Since everything is government-controlled according to you, then there are no examples of meaningful organization that is not "government sanctioned & controlled," and that occurs except "in the shadow of death": under an implied and determinative threat or danger, and past and future, of violence, from war down to the level of daily life in "peacetime."
You seem to reason by absolutes only. By your definition, there would be no "freedom" for anyone, since, as soon as your absolute freedom is hemmed in by other people's, you are "controlled." If there are any consequences to your refusal to cooperate, you are "controlled" and no longer "a free man." It turns the notions into absurdities. Any world other than the one perfectly in accord with all of b-psycho's self-determined interests, wishes, and impulses, and where there are no consequences for b-psycho if he refuses to cooperate, or abide by other people's determinations of their interests, is an un-just world, apparently.
As for the current debate, I don't consider an authentic critique of the system OOB, but you and I might differ over what makes for an authentic critique. There are many on all sides of the mainstream debate that largely manage to offer criticism or opposition without diminishing themselves in diminishing the objects of their criticism or opposition. It's more the norm for what we call "polite" disagreement, though sometimes where a critique fails is precisely where it implicitly presumes the stupidity or bad intentions of the opponent.
b-psycho: I don’t think people claiming to control our lives
They don't claim to control our lives. You claim they control our lives. Those who acknowledge the necessity of some decisionmaking structure, and do not see the desirability of your alternative, if you have one, feel entitled to say, "Screw him."
Are you asking who in the current public debate offers opposition to Obama in a respectful way? Or who expresses opposition to "the system"? Or are you asking for a definition respectful/respectable opposition?
mostly secular was a misleading empirical observation re MB activities. He withdrew it. What Clapper specifically said re Iran was a precise reading of the intelligence, not of a non-existent nuclear weapons program, but of lack of evidence of an end-phase program to move from development to actual construction of a device.
As for Sam Adams, if you're one of 300,000,000 people contributing beer money and the guy comes back from the store saying they didn't have S.A. but 275,000,000 people wanted BL as 1st, 2nd, or 3rd choice, you should cut him some slack if he fit it all in his car "for us."
What could be more reasonable than that?
Respectful opposition is the norm for people who respect themselves enough not to waste their time on matters beneath their dignity. Serious opposition automatically elevates the opponent. Opposition based on diminishing the enemy is therefore also always self-diminishing. Though this function of opposition also does not have much to do with the original question about the reasonableness for those who may identify either with O or with the country of feeling diminished in witnessing his performance, in some sense the same reflexivity applies there, too. Even those who hate America or hate nations or despise patriotism or hate or despise Obama personally may feel deflated by the sense that he is a politically weakened figure or that America is impotent.
Sorry, but you keep on moving on to new arguments based on new presumptions. "Opposition" is not "diminution" or "disrespect." Being done "in the name of" is not the same as being done "with the agreement of" or the "with the unanimous agreement of." These are all unreasonable presumptions to impose in a discussion originally of "reasonable"-ness.
I didn't say anything about benignity, or offer an argument in favor or against. Your question was as to "reasonable"-ness. You then turn to "violence," as though having demonstrated that violence must always be "unreasonable," or, for that matter, as though un-reason itself must always be an unreasonable recourse. You move to a next level of presumptions when you refer to "warped patriotism & nationalism" and "elite worship." Does that mean that you believe in a non-warped patriotism and a non-warped nationalism? How are either of the latter conceivable if they don't include affirmation of the pure products and everywhere apparent chief features of patriotism and nationalism? Do you distinguish between a reasonable respect for the "elite" and an unreasonable worship? Is there no meaningful difference for you between one type of authority or "ruling class" and another?
Where to start? First, do you presume that such a sentiment will or can be reasoned, or that it might ought to be? Does it need to be more reasonable than "it works for a critical mass of people in the sense of making them more happy or satisfied," whether or not it's intrinsically or absolutely "reasonable," and whether or not we can know for sure that it is the best or only reasonable way?
Incidentally, of course you do, Mr. P, think, "In the specific case of Obama though, if he is shrinking as you put it, good!" One individual, the one who identifies with the leader, or nation, or city, etc., witnesses his or its elevation, and feels elevated, witnesses its humiliation and feels humiliated. The one who doesn't, and whose sense of self ends at the surface of his or her skin, or perhaps his or her private domain, or perhaps his oppressed oppressed class, sees the elevation of any larger or more powerful individual or group as diminishing. This pattern is well-known, one of those eternal subjects of political philosophy.
Since everything is government-controlled according to you, then there are no examples of meaningful organization that is not "government sanctioned & controlled," and that occurs except "in the shadow of death": under an implied and determinative threat or danger, and past and future, of violence, from war down to the level of daily life in "peacetime."
You seem to reason by absolutes only. By your definition, there would be no "freedom" for anyone, since, as soon as your absolute freedom is hemmed in by other people's, you are "controlled." If there are any consequences to your refusal to cooperate, you are "controlled" and no longer "a free man." It turns the notions into absurdities. Any world other than the one perfectly in accord with all of b-psycho's self-determined interests, wishes, and impulses, and where there are no consequences for b-psycho if he refuses to cooperate, or abide by other people's determinations of their interests, is an un-just world, apparently.
As for the current debate, I don't consider an authentic critique of the system OOB, but you and I might differ over what makes for an authentic critique. There are many on all sides of the mainstream debate that largely manage to offer criticism or opposition without diminishing themselves in diminishing the objects of their criticism or opposition. It's more the norm for what we call "polite" disagreement, though sometimes where a critique fails is precisely where it implicitly presumes the stupidity or bad intentions of the opponent.
They don't claim to control our lives. You claim they control our lives. Those who acknowledge the necessity of some decisionmaking structure, and do not see the desirability of your alternative, if you have one, feel entitled to say, "Screw him."
Are you asking who in the current public debate offers opposition to Obama in a respectful way? Or who expresses opposition to "the system"? Or are you asking for a definition respectful/respectable opposition?
mostly secular was a misleading empirical observation re MB activities. He withdrew it. What Clapper specifically said re Iran was a precise reading of the intelligence, not of a non-existent nuclear weapons program, but of lack of evidence of an end-phase program to move from development to actual construction of a device.
As for Sam Adams, if you're one of 300,000,000 people contributing beer money and the guy comes back from the store saying they didn't have S.A. but 275,000,000 people wanted BL as 1st, 2nd, or 3rd choice, you should cut him some slack if he fit it all in his car "for us."
What could be more reasonable than that?
Respectful opposition is the norm for people who respect themselves enough not to waste their time on matters beneath their dignity. Serious opposition automatically elevates the opponent. Opposition based on diminishing the enemy is therefore also always self-diminishing. Though this function of opposition also does not have much to do with the original question about the reasonableness for those who may identify either with O or with the country of feeling diminished in witnessing his performance, in some sense the same reflexivity applies there, too. Even those who hate America or hate nations or despise patriotism or hate or despise Obama personally may feel deflated by the sense that he is a politically weakened figure or that America is impotent.
Sorry, but you keep on moving on to new arguments based on new presumptions. "Opposition" is not "diminution" or "disrespect." Being done "in the name of" is not the same as being done "with the agreement of" or the "with the unanimous agreement of." These are all unreasonable presumptions to impose in a discussion originally of "reasonable"-ness.
I didn't say anything about benignity, or offer an argument in favor or against. Your question was as to "reasonable"-ness. You then turn to "violence," as though having demonstrated that violence must always be "unreasonable," or, for that matter, as though un-reason itself must always be an unreasonable recourse. You move to a next level of presumptions when you refer to "warped patriotism & nationalism" and "elite worship." Does that mean that you believe in a non-warped patriotism and a non-warped nationalism? How are either of the latter conceivable if they don't include affirmation of the pure products and everywhere apparent chief features of patriotism and nationalism? Do you distinguish between a reasonable respect for the "elite" and an unreasonable worship? Is there no meaningful difference for you between one type of authority or "ruling class" and another?
Where to start? First, do you presume that such a sentiment will or can be reasoned, or that it might ought to be? Does it need to be more reasonable than "it works for a critical mass of people in the sense of making them more happy or satisfied," whether or not it's intrinsically or absolutely "reasonable," and whether or not we can know for sure that it is the best or only reasonable way?
Incidentally, of course you do, Mr. P, think, "In the specific case of Obama though, if he is shrinking as you put it, good!" One individual, the one who identifies with the leader, or nation, or city, etc., witnesses his or its elevation, and feels elevated, witnesses its humiliation and feels humiliated. The one who doesn't, and whose sense of self ends at the surface of his or her skin, or perhaps his or her private domain, or perhaps his oppressed oppressed class, sees the elevation of any larger or more powerful individual or group as diminishing. This pattern is well-known, one of those eternal subjects of political philosophy.