Re:Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Progra...
by askldfhjkasfhd on Monday May 16, 2016 @03:00PM
(#11708711)
Just wanted to say thank you to you guys for following up my comment with a couple that really made me learn and think a little more.
As I approach my mid-30s, I realize that both liberals and conservatives are so incredibly biased in their first-principles that the ideologies will never reconcile. I just wish both sides realize their differences arise from differing assumptions, not differing conclusions. (The conclusions of what is "right" are just opinions derived from assumptions.)
Re:Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Progra...
by woodman on Monday May 16, 2016 @06:03PM
(#11709997)
No problem. HN actively discourages this sort of discussion, for a lot of good reasons, but I can't really help myself. Because I can't help myself I'll take your "differing assumptions" and say that I see it like a disagreement over software design principles - rooted in a differing in cost/benefit valuation between the stakeholders. On one extreme end of the spectrum you've got anarchists who want a logically and morally consistent system that scales from a single individual to a society - which is like insisting that the entire software stack be formally verified. On the other extreme you've got statists that are largely unconcerned with implementation details that may be immoral and illogical so long as the end result mostly works - php web developers :) Both approaches have different costs and benefits.
Re:Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Progra...
by NotSammyHagar on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @01:38AM
(#11711540)
Yes, this was a good discussion.
That can go without saying - did you really think that I was trying to comprehensively describe such complexity in less than a dozen sentences?
I think your characterization certainly adds more color, but you go wrong with "they want to base their actions off of facts". It would be more accurate, and succinct, to say "they are utilitarian". The goal is a world in which the maximum number of people enjoy the maximum number of "rights" (libs have a very different list of rights than the enumerated ones cons stick to). The utility to achieve that goal is the state. So it isn't fact based, it is much more "the end justifies the means". Your characterization of conservative thought as an "ideology" isn't inaccurate; with the exception of the logical defects introduced by religion - the ideology is a precept based bottom up approach, starting at individual rights. Whereas the liberal approach starts with the end goal and works backwards, which makes it much more likely to run roughshod over individuals - because the needs of the many...
Hopefully that helps you see my prior post as less "inaccurate" and more "I don't agree because feelings".