 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > Christians & politics. Everyone's favorite topic! | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
sometimesisquint
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 91
| Posted 7/21/2004 2:01 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
You'd have to establish that a peaceful life without freedom is better that a chaotic life with it.
You’re making some fairly unfounded assumptions here. First, I don’t think the present system ensures a total loss of freedom, “might is right” and “majority rules” doesn’t necessarily destroy the concept of free enterprise. Second, I don’t think my current existence is “chaotic,” even granting the imperfections inherent in any human system. Third, I think the burden of proof is on you to “establish” how your anarchist system leads to a “peaceful” life. Something I’m not ready to grant or concede.
Starting to move.
quote:
We've talked about asigning relative values to peace and freedom before, but so far you haven't done it.
How about you assign the relative value according to your example and I’ll follow suit and/or respond accordingly.
quote:
In short peace is immoral if it is gained unjustly.
This leads to too many variable questions. How much or to what effect must the immoral means be present in order to constitute a lack of justice? Rather, can a small amount of immorality be present to gain peace and still remain mostly just?
quote:
Almost anyone would agree…
Not with such a vague premise.
quote:
Yes. Anarchism sounds evil. But I call peace at the expense of injustice evil.
Crimson Halibut.
That doesn’t answer anything, you sound like a politician. Anarchy sounds evil because it can lead to a very evil premise. Lack of control or authority is a bad idea. Restriction is necessary.
quote:
Neither can I.
Nice answer.
quote:
I never decided to live in this country. I was born here. Yeah I can move, but it would be forced. Submit or leave. I'm not saying I can't move. I'm saying it's wrong to make me submit or move.
That’s ridiculous. There is no coercion or forceful attempt to make you move. You’re making this country sound like a tyrannical dictatorship. That’s a long and melodramatic gap to tightrope across.
quote:
I'm not saying that's not how it is. I'm saying that's what we should change.
Why? You haven’t granted any example that makes your system either feasible or more efficient.
quote:
No you're not. You are given the choice of submit or leave. That's coersion. You're not free to leave unless you are not forced to leave. Moving on.
You sound like one of those guys I used to pass on the streets every day in Minneapolis…I think I bought a pencil from you for a quarter once on the corner of Hennepin and 3rd. 
quote:
I agree. I never said otherwise.
I thought you were born before you could…oh, seriously, I know what you were going to say.
quote:
I'm saying that is what should be changed.
But, why? Simply conceding that the system is imperfect doesn’t imply that it should be scrapped for another unproven system with a highly probable degree of error and potential chaos. You haven’t proven anything, you’ve barely explained how it might work, and you refuse to address potential concerns without throwing a few bloody herrings onto the table.
ME: I think these blue M&M’s are nifty-keen. Don’t you?
YOU: Yes, these blue M&M’s might be considered nifty-keen (although taste is relative you insecure glutton), but I call peace at the expense of injustice evil.
quote:
When you respond with that's the way it is, you miss the point.
No, I’m waiting for you to make a viable point that compels a response. Showing the truth of any situation doesn’t imply a limited vision or understanding OF the situation, quite the opposite.
quote:
I'm not trying to make people forget that America (to a certain degree) lives under majority rule. I'm arguing that it's immoral, not nonexistent.
Why? Because you were born here before you had a chance to CHOOSE to defer to its leadership? That still sounds ridiculous.
quote:
People would be allowed to submit to a government, not forced. That's all. I think it would work. So there.
Okay. Good point. I hereby change my initial prognostication that determined that yours was a wacky point of view. We should live in “almost” anarchy—allowing, of course, for three non-contradictory exceptions. Whew. I thought we were at an impasse.
quote:
Change would have to happen slowly though.
Most change does…unless you’re Michael Jackson’s snozz.
quote:
Food doesn't break the bank because it's (mostly) a free market. Let's make health care, and (for the sake of brevity) let's make security a free market too.
“Brevity is the soul of wit.”
I (and the great dusty Bard) thank you.
quote:
God allows for choice, even when it costs innocent life. Complain to Him. OK. That wasn't cool. I'm just saying I think God has displayed a different set of priorities than you are presenting.
I think God (despite the OV’s predicate that God allows freedom of choice) still prioritizes the health of children. Simply because a theological system allows for some degree of evil does not in turn mean that we should mimic that lack of respect for “innocent life”.
quote:
Second, anarchy is moral. Forced rule over another isn't.
Nothing you’ve said could possibly lead me to accept those conclusions.
quote:
It isn't provided. If a group voluntarily chooses to set up a judical system, I have no problem with that. I only have a problem when they enforce their rule outside of that group. Judical decisions are returned to individuals. They decide what they will do, and each other individual decides how he or she will respond, unless they choose to let someone else decide how to respond.
Like the early Native Americans? Sweet. Ta-tonka.
quote:
You don't have to vote. The default vote is for yourself.
I was replying to this: “People can still go ahead and vote for someone else to make the tough decisions for them, but whoever they vote for should have no power over those who did not vote for him/her.”
quote:
It's up to each individual. THE END
I’m glad we had this chat.
"What's partner yoga?"
"It's when you're two with the universe."
-My Friend Keith
---
When life gives you dish rags, you make...a kite that won't fly in the rain. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/21/2004 8:06 PM (GMT -6) | | When one person rules another without consent, it's wrong. Majority rule would be fine if everyone agreed to it. But, if you don't abide by the rules the majority sets, you will be punished. Doing what's right is more important than living in a safe or healthy country. quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You'd have to establish that a peaceful life without freedom is better that a chaotic life with it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re making some fairly unfounded assumptions here. First, I don’t think the present system ensures a total loss of freedom, “might is right” and “majority rules” doesn’t necessarily destroy the concept of free enterprise. Second, I don’t think my current existence is “chaotic,” even granting the imperfections inherent in any human system. Third, I think the burden of proof is on you to “establish” how your anarchist system leads to a “peaceful” life. Something I’m not ready to grant or concede.
What unfounded assumption did I make? I never said the present system ensures a total loss of freedom. I never said majority rule completely destoys free enterprise. I never said your (or anyone else's) existence is chaotic. I never siad that my system will lead to a peaceful life. I assume none of those things. You assume that I assume them. If someone did say those things, I would probably write them off. quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not saying that's not how it is. I'm saying that's what we should change.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? You haven’t granted any example that makes your system either feasible or more efficient.
My reason for wanting this change is not that it would be feasible or efficient. My reason is that it's the right way to rule over people - by not ruling over them. I do think it would work better than what we have know, and I think I have shown examples, but even if it didn't, I still think it's the right thing. quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never decided to live in this country. I was born here. Yeah I can move, but it would be forced. Submit or leave. I'm not saying I can't move. I'm saying it's wrong to make me submit or move.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s ridiculous. There is no coercion or forceful attempt to make you move. You’re making this country sound like a tyrannical dictatorship. That’s a long and melodramatic gap to tightrope across.
If I don't pay my taxes, because I think it's immoral, then I have three options: jail, run away, or ditch my morals. It's not ridiculous. What if your tax money paid for abortions and murderous dictators? It does. I'm not saying it's wrong to pay your taxes. I'm saying it's wrong to force the guy next door to pay for those things that he may find immoral. And we do it anyway. Almost every time we vote for a candidate from one of the two major parties, we give power to someone who favors sending people to jail for refusing to finance abortion. If you refuse to finance abortion in America, you are coerced. Go to jail or go outside the country. That's ridiculous. quote:
Why? Because you were born here before you had a chance to CHOOSE to defer to its leadership? That still sounds ridiculous.
Just because I was born in America doesn't make it right for the majority of Americans to say what's right or wrong for me or how to spend my money. quote:
I think God (despite the OV’s predicate that God allows freedom of choice) still prioritizes the health of children. Simply because a theological system allows for some degree of evil does not in turn mean that we should mimic that lack of respect for “innocent life”.
Then why does He let children die? Because He values our freedom more. If He were to take away our freedom to save young people, we wouldn't be people, we would be robots and pawns. If saving the physical life of children is so important to God, then why does He allow the millions of abortions?
I really am sorry if I was deprecating. I don't want to be like that.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
esperanza
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 7/22/2004 8:34 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
When one person rules another without consent, it's wrong. Majority rule would be fine if everyone agreed to it. if you don't abide by the rules the majority sets, you will be punished. quote:
Guess what? I totally agree with you. Our government is even based on this idea, the consentual contract etc etc, stuff you already know.
But lets say, a billion trillion years ago, some people got together and decided they wanted to live in thier own society where they had the freedom to make thier own rules, so they set up this governemtn based on consent. They MADE THE CHOICE to give up some of their rights in order to serve the common good. If the majority decided something, the minority would go along with it. People could enter this contract, or get out if whenever they wanted. Also, babies that were born to parents under the contract were also under the contract until they came to a certain age where they could choose whether they wanted to be under the contract. ( I think we all think this is a moral gov't so far, right?)
Since this society would be unlike others, however, they wanted to separate themselves geographically, so they drew a circle and decided thats where they would live. They realized it would not be feasible or practical for people to have neighbors who did not live under the same basic rules they did. It would not be right, for example, for the people who didn't contribute anything to benefit from the defense system the people under the contract had paid for. That was comparable with stealing.
ok, enough of my incredibly simplified story. I hope you guys know I totally did not mean to be condescending with that!!! I was more just simplifying it for me, because it helps me come to the root of the problem I have with Sahid.
I think it is completely possible to have a society where people choose to be a part of it (like you advocate) but I don't believe its feasible for people who are under one contract to live next to those who aren't. This isn't practical or fair. It's why we have nation-states :)
Saying geographical boundaries shouldn't matter when it comes to government is the main component of your arguement I see as ludicrous. Pretty sure the rest of it I buy.
Gosh I'm becoming so liberal.
To stay young
To save the world
Break the mirror
- Nanao Sakaki | | Back to Top | | |
| 55 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:00 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|