One, I am addressing Popper's argument, and why it fails foundationally.Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:18 pmYou appear to think there is a definitive, absolute judgement to be made here, one that is morally righteous and secure regardless of context - this seems apparent in how you discuss this matter as if all political positions are essentially equal or equivalent.Forty Two wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:34 pmIndeed, or whether one thinks communists are bad guys or good guys ,or anarchists are bad guys or good guys, or antifa is bad or good, etc.Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:29 pmI guess that depends on one's ideology; on whether one thinks fascists are good guys or bad guys.
If they come to town, may "we" use force if necessary to suppress them? Many of "we" think they are bad guys. If you say "no, Forty Two, you cannot use force if necessary to suppress the communists, anarchists and/or antifa members...." then why not? If you think "we" ought to be able to do that, why is that?
Two, no, I do not believe all political positions are essentially equal. For example, communism and socialism are horrible horrible, terrible, no good ideas, which cause misery, oppression, and horror wherever they go. They are among the worst of ideas. Other terrible ideas are fascism, Nazism, monarchism, totalitarianism, and the like. Social Darwinism. Racial hierarchism. Racism in general. Terrible terrible terrible ideas. Some other ideas are just plain stupid - Creationism versus Evolution, for example. Flat Earth theory. Homeopathy. Anti-vax. Anti-GMO. Retarded views. To suggest that all people have the right to express the ideas that they wish to express is not in the least the same as saying that everyone's ideas are equal.
Three, there is an indefinite number of different viewpoints, however, as to which ideas are evil, good, stupid or smart, or neutral. And, if you view the issue rationally, you may actually admit to yourself that some of the things that you believe might well be considered by most people to be either dangerous or evil, or perhaps just stupid. The vast majority of people, for example, think there is a God. I don't. I think you've said you're an atheist too. So, if the majority "we" decided that lack of god belief is dangerous, do you (does Popper) grant "we" the right to use "force if necessary" to suppress the dangerous view? If not, why not?
Four, I have not suggested that there is an "absolute judgement to be made here." Quite the opposite. I haven't. My view is that we as a "we" cannot make a judgment as to which ideas have merit, and which don't, which are bad or good, which are dangerous or benign, which are "good dangerous" (because they "speak truth to power") and which are "bad dangerous" (because they "punch down"), etc. My view does not make an absolute judgment. My view, and the view of liberal thinkers for 400+ years - is that ideas and actions are different, and you debate or argue about ideas, and nobody has the right to use force to suppress ideas.