All people might be equal, but not all cultures

[jverne]

1. It is not a racist thread, because i'm deeply against racism
2. Lets try to focus on practical implications since if we dig deep in too much in theory we can just all go home.
3. We have to specify a base point of reference (that links all humans)...may i suggest freedom, avoidance of pain and stress...basically "well being".


Maybe it would be wise to note that even genetically some traits are better for different environments, basically it's a evolutionary standpoint that isn't critical but might have a smaller role.


I would say that cultures that institutionalize segregation, impose false beliefs and legalize violence are "sub-cultures". Basically it includes 99,999% of religion based cultures.

I think secular cultures better harbor the initial reference points.

Historically speaking there's a strong trend that as the culture becomes more secular and humanistic the better the "well being" of their people are.
But there's a serious catch, it might be difficult to differentiate between imperialism derived well being or genuine well being. We might say that if people are well fed and not stressed they will aspire towards secular cultures.



Now on to the more juicy topics. Multiculturalism.
I for one am against it for the major part, since IMO it only potentates division and slows assimilation.
It's even worse when a majority culture must harbor another culture which want's to overtake it.
Practical example is the fundamentalist muslim culture in the west.


Now obviously the right answer would be to let them assimilate , but realistically speaking i don't think too many of extremist want to assimilate.
My answer would be to sanction whomever does not abide by "our" culture. And by our culture i mean the secular part of it. I know cultures change over time, but i'm fond of the secular once and hope it stays unchanged.

Obviously it's contradicting for me to say kick them out and preach non-segregation. Well, i'm not entirely liberal...realistically speaking some things must be done even if they might not be pretty. Like i've said in theory it is wrong but since when does the world work 100% as intended.

I would like to say that i'd rather stay in the majority since this would mean "my way first then yours", if we'd be the minority it would be the other way around.
And since HL2.net is full of blasphemers i'd love to hear anyone contest this notion and state that he'd rather be a minority in a less tolerant majority culture.


And one last bone to chew...personally i think that Islamic fundamentalism is the biggest cultural threat we face today. Because: islamic extremists are well funded (saudi oil, iran,...), well organised, have a large, young recruitment pool, their ideology is especially zealous and we sure ain't helping to curb their willingness.

I'm having a hard time to find a similar group that is so well situated. One i can think of are neonazis, but they are quite sparse and mostly an unorganized bunch of idiots.


Now get to work and call me a bigoted racist. or...something :rolling:

 

[Noodle]

We might say that if people are well fed and not stressed they will aspire towards secular cultures.

That was Marx's line of thinking, if I am correct. It didn't really work out in Russia, where general well being is excellent, provided you are a member of the government.

Now obviously the right answer would be to let them assimilate , but realistically speaking i don't think too many of extremist want to assimilate.
My answer would be to sanction whomever does not abide by "our" culture. And by our culture i mean the secular part of it. I know cultures change over time, but i'm fond of the secular once and hope it stays unchanged.

So... I've having a bit of trouble understanding, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you are suggesting that the majority become totally and wholly accepting of the minority (the secular parts of it).

And the "assimilation" thing... well, it makes you sound like a rogue AI.

Other than that, it removes individuality, and individuality is what makes society progress forward instead of hold still. When we are all assimilated into a mass secular culture... we die as a society. We cease to progress until the things we are supposed to progress towards catch up with us. (think energy)

Just some thoughts. Please avoid the Marxist-Capitalist debate. It makes my head ache.

 

[xdrive]

There is no point starting a thread like this, you will be called a racist regardless. Even though race has nothing to do with what you are saying.

It's how the world is these days. Everyone has been fed so much shit "support multiculturalism or you are a racist."

 

[Acepilotf14]

I...
Well, I sat here for several minutes trying to think of some proper response such as 'Taken a liking to Stalinist works, then?', saw the thread author, and chose instead to write this paragraph.

 

[jverne]

That was Marx's line of thinking, if I am correct. It didn't really work out in Russia, where general well being is excellent, provided you are a member of the government.




So... I've having a bit of trouble understanding, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you are suggesting that the majority become totally and wholly accepting of the minority (the secular parts of it).

And the "assimilation" thing... well, it makes you sound like a rogue AI.

Other than that, it removes individuality, and individuality is what makes society progress forward instead of hold still. When we are all assimilated into a mass secular culture... we die as a society. We cease to progress until the things we are supposed to progress towards catch up with us. (think energy)

Just some thoughts. Please avoid the Marxist-Capitalist debate. It makes my head ache.

what?

who talked about tyrannical Russia?

Take Sweden for example. Or any other secular modern society.

I do have to agree that if all cultures would merge into one, it would kinda mean the end of society. But hey we're not there yet so we should enjoy the little things we can get

 

[15357]

jverne, I like your optimistic attitude towards the notion of what is basically social engineering. We can achieve great things together.

 

[kupocake]

I would say that cultures that institutionalize segregation, impose false beliefs and legalize violence are "sub-cultures". Basically it includes 99,999% of religion based cultures.

Pardon my ignorance, but what cultures aren't based on religion? I dare say there are cultures who would like to make such a claim, I just can't see how they're not utterly deluding themselves.

That and 'culture' being a word people on really poor degree programmes spend three-years failing to define have me posting in a Politics thread. Who'd have thunk it.

 

[Noodle]

Good point, Kupo.

Secularism is, in a way, the religion that worships non-religion.

 

[jondy]

Secularism is, in a way, the religion that worships non-religion.

I'm not really sure you can worship a non-belief. This school of thought also creates appellations like 'fundamentalist atheist'.

 

[PvtRyan]

Good point, Kupo.

Secularism is, in a way, the religion that worships non-religion.

Really now? Because Turkey is a secular country yet 98% is Muslim. Does not compute!

 

[Polaris]

Noodle obviously doesn't know the definition of the word secular.

 

[Noodle]

Gah, I know what secular means... that was just a poor way of wording things...

I was saying that secularism arises from a school of thought based around absolute logic and objectivity instead of faith. I meant that secularism puts immediate reason before faith. That's all.

 

[theotherguy]

Gah, I know what secular means... that was just a poor way of wording things...

I was saying that secularism arises from a school of thought based around absolute logic and objectivity instead of faith. I meant that secularism puts immediate reason before faith. That's all.

"absolute" logic? "Immediate" reason?

"Secularism," when referring to institutions, simply means that they have no connection to religion. It is just a label for an institution which is "non-religious." For an absurd example, the National Football League is a nominally secular organization, because it doesn't officially support or disseminate any religion. Does that mean that the NFL arises from "a school of thought based around absolute logic and objectivity instead of faith"?

 

[theotherguy]

Maybe it would be wise to note that even genetically some traits are better for different environments, basically it's a evolutionary standpoint that isn't critical but might have a smaller role.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Are you promoting some kind of genetic prejudice as a means of discriminating against other cultures?

I would say that cultures that institutionalize segregation, impose false beliefs and legalize violence are "sub-cultures". Basically it includes 99,999% of religion based cultures.

I think secular cultures better harbor the initial reference points.

Historically speaking there's a strong trend that as the culture becomes more secular and humanistic the better the "well being" of their people are.
But there's a serious catch, it might be difficult to differentiate between imperialism derived well being or genuine well being. We might say that if people are well fed and not stressed they will aspire towards secular cultures.

I disagree with your interpretation of "better," but I agree that it is absolutely true that cultures are not infallible, and that some cultures tend to get more things right than others. Cultures are simply collections of ideas, some good and some bad.

Now on to the more juicy topics. Multiculturalism.
I for one am against it for the major part, since IMO it only potentates division and slows assimilation.

Multiculturalism "slows assimilation?" Why is assimilation desirable? Why can we not have a unified culture which incorporates the good elements of every culture and throws away the bad?

It's even worse when a majority culture must harbor another culture which want's to overtake it.
Practical example is the fundamentalist muslim culture in the west.

I believe you are succumbing to xenophobia. Nobody wants to "overtake" your beloved western culture. Nobody is going to force you to go to a mosque or eat eastern cuisine.

Now obviously the right answer would be to let them assimilate , but realistically speaking i don't think too many of extremist want to assimilate.
My answer would be to sanction whomever does not abide by "our" culture. And by our culture i mean the secular part of it. I know cultures change over time, but i'm fond of the secular once and hope it stays unchanged.

This is ridiculous. Why do we want to assimilate other cultures? Why the arbitrary insistence upon "our" culture? The clearest and most obvious solution is to take every action on a rational, ethical, objective basis, and punish actions which we deem to be wrong, and applaud actions we deem to be right -- regardless of culture.

Obviously it's contradicting for me to say kick them out and preach non-segregation. Well, i'm not entirely liberal...realistically speaking some things must be done even if they might not be pretty. Like i've said in theory it is wrong but since when does the world work 100% as intended.

Now you're just rambling.

I would like to say that i'd rather stay in the majority since this would mean "my way first then yours", if we'd be the minority it would be the other way around.

Yeah, I'm guessing that's where 100% of this entire rant is coming from. Your own emotional insecurity of living with a different culture.

And one last bone to chew...personally i think that Islamic fundamentalism is the biggest cultural threat we face today. Because: islamic extremists are well funded (saudi oil, iran,...), well organised, have a large, young recruitment pool, their ideology is especially zealous and we sure ain't helping to curb their willingness.

I'm having a hard time to find a similar group that is so well situated. One i can think of are neonazis, but they are quite sparse and mostly an unorganized bunch of idiots.

I agree that Islamic extremism is a dangerous and acidic set of cultural ideas. However, that does not mean we should be bigoted against an entire ethnic group. That is just ridiculous. Imagine, using your example, an ethnic group discriminating against westerners because of the existence of neo-nazis in our culture!

 

[jverne]

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Are you promoting some kind of genetic prejudice as a means of discriminating against other cultures?

No, this is just a note about the first part of the thread title. That different regions demanded different evolutionary paths. It doesn't mean somebody is less capable, but only that is different. However this this part is negligible. So move on.

I disagree with your interpretation of "better," but I agree that it is absolutely true that cultures are not infallible, and that some cultures tend to get more things right than others. Cultures are simply collections of ideas, some good and some bad.

Yes, exactly

Multiculturalism "slows assimilation?" Why is assimilation desirable? Why can we not have a unified culture which incorporates the good elements of every culture and throws away the bad?

For one thing it means less conflict of interests. Just look at Europe trough the ages.
Is unification a good thing? Impossible to answer but seems inevitable.
Why can't we just take all the good parts of all cultures. Well i highly doubt it works that easily in reality. I'd say it usually ends up in a compromise that drags along also bad parts.
And i think a humanistic culture is basically just that. It has most good parts with few bad ones.

I believe you are succumbing to xenophobia. Nobody wants to "overtake" your beloved western culture. Nobody is going to force you to go to a mosque or eat eastern cuisine.

Xenophobia. No not at all, i fear it because i know it well.
I fear any non secular religious person (some more some less). May it be Christians, Muslims, Jews,...
Their (primarily religious) culture has nothing to give me but alot to take away.

This is ridiculous. Why do we want to assimilate other cultures? Why the arbitrary insistence upon "our" culture? The clearest and most obvious solution is to take every action on a rational, ethical, objective basis, and punish actions which we deem to be wrong, and applaud actions we deem to be right -- regardless of culture.

True, but i fear it just doesn't work that way in practice. You can condemn an action, but if that action leads to your loss it's not that practical. However i do agree from a theoretical standpoint.

Yeah, I'm guessing that's where 100% of this entire rant is coming from. Your own emotional insecurity of living with a different culture.

Emotional insecurity? What's that got to do with anything.
I fear the spread of cultures that would circumvent my rights that people have fought for and died.
I am culturally sensitive for any culture that is on the same level as my.

I agree that Islamic extremism is a dangerous and acidic set of cultural ideas. However, that does not mean we should be bigoted against an entire ethnic group. That is just ridiculous. Imagine, using your example, an ethnic group discriminating against westerners because of the existence of neo-nazis in our culture!

I haven't said that nor did i thought it.

For example: if one sub-culture want's to implement in my system any law that would somehow contradict the already established i'm strictly against it.
Like the blasphemy laws, public financing of religious institutions, arbiter courts,...


And one thought i like to say...I'd a million times rather live with a fundamentalist atheist than a religious fundamentalist.


I'd like to see anyone contest the notion that the more a culture becomes secular the better the well being of its citizens is.

 

[Vegeta897]

Their (primarily religious) culture has nothing to give me but alot to take away.

Couldn't they say the same thing about you?

 

[jverne]

Couldn't they say the same thing about you?

Of course, that's why i included point 3 in my original post.

If we presume that all is relative and that in the end nothing really matters, then we have nothing to debate about.
But if we agree that there are some basic reference points, then "my" culture is better than theirs because it is better at achieving those goals.
So if one had to go, guess which one would it be?

 

[Krynn72]

Is unification a good thing? Impossible to answer but seems inevitable.

The answer to a question is inevitable? PREPOSTEROUS! Or do you mean to suggest that unification is inevitable? EQUALLY PREPOSTEROUS!

Why can't we just take all the good parts of all cultures. Well i highly doubt it works that easily in reality.

Really? Man, what a pessimist.

I'd say it usually ends up in a compromise that drags along also bad parts.

And i think a humanistic culture is basically just that. It has most good parts with few bad ones.

So now you're implying that these other cultures aren't human because they're mostly "bad parts"?

Xenophobia. No not at all, i fear it because i know it well.
I fear any non secular religious person (some more some less). May it be Christians, Muslims, Jews,...
Their (primarily religious) culture has nothing to give me but alot to take away.

Oh, so you have a phobia of religious people, not just foreigners. Thats much better.

True, but i fear it just doesn't work that way in practice. You can condemn an action, but if that action leads to your loss it's not that practical.

So... don't punish actions that are unethical and harmful so long as they benefit you? Cool. You should be a banker.

Emotional insecurity? What's that got to do with anything.

Hmm, maybe its got something to do with the very next line in your post: "I fear the spread of cultures..."

You have irrational fears of other cultures. Thats what we call "emotional insecurity".

I haven't said that nor did i thought it.

No of course you never thoughted it. It would be absurd for you to look at your views from a different perspective.

And one thought i like to say...I'd a million times rather live with a fundamentalist atheist than a religious fundamentalist.

You're a god damned idiot. There is no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist because there are no fundamental beliefs that go along with atheism. There is only one thing that atheists have in common, and thats the lack of belief in any sort of god. Ergo, either there is no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist, or every atheist is a fundamentalist. Either way, your statement is retarded.

I'd like to see anyone contest the notion that the more a culture becomes secular the better the well being of its citizens is.

85% of the population in the USA identifies themselves with some religion. Suck my dick.

 

[jverne]

The answer to a question is inevitable? PREPOSTEROUS! Or do you mean to suggest that unification is inevitable? EQUALLY PREPOSTEROUS!

unification seems inevitable...i repeat...SEEMS!!

So now you're implying that these other cultures aren't human because they're mostly "bad parts"?

No where did i said that??? I just said some are worse than others.

Oh, so you have a phobia of religious people, not just foreigners. Thats much better.

Fear, well it depends how you interpret it. More of a concern than actual fear. However some things should be feared, like the blasphemy laws and shit like that.

So... don't punish actions that are unethical and harmful so long as they benefit you? Cool. You should be a banker.

Again...in a perfect world everything would fit together, but in reality sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, otherwise you'd loose.

Hmm, maybe its got something to do with the very next line in your post: "I fear the spread of cultures..."

Concern first, fear second...of cultures that are ideologically backwards compared to my culture.
Way to go and butcher my message!

You have irrational fears of other cultures. Thats what we call "emotional insecurity".

Same as above. It's not irational...would you fear the rise of a culture that valued nazi ideas? Of course you would, same here.

No of course you never thoughted it. It would be absurd for you to look at your views from a different perspective.

From what side should i look at the Taliban? please do tell me!

You're a god damned idiot. There is no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist because there are no fundamental beliefs that go along with atheism. There is only one thing that atheists have in common, and thats the lack of belief in any sort of god. Ergo, either there is no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist, or every atheist is a fundamentalist. Either way, your statement is retarded.

I think you're the idiot. It was meant just as an idea a thought open for interpretation. Obviously there is no atheistic church, the closest we can get are some basic humanistic principles that all rationalist/atheist/humanists might share.

85% of the population in the USA identifies themselves with some religion. Suck my dick.

Yeah because all of the modern inventions were made by rabid clerics or close minded religious people?
The well being of a society is mostly brought by technological development intertwined with commerce that allows each person to prosper individually.
Most critical inventions were made by open minded people that might have been religious but in a more personal kind of way. Very few were close minded pricks or shouting in the street idiots.
Especially the US, where you have many ideologies and opposing views. A lot of americans were protestants that were in a way more secular than Catholics.

Your argument is poor, very poor.

 

[Acepilotf14]

It's not fear, I'm just concerned!
Comparing other cultures with nazis
I'm insecure about my argument so I add in words which can invalidate it if proved wrong, thus saving my own skin!

No argument is correct if viewed in one dimension. To come with a viable solution, you need multiple perspectives. You see the Taliban as mindless killing monsters. They have their own reasons; those reasons seem logical to them, even if they do not to us.

You are wishing for a perfect society in which everyone is the same race. no one has religions, and everyone celebrate s the same thing with strict controls on all aformementioned things.

That's not a utopia.. That's a dystopia.

 

[jverne]

No argument is correct if viewed in one dimension. To come with a viable solution, you need multiple perspectives. You see the Taliban as mindless killing monsters. They have their own reasons; those reasons seem logical to them, even if they do not to us.

You are wishing for a perfect society in which everyone is the same race. no one has religions, and everyone celebrate s the same thing with strict controls on all aformementioned things.

That's not a utopia.. That's a dystopia.

Stop misinterpreting my sentences.

Fear can also come out of concern. I truly fear some aspects and i'm concerned with some.
Yes you people seem to interpret my fear as in "omg...i saw a muslim i bet he wanted to cut my head off". NO god damn it! My fear is loosing the freedom, the rights, the values, the ideas...

Why can't we compare other cultures with nazis? Islamofascist are not that much better or Christianofascist or tyranical Buddhist monks in Nepal,....

I try to make my arguments that focuses on the broad, theoretical part but also include my personal opinion.

I might wish for a perfect society but not that i believe it will happen anytime soon. I do however tend to defend the rights, freedoms and ideas our modern culture has given us.

As for the talibans...yes sure...theoretically they have their own view on things. But AS I SAID MANY TIMES! If we don't agree on some basic principals then this debate is useless.

If we decide that women are worth nothing then yes we can talk about the taliban as an alternative, but if we don't the obviously their culture is far worse than ours.



To make it even more blatantly obvious:

-If i had to choose between my current culture or the Taliban, i'd choose mine by a long shot. Fugitives from that regime seem to have the same idea.
-I would never bow down and accept a law/habit/practice that would undermine my established laws based on cultural sensitivity. As in the mentioned blasphemy law or willing to understand wife subordination,...

 

[15357]

You know, I've never understood jverne's ideas. Now I do. I like it.

 

[jverne]

You know, I've never understood jverne's ideas. Now I do. I like it.

why do i have a feeling that's a bad thing numbers?

 

[Krynn72]

why do i have a feeling that's a bad thing numbers?

Because you know that Numbers has terrible political ideologies, and he is agreeing with the things you said.

I'd like to see anyone contest the notion that the more a culture becomes secular the better the well being of its citizens is.

Yeah because all of the modern inventions were made by rabid clerics or close minded religious people?
The well being of a society is mostly brought by technological development intertwined with commerce that allows each person to prosper individually.
Most critical inventions were made by open minded people that might have been religious but in a more personal kind of way. Very few were close minded pricks or shouting in the street idiots.
Especially the US, where you have many ideologies and opposing views. A lot of americans were protestants that were in a way more secular than Catholics.

Your argument is poor, very poor.

Tell me something. Can you re-read these quotes and honestly tell me you believe the things you say? I mean, this is well beyond racism or xenophobia. Its absolutely ignorant and downright nonsense.

And don't tell me my argument is poor, when you can't even stick to your own arguments. Especially when my arguments aren't even arguments but troll posts mixed with facts to show everyone how stupid you are.

 

[jverne]

Because you know that Numbers has terrible political ideologies, and he is agreeing with the things you said.





Tell me something. Can you re-read these quotes and honestly tell me you believe the things you say? I mean, this is well beyond racism or xenophobia. Its absolutely ignorant and downright nonsense.

And don't tell me my argument is poor, when you can't even stick to your own arguments. Especially when my arguments aren't even arguments but troll posts mixed with facts to show everyone how stupid you are.

So you admit you're just trolling?

Unless you give me a proper argument it is you who are the stupid one.

I'm still wondering how am i racist or xenophobic by fearing backwards CULTURES?
You see i have absolutely NO problem with any person coming and accepting our culture, however i do have a problem when somebody comes and demands that we respect his ways which are in conflict with our values and by that i mean for the worse not for the better.
Remember those cases where the Islamic arbiter court judged in the favor of the male family members? That shouldn't have happened! Everybody has the right for a fair trial. Well you might argue that everyone has the right to choose their judges, yes and no...if you get drunk driving you can't choose to be legally trialed by your fellow peers.

I think it's you the one who doesn't want to comprehend what i'm talking.

 

[99.vikram]

Remember those cases where the Islamic arbiter court judged in the favor of the male family members? That shouldn't have happened! Everybody has the right for a fair trial. Well you might argue that everyone has the right to choose their judges, yes and no...if you get drunk driving you can't choose to be legally trialed by your fellow peers.

I can't believe I'm saying this but... I agree with jverne. (I figured you could use the support here)

He's not being xenophobic/racist. You people mistake criticism of a culture for criticism of it's originating race. There are things about Islamic culture, Indian culture, Moroccan culture, European culture, American culture etc. that are positive, and there are others that are negative. Our task in this century will be to weed out the negative from each of these as the world homogenizes, And yes, whether you like it or not the world will homogenize; it's happening right now.

The world needs different cultures, it's true. Cultures add colour and offer different ways to answer philosophical or spiritual questions. But at the same time, the world CANNOT afford to have multiple value systems. If the world does not share one set of values, there will be violence and unrest.

That these values are mostly Western ones is because the west has progressed much, much faster than the rest of the world for the past 2 centuries at least (case in point - civil rights and women's liberation). But the point jverne misses is that the west has much to learn from other cultures too. The diligence of the Asian urban middle class, the family values of Mexicans etc.

That's my 2c anyway.

 

[lame-o]

I hate Russian culture, and there's nothing you could show to make me like it. They're all alcoholic, primitive, mean spirited, communistic slaves. All of their most beautiful cities were made at the cost of thousands of deaths, and that's not to say that Russia is pretty either.

 

[jverne]

I read in the new york times and some other forums that the culture of Haiti (yes the earthquake one) is shit, paraphrased of course.

The arguments are that Haiti was one of the first colonies to gain independence, if i'm not mistaken 200 years ago. Despite the long time they still are pretty primitive as far as social cohesion and development. The article attributed this to the voodoo culture and stuff.

I don't know enough myself to judge but this is pretty much what i can remember form the articles and forums.

 

[Tagaziel]

I'd like to see anyone contest the notion that the more a culture becomes secular the better the well being of its citizens is.

Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. They were completely atheistic and secular, so that makes them good, rite?

 

[jverne]

Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. They were completely atheistic and secular, so that makes them good, rite?

Yeah besides the fact that they had to worship another "god" and that rural areas weren't so affected by that policy. And actually under the soviet union they lived better than under the monarchists and Ivan the terrible kinds. It was not great but at least better.

 

[Krynn72]

We are not here to judge each other, we're accountable for our own deeds.

That doesn't make any sense. Who are people held accountable to if nobody else were to make judgments about others?

 

[jverne]

That doesn't make any sense. Who are people held accountable to if nobody else were to make judgments about others?

...did you just agree with the thread title there?

 

[lord_raken]

The question isn't about weather we judge but how we judge. We hold off personal judgment because we know we are flawed too. The real question is who is to judge what is best for us? The government?... No, that has a long history of developing into tyranny where the people are subjugated by the central authority. The people then?... no entirely, pure democrace fails because it gives way to mob rule (mob rule killed Socrates).

A mis has always been the best answer. The government to run things, the people provide the will and direction, and the balance between the two to prevent atrocities.

This means you WILL have people of different ideals, cultures, beliefs, and faiths. To control those is to be a tyrant and to open yourself to the same happening to you.

Control is impossible, perfect order is impossible, harmony will never be the default setting. We, as the people, hold on to order by a finger tip.

 

[jverne]

The question isn't about weather we judge but how we judge. We hold off personal judgment because we know we are flawed too. The real question is who is to judge what is best for us? The government?... No, that has a long history of developing into tyranny where the people are subjugated by the central authority. The people then?... no entirely, pure democrace fails because it gives way to mob rule (mob rule killed Socrates).

A mis has always been the best answer. The government to run things, the people provide the will and direction, and the balance between the two to prevent atrocities.

This means you WILL have people of different ideals, cultures, beliefs, and faiths. To control those is to be a tyrant and to open yourself to the same happening to you.

Control is impossible, perfect order is impossible, harmony will never be the default setting. We, as the people, hold on to order by a finger tip.

Control is really not what i'm implying. But i understand what you're getting at.