[Millennium]

I realize there are a lot of people here who would describe my beliefs as schizophrenic. I have a tendency to side with different sides on different issues, to a point where I may side with liberals or conservatives one day and attack that side the next. Truth be told, I probably lean somewhat towards the conservative side of things, but I've had conservatives call me liberal and liberals call me conservative.

At any rate, I'm trying to understand the ideologies of both sides (and the various subdivisions thereof) better. As a result, I'd like to ask some questions which attempt to get at the core of political ideologies in general: what they want to achieve, what they want to prevent, and so forth.

For the first question, I ask this: What is the worst thing that can happen to a person? This is a very general aquestion, of course; the actual worst thing is probably different for each person, but I'm looking for a general answer. The way this fits into my goal here is that "the worst thing which can happen to a person" is something which a good political ideology will seek to prevent, but every ideology will have different ideas of what this thing is, and even among those which agree what it is, there will be differing opinions on how best to prevent it (though that is a question for another time).

A couple of things to keep in mind here:

• I am, in fact, looking for the very worst thing which can happen to a person. This does not allow for ties. At the same time, I am not looking for a right or wrong answer; I'm just trying to understand what people believe that answer to be. I am implying a second question here, namely, "why is this the worst thing that can happen to a person?"; feel free to answer this as well.
• I am not yet looking for answers on how to prevent this thing -whatever it might be- from happenning to people. That question will come later, but I'm trying to start at the basics and (as much as possible) tackle one thing at a time.
• "The worst thing that can happen to a person" might not be something done to that person by someone else. It certainly could be, but it might not. Consider both aspects. For example, "having cancer" is certainly a nasty thing to have happen to a person, but (as far as we currently know) it's not possible for another person to cause this to happen.
• Consider not only the immediate effects of the event itself, but also the continung effects of the event's aftermath. For example, murder is certainly terrible in the event itself, but afterwards the victim feels no pain; is murder bad enough in the event to make the aftermath irrelevant, or might the lack of an aftermath make it not as bad as some other possible events?
• Please consider only direct effects on the victim; effects on other people are a separate sort of event which are worth considering in their own right. For example, if the father of a family experiences "being murdered", then his children experience "losing their father"; these events are related but separate.
• I realize that it will be tempting to discuss things in the context of current events, but please refrain from this if you can. I'm looking for a general answer to this question, and that means not just across people but across time periods. Of course, you might believe that the worst thing which can happen to someone is happenning to someone right now; in this case go ahead, but consider whether this same answer would have been true ten or twenty years ago.
• I already have my own answer to this question, which I will post later. I am not actively looking to change my mind, though I'm open to the possibility of being convinced of something else. At the moment, though, I'm only trying to find out what other people believe.

I've got more questions for later, but I figure that these things will probably best be taken one at a time, because they tend to cause lengthy discussion.

[Spliffdaddy]

The worst thing that could happen to a person, in my opinion, is to not be able to secure my child's future.

Not that I would know, since I don't have any children.

Although, if I do have a child then I'm not aware of it - and that child would be at least 16 years old by now.

or something.

[BRussell]

I don't get it, or what this has to do with political philosophy, but I want to play.

The worst thing that can happen to a person is intense pain. You know, like getting hot pokers stuck in your eyes. So that's my answer. Hot pokers in the eyes. That's got to be bad.

[chris v]

1. Burning in hell for all eternity because I didn't properly recite a catechism or confess to an ordained prest seems pretty harsh to me...

As far as govenmental ideology, having myself and my children dragged off and executed by an elected govornment due to my religious beliefs or ethnicity seems about the most extreme circumstance I can think of.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I don't get it, or what this has to do with political philosophy, but I want to play.

What I'm trying to get at is that the nature of law is to prevent certain things from happenning. Political ideologies basically exist around the idea that certain things ought to be prevented by government. The major differences between the ideologies are which things ought to be prevented, and how best to bring that prevention about.

I'm trying to figure out how this works for different ideologies, so I'm starting with the question of what the most important thing to prevent is.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Political ideologies basically exist around the idea that certain things ought to be prevented by government. The major differences between the ideologies are which things ought to be prevented, and how best to bring that prevention about.

That's a conservative premise already that the government is only there to "prevent the worst things". And so I smell a trick question.

[Scientist]

The worst thing that can happen to someone is destruction of what they value most. For most people this likely changes through time.For a lot of younger people the worst thing that can happen to them is the loss of their life or happiness. For older people it may be loss of their children.

Like you, I don't worship any politial philosophies so I don't know if I'm helping or not. I'm politically bipolar, or nonpolar or multipolar or something.

[Spliffdaddy]

I'd just call it 'liberal' - was that the term you were looking for?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Millennium:
What I'm trying to get at is that the nature of law is to prevent certain things from happenning. Political ideologies basically exist around the idea that certain things ought to be prevented by government. The major differences between the ideologies are which things ought to be prevented, and how best to bring that prevention about.

I'm trying to figure out how this works for different ideologies, so I'm starting with the question of what the most important thing to prevent is.

Ok. I just wonder if framing the issue around the "worst thing that could happen" will result in complete agreement among everyone, regardless of political philosophy. I think differences in politics will come out on less extreme kinds of situations. But I look forward to hearing your reasoning.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I'd just call it 'liberal' - was that the term you were looking for?

Only if "liberal" means "other". A lot of the time I believe it may...

Anyway you'd be very surprised by how often I lean towards the conservative side of things. Some examples include my stance on gun control, the UN, federal healthcare, most social services and personal responsibility. I just tend not to argue for those issues here because for some reason all the conservatives here except for Millenium and a few others are completely insane.

[Spliffdaddy]

OK, I'll buy that explanation.

Don't blame me for knee-jerking, though.

It's just that I'm 38 years old and have never met a self-proclaimed liberal.

It seems that everyone either proudly admits to being conservative or they come up with one of a hundred other terms to describe their mindset - but they never ever want to say they're liberal.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
OK, I'll buy that explanation.

Don't blame me for knee-jerking, though.

It's just that I'm 38 years old and have never met a self-proclaimed liberal.

It seems that everyone either proudly admits to being conservative or they come up with one of a hundred other terms to describe their mindset - but they never ever want to say they're liberal.

I think the reason you experience this is because "liberal" is such a nebulous term. Conservativism is based on well defined tradional values. People who are predisposed to accepting traditional values have a rigidly defined set of ideas to adhere to. "Liberals", to me at least, are those people who are not very concerned with traditional values but instead tend to follow some other impetus. There are just so many different ways of not being conservative that people prefer more accurate, descriptive labels in lieu of the vague liberal term. IMHO this is a good thing because I think labels like "liberal" only serve to polarize people.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
OK, I'll buy that explanation.

Don't blame me for knee-jerking, though.

It's just that I'm 38 years old and have never met a self-proclaimed liberal.

It seems that everyone either proudly admits to being conservative or they come up with one of a hundred other terms to describe their mindset - but they never ever want to say they're liberal.

I'm liberal, not Liberal, because labels are completely meaningless.

I don't identify with or support every position traditionally seen as Liberal but I agree with the general principle of most of their beliefs. However, I frequently disagree with how the Liberals want to see their principles enacted via legislation. Because Liberals are just like Conservatives in that they want to score points off the opposing side as much or more than actually doing things to support their ideology.

I have a small but valuable number of conservative friends and we agree more often than not on political issues. When we disagree it is on the "how" of solving a social problem, not the "if". And we all are in agreement that the Liberals and Conservative who claim to represent us are totally unworthy to do so.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
That's a conservative premise already that the government is only there to "prevent the worst things". And so I smell a trick question.

My intentions are honest.

Is not the "social safety net" -a favorite liberal metaphor- aimed at preventing people from falling into poverty? Is not the whole deal of "addressing the root cause" of terrorism aimed at preventing it? Most liberal attitudes on crime aim more towards prevention than punishment as well. Most socialized healthcare systems model themselves on what's called an HMO in the US; this form of insurance places a very strong emphasis, once again, on preventative care. If the idea of "preventing the worst things" belongs to one side more than the other, then it belongs to the liberals more than the conservatives. That said, I doubt either side can really claim ownership of the concept, nor foist it off on another.

My reason for going with this is that pretty much every political ideology ever formed was born when someone looked at something bad and said to themselves, "This should not be." All else proceeded forward from moments like these. My goal in this is that I'm trying to understand ideologies by rebuilding them from the ground up, to understand where they came from and what they hope to accomplish.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Millennium:
My reason for going with this is that pretty much every political ideology ever formed was born when someone looked at something bad and said to themselves, "This should not be."

That's pretty much how the notion of ideology developed. Ideologies are concerned with making the world a better or more reasonable place to live in. Assigning the idea of 'prevention' to what ideology is primarily concerned with immediately limits your own scope of understanding. Prevention is only one aspect of the realm in with ideology operates.

Originally posted by Millennium:
All else proceeded forward from moments like these. My goal in this is that I'm trying to understand ideologies by rebuilding them from the ground up, to understand where they came from and what they hope to accomplish.

The writings of the modern political thinkers; Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Wollstonecraft, Marx, Nietzsche and Burke are what informed the development of most of the dominant or 'classic' ideologies.

[Joshua]

Answering strictly by the rules, I'd say the worst thing that can happen to a person is to watch a loved one be slowly, painfully murdered. I can't think of anything worse.

But I don't think you're asking quite the right question. I doubt many of us will disagree about what we find personally objectionable: murder, rape, domestic abuse, etc. The difference in terms of political ideology is whether you think the government's policies and behavior should be absolutely consistent with individual citizen's morality.

A realist will say no: the government exists to protect its citizens, not to act as their moral personification, and thus the government must sometimes take actions that we wouldn't in our own private lives. Some examples would include backing undemocratic regimes if it benefits your citizens, or being willing to risk accidentally kill innocent civilians during military actions that action is necessary to guarantee your citizens safety.

An idealist will answer yes: the government shouldn't act contrary to the personal morality of its citizenry. If the people find the death of innocents unacceptable on a moral level, then the government should avoid civilian casualties at all costs, even if they sacrifice some level of security to do so.

Of course, those are absolutes: I think most people fall somewhere between the two.

[Bonsai]

The absolutely worst thing that can happen to me is that I die not as Muslim.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Bonsai:
The absolutely worst thing that can happen to me is that I die not as Muslim.

Fair enough, but would you say that this is the worst thing that could happen to anybody? I'm not trying to judge right or wrong; I'm trying to understand how different ideologies were formed, including your own.

[eklipse]

I would say that 'being born' is the worst thing that could happen to someone as it forces the subject to have to deal with whatever life throws at them.

[Abu Bakr]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Fair enough, but would you say that this is the worst thing that could happen to anybody? I'm not trying to judge right or wrong; I'm trying to understand how different ideologies were formed, including your own.

I agree with him and perhaps I can explain it and my views on the topic.

I don't think there is a chance that everyone would agree on what is the worst thing that could happen to a person. And I doubt that it is even possible to find complete agreement within a group. Every single human being values things differently. It all depends on where and how we live. I'm pretty sure I, as a Palestinian, would disagree with many of your values since you are an American I presume. We would be comparing from a different set of standards. While I plan maybe one month ahead(the longest I can put myself through) for my family you might plan several years ahead. While you teach your children to not step into cars of strangers I have to teach my children how to go through checkpoints and stay alive and not get arrested. While you worry that you will not be able to pay for your car, your home, your childrens education I worry about if I'm able to send money home to my family so they will have something to eat until the next time I'm able to send them money.

This makes us value thing very differently and hence there is possibly no chance of us agreeing on what the worst thing that could happen to a person is.

[Bonsai]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Fair enough, but would you say that this is the worst thing that could happen to anybody? I'm not trying to judge right or wrong; I'm trying to understand how different ideologies were formed, including your own.

The short answer is "no", if anybody denotes non-Muslims; and "yes", if anybody denotes a Muslim; for a Muslim this is the bottom-line.

To "say that this is the worst thing that could happen to anybody" is something I can't directly answer. As not all people are Muslims and I am not allowed to force my beliefs on them, that is a huge no-no in Islam.

Not sure if I answered your question; but you have to pardon me as I'm not very articulate. If you would like me to elaborate on this a bit more please do let me know.

EDIT: added the "not" in "I'm not very articulate

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by Millennium:
What's the worst thing that can happen to a person?

There is no one answer to that question, but that answers your question.

NEXT!

[dgs212]

All the answers so far reinforce my own:

The worst thing that can happen to somebody is to be denied their personal liberty.

Liberty is essential for the full flowering of human intelligence, creativity, and dignity. To be dominated by another is to be denied the chance to think and act for oneself, which is the only way to grow and develop one's individuality. Domination also stifles innovation and personal responsibility, leading to conformity and mediocrity. Thus the society that maximises the growth of individuality will necessarily be based on voluntary association, not coercion and authority.

[koogz]

Originally posted by dgs212:
All the answers so far reinforce my own:

The worst thing that can happen to somebody is to be denied their personal liberty.

Liberty is essential for the full flowering of human intelligence, creativity, and dignity. To be dominated by another is to be denied the chance to think and act for oneself, which is the only way to grow and develop one's individuality. Domination also stifles innovation and personal responsibility, leading to conformity and mediocrity. Thus the society that maximises the growth of individuality will necessarily be based on voluntary association, not coercion and authority.

Brilliantly put.

[dgs212]

Originally posted by koogz:
Brilliantly put.

So then you're an anarchist, too? Always nice to meet a fellow anarchist. Cheers.

[Twilly Spree]

Millennium: Ahem, that would be "split personality" not "schizophrenic" --- unless you're hearing voices that are telling you to side with different sides.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by dgs212:
So then you're an anarchist, too? Always nice to meet a fellow anarchist. Cheers.

**BOOYA**

[Scientist]

Originally posted by dgs212:
So then you're an anarchist, too? Always nice to meet a fellow anarchist. Cheers.

Hey, I didn't know there were so many of us here. But look out, I hear koogz is an imposter.

[Sven G]

A quite bad thing is also being deprived of one's history, both the personal and the collective one. How many ugly things have happened because people have lost their memory of the past, and thus their capability to change their present and future. The past, of course, can be worse or better than the present (often both, on different levels): memory, in any case, provides people with the means to modify and improve things, both from a perspective of continuity and even of revolution, when appropriate. All the so-called "end of history"-like ideologies, on the contrary, tend to flatten reality into a one-dimensional situation, apparently ever-changing, but in reality always the same variation on the purely economic globalisation theme: an ideology of one-dimensional thought, so to say, which is a very negative thing, IMHO.

In a few words: no memory - no future...

[Moderator]

The worst thing that could possibly happen would be for 17 year old high school students to be taught that condoms can help prevent sexually transmitted disease.

[Athens]

I think the worst thing that can happen to a person is the loss of self-control. Of course this means many things. Losing self-control in the context of lying to oneself to make wrong right. Or having the option of self control limited or imposed upon by another. Brain illness�s that destroy self-control, political brain washing and ideology that tricks some one into thinking a certain way is also lost of self-control.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Moderator:
The worst thing that could possibly happen would be for 17 year old high school students to be taught that condoms can help prevent sexually transmitted disease.

I really hope your joking