Freedom = Responsibility
Many of us have made the title argument. I would treat it as an axiom at this point, yet the government and socialist do not.
I have used an argument on my children with some success. "You are a teenager. You are in between an adult and a child. One day you'll be an adult. It is ok with me if you want to behave like a child, and have me take care of thing, and you do as I say. It is also ok with me if you want to behave as an adult, take care of things yourself, and act responsibly. However, you can not have it both ways. Each day, you should consider which one you want that day, and that's the way we'll do it, but no inconsistencies."
This causes interesting looks, some self-reflection, and generally good results for a period of time, because it is not an ultimatum. It is clearly fair, and it leave them the choice.
It seems this line of discussion, treating children/teens like adults as possible, and responsibility being proportional to freedom, would resonate with even the most liberal.
Why then can they not abstract this logical position to the greater society?
Separately, if you begin a discussion in agreement on common ground, and transition to the broader, societal discussion, you have a much better chance of connecting and affecting the thought of the other party (liberal, middle of the road or yet undecided (e.g. youth)).
What does the Gulch think of the logic for teenagers, and more importantly using the concept to bring around undecided peoples tempted by altruistic socialism or other?
I have used an argument on my children with some success. "You are a teenager. You are in between an adult and a child. One day you'll be an adult. It is ok with me if you want to behave like a child, and have me take care of thing, and you do as I say. It is also ok with me if you want to behave as an adult, take care of things yourself, and act responsibly. However, you can not have it both ways. Each day, you should consider which one you want that day, and that's the way we'll do it, but no inconsistencies."
This causes interesting looks, some self-reflection, and generally good results for a period of time, because it is not an ultimatum. It is clearly fair, and it leave them the choice.
It seems this line of discussion, treating children/teens like adults as possible, and responsibility being proportional to freedom, would resonate with even the most liberal.
Why then can they not abstract this logical position to the greater society?
Separately, if you begin a discussion in agreement on common ground, and transition to the broader, societal discussion, you have a much better chance of connecting and affecting the thought of the other party (liberal, middle of the road or yet undecided (e.g. youth)).
What does the Gulch think of the logic for teenagers, and more importantly using the concept to bring around undecided peoples tempted by altruistic socialism or other?
