chithappens
Senior Member
Originally posted by Devil King
If you feel the need to answer a question directed at Deano, then you have to expect people to assume you have some idea of what he's talking about.such as?
You might be familiar with Thomas Carlyle. During the Victorian Era he discusses what liberty is (this is in from Democracy). An excerpt:
Every stupid, every cowardly and foolish man is but a less palpable madman: his true liberty were that a wiser man, that any and every wiser man, could, by brass collars (chit note: this is an obvious note to "savages" such as the Africans and Native Americans), or in whatever milder or sharper way, lay hold of him when he was going wrong, and order and compel him to go a little righter.
*Had to actually type that. I hate reading books sometimes...
This represents one of the problems. Different ancient philosophers used to discuss what would be the best sort of government for nation-state. The most noted example is often The Republic. They talk about having philosopher-kings (basically wise men who would somehow never be tempted, not sure how they would not be tempted or swayed but yea...) and stuff like that because they understand the right way to go about things all of that. This might work for a single nation but not multiple nations and certainly not the entire world.
You could force people to all do the same thing and believe the same thing but that is not liberty. Heart in the right place? Maybe. Justifiable? No.
If another reason is needed I can provide more.