Government is a church of expanded morality.

[Moonbeam]

rchiu: lol, it's great you are so enlightened, by all means, spend your life and save the world and humanity. Just like those religious people are free to dedicate their life to the church and spread their faith. There is nothing wrong and no one is stopping you from doing what you think is right.

M: Thank you

r: Just don't apply your morality or religion to those of us under the same government structure and ask everyone to think and act as you do. We all have different priorities. Doesn't mean your's is more righteous than mine, unless you are a narcissist who thinks your way is the only truth in this world and everyone must follow.

M: Your fears were addressed in the Constitution and the amendments. The government religion I espoused is all about this. But don't forget I am free to ask anything I want. You will note, however, that the Supreme court has said that money is speech and this violation of equality of opportunity has created the useless political parties you see. You can not worship two gods.

 

[Moonbeam]

Ah... Quite a blunt, if not honest, statement disavowing private property.



A social contract to remove private property, does that remove privacy? Your contract requires slavery I think. After all, were slaves not given enough food and shelter to survive? The bare necessities were met. Seems to me we are simply returning to those good old days thanks to your wanton elimination of individual liberty.

Difficult to keep alive the founding American principles to guard against government when you drink government kool-aid. When you plot out an American utopia where our property belongs to you, where WE belong to you.

Create enough dependents and you may very well win the day. After all, they won't bite the hand that feeds them. You'll have their vote and, through them, a new American majority with enough clout to effect your changes. However, do not expect this to be a bloodless revolution. The rest of us still value our freedom and secession will happen.

You will let us cast off your slavery, or your hands will be stained red.

Halloween must be coming. BOO!

 

[Moonbeam]

Government isn't religion, though many sure as fuck treat it that way.

Which makes talking about as if it were rather interesting. Common ground you see!

 

[Moonbeam]

I disagree. What you speak of went back to a time when both sides had the interests of the nation at heart. Where it stands now is that the Right tells you to go to hell, and the Left paves the way with their good intentions born of hubris.

Neither side Sees.

I don't know with what exactly you disagree. I believe that past was less evolved than the present, that humanity is getting smarter, more enlightened, less tribal, less violent, year by year, that conservative tribal morality is dying and the liberal realization that we are all the same on the march world wide.

It is tribal mentality that creates inequality by creating lesser and more deserving groups and the karmic ego delusion that morality creates success, that cream rises and shit sinks rather than the deck is stacked for and against different people.

 

[zephyrprime]

Sorry man, morality, like religion has no place in government/constitution. Your liberal morality believes everyone should have equal chance, and the rich should be paying to get the less fortunate to get to a level playing field. But where does that morality ends?

Should the US paying for other countries' poor people? (yeah I know we are, somewhat) Should the US go to war to take out dictators who abuse people? Should the government help everyone who lost their job to find a new one, make sure everyone who needs transplant gets one, everyone who has cancer get the most expensive and dedicated treatment by the most experienced doctor?

I mean, whose morality are you going to base your government/constitution on? Who is going to decide which morality is the most suitable for this country?

Government should be lean and least intrusive. Government should not dictate believes, religion or morality. Government should ensure basic protection of rights and human survival. The rest should be up to you.

The mere protection of rights and survival is itself moral. Why bother protecting property? Why bother protecting life? All these things are moral too. Nearly everything about government laws are all about morality. You just don't want to be bothered with trying to be moral because it set's you up for failure and prevents you from being selfish. The only reason any government other than a despotic one exists is purely moral.

 

[zephyrprime]

It is tribal mentality that creates inequality by creating lesser and more deserving groups and the karmic ego delusion that morality creates success, that cream rises and shit sinks rather than the deck is stacked for and against different people.

I don't know why people have such a hard time with this but the truth is both things are true. Cream rise AND the deck is stacked. Black AND white AND gray, not black OR white.

 

[Fern]

Government itself is amoral. It's supporters use govt as a tool to force their beliefs upon others, and claim moral authority as the justification for doing so. Some actually believe in this and those are known as "useful idiots" by the rest.

If you don't need "morals" from a church, you sure as heck don't need it from a government.

Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

M: I agree but I am stating something I believe, not something I don't believe in. I believe that one can argue that government is a secular substitute for religion, a big tent religion you don't have to have a religion to join nor are you excluded if you are religious. It is founded, as religion is, on moral precepts, that all men are created equal, etc. I was making the case that the liberal government is concerned with that moral feeling of fairness that wants a level playing field, where the focus is on fairness of access to opportunity and that folk who don't do as well as others are not being punished by failure because they are evil as the scientific evidence indicates conservatives believe. This is really kind of the golden rule and compassion for those least among us, a slop over from Christianity, love without the fire and brimstone and contempt we see infecting religious belief.

I think you're searching for the term "secular humanism," which itself is, as you say, largely a "slop over from Christianity, love without the fire and brimstone and concept we see infecting religious belief." It is supposed to be the central moral premise of the modern liberal state.

Whether you call it religion or not probably isn't the most important issue.

 

[woolfe9999]

Government itself is amoral. It's supporters use govt as a tool to force their beliefs upon others, and claim moral authority as the justification for doing so. Some actually believe in this and those are known as "useful idiots" by the rest.

If you don't need "morals" from a church, you sure as heck don't need it from a government.

Fern

Government is only one form of authority. No need to specially plead any one form of authority as inherently better or worse than any other. All at one time or another may be necessary. Any can be good or bad.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Government is only one form of authority. No need to specially plead any one form of authority as inherently better or worse than any other. All at one time or another may be necessary. Any can be good or bad.

But few authorities have equal power. One might not dare defy the Church at one time, but try that with the entity of government and see what happens. That other institutions are no more or less evil is true, but not the whole of it. The government can define good by it's decree and woe to those who disagree.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Government itself is amoral.

The government represents a legal monopoly on the initiation of aggressive force.

For instance, nobody in their right mind would argue that a group of men has the legitimate authority to rob any other group of men. After all, people rightly understand that armed robbery is immoral. But if you call that group of men a "government", all of a sudden it becomes acceptable if they rob another group of men. Then the armed robbery becomes "taxation", and it's justified because people are taught to believe that it's "for the common good".

So I disagree with the notion that government is amoral. Government represents, again, a legal monopoly on the initiation of aggressive force. It represents a license to rob, kidnap, and murder people, and I don't see how that can dismissed as a question of something other than morality.

 

[Jaskalas]

Halloween must be coming. BOO!

Small words and a narrow focus then.

Do you agree that your 'expanded morality' abolishes private property? I do not believe there's room for it in your social contract.

 

[Nemesis 1]

This is a great example moonie, you took my simple statements and tried to redefine them. Why do you need to vilify me? Why promote what we both know is a lie to try and prove a point that doesn't exist? This is simply foolish, it doesn't lend credence to an already outlandish theory. How can we have any sort of discussion if you won't be honest?

He use to be honest , I don't know what happened to him . Self hate I don't know .

 

[Juror No. 8]

He use to be honest , I don't know what happened to him.

That's easy, he learned to talk.

 

[Nemesis 1]

But few authorities have equal power. One might not dare defy the Church at one time, but try that with the entity of government and see what happens. That other institutions are no more or less evil is true, but not the whole of it. The government can define good by it's decree and woe to those who disagree.

Jee man you really have a handle on this stuff . that reply was about as good as it gets

 

[bfdd]

Which makes talking about as if it were rather interesting. Common ground you see!

I've made this post before though and the majority of you guys attacked me for being "an idiot". When I proposed that many people are simply replacing their religion with Government led in part by Atheist statists. I see those who are identified as "liberal" or "progressive" simply idolizing politicians/legislators while worshiping at the alter of Government. These kinds aren't only limited to "liberal" or "progressive" types, they just seem to be the ones that are openly gungho about it. So I guess I can see where others would perceive that as an attack on them, it's not really, just an observation. I personally don't view it as a religion or a religious entity. I wish people would not treat it as such, though many are weak and simply lack the willingness to accept the irrationality of our reality.

 

[Moonbeam]

I've made this post before though and the majority of you guys attacked me for being "an idiot". When I proposed that many people are simply replacing their religion with Government led in part by Atheist statists. I see those who are identified as "liberal" or "progressive" simply idolizing politicians/legislators while worshiping at the alter of Government. These kinds aren't only limited to "liberal" or "progressive" types, they just seem to be the ones that are openly gungho about it. So I guess I can see where others would perceive that as an attack on them, it's not really, just an observation. I personally don't view it as a religion or a religious entity. I wish people would not treat it as such, though many are weak and simply lack the willingness to accept the irrationality of our reality.

I know that you are a pox on both your houses type but I find neuroscience interesting. It is a fact that liberal and conservative brains differ and the differences carry implications that are also seen. One of these is that conservatives are believers, they believe as if in religion and create an altered reality to protect themselves from the delusion that religion always turns into. The research says that liberals are different, that they can be brought to change their minds by scientific data. This is my beef with folk like you and Hay. You see both sides as equally evil. That may be but both sides are not as wedded to their beliefs and one side can adapt to information. One side can be talked to with reason. This is why I like liberal religion. It emphasizes fairness more than conservatives do and is not puritanical and fanatical in its morality, and not truthy in it's certainty. This is what neuroscience is revealing. I prefer the religious belief in science over the religious certainty that comes from the fact that humans can feel disgust and transfer that feeling over to see others as unworthy.

 

[rchiu]

The mere protection of rights and survival is itself moral. Why bother protecting property? Why bother protecting life? All these things are moral too. Nearly everything about government laws are all about morality. You just don't want to be bothered with trying to be moral because it set's you up for failure and prevents you from being selfish. The only reason any government other than a despotic one exists is purely moral.

No, right to protect our own family, our property, our life, what is clearly ours is not moral, it's basic human right. Asking other to give me money when I don't have, asking others to give me job when I lost mine, asking others to provide health care when I didn't get one, that is not right, that subjected to other's moral and if others are willing to help.

Sorry if you can't tell that very fundamental difference.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I know that you are a pox on both your houses type but I find neuroscience interesting. It is a fact that liberal and conservative brains differ and the differences carry implications that are also seen. One of these is that conservatives are believers, they believe as if in religion and create an altered reality to protect themselves from the delusion that religion always turns into. The research says that liberals are different, that they can be brought to change their minds by scientific data. This is my beef with folk like you and Hay. You see both sides as equally evil. That may be but both sides are not as wedded to their beliefs and one side can adapt to information. One side can be talked to with reason. This is why I like liberal religion. It emphasizes fairness more than conservatives do and is not puritanical and fanatical in its morality, and not truthy in it's certainty. This is what neuroscience is revealing. I prefer the religious belief in science over the religious certainty that comes from the fact that humans can feel disgust and transfer that feeling over to see others as unworthy.

There must be balance!

 

[woolfe9999]

But few authorities have equal power. One might not dare defy the Church at one time, but try that with the entity of government and see what happens. That other institutions are no more or less evil is true, but not the whole of it. The government can define good by it's decree and woe to those who disagree.

You're making the libertarian error of minimizing what power means outside the concept of government. There is no such thing as a vacuum of power. Better to have an authority who must "define" meaning that at least in theory they have to play by a set of rules. In the absence of government, there will be power, no less than before, but exercised arbitrarily and by whim. Those with the resources and hence, the might, will be the authority, and there will be no set of rules, nothing mitigating the use of naked power against the individual. You complain about the state making rules? How about, I now own your ass because I'm richer/stronger/smarter than you and there are no rules. Those who believe that the absence of government means *more* freedom are naive.

The idea behind democracy is that the state is accountable for the rules it sets and how it enforces them. When that isn't working right, make it better. There are no other alternatives which aren't significantly worse.

 

[Moonbeam]

You're making the libertarian error of minimizing what power means outside the concept of government. There is no such thing as a vacuum of power. Better to have an authority who must "define" meaning that at least in theory they have to play by a set of rules. In the absence of government, there will be power, no less than before, but exercised arbitrarily and by whim. Those with the resources and hence, the might, will be the authority, and there will be no set of rules, nothing mitigating the use of naked power against the individual. You complain about the state making rules? How about, I now own your ass because I'm richer/stronger/smarter than you and there are no rules. Those who believe that the absence of government means *more* freedom are naive.

The idea behind democracy is that the state is accountable for the rules it sets and how it enforces them. When that isn't working right, make it better. There are no other alternatives which aren't significantly worse.

And we, in fact, do not live in a full democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic with rules written by folk who had a profound fear of government of tyrants, either religious or secular and of the tyranny of the people who, to the best of their abilities to agree on principles for doing this, put in place checks and balances and rules to attempt to prevent both. This is the American form of government and the one conservatives hate. It makes it hard for them to make morality laws based of religious belief. It make it hard for the 1% to control everything.

The only safeguard that exists in this world is knowledge and intelligence connected to character love and wisdom. When the American people lose those traits we are all doomed. Only mass insanity can destroy what we have created and hatred of government, of ourselves, is the road to it.

One party has created an altered reality of entitlement, only they are the real Americans, the people who hate the other, the folk on whom they project what is despicable about them, who attack the nation in favor of their insanity, who will not see that what they call good is evil.

This is the infection of bigotry, the irrational reaction of hate learned at a time in childhood before reason could intervene with common sense, against those who will not conform to that bigotry, the belief that only the chosen will go to heaven, that the devil is out there waiting for you to fall to the temptation of rational thinking.

The sad fact is that mammals need to eat food that's not poison or infected and has nourishment. Give a rat of a human something bitter and they make the same face. This is the evolutionary rood of disgust, the reaction of humans to what is unclean, and this became via language, how we react to evil. There is no conservative mind that wandered from the flock as a child, that didn't see parental disgust. And now all these children are grown up, still disgusted, still convinced that all but the flock is dirty. But if the sickest among us govern, we're fucked. We always become what we fear as I have warned here for many many years. The disgusted become what is really disgusting, warped minds that are dangerous.

And the only correctives are knowledge and understanding, wisdom and love.

So don't forget that no conservative wants to be evil or does not wish to be good. Only ignorance and self blindness keep them from truly achieving that. But the wise know that we have met the real enemy and he is us.