You owe me evidence of 7 Billion people who want to control others.
I'm adding this to my last you want evidence so badly, and if this does not satisfy you well than you can kiss my left testicle because this is my last statement on the subject. Capisce?
First off the only reason you are so on this is because you ignorantly believe my statement :"All people are naturally inclined to impose their beliefs on others" is of the same caliber as the partisan generalization: "All Liberals
do politicize national tragedies." I guess you aren't an English major if you can't pick up on the damned difference. Neither am I, but I've got one up on you. Let me clarify this for you and I'll try to use small words. I made an observation regarding attitudes that may or may not be acted upon. With me so far? "All Liberals do...." isn't just an observation of attitude but of behavior, behavior specific to a distinct, but diverse, group of people. See the difference?
Inclination versus
action.
OK now that I've gotten that out of the way.
I will now elaborate as to the evidence to support my HYPOTHESIS. I have observed that in American culture the term "freedom" is often tossed around from all sides of the political arena, like it is the exclusive mantra of every possible party or ideology. Each ideology/party though insists upon some form of law and order, which is logical, but they differ as to where the line between Liberty and law should be drawn and in most cases the line is drawn at the point between what is found to be morally acceptable or unacceptable. How many people do you know that would stand up and defend the right to do or say something in opposition to their own values?
"I may disagree with what you have to say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
There are people who can and do live up to these lofty words, but in their minds is that their first inclination? Would it be yours? It's not mine. If I believe in a sense of right and wrong choices, if anyone does, why would they believe those choices are inapplicable to others? Who would want people to violate their moral or ethical values? Look at how the stereotypical left and right break down along these lines. In the case of both, once again you hear "freedom" tossed around like a frisbee, but your average left winger draws the line at freedom to bear arms for example, as firearms clash with their moral choices, and for your average right winger the line is drawn at abortion for example, because that clashes with their moral choices. What do you have? Gun control and pro life. It is easy to defend the freedom to act and believe in a manner that is morally and ethically acceptable, and difficult, to say the least to defend the freedom to act and believe in a manner that is morally and ethically unacceptable.
If someone is able to defend individual liberty outside of their moral standards, they make a conscious choice to resist the natural inclination to oppose such activity, and the degree to which they are able to extend this sense of liberty is what distinguishes libertarian(since the word "Liberal" is such a dirty word even if it does apply by way of its original meaning) and authoritarian ideologies. Even amongst anarchist schools of thought there exists a value based form of law and order where it rests upon individuals to enforce moral standards arbitrarily to the point of almost being the antithesis of a free society despite the lack of a central authority.
Why do you think it was observed that "Power corrupts," human ****ing nature perhaps?
