[net.philosophy] If you didn't like "aggreate" try "permissive".

arndt@lymph.DEC (12/08/84)

To. Russ Herman

Permissive as in "permissive society".

George Cook writing on comparative ethics in the ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA,
has observed:
     "As every stable society has a code which 'bids men do this and not do
      that', it follows that you cannot have a 'permissive society.'  The
      two words 'permissive' and 'society' are contradictory.  The Oxford
      Dictionary defines 'permissive' as 'each individual free to do what 
      he likes.'  'Society' is defined as 'the customs and organization of
      a civilised nation.'  Obviously, we cannot have 'customs and organization
      if each individual 'does what he likes.'

The above is from: THE POLITICS OF PORNOGRAPHY, by Rousas J. Rushdoony,1974,p115This is a neat little book all by itself.  See others by him.

Of course let's not go too far and let the meaning of words get in the way of
our slogans.  Or our cherished beliefs.

Keep chargin'

Ken Arndt

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (12/10/84)

> George Cook writing on comparative ethics in the ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA,
> has observed:
>      "As every stable society has a code which 'bids men do this and not do
>       that', it follows that you cannot have a 'permissive society.'  The
>       two words 'permissive' and 'society' are contradictory.  The Oxford
>       Dictionary defines 'permissive' as 'each individual free to do what 
>       he likes.'  'Society' is defined as 'the customs and organization of
>       a civilised nation.'  Obviously, we cannot have 'customs and
>       organization if each individual 'does what he likes.'
> The above is from: THE POLITICS OF PORNOGRAPHY, by Rousas J. Rushdoony,
> 1974,p115 This is a neat little book all by itself.  See others by him.
> Of course let's not go too far and let the meaning of words get in the way of
> our slogans.  Or our cherished beliefs.  [who else?  ARNDT]

Gee.  Imagine that.  Two opposing interests.  "Permissiveness" (each individual
free to do what he likes) and society (which 'bids men do this and not do
that').  Gosh, Ken, how do we resolve this dilemma?  Do you have a quote from
someone else who might provide an answer? :-(

If you value human individual dignity, realizing that society is not as
important as its individuals (Arndt apparently doesn't have any quotes to
refute this point...), then one seeks a society in which everyone is as free
as possible to do what one likes.  "As free as possible"?  What would be the
limitations on freedom?  The goal would be precisely the following limitation:
freedom to do anything that does not harm or injure other human beings.  The
compromise between goals of freedom (what Ken calls "permissiveness") and
society (the aggregation of individuals to work together for common interest).

Of course, if you don't value human individual dignity, then none of this
holds.  Is this why Ken (and others like him) are more interested in rules
for controlling the people in a society than with the welfare and needs of
those people?

And, remember, Arndt doesn't think, he just quotes.  He needs other people's
brains to think for him.  If they've been published, obviously there are no
flaws in their thinking, thus all one has to do is quote to make a point. 
Right?
-- 
"Pardon me for breathing which I never do anyway so I don't know why I bothered
 to mention it--Oh, God, I'm so depressed."		Rich Rosen  pyuxd!rlr