - a growing number. It is pointless (and immoral?) as I see it to try and make any changes that will take rights away from people - the rights to form self-interest societies, the right to sell things to each other, the right to form consensusal power relationships between each other, the right to consensually uneven the distribution of wealth - and if you are going to honour these rights you have to work out a system where conflicting rights can live side by side in a geographical landscape.

This is what Aristotle, Hobbes, Hume, Rousseau, Locke, Burke & Marx were all trying to do. All of them (including Aristotle, Hobbes, Hume & Burke the conservative ones) would have seen the disaster of globalisation and this kind of tyrannical international capitalism.

Intuitively I think the answer would lie much more based around a new version of the heritage we have built up of honest, impartial rights based political thinking rather than recommending we throw it all away for something you agree is not more than a group of intuitions and feelings. We have as a society to honour people's individual rights - I don't see how we can get away from this.
Topic Outline:

U-Know! Forum Index