just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

[eumaas]

I don't know if this is part of the difference here, but I'll throw it out, possibly to move the discussion, but is this a disagreement over "freedom from" versus "freedom to"? That is, 101W seems to be arguing, primarily, that the state (mostly) ensures our freedom from harm by any number of threats, whereas eumaas and Wolter are arguing, in part, that the state unjustly inhibits our freedom to utilize our free will. A bit crude, perhaps, but that's what I'm reading.

Well, the natural rights position I've elucidated is a tradition based in negative liberty, i.e. "freedom from restraints"--the nonaggression principle is a great example of negative liberty and comes from Locke (a classical liberal) in its modern form. I think 101wally is more towards positive liberty--i.e. that without the state, these potentials aren't possible.

So you're all academizing up what I think I was saying. Or maybe it's a contradiction. It might also be worth throwing in that one's experiences with different states will shape one's opinion. You and Wolter have lived in a country where Reaganism has severely debased on positive functions of the state and increasingly made it more hostile to most of its citizens. 101W, however, may have had grown up in a less toxic political culture, both in the UK and NZ, thus framing his views. Full admission: I'm with you mostly in theory (as you probably know), but in practice I lean more toward 101W (as you also probably know). I recognize the abuses and some of the dubious legitimacy of the state's authority, yet I can't deny my own experience in feeling that, on the whole, what I've received from government over the course of my life outweighs how it's limited me.

About to leave work so I can't respond to everything, but one more distinction is that Wolter and I live in a society created by revolution that was founded in these principles and theories (the influence of Locke and classical liberalism is indisputable). Wally on the other hand comes out of a society founded in no particular principles that evolved towards a rough cousin of the American system. I think the difference affects notions of legitimacy (right to revolution is part of Locke), freedom, etc. as it has roots in a cultural difference. That said, Locke himself was English so there's really no reason on account of his nationality that an Englishman shouldn't be able to follow these arguments.

[JennyB]

I don't know if this is part of the difference here, but I'll throw it out, possibly to move the discussion, but is this a disagreement over "freedom from" versus "freedom to"? That is, 101W seems to be arguing, primarily, that the state (mostly) ensures our freedom from harm by any number of threats, whereas eumaas and Wolter are arguing, in part, that the state unjustly inhibits our freedom to utilize our free will. A bit crude, perhaps, but that's what I'm reading.

Well, the natural rights position I've elucidated is a tradition based in negative liberty, i.e. "freedom from restraints"--the nonaggression principle is a great example of negative liberty and comes from Locke (a classical liberal) in its modern form. I think 101wally is more towards positive liberty--i.e. that without the state, these potentials aren't possible.

So you're all academizing up what I think I was saying. Or maybe it's a contradiction. It might also be worth throwing in that one's experiences with different states will shape one's opinion. You and Wolter have lived in a country where Reaganism has severely debased on positive functions of the state and increasingly made it more hostile to most of its citizens. 101W, however, may have had grown up in a less toxic political culture, both in the UK and NZ, thus framing his views. Full admission: I'm with you mostly in theory (as you probably know), but in practice I lean more toward 101W (as you also probably know). I recognize the abuses and some of the dubious legitimacy of the state's authority, yet I can't deny my own experience in feeling that, on the whole, what I've received from government over the course of my life outweighs how it's limited me.

About to leave work so I can't respond to everything, but one more distinction is that Wolter and I live in a society created by revolution that was founded in these principles and theories (the influence of Locke and classical liberalism is indisputable). Wally on the other hand comes out of a society founded in no particular principles that evolved towards a rough cousin of the American system. I think the difference affects notions of legitimacy (right to revolution is part of Locke), freedom, etc. as it has roots in a cultural difference. That said, Locke himself was English so there's really no reason on account of his nationality that an Englishman shouldn't be able to follow these arguments.

Did somebody say John Locke?

Sorry....I just really want the new season of Lost to start.

[Wolter]

I don't know if this is part of the difference here, but I'll throw it out, possibly to move the discussion, but is this a disagreement over "freedom from" versus "freedom to"? That is, 101W seems to be arguing, primarily, that the state (mostly) ensures our freedom from harm by any number of threats, whereas eumaas and Wolter are arguing, in part, that the state unjustly inhibits our freedom to utilize our free will. A bit crude, perhaps, but that's what I'm reading.

Well, the natural rights position I've elucidated is a tradition based in negative liberty, i.e. "freedom from restraints"--the nonaggression principle is a great example of negative liberty and comes from Locke (a classical liberal) in its modern form. I think 101wally is more towards positive liberty--i.e. that without the state, these potentials aren't possible.

So you're all academizing up what I think I was saying. Or maybe it's a contradiction. It might also be worth throwing in that one's experiences with different states will shape one's opinion. You and Wolter have lived in a country where Reaganism has severely debased on positive functions of the state and increasingly made it more hostile to most of its citizens. 101W, however, may have had grown up in a less toxic political culture, both in the UK and NZ, thus framing his views. Full admission: I'm with you mostly in theory (as you probably know), but in practice I lean more toward 101W (as you also probably know). I recognize the abuses and some of the dubious legitimacy of the state's authority, yet I can't deny my own experience in feeling that, on the whole, what I've received from government over the course of my life outweighs how it's limited me.

About to leave work so I can't respond to everything, but one more distinction is that Wolter and I live in a society created by revolution that was founded in these principles and theories (the influence of Locke and classical liberalism is indisputable). Wally on the other hand comes out of a society founded in no particular principles that evolved towards a rough cousin of the American system. I think the difference affects notions of legitimacy (right to revolution is part of Locke), freedom, etc. as it has roots in a cultural difference. That said, Locke himself was English so there's really no reason on account of his nationality that an Englishman shouldn't be able to follow these arguments.

Did somebody say John Locke?

Sorry....I just really want the new season of Lost to start.

Shouldn't you be watching a Richard Gere movie or something?

[JennyB]

Well, the natural rights position I've elucidated is a tradition based in negative liberty, i.e. "freedom from restraints"--the nonaggression principle is a great example of negative liberty and comes from Locke (a classical liberal) in its modern form. I think 101wally is more towards positive liberty--i.e. that without the state, these potentials aren't possible.

So you're all academizing up what I think I was saying. Or maybe it's a contradiction. It might also be worth throwing in that one's experiences with different states will shape one's opinion. You and Wolter have lived in a country where Reaganism has severely debased on positive functions of the state and increasingly made it more hostile to most of its citizens. 101W, however, may have had grown up in a less toxic political culture, both in the UK and NZ, thus framing his views. Full admission: I'm with you mostly in theory (as you probably know), but in practice I lean more toward 101W (as you also probably know). I recognize the abuses and some of the dubious legitimacy of the state's authority, yet I can't deny my own experience in feeling that, on the whole, what I've received from government over the course of my life outweighs how it's limited me.

About to leave work so I can't respond to everything, but one more distinction is that Wolter and I live in a society created by revolution that was founded in these principles and theories (the influence of Locke and classical liberalism is indisputable). Wally on the other hand comes out of a society founded in no particular principles that evolved towards a rough cousin of the American system. I think the difference affects notions of legitimacy (right to revolution is part of Locke), freedom, etc. as it has roots in a cultural difference. That said, Locke himself was English so there's really no reason on account of his nationality that an Englishman shouldn't be able to follow these arguments.

Did somebody say John Locke?

Sorry....I just really want the new season of Lost to start.

Shouldn't you be watching a Richard Gere movie or something?

Oh shit, am I going to become the Hoy of movies? Because I really want to clarify that there is not one Richard Gere movie that I like.

[Wolter]

So you're all academizing up what I think I was saying. Or maybe it's a contradiction. It might also be worth throwing in that one's experiences with different states will shape one's opinion. You and Wolter have lived in a country where Reaganism has severely debased on positive functions of the state and increasingly made it more hostile to most of its citizens. 101W, however, may have had grown up in a less toxic political culture, both in the UK and NZ, thus framing his views. Full admission: I'm with you mostly in theory (as you probably know), but in practice I lean more toward 101W (as you also probably know). I recognize the abuses and some of the dubious legitimacy of the state's authority, yet I can't deny my own experience in feeling that, on the whole, what I've received from government over the course of my life outweighs how it's limited me.

About to leave work so I can't respond to everything, but one more distinction is that Wolter and I live in a society created by revolution that was founded in these principles and theories (the influence of Locke and classical liberalism is indisputable). Wally on the other hand comes out of a society founded in no particular principles that evolved towards a rough cousin of the American system. I think the difference affects notions of legitimacy (right to revolution is part of Locke), freedom, etc. as it has roots in a cultural difference. That said, Locke himself was English so there's really no reason on account of his nationality that an Englishman shouldn't be able to follow these arguments.

Did somebody say John Locke?

Sorry....I just really want the new season of Lost to start.

Shouldn't you be watching a Richard Gere movie or something?

Oh shit, am I going to become the Hoy of movies? Because I really want to clarify that there is not one Richard Gere movie that I like.

We'll let the court of public opinion decide that...

[tepista]

Because I really want to clarify that there is not one Richard Gere movie that I like.

Nights in Rodanthe, honey?

[dpwolf]

First of all, read about medieval Iceland

That's your answer for everything.

[Wolter]

First of all, read about medieval Iceland

That's your answer for everything.

That is fucking ridiculously awesome.

[eumaas]

First of all, read about medieval Iceland

That's your answer for everything.

That is fucking ridiculously awesome.

That was pretty much medieval Iceland.

[Wolter]

First of all, read about medieval Iceland

That's your answer for everything.

That is fucking ridiculously awesome.

That was pretty much medieval Iceland.

Yeah. No chocolate at the time, though.

[Wolter]

By the way, am I the only one totally fucking rooting for Santa?

[tepista]

I was gonna be axe wielding Santa for Halloween, but circumstances led to a cancellation.

[dpwolf]

So what's up with that bird in the back right?

[tepista]

So what's up with that bird in the back right?

I thought it was like Humpty-Dumpty or something.

[Wolter]

So what's up with that bird in the back right?

Lord Chickington? He's bemused by the skirmish.

That bemusement will soon turn to stark terror as Kringlenacht descends on the Grand Duchy of Easterwick.


By the way, did you mean stage right? He's on the left.