"It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion. -- Joseph Goebbels. Who knew Goebbels was woke?

submitted by Chipit from self.quotes

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ctvzbuxr 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Actually, no. "Engineering" society always means forcing your citizens to act in a way that they normally wouldn't, otherwise there would be no point to it. If you think you know better what people should do than any person him-/herself, not only are you being incredibly arrogant, you will only harm people, not help them. Because chances are that most of the time, you don't even know what's best for yourself, let alone others. The best way to organize society is to let people be free.
You think that good and evil do not exist, think again. You don't want to be told what to do by a thereat of force. If you want to be told what to do, force is not necessary. That means you cannot want to force others to conform to your needs, and remain intellectually consistent. Either freedom is for everyone, or for no one. Evil people always want freedom for themselves, but enslave others.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

forcing your citizens to act in a way that they normally wouldn't, otherwise there would be no point to it.

Yes. You bleed off those that won't function and fit into your society. In the United States, this is the prison system. It bleeds off dysgenics.

[–]ctvzbuxr 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think the only people who should be in prison are those who harm(ed) others. A system that imprisons people for victimless crimes is a system built on injustice.

[–]PresentableSonInLaw 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I disagree, you could "engineer" a society to value freedom and decentralization of power and wealth, in contrary to the authoritarian centralized society you describe.

[–]ctvzbuxr 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

And how would you do that?

[–]PresentableSonInLaw 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

[–]ctvzbuxr 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think a direct democracy would be better than what we have, but it would still not be a society based on freedom. It would be a society where everyone has to subjugate himself to the whims of the majority, of the mob. A society based on freedom would mean you can do what you want, as long as you don't limit the freedoms of others (i.e. attack or steal from them). A direct democracy means do what you want as long as it doesn't collide with the interests of the majority. Sometimes, a democracy (direct or otherwise) is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.