Would you tolerate a bomb in your body, waiting to detonate if you deviated from the needs of society?
(media.communities.win)
💊 RED PILL 💊
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (117)
sorted by:
I have seen this argument, before, and have always considered it flawed. A skim of the top counts talking about Marxism and Capitalism and rights vs needs, but I see a greater flaw than that.
Cells aren't individual, they are organic sums of their constituents. A cell doesn't "act" except as a result of what it's components do.
The cell in this write out is more analogous to a social city. Every individual running about and doing what they want (a.k.a. free commerce). We can draw a generalization about that cell or city, such as 'its a skin cell and protecting us from the elements' or 'its a liberal stronghold that doesn't penalize criminals'.
P53 In this interpretation represents an enforcer agency. If we go with the city example, say it's a state police function. When the city government officials get corrupt, it swoops in and chops the head off. Then immune cells swoop in and gobble up the detritus. The analogous actions would be the state coming in and arresting the corrupt head of the city and disincorporating the municipality. The people (or nutrients) are then released to nearby 'cities'.
Thus the question asked is really, "should we have a police force that removes the corrupt from power?"
Everyone says yes when framed this way because federalism and checks and balances are hallmarks of a well functioning government.
Just my, probably banal, two cents.
Hey, sometimes common cents is surprisingly lacking in online discourse, so thanks for staking out a space to share yours. I agree with your overall theme, but I wonder why that makes you see the question as flawed? Is it because no “governing body” for the “enforcement” is outlined, which is why you identified government/police? Or is it because it lacks the discussion of “checks and balances”?
Anyway, I’m glad it motivated others, and in turn you, to share
I just believe the fundamental interpretation of the situation is forced upon the reader. Leading, if you will, to a "correct" answer.
Let me demonstrate with another phrase: "Blood is thicker than water."
Straight forward, right? Your family comes first. But this is a forced perspective. The original phrase means the opposite: "The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb."
Suddenly, it means that family isn't as important as the friends you've been through shit with.
I believe the same simplification is at work in the posted scenario by changing who is what in the metaphors.
Fair take!