CDZ If you . . .

[martybegan]

And your positions again requires inhuman humans. It's the same thing as Marxism which requires the same thing, people to not be people, but cogs in someones "perfect" political system.

A right is something inherent in a person that cannot be taken from them without severe consequences.

Rights come from people or god depending on your viewpoint.

Depends on your current adjudicated status

Ok, this is fine. Thank you. I assume on that last question that you're speaking of the practical circumstances, but by your answer to the first question, you believe rights are inherently equal, though the recognition of this fact may vary dependent upon "adjudicated status". So we're good here.

As to practicality (correct me if I'm misrepresenting you here), to say that freedom requires "inhuman humans" implies that immorality (or at least imperfection) is the reason why people need government. Essentially, the "necessary evil" argument. If you believe that rights are inherent and equal, then your position does recognize governmental authority as an evil, since it is - by definition - an inequality of rights. Regardless of the process which purports to justify this, Congress can tax your neighbor, but you can't; so that case is definitively closed. Government, to differentiate itself as government, must claim "rights" to do things that other people don't have a right to do; and things that people don't have a right to do are called "wrongs" (i.e. immoral actions, or evil).

Do you see the problem in citing evil as the problem, and also citing evil as the solution? It's a circular situation - Evil is why we need evil is why we need evil is why we need.... Moreover, if you've got a pack of hyenas attacking you, the best solution would not be to inject some of those very same hyenas with super-soldier serum. Government simply clothes some of the people from that immoral throng in immense power; it does nothing to combat the immorality, it simply magnifies it. And it's not even like the best among us wind up in those positions - as nearly everyone agrees - but some of the slimiest, sociopathic mongrels available. The power draws unscrupulous thieves and dominators into their fold.

So when you say that freedom wouldn't "work", you're saying that it would be worse to start out with a level playing field of immoral people, then it is to have equally-immoral giants walking among us. How can this be so?

In addition, consider how nearly all our peace and prosperity results from what freedom yet remains, not from coercive law. Nobody forces people to create, invent, produce, distribute, sell, or buy. Nobody forces you to not kill your neighbor and take his stuff, you do that of your own accord, as do I, and probably 99% of the people you know, the people on these boards, and everywhere else. If centralized control was responsible for peace and prosperity, then by logical inference, high-security prisons would be the most peaceful, productive societies imaginable. Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany would have been utopias.

So how do you say that freedom wouldn't "work", but authoritarianism does? Remember that freedom is not a "system", but neither does it imply "chaos" or lack of organization and cooperation. In fact, only free people can truly cooperate, and humans will organize voluntarily, absent coercion (which they do in a million and one ways even now).

You divide things into freedom and authority, without understanding that the world doesn't work in an aristotelian fashion. Again you keep talking about theoreticals that have never happened in real life.

In the absence of some form of government, things have always degenerated into chaos. I am not talking about a small commune here, I am talking about macro scale organizational levels.

And you try to treat taxes as something other than payment for a service, which when it boils down to it, it's all it is.

Ok, so I rob your wallet at gunpoint, then mow your lawn. We good? You “paid for a service.”

I wish you would actually address the arguments made instead of waving them away as “armchair philosophy”. I made a case for the impracticality of your position, not just a moral claim (which really should have been sufficient on its own - tsk, tsk).

Right now, you are the southern plantation owner telling the abolitionist, “Freeing the slaves will never work. We’ve never had a successful economy without slavery. Who will pick the cotton, after all? Keep your theoretical nonsense to yourself, that’s not how things are in the “real world”.”

Meanwhile, not only was it immoral, but once freedom became a reality, it worked better. Innovations were made that would have never been invested in while the nation was so heavily invested in slavery. Machines now do the work of a thousand slaves in half the time, and those people are freed up to contribute to society in other ways.

Philosophy and morality ARE practicality. That’s what you’re missing. It works on the root cause level, instead of on the symptom/effect level, so people miss the connection. You really should think about why you don’t have answers to my objections. Not for me, but for yourself.

Not really the same. One can always find some remote uninhabited island to live on if one wants to be free of government.

If you want to live around other people however, our current society has decided one has to pay for the overhead, i.e. government.

And you keep talking about a society that has never existed, and could never exist without devolving into the "bad" anarchy we see when government fails.

Your objections have been noted. however you have no real solution to them, and as an Engineer, that makes me dismiss your positions as unworkable, and thus not really worth debating that much.

The solution is for YOU to be a moral person, then go out and council the same transition in other people. As it stands, you're willing to put aside morality as impractical, and support the enslavement of my children to allay your own fears of what freedom will yield (thanks for that, by the way).

The most ironic part of all this is that you understand gun rights. And what's at the core of the anti-gun position? "If we let people have these weapons, God knows what they will do with them, so we have to infringe upon their freedom for the sake of security." And here comes Marty with his argument for government, "If we let people have true freedom, God knows what they will do with it, so we have to infringe upon their freedom for the sake of security."

I'm working toward a cultural shift in consciousness, whereby more and more people recognize (and actually care about) the immorality of government, will see the gradual replacement of government with voluntary (and voluntarily-funded) organizations to meet the needs of society. That is the solution being proposed, and it's a solution that you currently standing in the way of.

sorry but I don't see all government as immoral. The term nessasary evil may be a bit too tough on government. There is nothing wrong with wanting limited government, there is plenty wrong with wanting no government. It's either a pipe dream, or a means of control via force by someone with ambition and the force to implement it.

And spare me the "think of my children" line, it's a cheap play and not really a good one.

 

[Coyote]

That's a pretty big "tribe".

It encompasses libertarians, although I don't cotton to libertarians on every issue.

It encompasses Republicrats to one degree or another, but they love them some authority on a lot of issues.

It encompasses even some democrooks, but they haven't pipped up yet for fear of outing themselves.

The "tribes" the OP is about are the DNC and GOP.

Those who side with the GOP only because they're repulsed by the DNC are not a "tribe", their points of view vary far too much. If anything they're "middle of the road".

The democrooks all appear to be far left loons.


.

What I'm seeing is that each party has two primary components. Layers can be found within each, of course, but in general, each has two.

The GOP has the Trump fans and the more traditional Republicans, the people who Trump fans will call RINOs. The Trump fans have taken over the party.

The Democrats have the more traditional liberals and the Regressive Leftists, who are illiberal leftist authoritarians. The Regressives have taken over the party.

The tribal behaviors are most obvious in the Trump fans and the Regressives. It's the old Political Horseshoe theory, in which the ends of the spectrum are closer to each other than they are to the middle. And trying to communicate with either is terribly difficult.
.

Trump fans? Most people voted for Trump as a way to send Washington an important message and because many of his speeches and rhetoric had to do with ACTUAL ISSUES that most Americans are facing, instead of transgender bathrooms, gay rights, abortions, and pandering to illegal immigrants, as the opposition was trying to convince people to vote for her because it was "her turn" and because she has a vagina. Oh, and let's not forget about higher taxes to support all the new "refugees" as well as governmental interference in our constitutional RIGHTS. What a "winning" platform for the thinking person, eh?

Well, that's a good commercial.
.

So tell me, what was the democrat platform in this last election. What convinced you that you should vote for Hillary exactly?

Well, two things.

First, she was closer to me on the issues, which I lay out in the link at the end of the second line of my sig.

Second, I was, and remain, horrified and embarrassed with Trump being our President.

With Hillary as the nominee, I would much rather have voted third party. But I knew that if either Trump or Cruz got the GOP nomination, I'd have to vote for her.
.

Pretty much how I felt.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Ok, this is fine. Thank you. I assume on that last question that you're speaking of the practical circumstances, but by your answer to the first question, you believe rights are inherently equal, though the recognition of this fact may vary dependent upon "adjudicated status". So we're good here.

As to practicality (correct me if I'm misrepresenting you here), to say that freedom requires "inhuman humans" implies that immorality (or at least imperfection) is the reason why people need government. Essentially, the "necessary evil" argument. If you believe that rights are inherent and equal, then your position does recognize governmental authority as an evil, since it is - by definition - an inequality of rights. Regardless of the process which purports to justify this, Congress can tax your neighbor, but you can't; so that case is definitively closed. Government, to differentiate itself as government, must claim "rights" to do things that other people don't have a right to do; and things that people don't have a right to do are called "wrongs" (i.e. immoral actions, or evil).

Do you see the problem in citing evil as the problem, and also citing evil as the solution? It's a circular situation - Evil is why we need evil is why we need evil is why we need.... Moreover, if you've got a pack of hyenas attacking you, the best solution would not be to inject some of those very same hyenas with super-soldier serum. Government simply clothes some of the people from that immoral throng in immense power; it does nothing to combat the immorality, it simply magnifies it. And it's not even like the best among us wind up in those positions - as nearly everyone agrees - but some of the slimiest, sociopathic mongrels available. The power draws unscrupulous thieves and dominators into their fold.

So when you say that freedom wouldn't "work", you're saying that it would be worse to start out with a level playing field of immoral people, then it is to have equally-immoral giants walking among us. How can this be so?

In addition, consider how nearly all our peace and prosperity results from what freedom yet remains, not from coercive law. Nobody forces people to create, invent, produce, distribute, sell, or buy. Nobody forces you to not kill your neighbor and take his stuff, you do that of your own accord, as do I, and probably 99% of the people you know, the people on these boards, and everywhere else. If centralized control was responsible for peace and prosperity, then by logical inference, high-security prisons would be the most peaceful, productive societies imaginable. Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany would have been utopias.

So how do you say that freedom wouldn't "work", but authoritarianism does? Remember that freedom is not a "system", but neither does it imply "chaos" or lack of organization and cooperation. In fact, only free people can truly cooperate, and humans will organize voluntarily, absent coercion (which they do in a million and one ways even now).

You divide things into freedom and authority, without understanding that the world doesn't work in an aristotelian fashion. Again you keep talking about theoreticals that have never happened in real life.

In the absence of some form of government, things have always degenerated into chaos. I am not talking about a small commune here, I am talking about macro scale organizational levels.

And you try to treat taxes as something other than payment for a service, which when it boils down to it, it's all it is.

Ok, so I rob your wallet at gunpoint, then mow your lawn. We good? You “paid for a service.”

I wish you would actually address the arguments made instead of waving them away as “armchair philosophy”. I made a case for the impracticality of your position, not just a moral claim (which really should have been sufficient on its own - tsk, tsk).

Right now, you are the southern plantation owner telling the abolitionist, “Freeing the slaves will never work. We’ve never had a successful economy without slavery. Who will pick the cotton, after all? Keep your theoretical nonsense to yourself, that’s not how things are in the “real world”.”

Meanwhile, not only was it immoral, but once freedom became a reality, it worked better. Innovations were made that would have never been invested in while the nation was so heavily invested in slavery. Machines now do the work of a thousand slaves in half the time, and those people are freed up to contribute to society in other ways.

Philosophy and morality ARE practicality. That’s what you’re missing. It works on the root cause level, instead of on the symptom/effect level, so people miss the connection. You really should think about why you don’t have answers to my objections. Not for me, but for yourself.

Not really the same. One can always find some remote uninhabited island to live on if one wants to be free of government.

If you want to live around other people however, our current society has decided one has to pay for the overhead, i.e. government.

And you keep talking about a society that has never existed, and could never exist without devolving into the "bad" anarchy we see when government fails.

Your objections have been noted. however you have no real solution to them, and as an Engineer, that makes me dismiss your positions as unworkable, and thus not really worth debating that much.

The solution is for YOU to be a moral person, then go out and council the same transition in other people. As it stands, you're willing to put aside morality as impractical, and support the enslavement of my children to allay your own fears of what freedom will yield (thanks for that, by the way).

The most ironic part of all this is that you understand gun rights. And what's at the core of the anti-gun position? "If we let people have these weapons, God knows what they will do with them, so we have to infringe upon their freedom for the sake of security." And here comes Marty with his argument for government, "If we let people have true freedom, God knows what they will do with it, so we have to infringe upon their freedom for the sake of security."

I'm working toward a cultural shift in consciousness, whereby more and more people recognize (and actually care about) the immorality of government, will see the gradual replacement of government with voluntary (and voluntarily-funded) organizations to meet the needs of society. That is the solution being proposed, and it's a solution that you currently standing in the way of.

sorry but I don't see all government as immoral. The term nessasary evil may be a bit too tough on government. There is nothing wrong with wanting limited government, there is plenty wrong with wanting no government. It's either a pipe dream, or a means of control via force by someone with ambition and the force to implement it.

And spare me the "think of my children" line, it's a cheap play and not really a good one.

It’s not a “cheap play”; my kids are my primary concern in all of this, and I’m pissed off at you personally for condoning their enslavement simply because you refuse to earnestly consider the arguments demonstrating that it IS enslavement.

There is freedom and there is slavery, that’s it - no third option. Freedom does not have degrees; only slavery does. So you either support freedom, or you support slavery. Your choice directly subjects my family to the violent coercion of the state, while mine leaves yours in peace. We are not on equal moral ground, and I consider it a personal wrong-doing.

It’s irrelevant that you don’t “see” government as immoral - it IS immoral, whether you choose to see it or not, and I specifically explained how in irrefutable, logical terms. There’s something VERY wrong with government, limited or otherwise, because the only defining characteristic of government is license to act immorally. Remove that, and it’s no longer government.

You’ve ignored every argument made and simply asserted your opinion with no supporting reasoning other than “freedom won’t work”. So I guess that’s that. Just remember your hypocrisy every time you talk about gun rights while ignoring a hundred and one other infringed-upon liberties that are withered with your support.

 

[martybegan]

You divide things into freedom and authority, without understanding that the world doesn't work in an aristotelian fashion. Again you keep talking about theoreticals that have never happened in real life.

In the absence of some form of government, things have always degenerated into chaos. I am not talking about a small commune here, I am talking about macro scale organizational levels.

And you try to treat taxes as something other than payment for a service, which when it boils down to it, it's all it is.

Ok, so I rob your wallet at gunpoint, then mow your lawn. We good? You “paid for a service.”

I wish you would actually address the arguments made instead of waving them away as “armchair philosophy”. I made a case for the impracticality of your position, not just a moral claim (which really should have been sufficient on its own - tsk, tsk).

Right now, you are the southern plantation owner telling the abolitionist, “Freeing the slaves will never work. We’ve never had a successful economy without slavery. Who will pick the cotton, after all? Keep your theoretical nonsense to yourself, that’s not how things are in the “real world”.”

Meanwhile, not only was it immoral, but once freedom became a reality, it worked better. Innovations were made that would have never been invested in while the nation was so heavily invested in slavery. Machines now do the work of a thousand slaves in half the time, and those people are freed up to contribute to society in other ways.

Philosophy and morality ARE practicality. That’s what you’re missing. It works on the root cause level, instead of on the symptom/effect level, so people miss the connection. You really should think about why you don’t have answers to my objections. Not for me, but for yourself.

Not really the same. One can always find some remote uninhabited island to live on if one wants to be free of government.

If you want to live around other people however, our current society has decided one has to pay for the overhead, i.e. government.

And you keep talking about a society that has never existed, and could never exist without devolving into the "bad" anarchy we see when government fails.

Your objections have been noted. however you have no real solution to them, and as an Engineer, that makes me dismiss your positions as unworkable, and thus not really worth debating that much.

The solution is for YOU to be a moral person, then go out and council the same transition in other people. As it stands, you're willing to put aside morality as impractical, and support the enslavement of my children to allay your own fears of what freedom will yield (thanks for that, by the way).

The most ironic part of all this is that you understand gun rights. And what's at the core of the anti-gun position? "If we let people have these weapons, God knows what they will do with them, so we have to infringe upon their freedom for the sake of security." And here comes Marty with his argument for government, "If we let people have true freedom, God knows what they will do with it, so we have to infringe upon their freedom for the sake of security."

I'm working toward a cultural shift in consciousness, whereby more and more people recognize (and actually care about) the immorality of government, will see the gradual replacement of government with voluntary (and voluntarily-funded) organizations to meet the needs of society. That is the solution being proposed, and it's a solution that you currently standing in the way of.

sorry but I don't see all government as immoral. The term nessasary evil may be a bit too tough on government. There is nothing wrong with wanting limited government, there is plenty wrong with wanting no government. It's either a pipe dream, or a means of control via force by someone with ambition and the force to implement it.

And spare me the "think of my children" line, it's a cheap play and not really a good one.

It’s not a “cheap play”; my kids are my primary concern in all of this, and I’m pissed off at you personally for condoning their enslavement simply because you refuse to earnestly consider the arguments demonstrating that it IS enslavement.

There is freedom and there is slavery, that’s it - no third option. Freedom does not have degrees; only slavery does. So you either support freedom, or you support slavery. Your choice directly subjects my family to the violent coercion of the state, while mine leaves yours in peace. We are not on equal moral ground, and I consider it a personal wrong-doing.

It’s irrelevant that you don’t “see” government as immoral - it IS immoral, whether you choose to see it or not, and I specifically explained how in irrefutable, logical terms. There’s something VERY wrong with government, limited or otherwise, because the only defining characteristic of government is license to act immorally. Remove that, and it’s no longer government.

You’ve ignored every argument made and simply asserted your opinion with no supporting reasoning other than “freedom won’t work”. So I guess that’s that. Just remember your hypocrisy every time you talk about gun rights while ignoring a hundred and one other infringed-upon liberties that are withered with your support.

I am doing nothing of the sort. You are trying to make this emotional, and are actually skirting the rules a bit by bringing family into the argument, and accusing me of wanting to harm them.

I refuse to be brought into your little black/white form of thinking, it's intellectually old and tired.

Just because you say something doesn't make it true. You seem to fall for that trap a lot.

Your entire premise is based on ignoring reality.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Ok, so I rob your wallet at gunpoint, then mow your lawn. We good? You “paid for a service.”

I wish you would actually address the arguments made instead of waving them away as “armchair philosophy”. I made a case for the impracticality of your position, not just a moral claim (which really should have been sufficient on its own - tsk, tsk).

Right now, you are the southern plantation owner telling the abolitionist, “Freeing the slaves will never work. We’ve never had a successful economy without slavery. Who will pick the cotton, after all? Keep your theoretical nonsense to yourself, that’s not how things are in the “real world”.”

Meanwhile, not only was it immoral, but once freedom became a reality, it worked better. Innovations were made that would have never been invested in while the nation was so heavily invested in slavery. Machines now do the work of a thousand slaves in half the time, and those people are freed up to contribute to society in other ways.

Philosophy and morality ARE practicality. That’s what you’re missing. It works on the root cause level, instead of on the symptom/effect level, so people miss the connection. You really should think about why you don’t have answers to my objections. Not for me, but for yourself.

Not really the same. One can always find some remote uninhabited island to live on if one wants to be free of government.

If you want to live around other people however, our current society has decided one has to pay for the overhead, i.e. government.

And you keep talking about a society that has never existed, and could never exist without devolving into the "bad" anarchy we see when government fails.

Your objections have been noted. however you have no real solution to them, and as an Engineer, that makes me dismiss your positions as unworkable, and thus not really worth debating that much.

The solution is for YOU to be a moral person, then go out and council the same transition in other people. As it stands, you're willing to put aside morality as impractical, and support the enslavement of my children to allay your own fears of what freedom will yield (thanks for that, by the way).

The most ironic part of all this is that you understand gun rights. And what's at the core of the anti-gun position? "If we let people have these weapons, God knows what they will do with them, so we have to infringe upon their freedom for the sake of security." And here comes Marty with his argument for government, "If we let people have true freedom, God knows what they will do with it, so we have to infringe upon their freedom for the sake of security."

I'm working toward a cultural shift in consciousness, whereby more and more people recognize (and actually care about) the immorality of government, will see the gradual replacement of government with voluntary (and voluntarily-funded) organizations to meet the needs of society. That is the solution being proposed, and it's a solution that you currently standing in the way of.

sorry but I don't see all government as immoral. The term nessasary evil may be a bit too tough on government. There is nothing wrong with wanting limited government, there is plenty wrong with wanting no government. It's either a pipe dream, or a means of control via force by someone with ambition and the force to implement it.

And spare me the "think of my children" line, it's a cheap play and not really a good one.

It’s not a “cheap play”; my kids are my primary concern in all of this, and I’m pissed off at you personally for condoning their enslavement simply because you refuse to earnestly consider the arguments demonstrating that it IS enslavement.

There is freedom and there is slavery, that’s it - no third option. Freedom does not have degrees; only slavery does. So you either support freedom, or you support slavery. Your choice directly subjects my family to the violent coercion of the state, while mine leaves yours in peace. We are not on equal moral ground, and I consider it a personal wrong-doing.

It’s irrelevant that you don’t “see” government as immoral - it IS immoral, whether you choose to see it or not, and I specifically explained how in irrefutable, logical terms. There’s something VERY wrong with government, limited or otherwise, because the only defining characteristic of government is license to act immorally. Remove that, and it’s no longer government.

You’ve ignored every argument made and simply asserted your opinion with no supporting reasoning other than “freedom won’t work”. So I guess that’s that. Just remember your hypocrisy every time you talk about gun rights while ignoring a hundred and one other infringed-upon liberties that are withered with your support.

I am doing nothing of the sort. You are trying to make this emotional, and are actually skirting the rules a bit by bringing family into the argument, and accusing me of wanting to harm them.

I refuse to be brought into your little black/white form of thinking, it's intellectually old and tired.

Just because you say something doesn't make it true. You seem to fall for that trap a lot.

Your entire premise is based on ignoring reality.

I can actually prove my arguments. I can prove that morality exists and how it works. I can prove that government is immoral and can never solve the problems cited to justify its necessity. I can prove that your actions are hurting my family. And I can prove that freedom is a black and white issue.

I've already done most of this, and you've ignored it, which can also be proven by reading the thread.

The "reality" you claim I'm ignoring is merely your speculation about what would happen in a free society, and has no valid proof to back it up.

I know you don't want to hurt my family, and that you think you're doing good, which is why I'm trying to show you that your position is contradictory with your own morality. I'm being a hard-ass about it because it's dreadfully important that people take critical thinking seriously, or their heads are going to spin on their axis when they see the results of their willful ignorance.

Make no mistake - they're coming for your guns. And when they do, this shit is going to explode and tear this country to pieces. The illusion is going to break wide open to reveal the grim reality beneath - we've shirked our duty to understand the difference between right and wrong, and there are consequences for immorality that cannot be avoided. That's my speculation, make of it what you will, but man cannot ignore the laws of nature and get away with it.

To use the Christian metaphor, "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."

 

[rightwinger]

Well, that's already happening. We have a country that can't even agree on facts. We have a press (across the spectrum) that can't be trusted. We have people who refuse to communicate, opening the door to "divide & conquer".

If your point is that a tyrant can rise from such an environment, I guess I can't disagree. But this would be a self-inflicted wound. If we ended up like Venezuela, it would be because of our people, not our Constitution.
.

I'm sorry but I see far more at fault with the left in this case than the right. Maybe 50 years ago the right was more about squashing dissent and playing hard and fast with the constitution as written, but to me it's all the Left now going for broke with their "my way or the highway" viewpoints.

Now there are exceptions, but when someone on the right disagrees with someone, their typical worst response is, "you are an idiot"

When someone on the left disagrees with someone, the typical worst response is "you are evil, and your position is not valid, therefore we need to ruin you any way we can"

I tend to agree.

50 years ago, the left was based upon liberal ideology, and based positions on this ideology. It was usually the righties who stuck to arbitrary positions as if they were gospel. If this forum is any reflection of greater society, that tendency has completely switched. Because of identity politics and political correctness, it is now the left that simply falls into line espousing various views without understanding and the right more capable of reason and forming opinions around an ideology.

Far too many people have no idea WHY they hold certain views. All they know is that they are rewarded by their little peeps if they espouse one view and punished if they espouse another. It isn't about ideology. It is about tribe.

I got this effect at a birthday party last week. I live in NYC, so of course when the discussion went to politics the talk was 100% "Trump sucks", and I was smart enough just to nod banally and not join in.

Not that I am ashamed of my views, but that I didn't want to ruin my friends party.

No cake for you!

the funny thing is the person who's party it was knows my viewpoints exactly, and while she disagrees with them she still hangs out with me.

it's some of her friends that are the close minded type that would probably scream NAZI and make a scene due to my views.

I learned a long time ago to not discuss politics or religion at a party

Hey.....How bout them Giants?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You divide things into freedom and authority, without understanding that the world doesn't work in an aristotelian fashion. Again you keep talking about theoreticals that have never happened in real life.

In the absence of some form of government, things have always degenerated into chaos. I am not talking about a small commune here, I am talking about macro scale organizational levels.

And you try to treat taxes as something other than payment for a service, which when it boils down to it, it's all it is.

Ok, so I rob your wallet at gunpoint, then mow your lawn. We good? You “paid for a service.”

I wish you would actually address the arguments made instead of waving them away as “armchair philosophy”. I made a case for the impracticality of your position, not just a moral claim (which really should have been sufficient on its own - tsk, tsk).

Right now, you are the southern plantation owner telling the abolitionist, “Freeing the slaves will never work. We’ve never had a successful economy without slavery. Who will pick the cotton, after all? Keep your theoretical nonsense to yourself, that’s not how things are in the “real world”.”

Meanwhile, not only was it immoral, but once freedom became a reality, it worked better. Innovations were made that would have never been invested in while the nation was so heavily invested in slavery. Machines now do the work of a thousand slaves in half the time, and those people are freed up to contribute to society in other ways.

Philosophy and morality ARE practicality. That’s what you’re missing. It works on the root cause level, instead of on the symptom/effect level, so people miss the connection. You really should think about why you don’t have answers to my objections. Not for me, but for yourself.

Not really the same. One can always find some remote uninhabited island to live on if one wants to be free of government.

If you want to live around other people however, our current society has decided one has to pay for the overhead, i.e. government.

And you keep talking about a society that has never existed, and could never exist without devolving into the "bad" anarchy we see when government fails.

Your objections have been noted. however you have no real solution to them, and as an Engineer, that makes me dismiss your positions as unworkable, and thus not really worth debating that much.

The solution is for YOU to be a moral person, then go out and council the same transition in other people. As it stands, you're willing to put aside morality as impractical, and support the enslavement of my children to allay your own fears of what freedom will yield (thanks for that, by the way).

The most ironic part of all this is that you understand gun rights. And what's at the core of the anti-gun position? "If we let people have these weapons, God knows what they will do with them, so we have to infringe upon their freedom for the sake of security." And here comes Marty with his argument for government, "If we let people have true freedom, God knows what they will do with it, so we have to infringe upon their freedom for the sake of security."

I'm working toward a cultural shift in consciousness, whereby more and more people recognize (and actually care about) the immorality of government, will see the gradual replacement of government with voluntary (and voluntarily-funded) organizations to meet the needs of society. That is the solution being proposed, and it's a solution that you currently standing in the way of.

sorry but I don't see all government as immoral. The term nessasary evil may be a bit too tough on government. There is nothing wrong with wanting limited government, there is plenty wrong with wanting no government. It's either a pipe dream, or a means of control via force by someone with ambition and the force to implement it.

And spare me the "think of my children" line, it's a cheap play and not really a good one.

It’s not a “cheap play”; my kids are my primary concern in all of this, and I’m pissed off at you personally for condoning their enslavement simply because you refuse to earnestly consider the arguments demonstrating that it IS enslavement.

There is freedom and there is slavery, that’s it - no third option. Freedom does not have degrees; only slavery does. So you either support freedom, or you support slavery. Your choice directly subjects my family to the violent coercion of the state, while mine leaves yours in peace. We are not on equal moral ground, and I consider it a personal wrong-doing.

It’s irrelevant that you don’t “see” government as immoral - it IS immoral, whether you choose to see it or not, and I specifically explained how in irrefutable, logical terms. There’s something VERY wrong with government, limited or otherwise, because the only defining characteristic of government is license to act immorally. Remove that, and it’s no longer government.

You’ve ignored every argument made and simply asserted your opinion with no supporting reasoning other than “freedom won’t work”. So I guess that’s that. Just remember your hypocrisy every time you talk about gun rights while ignoring a hundred and one other infringed-upon liberties that are withered with your support.

He said nothing about wanting to enslave your children.

You are attacking him in the clean debate forum by projecting all sorts of crap upon him that he did not say.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Ok, so I rob your wallet at gunpoint, then mow your lawn. We good? You “paid for a service.”

I wish you would actually address the arguments made instead of waving them away as “armchair philosophy”. I made a case for the impracticality of your position, not just a moral claim (which really should have been sufficient on its own - tsk, tsk).

Right now, you are the southern plantation owner telling the abolitionist, “Freeing the slaves will never work. We’ve never had a successful economy without slavery. Who will pick the cotton, after all? Keep your theoretical nonsense to yourself, that’s not how things are in the “real world”.”

Meanwhile, not only was it immoral, but once freedom became a reality, it worked better. Innovations were made that would have never been invested in while the nation was so heavily invested in slavery. Machines now do the work of a thousand slaves in half the time, and those people are freed up to contribute to society in other ways.

Philosophy and morality ARE practicality. That’s what you’re missing. It works on the root cause level, instead of on the symptom/effect level, so people miss the connection. You really should think about why you don’t have answers to my objections. Not for me, but for yourself.

Not really the same. One can always find some remote uninhabited island to live on if one wants to be free of government.

If you want to live around other people however, our current society has decided one has to pay for the overhead, i.e. government.

And you keep talking about a society that has never existed, and could never exist without devolving into the "bad" anarchy we see when government fails.

Your objections have been noted. however you have no real solution to them, and as an Engineer, that makes me dismiss your positions as unworkable, and thus not really worth debating that much.

The solution is for YOU to be a moral person, then go out and council the same transition in other people. As it stands, you're willing to put aside morality as impractical, and support the enslavement of my children to allay your own fears of what freedom will yield (thanks for that, by the way).

The most ironic part of all this is that you understand gun rights. And what's at the core of the anti-gun position? "If we let people have these weapons, God knows what they will do with them, so we have to infringe upon their freedom for the sake of security." And here comes Marty with his argument for government, "If we let people have true freedom, God knows what they will do with it, so we have to infringe upon their freedom for the sake of security."

I'm working toward a cultural shift in consciousness, whereby more and more people recognize (and actually care about) the immorality of government, will see the gradual replacement of government with voluntary (and voluntarily-funded) organizations to meet the needs of society. That is the solution being proposed, and it's a solution that you currently standing in the way of.

sorry but I don't see all government as immoral. The term nessasary evil may be a bit too tough on government. There is nothing wrong with wanting limited government, there is plenty wrong with wanting no government. It's either a pipe dream, or a means of control via force by someone with ambition and the force to implement it.

And spare me the "think of my children" line, it's a cheap play and not really a good one.

It’s not a “cheap play”; my kids are my primary concern in all of this, and I’m pissed off at you personally for condoning their enslavement simply because you refuse to earnestly consider the arguments demonstrating that it IS enslavement.

There is freedom and there is slavery, that’s it - no third option. Freedom does not have degrees; only slavery does. So you either support freedom, or you support slavery. Your choice directly subjects my family to the violent coercion of the state, while mine leaves yours in peace. We are not on equal moral ground, and I consider it a personal wrong-doing.

It’s irrelevant that you don’t “see” government as immoral - it IS immoral, whether you choose to see it or not, and I specifically explained how in irrefutable, logical terms. There’s something VERY wrong with government, limited or otherwise, because the only defining characteristic of government is license to act immorally. Remove that, and it’s no longer government.

You’ve ignored every argument made and simply asserted your opinion with no supporting reasoning other than “freedom won’t work”. So I guess that’s that. Just remember your hypocrisy every time you talk about gun rights while ignoring a hundred and one other infringed-upon liberties that are withered with your support.

He said nothing about wanting to enslave your children.

You are attacking him in the clean debate forum by projecting all sorts of crap upon him that he did not say.

He supports governmental authority, knowing full well that my children will be subject to the authoritarian rule of the people he votes into power. He accepts these people as his “representatives”, so how can you say he doesn’t want to enslave my children?

Perhaps you’re troubled by the application of the word “enslave” in this context...

Freedom is free, it does not have degrees. Slavery, on the other hand, does have degrees. If I claim 100% of your labor under threat of punishment, you are my slave. So if I only claim 99%, 49%, or 1%, are you still not my slave, but to a lesser degree? The principle defining the relationship is precisely the same.

And please note how worried both of you are about my (totally justified and thoroughly-explained) “attacks” because we are in the clean debate zone, but have no concern at all about the fact that he failed to address any of my logical arguments here in the clean debate zone.

As would perfectly reflect the culture, we’re more concerned about hurting people’s feelings than addressing their destructive irrationality. So people play nice and let bullshit slide... and the hope of humanity slides with it.

I know he means well, but I need him to know that it’s not OK to make decisions for other people. Let his government govern him and leave me be. Good intentions are only an excuse until proof has been put before you demonstrating your wrong-doing. After that, it’s just called being a bad person.

 

[Picaro]

If you are a democrat, what democratic policies do you disagree with?

If you are a republican, what republican policies do you disagree with?

I find it very curious how people can just tow the party line in every single instance? I am starting this thread to find out exactly how much do people disagree with the respective parties? Do they disagree with them about any of their stances or policies? Are you always in COMPLETE agreement with your party, no matter their policies or their ways of going about getting what they want? Perhaps there are some tactics that your party uses that you might disagree with? I started this in the CDC because I actually want some answers instead of our usual battering of one another's views and party affiliations.

Thanks for your input.

I'm a Liberal, a "Paleo-Liberal" of the Texas populist type, with some Patrick Moynihan blue collar attitudes thrown in. I'm also from a military family, and think traditional values are the 'best' because they come from long centuries of social evolution and proven to be very effective and extremely positive for culture and society, and those are precisely the reasons assorted sociopaths, commies, pedophiles, and other assorted deviants and sicko freaks are so determined to destroy their influence. My family used to be Yellow Dog Democrats, until the scumbag 'radicals' and criminal syndicates they front for took over the national Party from 1968 onward and managed to get themselves in permanent control via the 'Super Delegate Rule' in the 1980's, and have spit on on their traditional base ever since, relying of the deviants and traitors and race baiters for their new base, and like a lot of other Yellow Dogs kept it going at the state level, until Ann Richards in the 1990's managed to end the Democrats as a Party worth voting for here as well.

I don't vote based on Party any more, and like most Trump voters could care less about the GOP or the DNC either one, we didn't want Hillary OR Jeb, and still don't. We aren't married to Trump, either, and if doesn't live up to his word he's as gone as they are, and we'll just find somebody else, hopefully even more able to enrage the establishment gimps and 'globalist' scum.

On most domestic policies I'm a moderate, and don't like wingnuts of any stripe, and I'm slightly left of center on most economic issues, center or slightly right on social issues. Of course if one uses the usual Idiot definitions of right and left, you will have no idea what I support or don't support. I do know for a fact that unless one goes back to before the Civil War, and starts over from there re Amendments and SC rulings, you can forget about 'original intent' having any credibility or influence on U.S. laws and 'rights' in real life, so it's just stupid and waste of time trying to make claims based on 'original intent'; we're ruled by whatever Party hacks get put on benches at any given time, not any real genuine body of law and precedent any more, and the only criteria for getting 'justice' in civil or criminal courts for those of less than upper middle class wealth is having rich friends. If you think this is all right, then you will be receiving some very cruel wake ups in the next decade or two, and they won't be pleasant ones. We're at the point where we will have to deport a lot of people, or perish under anarchy, never to revive. Hope your children like permanent 4th World corruption and violence, because that's exactly what our legacy is going to be. Be sure and blame the Evul Xians for it all, too, so maybe your kids won't kill you if you can make them believe that.

 

[martybegan]

Not really the same. One can always find some remote uninhabited island to live on if one wants to be free of government.

If you want to live around other people however, our current society has decided one has to pay for the overhead, i.e. government.

And you keep talking about a society that has never existed, and could never exist without devolving into the "bad" anarchy we see when government fails.

Your objections have been noted. however you have no real solution to them, and as an Engineer, that makes me dismiss your positions as unworkable, and thus not really worth debating that much.

The solution is for YOU to be a moral person, then go out and council the same transition in other people. As it stands, you're willing to put aside morality as impractical, and support the enslavement of my children to allay your own fears of what freedom will yield (thanks for that, by the way).

The most ironic part of all this is that you understand gun rights. And what's at the core of the anti-gun position? "If we let people have these weapons, God knows what they will do with them, so we have to infringe upon their freedom for the sake of security." And here comes Marty with his argument for government, "If we let people have true freedom, God knows what they will do with it, so we have to infringe upon their freedom for the sake of security."

I'm working toward a cultural shift in consciousness, whereby more and more people recognize (and actually care about) the immorality of government, will see the gradual replacement of government with voluntary (and voluntarily-funded) organizations to meet the needs of society. That is the solution being proposed, and it's a solution that you currently standing in the way of.

sorry but I don't see all government as immoral. The term nessasary evil may be a bit too tough on government. There is nothing wrong with wanting limited government, there is plenty wrong with wanting no government. It's either a pipe dream, or a means of control via force by someone with ambition and the force to implement it.

And spare me the "think of my children" line, it's a cheap play and not really a good one.

It’s not a “cheap play”; my kids are my primary concern in all of this, and I’m pissed off at you personally for condoning their enslavement simply because you refuse to earnestly consider the arguments demonstrating that it IS enslavement.

There is freedom and there is slavery, that’s it - no third option. Freedom does not have degrees; only slavery does. So you either support freedom, or you support slavery. Your choice directly subjects my family to the violent coercion of the state, while mine leaves yours in peace. We are not on equal moral ground, and I consider it a personal wrong-doing.

It’s irrelevant that you don’t “see” government as immoral - it IS immoral, whether you choose to see it or not, and I specifically explained how in irrefutable, logical terms. There’s something VERY wrong with government, limited or otherwise, because the only defining characteristic of government is license to act immorally. Remove that, and it’s no longer government.

You’ve ignored every argument made and simply asserted your opinion with no supporting reasoning other than “freedom won’t work”. So I guess that’s that. Just remember your hypocrisy every time you talk about gun rights while ignoring a hundred and one other infringed-upon liberties that are withered with your support.

I am doing nothing of the sort. You are trying to make this emotional, and are actually skirting the rules a bit by bringing family into the argument, and accusing me of wanting to harm them.

I refuse to be brought into your little black/white form of thinking, it's intellectually old and tired.

Just because you say something doesn't make it true. You seem to fall for that trap a lot.

Your entire premise is based on ignoring reality.

I can actually prove my arguments. I can prove that morality exists and how it works. I can prove that government is immoral and can never solve the problems cited to justify its necessity. I can prove that your actions are hurting my family. And I can prove that freedom is a black and white issue.

I've already done most of this, and you've ignored it, which can also be proven by reading the thread.

The "reality" you claim I'm ignoring is merely your speculation about what would happen in a free society, and has no valid proof to back it up.

I know you don't want to hurt my family, and that you think you're doing good, which is why I'm trying to show you that your position is contradictory with your own morality. I'm being a hard-ass about it because it's dreadfully important that people take critical thinking seriously, or their heads are going to spin on their axis when they see the results of their willful ignorance.

Make no mistake - they're coming for your guns. And when they do, this shit is going to explode and tear this country to pieces. The illusion is going to break wide open to reveal the grim reality beneath - we've shirked our duty to understand the difference between right and wrong, and there are consequences for immorality that cannot be avoided. That's my speculation, make of it what you will, but man cannot ignore the laws of nature and get away with it.

To use the Christian metaphor, "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."

The only person you can prove it to is yourself. when talking about abstract concepts like this, they are only opinions. It is not like proving gravity or friction.

When you talk about proving social constructs, you sound like a marxist, and I doubt that is what you are going for.

You don't have a "system" to replace what we have, you just have a dislike of what we have now, and a vague hope of something better. At least the marxists have previous (bad) examples of systems that teetered along for a few decades before collapsing under their own weight.

 

[martybegan]

I'm sorry but I see far more at fault with the left in this case than the right. Maybe 50 years ago the right was more about squashing dissent and playing hard and fast with the constitution as written, but to me it's all the Left now going for broke with their "my way or the highway" viewpoints.

Now there are exceptions, but when someone on the right disagrees with someone, their typical worst response is, "you are an idiot"

When someone on the left disagrees with someone, the typical worst response is "you are evil, and your position is not valid, therefore we need to ruin you any way we can"

I tend to agree.

50 years ago, the left was based upon liberal ideology, and based positions on this ideology. It was usually the righties who stuck to arbitrary positions as if they were gospel. If this forum is any reflection of greater society, that tendency has completely switched. Because of identity politics and political correctness, it is now the left that simply falls into line espousing various views without understanding and the right more capable of reason and forming opinions around an ideology.

Far too many people have no idea WHY they hold certain views. All they know is that they are rewarded by their little peeps if they espouse one view and punished if they espouse another. It isn't about ideology. It is about tribe.

I got this effect at a birthday party last week. I live in NYC, so of course when the discussion went to politics the talk was 100% "Trump sucks", and I was smart enough just to nod banally and not join in.

Not that I am ashamed of my views, but that I didn't want to ruin my friends party.

No cake for you!

the funny thing is the person who's party it was knows my viewpoints exactly, and while she disagrees with them she still hangs out with me.

it's some of her friends that are the close minded type that would probably scream NAZI and make a scene due to my views.

I learned a long time ago to not discuss politics or religion at a party

Hey.....How bout them Giants?

Which ones, football or baseball?

And remember, I'm in NYC so we get to fight over our sports teams too....

 

[rightwinger]

I tend to agree.

50 years ago, the left was based upon liberal ideology, and based positions on this ideology. It was usually the righties who stuck to arbitrary positions as if they were gospel. If this forum is any reflection of greater society, that tendency has completely switched. Because of identity politics and political correctness, it is now the left that simply falls into line espousing various views without understanding and the right more capable of reason and forming opinions around an ideology.

Far too many people have no idea WHY they hold certain views. All they know is that they are rewarded by their little peeps if they espouse one view and punished if they espouse another. It isn't about ideology. It is about tribe.

I got this effect at a birthday party last week. I live in NYC, so of course when the discussion went to politics the talk was 100% "Trump sucks", and I was smart enough just to nod banally and not join in.

Not that I am ashamed of my views, but that I didn't want to ruin my friends party.

No cake for you!

the funny thing is the person who's party it was knows my viewpoints exactly, and while she disagrees with them she still hangs out with me.

it's some of her friends that are the close minded type that would probably scream NAZI and make a scene due to my views.

I learned a long time ago to not discuss politics or religion at a party

Hey.....How bout them Giants?

Which ones, football or baseball?

And remember, I'm in NYC so we get to fight over our sports teams too....

The New York Football Giants of course

 

[martybegan]

I got this effect at a birthday party last week. I live in NYC, so of course when the discussion went to politics the talk was 100% "Trump sucks", and I was smart enough just to nod banally and not join in.

Not that I am ashamed of my views, but that I didn't want to ruin my friends party.

No cake for you!

the funny thing is the person who's party it was knows my viewpoints exactly, and while she disagrees with them she still hangs out with me.

it's some of her friends that are the close minded type that would probably scream NAZI and make a scene due to my views.

I learned a long time ago to not discuss politics or religion at a party

Hey.....How bout them Giants?

Which ones, football or baseball?

And remember, I'm in NYC so we get to fight over our sports teams too....

The New York Football Giants of course

I think they had to go for the Running Back. If it doesn't work out then they will be terrible in 2-3 years and will have another bite at the top of the 1st round.

Also liked what they did to shore up the offensive line.

Barkley is a perfect addition for a team with an aging quarterback. He can run, he can be the safety valve receiver out of the backfield, he can do screens.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The only person you can prove it to is yourself. when talking about abstract concepts like this, they are only opinions. It is not like proving gravity or friction.

When you talk about proving social constructs, you sound like a marxist, and I doubt that is what you are going for.

You don't have a "system" to replace what we have, you just have a dislike of what we have now, and a vague hope of something better. At least the marxists have previous (bad) examples of systems that teetered along for a few decades before collapsing under their own weight.

And how are you qualified to speak on any of this? Have you studied natural law? Do you even understand what morality IS?

This is the problem - everyone thinks they have a valid opinion on every topic by mere virtue of the fact that they're breathing. NO. You have to understand something before you can accurately evaluate it and have a valid opinion on the topic. And I know for a fact that you haven't studied these matters by the way you talk. But yet you feel perfectly up to the task of discerning the validity of what I'm putting forth, despite the fact that I have a thorough understanding of this particular topic and you don't. That doesn't make me smarter, it simply makes me more experienced in this one specific area.

You think the absence of authoritarianism means there's no "system" in place. This is the arrogance of modern man - if HE didn't devise a system, then none exists. And yet he lives in a world of natural physical law that he had no hand in creating, with a system so perfectly precise that if it was off by the slightest degree, all life would become extinct. But never mind all that, you know better, right? Mankind's behavior is the only phenomenon in the universe that's exempt from defined, predictable cause-and-effect, because he's just that special.

Morality is a law of nature. To the degree mankind is moral overall, to that exact degree he will be free. This is what morality defines - the causal behaviors that yield particular results. And even on the face of it you should understand that, since immorality is always the justification for support of government. But once you see that government IS immoral, you understand that can never produce peace, freedom, and maximized prosperity. It is as impossible as dropped objects falling up.

Defense protects freedom, not man's law, and people equate government with defense, but that's not what defines government as government. People can still organize for their own defense, that's why the founders were so explicitly bent on the importance of the militia. But the militia does not have authority over other human beings, which is the defining, immoral characteristic of government.

Moral freedom is what I'm fighting for, not the overthrow of government. Anarchy by way of withdrawing support from government on moral grounds, such that it dissipates naturally, as new moral solutions replace its critical functions. This is possible, just as the abolition of African-American slavery was possible, despite all assertions to the contrary at that time. And eventually, the idea of re-establishing government would be viewed to be insane, just as the idea of re-establishing the slave trade would be now. It happens one person at a time, and right now that person is you. Will you fully commit to morality, understanding that it's the only path to man's best future, or will you stand in the way of progress and hold tight to the fear of change?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The only person you can prove it to is yourself. when talking about abstract concepts like this, they are only opinions. It is not like proving gravity or friction.

When you talk about proving social constructs, you sound like a marxist, and I doubt that is what you are going for.

You don't have a "system" to replace what we have, you just have a dislike of what we have now, and a vague hope of something better. At least the marxists have previous (bad) examples of systems that teetered along for a few decades before collapsing under their own weight.

And how are you qualified to speak on any of this? Have you studied natural law? Do you even understand what morality IS?

This is the problem - everyone thinks they have a valid opinion on every topic by mere virtue of the fact that they're breathing. NO. You have to understand something before you can accurately evaluate it and have a valid opinion on the topic. And I know for a fact that you haven't studied these matters by the way you talk. But yet you feel perfectly up to the task of discerning the validity of what I'm putting forth, despite the fact that I have a thorough understanding of this particular topic and you don't. That doesn't make me smarter, it simply makes me more experienced in this one specific area.

You think the absence of authoritarianism means there's no "system" in place. This is the arrogance of modern man - if HE didn't devise a system, then none exists. And yet he lives in a world of natural physical law that he had no hand in creating, with a system so perfectly precise that if it was off by the slightest degree, all life would become extinct. But never mind all that, you know better, right? Mankind's behavior is the only phenomenon in the universe that's exempt from defined, predictable cause-and-effect, because he's just that special.

Morality is a law of nature. To the degree mankind is moral overall, to that exact degree he will be free. This is what morality defines - the causal behaviors that yield particular results. And even on the face of it you should understand that, since immorality is always the justification for support of government. But once you see that government IS immoral, you understand that can never produce peace, freedom, and maximized prosperity. It is as impossible as dropped objects falling up.

Defense protects freedom, not man's law, and people equate government with defense, but that's not what defines government as government. People can still organize for their own defense, that's why the founders were so explicitly bent on the importance of the militia. But the militia does not have authority over other human beings, which is the defining, immoral characteristic of government.

Moral freedom is what I'm fighting for, not the overthrow of government. Anarchy by way of withdrawing support from government on moral grounds, such that it dissipates naturally, as new moral solutions replace its critical functions. This is possible, just as the abolition of African-American slavery was possible, despite all assertions to the contrary at that time. And eventually, the idea of re-establishing government would be viewed to be insane, just as the idea of re-establishing the slave trade would be now. It happens one person at a time, and right now that person is you. Will you fully commit to morality, understanding that it's the only path to man's best future, or will you stand in the way of progress and hold tight to the fear of change?

You have accused him of wanting to enslave your children while you are an advocate of such anarchy as would guarantee such.

It is not he who is deficient in understanding here.

 

[rightwinger]

No cake for you!

the funny thing is the person who's party it was knows my viewpoints exactly, and while she disagrees with them she still hangs out with me.

it's some of her friends that are the close minded type that would probably scream NAZI and make a scene due to my views.

I learned a long time ago to not discuss politics or religion at a party

Hey.....How bout them Giants?

Which ones, football or baseball?

And remember, I'm in NYC so we get to fight over our sports teams too....

The New York Football Giants of course

I think they had to go for the Running Back. If it doesn't work out then they will be terrible in 2-3 years and will have another bite at the top of the 1st round.

Also liked what they did to shore up the offensive line.

Barkley is a perfect addition for a team with an aging quarterback. He can run, he can be the safety valve receiver out of the backfield, he can do screens.

I was surprised they passed on Darnold, but they obviously didn’t think he was worth the pick

I like Barkley. Throw it to Beckham has gotten tiresome

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The only person you can prove it to is yourself. when talking about abstract concepts like this, they are only opinions. It is not like proving gravity or friction.

When you talk about proving social constructs, you sound like a marxist, and I doubt that is what you are going for.

You don't have a "system" to replace what we have, you just have a dislike of what we have now, and a vague hope of something better. At least the marxists have previous (bad) examples of systems that teetered along for a few decades before collapsing under their own weight.

And how are you qualified to speak on any of this? Have you studied natural law? Do you even understand what morality IS?

This is the problem - everyone thinks they have a valid opinion on every topic by mere virtue of the fact that they're breathing. NO. You have to understand something before you can accurately evaluate it and have a valid opinion on the topic. And I know for a fact that you haven't studied these matters by the way you talk. But yet you feel perfectly up to the task of discerning the validity of what I'm putting forth, despite the fact that I have a thorough understanding of this particular topic and you don't. That doesn't make me smarter, it simply makes me more experienced in this one specific area.

You think the absence of authoritarianism means there's no "system" in place. This is the arrogance of modern man - if HE didn't devise a system, then none exists. And yet he lives in a world of natural physical law that he had no hand in creating, with a system so perfectly precise that if it was off by the slightest degree, all life would become extinct. But never mind all that, you know better, right? Mankind's behavior is the only phenomenon in the universe that's exempt from defined, predictable cause-and-effect, because he's just that special.

Morality is a law of nature. To the degree mankind is moral overall, to that exact degree he will be free. This is what morality defines - the causal behaviors that yield particular results. And even on the face of it you should understand that, since immorality is always the justification for support of government. But once you see that government IS immoral, you understand that can never produce peace, freedom, and maximized prosperity. It is as impossible as dropped objects falling up.

Defense protects freedom, not man's law, and people equate government with defense, but that's not what defines government as government. People can still organize for their own defense, that's why the founders were so explicitly bent on the importance of the militia. But the militia does not have authority over other human beings, which is the defining, immoral characteristic of government.

Moral freedom is what I'm fighting for, not the overthrow of government. Anarchy by way of withdrawing support from government on moral grounds, such that it dissipates naturally, as new moral solutions replace its critical functions. This is possible, just as the abolition of African-American slavery was possible, despite all assertions to the contrary at that time. And eventually, the idea of re-establishing government would be viewed to be insane, just as the idea of re-establishing the slave trade would be now. It happens one person at a time, and right now that person is you. Will you fully commit to morality, understanding that it's the only path to man's best future, or will you stand in the way of progress and hold tight to the fear of change?

You have accused him of wanting to enslave your children while you are an advocate of such anarchy as would guarantee such.

It is not he who is deficient in understanding here.

-There is an alligator army on the moon.

-Chinese people eat shoe leather.

-Harriet Tubman was a man.

-Anarchy would guarantee enslavement.

Statements without supporting arguments are irrelevant. Welcome to the fundamental principle of rational debate.

 

[martybegan]

The only person you can prove it to is yourself. when talking about abstract concepts like this, they are only opinions. It is not like proving gravity or friction.

When you talk about proving social constructs, you sound like a marxist, and I doubt that is what you are going for.

You don't have a "system" to replace what we have, you just have a dislike of what we have now, and a vague hope of something better. At least the marxists have previous (bad) examples of systems that teetered along for a few decades before collapsing under their own weight.

And how are you qualified to speak on any of this? Have you studied natural law? Do you even understand what morality IS?

This is the problem - everyone thinks they have a valid opinion on every topic by mere virtue of the fact that they're breathing. NO. You have to understand something before you can accurately evaluate it and have a valid opinion on the topic. And I know for a fact that you haven't studied these matters by the way you talk. But yet you feel perfectly up to the task of discerning the validity of what I'm putting forth, despite the fact that I have a thorough understanding of this particular topic and you don't. That doesn't make me smarter, it simply makes me more experienced in this one specific area.

You think the absence of authoritarianism means there's no "system" in place. This is the arrogance of modern man - if HE didn't devise a system, then none exists. And yet he lives in a world of natural physical law that he had no hand in creating, with a system so perfectly precise that if it was off by the slightest degree, all life would become extinct. But never mind all that, you know better, right? Mankind's behavior is the only phenomenon in the universe that's exempt from defined, predictable cause-and-effect, because he's just that special.

Morality is a law of nature. To the degree mankind is moral overall, to that exact degree he will be free. This is what morality defines - the causal behaviors that yield particular results. And even on the face of it you should understand that, since immorality is always the justification for support of government. But once you see that government IS immoral, you understand that can never produce peace, freedom, and maximized prosperity. It is as impossible as dropped objects falling up.

Defense protects freedom, not man's law, and people equate government with defense, but that's not what defines government as government. People can still organize for their own defense, that's why the founders were so explicitly bent on the importance of the militia. But the militia does not have authority over other human beings, which is the defining, immoral characteristic of government.

Moral freedom is what I'm fighting for, not the overthrow of government. Anarchy by way of withdrawing support from government on moral grounds, such that it dissipates naturally, as new moral solutions replace its critical functions. This is possible, just as the abolition of African-American slavery was possible, despite all assertions to the contrary at that time. And eventually, the idea of re-establishing government would be viewed to be insane, just as the idea of re-establishing the slave trade would be now. It happens one person at a time, and right now that person is you. Will you fully commit to morality, understanding that it's the only path to man's best future, or will you stand in the way of progress and hold tight to the fear of change?

You can type text walls until you are blue in the face, it doesn't change the fact that any system of anarchy is at best a pipe dream or at worst a system designed for the strong to rule over the weak.

You offer no basis other than your own opinion, and then castigate me for offering nothing other than my own opinions.

I see no reason to change my views on the subject, because you have proven nothing to me otherwise.

 

[candycorn]

If you are a democrat, what democratic policies do you disagree with?

If you are a republican, what republican policies do you disagree with?

I find it very curious how people can just tow the party line in every single instance? I am starting this thread to find out exactly how much do people disagree with the respective parties? Do they disagree with them about any of their stances or policies? Are you always in COMPLETE agreement with your party, no matter their policies or their ways of going about getting what they want? Perhaps there are some tactics that your party uses that you might disagree with? I started this in the CDC because I actually want some answers instead of our usual battering of one another's views and party affiliations.

Thanks for your input.

I’m a liberal (not a democrat) but I’ll swing at it….

Democrats in the past have been in favor of the following policies:

Allowing people use restrooms based on their gender identities; not their anatomical realities. I’m against that. It’s not society’s job to make you comfortable

Changing admission policies of college to accommodate minority students. I’m against that. It cheapens the enterprise.

It’s not spelled out in the Platform but the Democrats have supported being able to vote without ID. I oppose that. For one thing, we have the technology to make the voting process as sterile as possible; why not use it? Secondly, our nation shouldn’t reward those who are so lethargic that they cannot do the bare minimum necessary to cast a ballot.

2016 Party Platform
“We believe that Americans should earn at least $15 an hour”. I’m against $15 an hour. I do think the minimum wage needs to be raised but nearly doubling it is crazy

“That is why Democrats embrace a vibrant, public Postal Service that offers universal service, and reject any effort to privatize or marginalize it.” Insane. Like all enterprises, they have to change with the times. We don’t need weekend delivery of mail for starters. We certainly do not need as many post offices as we currently have.

"Democrats believe that health care is a right, not a privilege, and our health care system should put people before profits. Thanks to the hard work of President Obama and Democrats in Congress, we took a critically important step toward the goal of universal health care by passing the Affordable Care Act, which has covered 20 million more Americans and ensured millions more will never be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition.” While I support Universal Healthcare, the ACA was the wrong way to go about it. As I have always said, I don’t see how you can be legally forced to buy anything in this country.

"We must restore the full protections of the Voting Rights Act. We will bring our democracy into the 21st century by expanding early voting and vote-by-mail, implementing universal automatic voter registration and same day voter registration, ending partisan and racial gerrymandering, and making Election Day a national holiday.” We have enough holidays.

Also against:

Santuary Cities: Seems to me that the law is the law and it should be enforced irregardless.
The school of thought is that if you’re an illegal alien and are raped, you won’t call the cops because you’ll be deported yourself. Sanctuary cities don’t ask the nationality of the people assaulted as I understand.
You should have known that when you came into the nation illegally.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The only person you can prove it to is yourself. when talking about abstract concepts like this, they are only opinions. It is not like proving gravity or friction.

When you talk about proving social constructs, you sound like a marxist, and I doubt that is what you are going for.

You don't have a "system" to replace what we have, you just have a dislike of what we have now, and a vague hope of something better. At least the marxists have previous (bad) examples of systems that teetered along for a few decades before collapsing under their own weight.

And how are you qualified to speak on any of this? Have you studied natural law? Do you even understand what morality IS?

This is the problem - everyone thinks they have a valid opinion on every topic by mere virtue of the fact that they're breathing. NO. You have to understand something before you can accurately evaluate it and have a valid opinion on the topic. And I know for a fact that you haven't studied these matters by the way you talk. But yet you feel perfectly up to the task of discerning the validity of what I'm putting forth, despite the fact that I have a thorough understanding of this particular topic and you don't. That doesn't make me smarter, it simply makes me more experienced in this one specific area.

You think the absence of authoritarianism means there's no "system" in place. This is the arrogance of modern man - if HE didn't devise a system, then none exists. And yet he lives in a world of natural physical law that he had no hand in creating, with a system so perfectly precise that if it was off by the slightest degree, all life would become extinct. But never mind all that, you know better, right? Mankind's behavior is the only phenomenon in the universe that's exempt from defined, predictable cause-and-effect, because he's just that special.

Morality is a law of nature. To the degree mankind is moral overall, to that exact degree he will be free. This is what morality defines - the causal behaviors that yield particular results. And even on the face of it you should understand that, since immorality is always the justification for support of government. But once you see that government IS immoral, you understand that can never produce peace, freedom, and maximized prosperity. It is as impossible as dropped objects falling up.

Defense protects freedom, not man's law, and people equate government with defense, but that's not what defines government as government. People can still organize for their own defense, that's why the founders were so explicitly bent on the importance of the militia. But the militia does not have authority over other human beings, which is the defining, immoral characteristic of government.

Moral freedom is what I'm fighting for, not the overthrow of government. Anarchy by way of withdrawing support from government on moral grounds, such that it dissipates naturally, as new moral solutions replace its critical functions. This is possible, just as the abolition of African-American slavery was possible, despite all assertions to the contrary at that time. And eventually, the idea of re-establishing government would be viewed to be insane, just as the idea of re-establishing the slave trade would be now. It happens one person at a time, and right now that person is you. Will you fully commit to morality, understanding that it's the only path to man's best future, or will you stand in the way of progress and hold tight to the fear of change?

You have accused him of wanting to enslave your children while you are an advocate of such anarchy as would guarantee such.

It is not he who is deficient in understanding here.

-There is an alligator army on the moon.

-Chinese people eat shoe leather.

-Harriet Tubman was a man.

-Anarchy would guarantee enslavement.

Statements without supporting arguments are irrelevant. Welcome to the fundamental principle of rational debate.

Anarchy removes all the impediments to one person or group enslaving another.

Like, DUH!