So, the French law opposing ninjas goes into effect.

[Mr Khan]

richardhutnik said:

badgenome said:

richardhutnik said:

I notice that, from time to time, where information is missing, individuals will fill in presumptive gaps using stereotypical thinking based upon a presumed group those individuals believe someone they are thinking about holds.  What I have repeatedly stated was that, in the case of where things go wrong for an individual, either through bad luck, or the fact the person made bad decisions, is that if there isn't a means by which the person has a hope of recovering and turning it around, society won't function right.  The responsibilities go for individuals to others in the same society they are in, to offer a hand up.  Without this degree of security, then people become very self-absorbed, and even the most basic of support is missing, where such individuals can act as Scrooge and say that they help, because they pay taxes.  Of course, such individuals will also likely complain their taxes are too high, and want them reduced.  And, heck, if you died destitute in the street, well, what do you expect?  You were a loser after all, and flushing of losers is the way society can better itself.  And I can argue this is basics of the Christian religion, that if I care to even remotely associate with, I need to bow my head to and acknowledge.  Well, if it isn't for society as a whole, it is at least a mission of the church. 

In what I wrote above, what you may of read from me is that if society doesn't do this, government will find itself increasingly doing, as it feels it needs to prevent society from falling apart.  So, the state of forcing people into compliance will end up following.  In no way do I approve of this at all, but acknowledge it can happen.

Your exact words were "[...] Libertarians put the cart before the horse.  You get more freedom when people take responsibility."  Do you believe that only applies to economics, as in the original argument, and not to social matters like this? It seems a peculiar place to draw the line, especially in this case when many Muslim immigrants subsist on welfare in large part because they won't assimilate.

And go with what I said.  I said that you will get more freedom when individuals in a society take more responsibility.  You don't create more responsibility by granting more freedom.  Society doesn't magically become better just because more freedom is given. As I said, Libertarians put the cart before the horse here.  It refers to all areas actually.  Take the case of freedom in the Mideast.  In cases where the citizens did uprising from the ground up and took ownership, transition was much more stable and worked.  Now, contrast what happened in Iraq.  It was a Liberation applied by outside force overthrowing Saddam.  The end result of the liberation in Iraq, as opposed to Egypt, was chaos in the street and YEARS of civil unrest, and a number of American deaths and billions spent.  Going, "BLAM YOU ARE FREE" without the foundation in society to handle it, is merely chaos waiting to unfold.

On this note, the conservative side is more accurate here in regards to the nature of reality.  That is why conservatives will fight a battle to preserve certain values.  Of course, WHAT those values are does matter.

Iraq's case was unique where they tore down all existing social structures (as part of the purge of the Baath party from public life, but you had to be in the Baath party to be anyone of consequence). You can bust a totalitarian regime from the top without having to tear through social structures, and that's largely what happened in Egypt, though support came from the bottom, things are 80% the same as they were before, the large difference being the absence of Mubarak, but the government wasn't decimated in place.

Revolution is a tricky thing, you either have to work with the old regime, or be prepared to either totally replace it or face anarchy