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:
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.
If any minority that loses an election is free to throw a tantrum and secede from the central government, you simply cannot have a free government. Because in 1865, the states from the losing side would secede, and there would just be an infinite fragmentation. Even in very homogeneous countries, you do not have full agreement on everything.
Not necessarily. E.g. Catholics and Muslims in France. Or do you mean that the degeneracy here talked about is unreasoned passion -that seems to be closer to the mark.