(January 31, 2018 at 2:39 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(January 31, 2018 at 1:13 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:
Someone living in an earthly dictatorship or kingdom typically has little to no individual agency. I mean, you're aware North Korea exists, correct? Saudi Arabia?
I'm still looking to what you mean by individual agency here? To my understanding, even in N. Korea and Saudi Arabia, that the people still have individual agency. I don't think that if we where to become a dictatorship this very minute, that all of the sudden we would become robots as a result.
Also, even if they are typical, I don't see why you would point to North Korea and Saudi Arabia as an example. Are you saying that they are good? If not, then even if atypical you can't reference a good dictatorship/monarchy by hand waving to these countries. Which still leaves us with the question on what is so bad. I'm sorry, but as I recently alluded to, I don't think that your exasperation provides us with any detail or a case for what you are complaining about.
It's not an area I have studied greatly, but I'm sure that there have been good kings, who served their people well, and who had a strong and good government. Even if we are left without an example, then I'm sure that an abstract ruler could be thought of, which still fits the definition of dictator/monarch and not require such control.
It is also occurring to me, that there could be some equivocation going on here. The term dictator may be used in regards to an oppressive rule. I think that Zen Classin may have referred to the administration here as dictators in regards to his free speech. Another meaning of the word is referring to the structure of a government, with a single ruler as the ultimate authority. I have been referring to the latter, because of the reference to lords/ monarchies and there is only a slight difference (in how the gained power). I think that it would be an error of equivocation, to take the meaning of one sense of the word, and impose it on the other. Do you think that this is possibly where some of our conflict comes from?
Okay, let's simplify it:
I mean agency as a means of having a say in the structure of the larger social framework in which a person lives. A monarch or dictator - assuming they have direct control over such rules and their implementation - doesn't allow their subjects agency in that sense. It doesn't matter if the rules and their implementation are always beneficial, the individual's voice, and their right to self-determination, is being stifled.
Now, a lot of existing monarchies have various legislative bodies who ostensibly represent the interests of the people. But there's no such apparatus described in the bible. It's just Jesus/god is king, and that's it.
I believe that such a setup is, indeed, harmful.
Regarding the forum, even though Tibs is the owner, the staff here is open to suggestions from the rank and file, and, indeed, changes have been made because of it (see: the most recent rule about targeting groups for no other reason than to insult or incite them). It's a collaborative relationship. Moreover, anyone can choose to not engage with others here without fear of punishment. Don't like the way things are done? Then leave. That's not possible under the heaven/hell binary.
The same can be said for work relationships, or even familial relationships once one has the means to be self-sufficient. The god relationship is unlike any other, and it's one that doesn't respect the individual's choice to not be involved. It's engage, or suffer. And for me, no matter how much bliss may be involved if one does decide to join the arrangement, the overall structure of it is troublesome.
