| |
|
Shunted in here, with minor amends for spelling and grammar, as a rehash of the points made first here, this exchange from another thread. Leap is bold, Ganesh italic, as per:
What I actually say is that people need educating (and that this is primarily a role for parents of children, but may need some kind of temporary institution to actually educate many of the current parents who do not themselves realise such things) to actually understand their freedom, otherwise they are easily lead by the do-gooders into a situation that binds them under the control of the do-gooders' "benevolent" [shudder] tyranny.
There, not QUITE the way Ganesh portrayed it is it..... eh Ganesh?
Yes, but they had to "understand their freedom" in specifically Leapian terms of "dignity" and "modesty" (as uniquely 'defined' by Leap) - and it was important that they be EDUCATED in these terms, via methods likened to those of the GOOD (but, naturally, in no way "elite") parent.
Hmmmm because of course understanding such things in terms of the primacy of privacy and personal involvement over supervision/surveillance and delegated involvement was sheer fascism!
A couple of clarifications on my use of words.
Elitism: the belief that the majority of our lives should be directed, perpetually, by a power-elite who know better than the ordinary folks.
Egalitarianism: the belief that the majority of our lives should be directed personally, as we are damn well capable of living the majority of our lives without a big brother telling us what to do.
I accept that occasionally we need to answer to a govt, but I advocate that such a govt is a court of our peers, in our community, not some depersonalised monstrosity arrogantly presiding over the lives of its (at best) children or (at worst) cattle.
A temporary role of teacher, analogous to that of parents to their children, may be necessary to educate people in the nature of freedom (something they have been denied by the big govt system) and the dangers of giving it up. That is NOT an elite.
[Capitalist Piglet]
Leap, you are confusing Egalitarianism with Libertarianism.[/Capitalist Piglet]
Leap:
I have never accused you of "fascism" and, for that matter, I've yet to use the terms "primacy of privacy and personal involvement" or "supervision/surveillance and delegated involvement" - largely because your rather idiosyncratic use of such phrases typically loosens them from their dictionary definitions. If you plan to accuse me of "twisting" your words, though, please try not to put them in my mouth.
Courtesy of Chambers Reference Online, here are the standard definitions of two of your other favourite terms:
Elitism: (noun) the belief in the need for a powerful social elite.
Nothing about 'directing lives' "perpetually", and no requirement that the elite itself be other than "ordinary folks" - so your group of teacher-figures charged with EDUCATING adults on the "nature of freedom" would indeed appear to constitute a social elite.
Egalitarianism: the noun derived from the adj egalitarian - relating, promoting or believing in the principle that all human beings are equal and should enjoy the same rights.
Nothing about 'directing our lives personally' or "big brother" there. As Piglet points out, when if comes to defining your terms, you seem more than capable of twisting your own words...
This may make Leap's terminology a little clearer, although when he uses a word it means precisely what he wants it to mean, rather in the manner of Humpty Dumpty, so we shall see. Sing ho for bracing political debate, eh? |
|
|
