Glen Dickey,
Gerhard wrote:
> IMO, Libertarianism is like trying to swim with an outboard motor, you have great
> possibilities for a high speed experience, but this is the only quality you can have
> hopes for - and you will probably drown before you get things going. The thing will
>not
> work before you have the boat (society). In short: IMO Libertarians are overrating
>one
> quality, and neglecting the rest.
Glen wrote:
I found your analogy unsuitable. Libertarianism worked in the US for quite
a while and echoes of it still exists. Social pattern of quality does not
neccessarily imply the State. People can share values without putting the
force of law (and the states threat of violence) behind it. In many ways
these shared values are stronger than the state's laws. It's also
considerably more efficient and dynamic.
Gerhard:
I did not expect you to like my analogy, but I can't see the reason for getting US
involved in this. I think there is a lot of people that would not agree that US are a
Libertarian country, even though X-files probably didn't give the correct impression.
However I agree that US is somewhat closer to Libertarianism than Norway.
I do not expect that the goverment is going to force people to experience dynamic
qualities, but I have hopes for a goverment giving optimal possibility for the people
to experience DQ. This might lead to some regulation on some of the possible freedoms,
e.g. ecomomy.
Gerhard wrote:
> I need to have people with high moral values for this to turn out to be a perfect
>world.
> I am of the pessimistic type, and will expect a large bunch of people that do not
>care
> so much for anybody exept themself.
Glen wrote:
Interesting. So you think Utopia is an option? I don't think so. If
people are basically good you don't need much government, If people are
basically bad you don't dare have one. (I read that somewhere but don't
remember where). Timothy McVey is bad, but Joseph Stalin is a catastrophe.
Gerhard:
I must have missed something here. I was of the opinion I was accusing YOU for
beliving in Utopia. Maybe Utopia have a different meaning to us - I see Utopia as a
society where everybody is belived to be basically good. So in a MoQ sence: in such a
society everybody would understand imidiately that an individual in this society was
contributing with dynamic qualities (art, music, philosophy etc.), and rush to him /
her in order to finance his attempts.
I belive that such a thing does not necessarily happen, and that you need some
regulation to the system in order to acheive a balanced possibility for quality. If
this is your understanding of Utopia - I belive in something like that.
Glen wrote:
Be smart Wim, Heavy psychedelics are not toys and should be treated with a
lot of respect. Expanding your mind is not neccessarily a fun experience.
Looking over the edge can be enlightening but also terrifying.
Gerhard:
I was of the opinion that we wanted to experience DQ, and that DQ was change,
creativity, chaos, etc. in other words "looking over the edge".
Regards,
Gerhard
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
