WTF is going on? Am I crazy or is something wrong here?

Our "pub" where you can post about things completely Off Topic or about non-silent PC issues.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

Post Reply
nzimmers
Posts: 271
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:13 pm

WTF is going on? Am I crazy or is something wrong here?

Post by nzimmers » Mon May 07, 2007 1:13 pm

from the NY Times: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A962958260


Excerpts From Giuliani Speech on Crime:

"We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

um.... this has got to be some kind of joke right? I mean no one would actually say things like that and believe them to be true right?? right??

jbw
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:05 pm
Location: New York, NY

Post by jbw » Mon May 07, 2007 1:47 pm

I don't have time to elaborate right now, but if you look into the "Harm Principle" as announced by JS Mill, you'll see that Rudy isn't so far off base here. I wouldn't go so far as to say that freedom is about authority, but there is certainly a component to freedom that is freedom from other people's acts that goes along with the freedom to perform your own acts. It is by ceding our some of our absolute freedoms to the state that our remaining freedoms are protected.

Based on his background, Rudy just spins this in an authoritarian way.

Reachable
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 396
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 9:55 am
Location: Western Mass.

Post by Reachable » Mon May 07, 2007 2:50 pm

"Law" and "Authority" are two different words with two different meanings. Law is (ideally) an agreement among people as to what behaviors they would find unacceptable. Authority is the means to enforce it. Giuliani's words are threatening because Authority can create and use Law for the sole purpose of enhancing and maintaining itself.

jbw
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:05 pm
Location: New York, NY

Post by jbw » Mon May 07, 2007 5:23 pm

As a practical matter, you're correct. You also allude to the "ideal" that laws reflect the collective will of society. If that's the case, then the "lawful authority" that Giuliani is speaking about would only be enforcing the will of the people against those who would violate it. So in a purely democratic society, lawful authority could never be abused, could it? [Note: that's rhetorical and circular so we needn't "go there."]

Also keep in mind that the speech in question appears to have been given in 1994. I'm not sure what sort of context the 1993 WTC bombings would put the speech in, but I know that the violent crime rate in NYC was a lot higher back then. That may have been his main concern at the time.

And keep in mind that these were the Clinton years, man... a little authority didn't seem so bad back then, did it? Haha.

nzimmers
Posts: 271
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:13 pm

lets try this

Post by nzimmers » Mon May 07, 2007 8:49 pm

lets try something interesting, lets replace a few different words in the place of 'freedom'

[Communism]
Communism is about authority. Communism is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

Lenninism
Lenninism is about authority. Lenninism is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

A Dictatorship
A Dictatorship is about authority. A Dictatorship is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."\

Actually what Giuliani was talking about was GOVERNMENT, essentially any kind of government.

Freedom is about choosing who, when, and for how long we grant power to. Whether it's done through a republic or a democracy, freedom is about choice. A lot of people are getting mixed up, when a definition is made (in this case defining 'freedom') it has to be tested against definitions of other ideals. The definition of Giuliani is garbage and has no meaning.

IsaacKuo
Posts: 1705
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 7:50 am
Location: Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Post by IsaacKuo » Tue May 08, 2007 6:05 am

Heil, mein Fuhrer!

jhhoffma
Posts: 2131
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:00 am
Location: Grand Rapids, MI

Post by jhhoffma » Tue May 08, 2007 6:39 am

Reachable wrote:"Law" and "Authority" are two different words with two different meanings. Law is (ideally) an agreement among people as to what behaviors they would find unacceptable. Authority is the means to enforce it. Giuliani's words are threatening because Authority can create and use Law for the sole purpose of enhancing and maintaining itself.
Which is why we have the separation of powers in the first place. Legislature creates the laws (but cannot enforce them), executive executes the laws (but cannot create them), and the judiciary interprets them (but is not supposed to create them, notice I did not say "cannot create them"). "Checks and Balances" is another term widely used to describe the trinity of the US Federal government (which is copied by the states).

Of course, since the Monroe presidency, presidents have often legislated from the White House (actually they will send a bill to the House for consideration), and more often today, more Judges and appellate courts are legislating from the bench, which begins to break down these balances. This presents some problems. For instance, the Patriot Act could be seen by some as the President creating law (actually more of a recommendation, which Congress then enacted). This type of act was seen by (mostly) liberal civil liberties groups as a weakening of civil liberties. But can also swing the other way if a liberal court (or even the Supreme Court) decides that the 2nd Amendment (right to keep and bear arms) wasn't intended to apply to civilians, only a state militia. Or if a conservative court were to declare Roe v. Wade unconstitutional...both are examples of essentially legislating from the bench.

But that's just my $0.02

Ralf Hutter
SPCR Reviewer
Posts: 8636
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 6:33 am
Location: Sunny SoCal

Post by Ralf Hutter » Tue May 08, 2007 6:42 am

IsaacKuo wrote:Heil, mein Fuhrer!
Wow, this thread beat the Godwin's Law odds pretty quickly!

klankymen
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 1069
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Munich, Bavaria, Europe

Post by klankymen » Tue May 08, 2007 8:14 am

Ralf Hutter wrote:
IsaacKuo wrote:Heil, mein Fuhrer!
Wow, this thread beat the Godwin's Law odds pretty quickly!
My thoughts exactly. Closed.

Reachable
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 396
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 9:55 am
Location: Western Mass.

Post by Reachable » Tue May 08, 2007 9:29 am

Let's not be slaves to Godwin's Law. Godwin's Authority, actually.

Isaac's post could have been intended to augment the post preceding it.

I think we've covered the bases, but if not, somebody who has something worthwhile to contribute should do so.

IsaacKuo
Posts: 1705
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 7:50 am
Location: Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Post by IsaacKuo » Tue May 08, 2007 10:25 am

I was actually just responding to Giuliani's words in the first post, after reading the linked article to confirm Giuliani actually said that.

Upon reflection, though, a quote from 1984 would be more on the mark...

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Wed May 09, 2007 10:54 pm

Yea I'm not a fan of Ghouli.
Upon reflection, though, a quote from 1984 would be more on the mark...
"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."

Unrelated favourite: 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'"

What most people don't realise is 1984 was based upon Burnham's Managerial Revolution which viewed the New Deal US, Nazi Germany, and Communist USSR as all three being managerial states. That's all I'll say lol; I can easily waste hours in here.

Reachable
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 396
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 9:55 am
Location: Western Mass.

Post by Reachable » Thu May 10, 2007 10:31 am

What most people don't realise is 1984 was based upon Burnham's Managerial Revolution which viewed the New Deal US, Nazi Germany, and Communist USSR as all three being managerial states.

So instead have a 'Libertarian' state and be utterly controlled by the conventions of trade (Rather mean and inhuman and thoroughly unnatural conventions at that.) :wink:

:cry:

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Thu May 10, 2007 8:30 pm

Thou shalt* not pull me into this discussion! Grr.

J/k. I'm not a libertarian though there are several in here. I think Ralf Hutter's one =p


*(we were talking about when to use shall last time I was in here)

Ralf Hutter
SPCR Reviewer
Posts: 8636
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 6:33 am
Location: Sunny SoCal

Post by Ralf Hutter » Fri May 11, 2007 5:46 am

Trip wrote: J/k. I'm not a libertarian though there are several in here. I think Ralf Hutter's one =p
Is that a bad thing?

beboop
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 9:55 am
Location: Third World Appalachia

Post by beboop » Fri May 11, 2007 10:45 am

Reachable wrote:
What most people don't realise is 1984 was based upon Burnham's Managerial Revolution which viewed the New Deal US, Nazi Germany, and Communist USSR as all three being managerial states.

So instead have a 'Libertarian' state and be utterly controlled by the conventions of trade (Rather mean and inhuman and thoroughly unnatural conventions at that.) :wink:

:cry:
There are elements of Burnham in 1984, the division of the world into a stasis of three totalitarian states, the power structure worshiping power not as a means but as an end, etc. But it might be a stretch to say 1984 is based on Burnham, Orwell wrote an incisive critique of Burnham that I won't attempt to paraphrase -- but anyone interested in this stuff would probably take some pleasure in reading it. It's on the web, google should turn it up.

There was no 'instead' in Burnham, Libertarian or otherwise. I'm not a capital-L libertarian (for one thing I can't read Ayn Rand without laughing) but hey, I voted Libertarian last time -- whatever their failings as an ideology, they do seem to take liberty seriously. So that's something.

to the OP whose nick I've forgotten, Rudy's speech is just par for the course. Actually I recall celebrities like Neil Young and Jack Nicholson making similar proclamations a few years back. Something about this culture loves authority, and politicians of course know that. Is that worrisome, yeah I suppose so, but it's nothing new.

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Fri May 11, 2007 12:58 pm

Is that a bad thing?
Naw, I meant Reachable ought to feel right at home.

Oops, I misread his post as his saying he'd prefer a libertarian style government. Anyway, I wasn't putting you down Ralf :)

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Sun May 13, 2007 3:42 am

"There was no 'instead' in Burnham"

The managerial state is more powerful than any alternatives and it not socialism is replacing capitalism, thus it wins. I'm uncertain whether his ideal transformed from a less oppressive managerial state to another near the end of his life. I believe he did point out that a balance of power leads to liberty.

Thanks for posting by the way. Welcome to SPCR!

1984 is at least surprisingly similar to MR, as you point out. I thought I had an article by Orwell backing me up, but if it ever existed it has slipped down the memory hole (if it's on my old HDD I'll find it). I'd like to add to your "There are elements of Burnham in 1984" that a managerial state rules by manipulation (managing the lives and property of strangers) and includes the corporate elite as well as the governmental elite. I suspect this is the article you refer to.

And... for the record though I'm not a libertarian, I voted Constitution Party last presidential election. I truly did not mean my 2nd previous post as an attack on Ralf Hutter, who helped me early on in these forums with building a quiet computer. I admire that he volunteers so much time to help others at this site. And that's all I'll say on the matter; my previous post should make clear the misunderstanding, which is all it was.

Erssa
Posts: 1421
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:26 pm
Location: Finland

Re: lets try this

Post by Erssa » Sun May 13, 2007 10:03 am

nzimmers wrote:lets try something interesting, lets replace a few different words in the place of 'freedom'

[Communism]
Communism is about authority. Communism is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

Lenninism
Lenninism is about authority. Lenninism is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

A Dictatorship
A Dictatorship is about authority. A Dictatorship is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."\

Actually what Giuliani was talking about was GOVERNMENT, essentially any kind of government.

Freedom is about choosing who, when, and for how long we grant power to. Whether it's done through a republic or a democracy, freedom is about choice. A lot of people are getting mixed up, when a definition is made (in this case defining 'freedom') it has to be tested against definitions of other ideals. The definition of Giuliani is garbage and has no meaning.
You could have also used democracy there next to communism. I think someone once said something like: "When a man steals a car from another man, it's called robbery. When robberys are done by a group of people, it's called organized crime. When robbery is done by a group of people who gather up to vote and take your car by the right of majority, it's called democracy."

Too bad I can't choose who I want to grant power to.

beboop
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 9:55 am
Location: Third World Appalachia

Post by beboop » Sun May 13, 2007 10:49 am

yep. that's the essay I was thinking of. I did feel a little weird posting something off topic and political-ish for my first post, but got the impression everyone here was secure enough in their own thoughts not to take offense at mine. This seems to be a much saner place than most places where 'politics' would be on topic.

I guess for my second post I should thank Mike C. for this swell site, and thank everyone who's posted -- after a forum search I found all my questions had already been answered, leaving me with nothing to do with my new registration but chat about Orwell etc. ;)

Post Reply