Recently got a temp ban from KiA2 for very mildly acknowledging this fact. Just testing the waters here.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (142)
sorted by:
They certainly did, until a certain event changed public sentiment.
Here, if you can understand me when I say "socially criminal (or maybe civically criminal?)" pretty much hits the nail on the head. A society is only as free as the laws it doesn't have to create to foster order and stability.
Yeah, the 1960s.
Meaning that multicultural societies inevitably have to suppress liberties in order to keep order and stability?
The 60s were... unfortunate. But really, Henry Ford wasn't out of the mainstream before WW2.
Precisely. Society wants stability first and foremost. Freedom will always be secondary to that. But it's been stated better than that:
Lately I have been trying to figure out where we went wrong. I can't really decide between 1789 (or even 1776) and 1914. Or maybe 1517.
It's two different issues I'd say. You can have two moral and religious peoples, that are still at loggerheads with each other. This is more saying that a government of liberty requires that people be able to restrain themselves.
We've went wrong a lot, but I think 1861 was the biggest in the American timeline. Secession from a government that doesn't represent their interests should be a right among a free people, and it was really the end of the 1776 experiment.
As to the "religious peoples" bit, within context, that seemed much more directed at the restraint of human nature, as you say, rather than any organized religion.
While you're correct that "religious people" are often at loggerheads, that's really more an issue of unreasoned passion, than what seems to be referred to here.