The Cowardice of the Conservative

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Please Vic, do a simple search and learn wth you are talking about for once,

Fascism
Communism

They are both totalitarian but there are major diffrences beyond that gloss over view you have. Stop talking out your ass already.

Totalitarianism is totalitarianism. Kindly don't apologize for it by believing in the little imaginary differences they create in what is, in reality, simply a quest for power between competing gangs of thugs. They have the same agenda but with different recruiting tactics and propaganda.
Like I posted earlier, symbols and labels appear to be the uppermost limit of your intelligence.

I am the one labeling everything. :laugh:
yet you are the one painting a broad brush on two black and white forms of government becasue you are too ignorant to educate yourself. Sure.

Okay, why don't you tell us exactly how these 2 types of totalitarian ideologies are "black and white"?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It strikes me that the struggle to systematize human relations under the rubric of a functional 'ism', the struggle to form a more perfect union of men, the effort to secure the blessings on truth justice and liberty to ourselves and our posterity, is in fact a balancing act of pragmatism. The nature of ones vision is going to depend on the development of ones consciousness.

I make the assumption that the wisdom one has about mankind and how best to manage human life is dependent on the degree to which one knows oneself. I believe that all knowledge derives from the degree to which one is conscious of who one was programmed to be from childhood and how much of that programming one has eliminated via active psychological self-work. I believe also that the number of people who are free from their past is vanishingly rare and that, therefore, real understanding and wisdom is also vanishingly rare.

Given that, it strikes me that much of what we see in this thread between Steeplerot and Vic revolve around that same question as to the nature of man, and particularly here, whether man is good or evil.

The difficulty the two have in communication is based, I think, of focus on two aspects of a single truth. Man is both infinitely perfectible and infinitely corruptible and this leads to two different kinds of citizens. I think perfected men do not need government because they have no base self that can be corrupted and that people filled with ego are vacuums of need that can never be filled even by devouring the world.

For most of us then, there is the option of movement up or down. Do we feed or deny our ego, take the high or the low road. Do we create a system in which man is free to act in good conscience or regulate to insure he does. Do we have confidence that man will move up requiring less regulations or down, in which our fear of the corruption of others drives us to want to regulate more. If we move up, what is to stop the corruption of others, and if we move down what is to stop the corruption of others from corrupting the regulations and the enforcement of the law.

And since we are all 'good people with the best of intentions' do we hate the corruption of others or do we hate the corruption of other's institutions. Do we hate man or do we hate government.

All of this, however, is a projection of our self hate. The more you realize the depth to which you have been made to feel worthless as a child, the more you will see that it is your buried feelings that bring you fear, that your fear of the world, of others, of corruption, of force, etc, are all fears that have already happened. You have all been through worse that a concentration camp run by tremendous dictators and your fear of government, well founded as it is, is a psychotic reaction to that where it is generated by that fear. The problem of course is that we create what we fear and fearing control we seek to control others, but of course with the thought that our control is good.

Anyway, I think the notion of government is a pragmatic thing, a way to introduce a third party into dispute, a party, because of independence, can possibly have some unbiased perspective. We fumble along, it seems to me, trying to balance the forces in our nature that pull us up and down and need the judgment of our neighbors to help us along in those areas were our personal egos are involved.

The individual should be free to act to the fullness of consciousness and the group will inevitably make demands as a matter of exchange for protections and shelter. The conscious individual is never restricted because he always acts for the group.

To be free, then, is not dependent of the forms you live under, but the evolution of your mind.

I'm curious, Moonie... how can government be this independent, unbiased third-party you speak of? Is it not also composed of self-loathing humans?

People are irrational when the reputation or well being of their ego is at stake. I, for example, maintain my objectivity when you call Steeplerot an idiot or when he calls you one. It is the involvement of my irrational needs that allows me to remain relatively objective where others are influenced or potentially influenced, and that provides some measure of confidence that my opinion won't be tainted thereby. Also in any group therapy session we can see that people are crazy in different ways and of potential use to each other as mirrors. You may be able to see my madness if it is in an area where you are more sane.

Edit: The uninvlovment, not involvment, sorry.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Please Vic, do a simple search and learn wth you are talking about for once,

Fascism
Communism

They are both totalitarian but there are major diffrences beyond that gloss over view you have. Stop talking out your ass already.

Totalitarianism is totalitarianism. Kindly don't apologize for it by believing in the little imaginary differences they create in what is, in reality, simply a quest for power between competing gangs of thugs. They have the same agenda but with different recruiting tactics and propaganda.
Like I posted earlier, symbols and labels appear to be the uppermost limit of your intelligence.

I am the one labeling everything. :laugh:
yet you are the one painting a broad brush on two black and white forms of government becasue you are too ignorant to educate yourself. Sure.

Okay, why don't you tell us exactly how these 2 types of totalitarian ideologies are "black and white"?

I just provided you with 2 links, try reading the black and white in the articles.

Communism and fascism are very different political systems. It is downright foolish to lump them together, sure lets say they are both veggies, but one is a squash and the other corn, related but far far different. Please excuse the food analogy, I must make dinner

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
People are irrational when the reputation or well being of their ego is at stake. I, for example, maintain my objectivity when you call Steeplerot an idiot or when he calls you one. It is the involvement of my irrational needs that allows me to remain relatively objective where others are influenced or potentially influenced, and that provides some measure of confidence that my opinion won't be tainted thereby. Also in any group therapy session we can see that people are crazy in different ways and of potential use to each other as mirrors. You may be able to see my madness if it is in an area where you are more sane.

That you can maintain your objectivity is a statement that I could only take on trust. Even an observer is a participant merely through the process of observing. That is scientific fact.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I just provided you with 2 links, try reading the black and white in the articles.

Communism and fascism are very different political systems. It is downright foolish to lump them together, sure lets say they are both veggies, but one is a squash and the other corn, related but far far different. Please excuse the food analogy, I must make dinner

Making dinner at 1pm?

I've read both those links long before you brought them to my attention. I am quite sure that I am educated on both ideologies far more than you are.

And your analogy doesn't work, if only because neither are vegetables. Squash is a melon (and thus a type of fruit) and corn is a grain (which btw is also a type of fruit -- botanically). Your use of such an analogy does demonstrate your ongoing and persistance ignorance though.

Now, you were saying that 2 totalitarian ideologies were "black and white." Now, admittedly, one is nationalist and the other is not, but otherwise both advocate violence, war, and totalitarian government control, both social and economic, all in order to eventually acheive some kind of similar utopian ideal, so I have a hard time seeing how they are "black and white." Care to explain?

 

[Genx87]

And your analogy doesn't work, if only because neither are vegetables. Squash is a melon (and thus a type of fruit) and corn is a grain (which btw is also a type of fruit -- botanically). Your use of such an analogy does demonstrate your ongoing and persistance ignorance though.

lmao

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I just provided you with 2 links, try reading the black and white in the articles.

Communism and fascism are very different political systems. It is downright foolish to lump them together, sure lets say they are both veggies, but one is a squash and the other corn, related but far far different. Please excuse the food analogy, I must make dinner

Making dinner at 1pm?

I've read both those links long before you brought them to my attention. I am quite sure that I am educated on both ideologies far more than you are.

And your analogy doesn't work, if only because neither are vegetables. Squash is a melon (and thus a type of fruit) and corn is a grain (which btw is also a type of fruit -- botanically). Your use of such an analogy does demonstrate your ongoing and persistance ignorance though.

Now, you were saying that 2 totalitarian ideologies were "black and white." Now, admittedly, one is nationalist and the other is not, but otherwise both advocate violence, war, and totalitarian government control, both social and economic, all in order to eventually acheive some kind of similar utopian ideal, so I have a hard time seeing how they are "black and white." Care to explain?

Err, for one, the SU was very nationalistic, once again you are throwing words out there with no clue what they mean, and you can cram the veggies stuff, they are still regarded as veggies even though technically they are fruit, so are tomatos even though people consider them fruit, and just as your blanket view of communism and fascism does not go into what types of each respective aspect of governemnt you are pointing at here, (stalinism, marxism,corpratism,nazism) once again showing how clueless of a generalzation that they are both the same.


I dont know where you live, but assuming I live in your time zone, or your laziness to look at my profile to see that I live in EST is more kneejerking from you.

It is 5 pm here btw and I can eat dinner at 4 am if I like, what is it to you?

Oh yeah, what exactly is the utopian goal of fascism? Never heard of such a thing, just as fascism has no workers class revoloution is another big difference.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I just provided you with 2 links, try reading the black and white in the articles.

Communism and fascism are very different political systems. It is downright foolish to lump them together, sure lets say they are both veggies, but one is a squash and the other corn, related but far far different. Please excuse the food analogy, I must make dinner

Making dinner at 1pm?

I've read both those links long before you brought them to my attention. I am quite sure that I am educated on both ideologies far more than you are.

And your analogy doesn't work, if only because neither are vegetables. Squash is a melon (and thus a type of fruit) and corn is a grain (which btw is also a type of fruit -- botanically). Your use of such an analogy does demonstrate your ongoing and persistance ignorance though.

Now, you were saying that 2 totalitarian ideologies were "black and white." Now, admittedly, one is nationalist and the other is not, but otherwise both advocate violence, war, and totalitarian government control, both social and economic, all in order to eventually acheive some kind of similar utopian ideal, so I have a hard time seeing how they are "black and white." Care to explain?

Err, for one, the SU was very nationalistic, once again you are throwing words out there with no clue what they mean, and you can cram the veggies stuff, they are still veggies just as your blanket view of communism and fascism does not go into what types of each respective aspect of governemnt you are pointing at here, (stalinism, marxism,corpratism,nazism) once again showing how clueless of a generalzation that they are both the same.


I dont know where you live, but assuming I live in your time zone, or your laziness to look at my profile to see that I live in EST is more kneejerking from you.

I mentioned the nationalist aspect.

Otherwise, it seems that we are in agreement that stalinism, fascism, marxism, communism, corporatism, nazism, etc. are all totalitarian forms of government that share the use of violence and strict social and economic control in common in order to acheive a similar utopian goal. So exactly where am I making a clueless generalization when I object to your statement that they are "black and white"?

And I see that you moved to New Jersey. Sorry, you used to brag daily about how you lived in the glorious Peoples Republic of San Francisco, so I assumed you still did.


edit to your edit:

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Oh yeah, what exactly is the utopian goal of fascism? Never heard of such a thing, just as fascism has no workers class revoloution is another big difference.

You've never read Mein Kampf? The utopian goal of fascism is almost the exact same as that of marxism -- the workers paradise. Except in Hitler's case he added nationalism, making it specifically the German workers paradise.
"Never heard of such a thing... " LMAO!!

 

[Genx87]

Dont feel bad, him and Dave keep moving around the country. Makes you wonder what they keep moving away from?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Vic
Saying that a nation could exist entirely without government is like saying that a business could be run entirely without management.

Your analogy is incoherent. What is a 'nation?' I don't think we can ever come to any sort of agreement because you continue to cling to these concepts that sound like something on the surface but in reality are nonsensical statist bullsh!t (to put it bluntly).

If you require an example of what anarchy looks like, look to the mafia dons of Sicily or the warlords of Africa. That's the true face of anarchy.

Not really. That's the true face of chaos. Somalia is a country that is now better off without 'government.' I claim that the U.S. would be better off without 'government' as well as Europe, Asia and every other place on the planet.

People require basic security in order to have the confidence to do business and invest. If the people cannot organize sufficiently to provide it for themselves, then individuals will purchase their "protection" from warlords and crime bosses.

I don't disagree. There are plenty of outlets in the free market for one to provide sufficient security for oneself that don't include warlords or crime bosses.

As to Ayn Rand's issue about selfishness, that is simply the insult from people who never read her books and/or are too stupid or prejudiced to understand the basic philosophical concept that some call karma. Behaving selfishly requires an understanding that "what comes around, goes around." And as I noted earlier in this thread, I disagree with her idea that Altas should shrug.
As to charities, I believe in them, that they are the best way to help the poor and struggling, and give how and when I can. However, I always investigate the charity first (for obvious reasons).

If you give you charity you are violating the principles of Rand's philosophy.

If you want to consider yourself a Libertarian, whatever.

No, I do not consider myself a 'Libertarian' with the big L. That would mean I was part of a political party.

But if your position is that there should be no government whatsoever, you're gonna get some strange looks and a lot of argument at LP party meetings (should you decide to go to one).

Screw the LP. I wouldn't touch an LP meeting with a ten foot pole. Most of them, as you say continue to believe in fictions as you do.

So, at the very least, don't tell idiots like rot that you're a "real" Libertarian, because you're not. You're an anarchist. Real Libertarians are classical liberals (with the occasional paleoconservative, although given the LP positions of pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and anti-drug war, for example, it is a lie of the worst sort that libertarians are republicans in disguise).

Classical liberalism is as incoherent as all of the other political philosophies. In fact, Anthony de Jasay discusses the incoherence of classical liberalism in Against Politics.

He tries to patch up classical liberalism and make some kind of sense out of it in Choice, Contract, Consent

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Dont feel bad, him and Dave keep moving around the country. Makes you wonder what they keep moving away from?

Well, not becoming a homebody twit like you is a big plus, but music means travel, which I enjoy, travel = life. Big problem with young people nowdays, they dont travel, leave there little dumbass towns and learn about the world, Since the 90s kids forget how to get the hell out before they decay and stagnate and turn out to be the same boring dumbasses their parents got trapped into. (Granted my own family travels and moves too and agrees 100%)

The sounds of the road, or that distant train whistle in the night = poetry, the sounds of change and new starts.

There is so much to see in this country, I feel bad for people who get stuck into buying property and becoming a wage slave for some ugly box stuck out in no mans land between their fellow people but not even the peace of the country, its downright sad and quite souless imo, the whole isolation thing, a self-imposed slavery. What kind of life is that?

Regardless, I am a hobo at heart I guess, no place yet I have found is my deal, I like SF and its home but even SF has gotten pretty intolerably yuppie driving out artists musicians and all the other freaky sorts that make it so exciting and unlike the mall shopping zombies elsewhere.

Maybe you all will get lucky and I will finally find my passport and blow this popsicle stand before it totally goes to sh1t thanks to you right-wing peeps.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
If you give you charity you are violating the principles of Rand's philosophy.

Who said I was a Randite? I think she had some interesting observations and some whacked ones. Pointing out a few of her better observations does not make me an Objectivist. Kind of like how I think that Christ was a great teacher of wisdom, but that doesn't make me a Christian or believe He is God.
What have I been telling rot this whole thread about "black and white"?

No, I do not consider myself a 'Libertarian' with the big L. That would mean I was part of a political party.

Then don't tell people you are a REAL libertarian then. That's all I ask there. There is a world of difference between liberalism and anarchy. I don't believe in political parties either but I do believe in helping worthy causes, and liberty is the worthiest cause there is IMO. And BTW, being a statist does not mean that you accept the necessity of government, it means that you believe that the collective is more important than the individual(s) the collective is comprised of (Moonie is a perfect example).

Most of them, as you say continue to believe in fictions as you do.

"What is truth?"

All systems of human organization, whether actual or proposed, are flawed. IMO that's because humans are involved in them. The quest for perfection is the realm of religion -- leave it there.

 

[Steeplerot]

"What is truth?"

In other words if I want to make sh1t up like I have any clue what I am talking about don't question it plz thx. Vic, you are something else. You are lucky your doctor or next airline captain doesen't buy that stuff.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
"What is truth?"

In other words if I want to make sh1t up like I have any clue what I am talking about don't question it plz thx. Vic, you are something else. You are lucky your doctor or next airline captain doesen't buy that stuff.

When you have the ability to understand and make an intelligent, coherent discussion, rot, we'll let you join the adults at the big table.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
"What is truth?"

In other words if I want to make sh1t up like I have any clue what I am talking about don't question it plz thx. Vic, you are something else. You are lucky your doctor or next airline captain doesen't buy that stuff.

When you have the ability to understand and make an intelligent, coherent discussion, rot, we'll let you join the adults at the big table.

I will make sure to bring the big boy chair so you can come join us then. Wouldnt want to miss the look on your face as you drool all over yourself in cluelessness like you have shown in this thread.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
"What is truth?"

In other words if I want to make sh1t up like I have any clue what I am talking about don't question it plz thx. Vic, you are something else. You are lucky your doctor or next airline captain doesen't buy that stuff.

When you have the ability to understand and make an intelligent, coherent discussion, rot, we'll let you join the adults at the big table.

I will make sure to bring the big boy chair so you can come join us then.

Heh. I think we need to take the Troll-King crown away from Dave and give it to you.

edit to your edit:

Wouldnt want to miss the look on your face as you drool all over yourself in cluelessness like you have shown in this thread.

Oooh... am I "just plain wrong" again?

I bow to your superior power of argument.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[bamacre]

You know, Moonbeam said he's been able to stay objective in this little discussion. I am not as strong as he. Rot, leave this thread before you look any more foolish, if that's still possible. It's time to fight like a frenchman, grab a white flag while you still can.

And for the love of God, please, Rot, think out a complete answer before you hit the post button, your edits are as much as 20 min's after your posts.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: bamacre
You know, Moonbeam said he's been able to stay objective in this little discussion. I am not as strong as he. Rot, leave this thread before you look any more foolish, if that's still possible. It's time to fight like a frenchman, grab a white flag while you still can.

And for the love of God, please, Rot, think out a complete answer before you hit the post button, your edits are as much as 20 min's after your posts.

Nah, these two fools genx and vic are full of it, only thing they got me on was over squah being a fruit. (Which actually I never knew -or really cared :laugh: )

And I have a busted keyboard so I need to sometimes use char mapper, so yes, my edits can take awhile, oh well.

Watching vic endlessly rant about stuff he knows nothing of is hilrarious, and genx's endlessly trying to defame my char is just touching, what a tough (stalkerish) guy he is.

Besides, it is late, I am bored and do not have to work and noone is home. I could think of worse company, not by very much but they are a notch above 12 year olds playing counterstrike at 3:30 am.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: bamacre
You know, Moonbeam said he's been able to stay objective in this little discussion. I am not as strong as he. Rot, leave this thread before you look any more foolish, if that's still possible. It's time to fight like a frenchman, grab a white flag while you still can.

And for the love of God, please, Rot, think out a complete answer before you hit the post button, your edits are as much as 20 min's after your posts.

Nah, these two fools genx and vic are full of it, only thing they got me on was over squah being a fruit. (Which actually I never knew -or really cared :laugh: )

And I have a busted keyboard so I need to sometimes use char mapper, so yes, my edits can take awhile, oh well.

Watching vic endlessly rant about stuff he knows nothing of is hilrarious, and genx's endlessly trying to defame my char is just touching, what a tough guy he is. :roll:

Very well, keep digging.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: bamacre
You know, Moonbeam said he's been able to stay objective in this little discussion. I am not as strong as he. Rot, leave this thread before you look any more foolish, if that's still possible. It's time to fight like a frenchman, grab a white flag while you still can.

And for the love of God, please, Rot, think out a complete answer before you hit the post button, your edits are as much as 20 min's after your posts.

Nah, these two fools genx and vic are full of it, only thing they got me on was over squah being a fruit. (Which actually I never knew -or really cared :laugh: )

And I have a busted keyboard so I need to sometimes use char mapper, so yes, my edits can take awhile, oh well.

Watching vic endlessly rant about stuff he knows nothing of is hilrarious, and genx's endlessly trying to defame my char is just touching, what a tough guy he is. :roll:

Very well, keep digging.

This thread was dug long ago.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Vic
Saying that a nation could exist entirely without government is like saying that a business could be run entirely without management.

Your analogy is incoherent. What is a 'nation?' I don't think we can ever come to any sort of agreement because you continue to cling to these concepts that sound like something on the surface but in reality are nonsensical statist bullsh!t (to put it bluntly).

If you require an example of what anarchy looks like, look to the mafia dons of Sicily or the warlords of Africa. That's the true face of anarchy.

Not really. That's the true face of chaos. Somalia is a country that is now better off without 'government.' I claim that the U.S. would be better off without 'government' as well as Europe, Asia and every other place on the planet.

People require basic security in order to have the confidence to do business and invest. If the people cannot organize sufficiently to provide it for themselves, then individuals will purchase their "protection" from warlords and crime bosses.

I don't disagree. There are plenty of outlets in the free market for one to provide sufficient security for oneself that don't include warlords or crime bosses.

As to Ayn Rand's issue about selfishness, that is simply the insult from people who never read her books and/or are too stupid or prejudiced to understand the basic philosophical concept that some call karma. Behaving selfishly requires an understanding that "what comes around, goes around." And as I noted earlier in this thread, I disagree with her idea that Altas should shrug.
As to charities, I believe in them, that they are the best way to help the poor and struggling, and give how and when I can. However, I always investigate the charity first (for obvious reasons).

If you give you charity you are violating the principles of Rand's philosophy.

If you want to consider yourself a Libertarian, whatever.

No, I do not consider myself a 'Libertarian' with the big L. That would mean I was part of a political party.

But if your position is that there should be no government whatsoever, you're gonna get some strange looks and a lot of argument at LP party meetings (should you decide to go to one).

Screw the LP. I wouldn't touch an LP meeting with a ten foot pole. Most of them, as you say continue to believe in fictions as you do.

So, at the very least, don't tell idiots like rot that you're a "real" Libertarian, because you're not. You're an anarchist. Real Libertarians are classical liberals (with the occasional paleoconservative, although given the LP positions of pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and anti-drug war, for example, it is a lie of the worst sort that libertarians are republicans in disguise).

Classical liberalism is as incoherent as all of the other political philosophies. In fact, Anthony de Jasay discusses the incoherence of classical liberalism in Against Politics.

He tries to patch up classical liberalism and make some kind of sense out of it in Choice, Contract, Consent

It would be nice if you actually argued your case instead of throwing up links. I won't read your links and why should I? You won't put any effort into your post. Tit for tat.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Dont feel bad, him and Dave keep moving around the country. Makes you wonder what they keep moving away from?

It's the new Republican America you keep touting.

Having to follow the money, temporary nomadic jobs with no benefits, just like our new southern citizens.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Vic
Who said I was a Randite? I think she had some interesting observations and some whacked ones. Pointing out a few of her better observations does not make me an Objectivist. Kind of like how I think that Christ was a great teacher of wisdom, but that doesn't make me a Christian or believe He is God.
What have I been telling rot this whole thread about "black and white"?

Oh I see. So you are neither here nor there. I think you are the libertarian version of a moderate.

Then don't tell people you are a REAL libertarian then. That's all I ask there. There is a world of difference between liberalism and anarchy. I don't believe in political parties either but I do believe in helping worthy causes, and liberty is the worthiest cause there is IMO.

Yes, there is certainly a world of difference. It is the difference between an authoritarian and a non-authoritarian. You would be classified as an authoritarian i.e. you believe in the existence or potential to exist a mystical authority held by members of the state.

And BTW, being a statist does not mean that you accept the necessity of government, it means that you believe that the collective is more important than the individual(s) the collective is comprised of (Moonie is a perfect example).

I fail to see how you are not a collectivist. You have already demonstrated that you are a believer in the provision of collectivized security.

"What is truth?"

The truth is that government is a religion.

It has:

factions (political parties and interest groups)
relics (Constitution, Declaration of Independence and other historical artifacts)
hierarchy (supposed different 'levels' of government each with different 'levels' of authority)
authority/higher power (usually granted by a fictitious entity known as 'the will of the people' in a 'democracy')
rituals (voting, parades, ceremonies...)
symbols (titles, flags, seals, uniforms, signage...)
chants (pledges, slogans, songs)
preaching (i.e. emotionally charged political speeches)
ceremonies (i.e. inagurations)
mythology (hobbesian state of nature, economic myths, sociological myths, rule of law)
tithing (taxation)

All systems of human organization, whether actual or proposed, are flawed. IMO that's because humans are involved in them. The quest for perfection is the realm of religion -- leave it there.

Some systems of human organization are irrational. Systems of 'government' in order to exist require that fully conscious human beings suspend their own intentions in order to appease some higher power. I call this political acquiescence. It is a fundamental contradiction in and of itself and is the foundation of tyranny (liberal, conservative and 'libertarian'). Hence, 'Government' is patently an irrational system of organization.

 

[Moonbeam]

Vic: "That you can maintain your objectivity is a statement that I could only take on trust. Even an observer is a participant merely through the process of observing. That is scientific fact."
-----------------
Yes, I agree. I am speaking of objectivity in a relative sense and limited to areas were irrartional feelings generated by the ego are involved.
-------------------
--------------------
bamaca: "You know, Moonbeam said he's been able to stay objective in this little discussion. I am not as strong as he. Rot, leave this thread before you look any more foolish, if that's still possible. It's time to fight like a frenchman, grab a white flag while you still can.

And for the love of God, please, Rot, think out a complete answer before you hit the post button, your edits are as much as 20 min's after your posts."
------------------
I only mean that neither of these two has threatened my ego in such a way as to drive me to post this or that. I do have opinions about what's been said but haven't posted them except in a general way.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Vic
Who said I was a Randite? I think she had some interesting observations and some whacked ones. Pointing out a few of her better observations does not make me an Objectivist. Kind of like how I think that Christ was a great teacher of wisdom, but that doesn't make me a Christian or believe He is God.
What have I been telling rot this whole thread about "black and white"?

Oh I see. So you are neither here nor there. I think you are the libertarian version of a moderate.

Then don't tell people you are a REAL libertarian then. That's all I ask there. There is a world of difference between liberalism and anarchy. I don't believe in political parties either but I do believe in helping worthy causes, and liberty is the worthiest cause there is IMO.

Yes, there is certainly a world of difference. It is the difference between an authoritarian and a non-authoritarian. You would be classified as an authoritarian i.e. you believe in the existence or potential to exist a mystical authority held by members of the state.

And BTW, being a statist does not mean that you accept the necessity of government, it means that you believe that the collective is more important than the individual(s) the collective is comprised of (Moonie is a perfect example).

I fail to see how you are not a collectivist. You have already demonstrated that you are a believer in the provision of collectivized security.

"What is truth?"

The truth is that government is a religion.

It has:

factions (political parties and interest groups)
relics (Constitution, Declaration of Independence and other historical artifacts)
hierarchy (supposed different 'levels' of government each with different 'levels' of authority)
authority/higher power (usually granted by a fictitious entity known as 'the will of the people' in a 'democracy')
rituals (voting, parades, ceremonies...)
symbols (titles, flags, seals, uniforms, signage...)
chants (pledges, slogans, songs)
preaching (i.e. emotionally charged political speeches)
ceremonies (i.e. inagurations)
mythology (hobbesian state of nature, economic myths, sociological myths, rule of law)
tithing (taxation)

All systems of human organization, whether actual or proposed, are flawed. IMO that's because humans are involved in them. The quest for perfection is the realm of religion -- leave it there.

Some systems of human organization are irrational. Systems of 'government' in order to exist require that fully conscious human beings suspend their own intentions in order to appease some higher power. I call this political acquiescence. It is a fundamental contradiction in and of itself and is the foundation of tyranny (liberal, conservative and 'libertarian'). Hence, 'Government' is patently an irrational system of organization.

Surely it should suit you then since you yourself are irrational, no?