The Cowardice of the Conservative

[Moonbeam]

And why not just speak English and tell us examples of systems of human organization that are rational. please. Why the big need for mystification?

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
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.

Where do you think we would be without a government (HINT: look at Africa)?

 

[Chunkee]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Americans pride themselves with their rights, freedoms, and liberties; these were the founding principles of the nation. But in the process of creation, a two party system was developed where one advocates control over social issues, the other control over economic issues.

In the end all Americans lose as the politicians wheel and deal on both social and economic issues and the founding principles suffer as a result.

This is correct, anyone that thinks otherwise has fallen to the dulling idiocy campaign promoted and enforced by those in power.

The policitcal institution has gotten so bad, that it simply is nothing more than a reactionary moron playing in the sand making those that are a member specialized in obtaining profit as well as oppressing those who question.

Limit Terms, Rid the two party system, limit campaign funding rules and enforce a stricter checks and balances system

jC

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 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.

Nah instead we like to sit where we are accumulating wealth and give to charities because we have the money to do so. Not that we spent it on ourselves then complain about the poor situation in this country.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Chunkee

Originally posted by: Stunt
Americans pride themselves with their rights, freedoms, and liberties; these were the founding principles of the nation. But in the process of creation, a two party system was developed where one advocates control over social issues, the other control over economic issues.

In the end all Americans lose as the politicians wheel and deal on both social and economic issues and the founding principles suffer as a result.

This is correct, anyone that thinks otherwise has fallen to the dulling idiocy campaign promoted and enforced by those in power.

The policitcal institution has gotten so bad, that it simply is nothing more than a reactionary moron playing in the sand making those that are a member specialized in obtaining profit as well as oppressing those who question.

Limit Terms, Rid the two party system, limit campaign funding rules and enforce a stricter checks and balances system

jC

You must mean govern the government so the government governs according to the interests of the people at large rather than those who have sufficient resources to use and influence government to govern in their own selective best interests.

But I thought that in a libertarian or anarchic system we would let the free market determine things and we have, in my opinion, the best government money and a free market can buy, exactly the one we would vote for to right any perceived injustice we might feel and have the resources to access.

The free market is about you scratching my back if I scratch yours so we have created a system for people who itch and the bigger their itch the more the system focuses on scratching the biggest itchers, no?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Where do you think we would be without a government (HINT: look at Africa)?

Where do you think we would be without purple dragons?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Where do you think we would be without a government (HINT: look at Africa)?

Where do you think we would be without purple dragons?

What is your point if not a stab at the inane? We don't have any purple dragons. Could it be that you picked up on the cowardice of Conservatives because it matches your own form of chicken hearted debate?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
The truth is that government is a religion.

Well, of course. I've been saying that this whole thread (and have said it countless times in the past). The history of all government is religion. The pharoah, caesar, emperor, king, etc. was always a god or a descendant of a god, and always ruled with the authority of the church. Finally, after thousands of years of such religious tyranny, brilliant men in 1776 declared that "all men are created equal" (which actually meant that none were born with the divine right to rule, and not the popular misconception that we're all supposed to have the same amounts in our bank accounts), and then in 1789, such a concept was made law for the first time in history.
That might be irrational to you, but I see it as beautiful. The infant human civilization taking its first baby steps. Sadly though, these steps were challenged from the very beginning. First, by religious groups, and then by Marx's communism which sought to merge religion and government into one, once and for all (Marx's statement that "religion is the opiate of the masses" is one of the most misunderstood ever -- he was not seeking to destroy religion, but to supplant it).

Truth be told though, the masses don't want to be rid of their religions. They cling to them, They're addicted to them like heroin. In fact, your anarchist belief that the masses can be forced from their religions is, ironically, a religious faith in itself. The best that we can do is separate, limit, and weaken their religions and their government (same thing, I know) so as to best control the virus-like tyranny that spreads from their collective lynch mobs of ignorance. A quarantine, if you will, that will protect the rights of the individual from the mindless cruelties of the mobs. Let them believe what they will, just don't let them try to force their beliefs on others. It's the best we can do.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Dissipate
The truth is that government is a religion.

Well, of course. I've been saying that this whole thread (and have said it countless times in the past). The history of all government is religion. The pharoah, caesar, emperor, king, etc. was always a god or a descendant of a god, and always ruled with the authority of the church. Finally, after thousands of years of such religious tyranny, brilliant men in 1776 declared that "all men are created equal" (which actually meant that none were born with the divine right to rule, and not the popular misconception that we're all supposed to have the same amounts in our bank accounts), and then in 1789, such a concept was made law for the first time in history.
That might be irrational to you, but I see it as beautiful. The infant human civilization taking its first baby steps. Sadly though, these steps were challenged from the very beginning. First, by religious groups, and then by Marx's communism which sought to merge religion and government into one, once and for all (Marx's statement that "religion is the opiate of the masses" is one of the most misunderstood ever -- he was not seeking to destroy religion, but to supplant it).

Truth be told though, the masses don't want to be rid of their religions. They cling to them, They're addicted to them like heroin. In fact, your anarchist belief that the masses can be forced from their religions is, ironically, a religious faith in itself. The best that we can do is separate, limit, and weaken their religions and their government (same thing, I know) so as to best control the virus-like tyranny that spreads from their collective lynch mobs of ignorance. A quarantine, if you will, that will protect the rights of the individual from the mindless cruelties of the mobs. Let them believe what they will, just don't let them try to force their beliefs on others. It's the best we can do.

One's vision is dependent on one's self knowledge and ones own personal evolution.

On what basis, then, do you postulate that dissipate would want to force humanity from their religions rather than speak out truth in the hope that the truth helps humanity evolve? After all, if humanity is really good and not evil, that truth must be there dormant somewhere, in all those horrible mobs, right? And surely man must yearn for that truth somewhere in his soul, no? Could it be that the perversion of self love in children equals the rapacious power of the mob, later in life?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Vic
Well, of course. I've been saying that this whole thread (and have said it countless times in the past). The history of all government is religion. The pharoah, caesar, emperor, king, etc. was always a god or a descendant of a god, and always ruled with the authority of the church. Finally, after thousands of years of such religious tyranny, brilliant men in 1776 declared that "all men are created equal" (which actually meant that none were born with the divine right to rule, and not the popular misconception that we're all supposed to have the same amounts in our bank accounts), and then in 1789, such a concept was made law for the first time in history.

And there you have it. They made it 'law' which falls under the category of the 'rule of law' which is a fundamental myth within political mythology. So all they did was create a new religion that seemed to be more rational than the one based on divine right.

That might be irrational to you, but I see it as beautiful. The infant human civilization taking its first baby steps. Sadly though, these steps were challenged from the very beginning. First, by religious groups, and then by Marx's communism which sought to merge religion and government into one, once and for all (Marx's statement that "religion is the opiate of the masses" is one of the most misunderstood ever -- he was not seeking to destroy religion, but to supplant it).

Their experiment worked well for a very short while. Now 200 years later we are living on a virtual government plantation. We work for the politicians and obey all of their edicts while they flagrantly squander our earnings on a daily basis. Not only that, but we also have bankers and thousands of other big-business special interest groups picking our pockets around the clock with absurd regulations and rules.

Truth be told though, the masses don't want to be rid of their religions. They cling to them, They're addicted to them like heroin. In fact, your anarchist belief that the masses can be forced from their religions is, ironically, a religious faith in itself.

I never said I held such a belief. I don't think they will ever give up authoritarianism. At least not in my lifetime.

The best that we can do is separate, limit, and weaken their religions and their government (same thing, I know) so as to best control the virus-like tyranny that spreads from their collective lynch mobs of ignorance. A quarantine, if you will, that will protect the rights of the individual from the mindless cruelties of the mobs. Let them believe what they will, just don't let them try to force their beliefs on others. It's the best we can do.

Your best is just not good enough.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Where do you think we would be without a government (HINT: look at Africa)?

Where do you think we would be without purple dragons?

What is your point if not a stab at the inane? We don't have any purple dragons. Could it be that you picked up on the cowardice of Conservatives because it matches your own form of chicken hearted debate?

We don't have purple dragons just like we don't have any 'government.' We do, however, have thugs who attempt to impress others with 'special titles' they bestowed upon themselves after they 'won' a meaningless contest they call an 'election.'

 

[fitzov]

Finally, after thousands of years of such religious tyranny, brilliant men in 1776 declared that "all men are created equal" (which actually meant that none were born with the divine right to rule, and not the popular misconception that we're all supposed to have the same amounts in our bank accounts), and then in 1789, such a concept was made law for the first time in history.

No. It doesn't have to do with divine right but natural rights, which means that God, through natural law makes it a fact (through creation) that every person has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The right to property was considered, but since the founders thought that entails from liberty they didn't bother.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Finally, after thousands of years of such religious tyranny, brilliant men in 1776 declared that "all men are created equal" (which actually meant that none were born with the divine right to rule, and not the popular misconception that we're all supposed to have the same amounts in our bank accounts), and then in 1789, such a concept was made law for the first time in history.

No. It doesn't have to do with divine right but natural rights, which means that God, through natural law makes it a fact (through creation) that every person has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The right to property was considered, but since the founders thought that entails from liberty they didn't bother.

Lack of reading comprehension FTL.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Your best is just not good enough.

Ah... inside every anarchist is an authoritarian just waiting to break out, take control, and make things his way.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Your best is just not good enough.

Ah... inside every anarchist is an authoritarian just waiting to break out, take control, and make things his way.

Wanting to shut down an oppressive government makes someone an 'authoritarian?'

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Where do you think we would be without a government (HINT: look at Africa)?

Where do you think we would be without purple dragons?

What is your point if not a stab at the inane? We don't have any purple dragons. Could it be that you picked up on the cowardice of Conservatives because it matches your own form of chicken hearted debate?

We don't have purple dragons just like we don't have any 'government.' We do, however, have thugs who attempt to impress others with 'special titles' they bestowed upon themselves after they 'won' a meaningless contest they call an 'election.'

Which is it? We don't have any real government or all government is an illusion?

I would like to hear your ideas for a 'system' as you put it, naturally in your own words.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Your best is just not good enough.

Ah... inside every anarchist is an authoritarian just waiting to break out, take control, and make things his way.

Wanting to shut down an oppressive government makes someone an 'authoritarian?'

Wanting implies a split in consciousness, a lack of presence in the now where everything is perfect and complete. The inability to enter into unity of consciousness is caused by fear which is always accompanied by violence. However, just because you possess the potential for violence does not mean that the act of wanting, in and of itself, manifests violence directly. Wanting is not a verb that expresses action and violence is an act. But to shut something down does imply action and if those who you wish to shut down don't want to be shut down and you shut them down anyway you will have to use some sort of force to do so, no, if they resist?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: IdaGno
"There's not a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats." - some southern redneck "Independent" cracker from way back in the early '70's

It was George Wallace.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Your best is just not good enough.

Ah... inside every anarchist is an authoritarian just waiting to break out, take control, and make things his way.

Wanting to shut down an oppressive government makes someone an 'authoritarian?'

Wanting implies a split in consciousness, a lack of presence in the now where everything is perfect and complete. The inability to enter into unity of consciousness is caused by fear which is always accompanied by violence. However, just because you possess the potential for violence does not mean that the act of wanting, in and of itself, manifests violence directly. Wanting is not a verb that expresses action and violence is an act. But to shut something down does imply action and if those who you wish to shut down don't want to be shut down and you shut them down anyway you will have to use some sort of force to do so, no, if they resist?

Well, one would at least end up being victim to violence.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Where do you think we would be without a government (HINT: look at Africa)?

Where do you think we would be without purple dragons?

What is your point if not a stab at the inane? We don't have any purple dragons. Could it be that you picked up on the cowardice of Conservatives because it matches your own form of chicken hearted debate?

We don't have purple dragons just like we don't have any 'government.' We do, however, have thugs who attempt to impress others with 'special titles' they bestowed upon themselves after they 'won' a meaningless contest they call an 'election.'

We have a government by definition. Please argue something of actual substance rather than playing this stupid and meaningless semantics game.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Your best is just not good enough.

Ah... inside every anarchist is an authoritarian just waiting to break out, take control, and make things his way.

Wanting to shut down an oppressive government makes someone an 'authoritarian?'

Wanting implies a split in consciousness, a lack of presence in the now where everything is perfect and complete. The inability to enter into unity of consciousness is caused by fear which is always accompanied by violence. However, just because you possess the potential for violence does not mean that the act of wanting, in and of itself, manifests violence directly. Wanting is not a verb that expresses action and violence is an act. But to shut something down does imply action and if those who you wish to shut down don't want to be shut down and you shut them down anyway you will have to use some sort of force to do so, no, if they resist?

Well, one would at least end up being victim to violence.

And sort of the reason, violence being a universal condition of exposure to all humanity, that we try to invent structures to control it, rules and laws, government, etc.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Your best is just not good enough.

Ah... inside every anarchist is an authoritarian just waiting to break out, take control, and make things his way.

Wanting to shut down an oppressive government makes someone an 'authoritarian?'

Wanting implies a split in consciousness, a lack of presence in the now where everything is perfect and complete. The inability to enter into unity of consciousness is caused by fear which is always accompanied by violence. However, just because you possess the potential for violence does not mean that the act of wanting, in and of itself, manifests violence directly. Wanting is not a verb that expresses action and violence is an act. But to shut something down does imply action and if those who you wish to shut down don't want to be shut down and you shut them down anyway you will have to use some sort of force to do so, no, if they resist?

Well, one would at least end up being victim to violence.

And sort of the reason, violence being a universal condition of exposure to all humanity, that we try to invent structures to control it, rules and laws, government, etc.

And in the end, those structures probably create even more violence than they prevent.

I see government as a necessary evil. A result of our duality of good and evil.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Your best is just not good enough.

Ah... inside every anarchist is an authoritarian just waiting to break out, take control, and make things his way.

Wanting to shut down an oppressive government makes someone an 'authoritarian?'

Wanting implies a split in consciousness, a lack of presence in the now where everything is perfect and complete. The inability to enter into unity of consciousness is caused by fear which is always accompanied by violence. However, just because you possess the potential for violence does not mean that the act of wanting, in and of itself, manifests violence directly. Wanting is not a verb that expresses action and violence is an act. But to shut something down does imply action and if those who you wish to shut down don't want to be shut down and you shut them down anyway you will have to use some sort of force to do so, no, if they resist?

:thumbsup:

Lobotomies for everyone!!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Corn
Lobotomies for everyone!!

Already done on 52% of America.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Corn
Lobotomies for everyone!!

Already done on 52% of America.

I would say 99.99%, but I have no idea what Corn is talking about, really. Is he suggesting that people who have transcended needs in the form of dissatisfactions with what is, the filling of the void in our souls created by separation from unity, as we were born in and can return to, are really just zombies, his likely intent because the terror I spoke of is exactly that, the fear that the death of our egos is a real death that would collapse us into apathy and emptiness of motivation or purpose; or is he saying that I, somehow, intend to create a world of zombies by forced lobotomization to create some needless paradise? Hehe, maybe he is saying both. But Corn should know that the Buddha, who died to himself under the Bo tree didn't get up as a Zombie but as a profound spiritual force for millions and millions of people, untold numbers of which also left their egos behind and entered into Nirvana.

We in the West live in a very dark part of the Galaxy and know very little about the states of consciousness potential in man and are convinced, via the strengths of our ego needs, that we are all one can be and perhaps more. But even the most powerful egos can't change human truth. The dog may bark but the caravan moves on, as is said in some circles.