08-12-2002 03:41									#31
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Buck Birdseed (b) Positive Freedom, "freedom to", the enablement of as large a part of the population as possible to enjoy a prosperous, fulfilled life according to their own specifications. (c) Republican freedom, freedom of self-rule, the enablement of all individuals and social groups to get a fair share of the power in society. [...] Fascists emphasise solely aspect (b), not caring about whether they crush individual freedoms or minorities in their wake. Extreme US liberals or Democratic Socialists would be at the opposite end of this scale, emphasising both purely liberal individual freedom and the increased power of weak social groups. There's an increasing group of people*, me among them, that see (c) as the ultimate goal: to get as many groups and people as possible participating in the deicisions of society, and therefore be free, to give diverse groups a voice and a say in the way society is run. On the opposite end of this scale would be a US conservative, believing in communitarian values and liberty but not caring about non-strong social groups.

Given the above, would you say it's fair to think the distinction between your qualifiers b) and c) mostly be about size of the group you care about? Or would some sort of precieved or real under/overpriviledge be necessery for a group to be worthy of consideration under c)?

And where would you put greens?

	08-12-2002 05:38									#32
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I'd not say that at all. In fact, extreme group b would more likely not claim that they're working for any one group at all, but instead "the people" or "the citizens". Where b craves unity c craves diversity, whre b craves traditional standards of community and family, c craves power for those explicitly excluded by such systems. Wheras b is likely to exclude groups whose claim to power would not benefit their idea of society, c would support the fair sharing of power between all groups. B is more likely to support central planning, c social group pluralism. Now, in real terms this may translate in b supporting big, strong groups and c supporting small, underprivilidged groups (with several exceptions), but it certainly does not form the basis of the systems of thinking.

The Grens are, sadly, absent. But they're not really a straightforward political ideology as the difference between, say, french ans Swedish greens shows.

	08-12-2002 06:11									#33
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Buck Birdseed The Grens are, sadly, absent.

Hardly a killer blow to the structure.

	09-12-2002 17:36									#34
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Buck Birdseed Where b craves unity c craves diversity, whre b craves traditional standards of community and family, c craves power for those explicitly excluded by such systems. Wheras b is likely to exclude groups whose claim to power would not benefit their idea of society, c would support the fair sharing of power between all groups. B is more likely to support central planning, c social group pluralism.

I see. Are there any exemples of groups that c-prone people would consider underrepresented that do not also feature highly on a PC scale? In other words, am I justified in my assumption that a black homosexual woman is always more important in the c worldview than a white heterosexual man?

	09-12-2002 18:57									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

It's all relative to the current system/balance of power innit? But yes, as society stands the groups US liberals want to protect (and victimise) under the rather misguided one-dimensional ideals of the "politically correct" moniker are generally the ones we feel should be given more power in society, as they generally are heavily underrepresented not only in terms of members of those groups in assemblages of power but also in terms of the ideas, the knowledge and interests of those groups in the ideological makeup of society.

	09-12-2002 23:53									#36
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

My basic beef with this notion is that it seems a bit post-democratic to me. If I understand what you're saying correctly we can do away with elections and appoint people to political offices by simply matching census data with personal profiles instead. It also violates the basic idea of representation based on communality of interest - under your system, it seems, I could end up being represented by Birger Schlaug... which, as you might guess, does not amuse me at all. I would have no chance to vote my beliefs, like I did in the recent elections by supporting Kristina Axén-Ohlin, despite her being a women and therefore belonging to a different demographic bracket.

	10-12-2002 03:06									#37
	Suffering from ads?

The thing is, you're meant to be represented by a plurality of groups. Maybe you'll find that Kristina Axén-Ohlin is a prime representative for your swedishness or middle-classity. The idea is that it's your multiple identities that will dictate your interests and you're free to be actively pursuing the interests of any or all of them as part of the excercise of your power as a citizen.

Which leaves the problem of ideological rather than identity-based representative democracy. I definately see your point here, which is why this is probably a complimentary or idealised system rather than a working analysis of the current situation, except as a theory of knowledge. But it does allow you to justify things, like the strive towards more identity-diverse and identity-interest-diverse assemblies, that can't really be justified using standard Liberal, Neo-Liberal or Socialist analysis, all of which tend to ignore group differences.