Account Login

Email Address
Remember Me -
* Recover Password
* Create FREE account




Created on 05/04/2014
by Hanther

OK, lets go with this. If this is the case then what about the tyranny of the minority that would willfully disrupt the way of life the majority desires because of their own convictions? I think you are railing against human nature, for I contend, and I think history bears me out, that man is a social creature and at all times he will form a "collective", as you like to call it, society. So you are drumming mute points, and the question isn't one of liberty vs. collective, but rather what are the bounds of the collective going to be. You can rail against human nature, but it will amount to nothing in the end. I find it more profitable to try and transform the collective I'm in to a better one than to spit into the wind.

The choice, and the neat choice of words you use which I will smilingly repeat, is indeed between liberty and tyranny, but that is a moral choice which is never an absolute. Indeed there are no absolutes in the universe except physics, and everything else is just wishful thinking on our very insignificant parts.

I indeed will go with the tyranny of the collective rather then the liberty of anarchy, and I will firmly avow that my choice is the better one, for me and society at large.

-George In Topeka

I rest my case. Thanks for your comments.