We have to use our wealth and privilege to improve our future, not our present. And that means much more focus on science and engineering, and renewable everything, while decreasing our waste production and emissions. We have to do better with lending, working to apply regulation equitably, rather than loosening restriction. And we have to treat people consistently, not specially, in the eyes of the law. The law should not apply differently simply because someone can afford better representation. Law isn't a measure of one's attorney, but of society.
Wouldn't restrictions be a problem? Shouldn't each person be able to choose how to shape their life without any restrictions?
No. Because people can be desperate, and desperate people are easily taken advantage of. People are also limited, and cannot often envision how their life will shape, based on any choice they make. It is rare for someone to be exactly where they thought they would be, even when making really good choices.
Of course not. I should not be allowed to burn tires in my yard. I should not be allowed to keep 100 cats in my house. We all willingly give up ultimate freedom to live in a humane society, because one person's freedom might be another person's shackle.
But isn't being desperate their choice and that choice can lead them down a path that will shape their life? Let a human be the person they want to be.
No human wants to be desperate. What you are saying is make a human be the sum of their choices. Great, that's what animals are.
But with humanism you have the right and responsibility to shape your own life. What if I want to be a tire burning cat junky?
I would agree but how can you know that for sure? Maybe that makes some people feel a content. It would be weird but it's that person's choice.
I would argue that is more Objectivism than Humanism. Humanists also take into account common needs of the group.
But what if I believe burning all those tires helps other people get rid of them and keeping all the cats keeps them from bothering people that do not like cats? I'm trying to do it for the greater good.
Restriction isn't meant to apply to all situations, but to apply equally to all the situations it applies to. An individual, who wishes to despair need only violate the restrictions.
Being misguided isn't an argument toward the future. All you are doing is falling back on ego, which is an individual trait. You have to do the burning. You have to have the cats. You have to be the savior. You are doing the greater good.
Yuck it up, but its hard to have small unit tactics when a portion of the small unit wants to just go out and do whats best for them, and not the unit. Small units are a case study on nationalistic human unitists.
You have an entire history of restrictions, from the earliest written word, until today, and what happens when people don't agree to them. It's called law. And when people don't agree to them, we have this concept of justice. As to which restrictions need to be considered, and what the consequence should be for violation, that would be dependent on what is being restricted. There is no once size fits all law, even though numerous people, to various levels of success, have tried to craft one.
Depends. "One size" fits better grammatically, so go with if it helps. "[O]nce size" implies that it doesn't need to be changed again; it is "once sized." And I'm digging at religion, if it isn't obvious. Christianity's entire basis of "law" is sin vs not sin--it's a one/once size fits all model.
If this court has to make a ruling regarding vote counts in the election and if that call appears partisan, it is going to be.....difficult.
