☺
Politica
Scritto da
il 2022-10-26 18:32:32.0 alle 2022-10-26 18:32:32.0
Trollate totali: 9885
Un post di politica che mi hanno cancellato in talkclassical
In talkclassical è vietato parlare di politica, per questo che mi hanno cancellato il post.
---------------------------------------
I'm a "freelance philosopher" and I wrote the following theory.
There are different kind of rights:
Civil rights (also called "negative rights")
Social rights (also called "positive rights)
Political rights
The civil rights are the individual freedoms and the limitations of the power of the government.
The social rights are the right to have food, healthcare, and so on...
The political rights are the the right of partecipate to political decisions.
My theory is that it's not true that the three categories of rights are complementary and can exist together without compromises.
We can start with the political rights. To have "political rights" means that you can create a law that suppresses a civil right.
Racism, homophobia, segregation, persecutions, wars, slavery, mistreatment of animals and so on... are things that have been done and are done by democratic states.
Why? Because it's not true that the citizens are the "good people". Much of the evil comes from the pop culture, and the democratic governments do simply what the pop culture asks. It's a market.
In Italy about 30% of persons are fascists and many leftists are nostalgic of the USSR. Authoritarian governments do not fall from the clouds: they can exist because there is a large pop culture that supports them.
Not only in Italy the pop culture is in general low from any perspective, but it's authoritarian.
When you are exposed to the italian culture, it's easy to become "a snob". It's used as a derogatory word, but in reality being snob is a positive quality, because it means to distance yourself from the low culture of the masses.
However, the point is that giving too many political rights to the masses is dangerous for the civil rights, especially in the countries where the pop culture is very low.
Who says that the political rights are more important than civil rights? Why would be the freedom to suppress the individual freedom of other persons be more important than the individual freedom of that persons?
For me the civil rights are more important, so I'm ready to strongly limit the political rights to save the civil rights.
Most modern liberals are liberaldemocrats, so they try to put liberalism and democracy together, but in practice what they do is to elevate democracy above individual freedom (and then they cry because the pop culture doesn't believe in freedom).
However, thare is still a minority of liberals who think that the best solution would be a liberal monarchy. I'm not one of them, but I'm certainly skeptics about the validity of the model of the western states.
However, the point is that I don't like the pop culture in general. Some of the things of the pop culture are harming, some others are not. The music of the pop culture is not harming, so we can say that to listen to the music you prefer is a civil right.
But to say that you don't like the pop culture, including the music, is also a civil right. Don't tell me that I have to respect the pop culture, otherwise I must also respect the chemical castration of Alan Turing (which was the result of the english pop culture of the time) and racial segregation of the USA (which was the result of the american pop culture of the time).
**Modificato dall'autore il 26.10.2022 18:36**
