Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Profile of markuzick
| |-+  Show Posts
| | |-+  Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - markuzick

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 27
31
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: July 21, 2009, 07:00:39 AM »
Quote
1.  Saying there are "different varieties of government" is saying there are different varieties of fiction...

The general meaning of "government" is control. Are all forms of control the same? If government is a fiction, then why do you care if it exists or not? It's anarchy that is a fiction. Even in the case of the anarchy that results from the failure of the state, you still have individuals and small groups who govern their actions amid the chaos.

Quote
2.  If you claim that "government" has "moral authority" based on the "consent of the governed"

No. I didn't say that! Not all government is based upon the consent of the governed, but in order for for a government to be legitimate, it's a requirement.
Quote

 --  I DO NOT CONSENT !!

In a voluntaryist society you are not required to consent to any kind of contract or organization. You can live as a hermit if you wish, but you will have to defend your rights against people or organizations that can easily overwhelm you in a dispute.

Quote
3.  You have absolute "authority" over your life and I certainly would not interfere with it...

Wrong! I don't have the moral authority to commit aggression.

Quote
4.  I have never applied the term "voluntaryist" to my life..  you stated in a prior post that I should call myself that, I do not accept that label.

I already said that since you believe in limited aggression, that makes you a limited statist or a minarchist. If you have a better term to describe yourself, then be my guest, but if you insist on "anarchist", then you're not being honest. Statism only causes an increase in anarchy, but is not identical to it.


32
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: July 20, 2009, 01:43:51 AM »
Quote
I see "state" and "government" as one. 

That's how the statists wish you to see them, ("as one") even though it's irrational to do so.

Quote
Sure the root word is "govern" and the definitions apply to our everyday lives but when referring to "government" you are talking about a noun. 
 

Whether as a noun or a verb, there are different varieties of government. The state may be a monopolistic form of government, but it doesn't have a monopoly over the concept of government.

Quote
This fictional thing called "government" is the same as the fictional thing called "state".  Neither have any real authority.
 

The moral authority of legitimate government is based upon the consent of the governed. The "moral authority" of the state is based upon an irrational, anti-human morality that is supported by dogmatic beliefs.

Quote
The "cult members" who believe in them however, will harm you if you question their imagined authority.

If you question my authority to rule my own life within the limits of the nonaggression principle, I won't try to harm you, but you'll get a scolding. If you try to actually interfere with my legitimate authority, I will try to defend myself with coercion and/or force.

Quote
I do believe there are times when you are justified with using the sword offencively.

Then you are not even a voluntaryist. You should call yourself either "ChristianStatist" or "ChristianMinarchist".

33
General / Re: If Gaza was granted statehood.
« on: July 19, 2009, 03:50:00 AM »

There are no Jews in Palestine, Hamas and Fatah already killed or drove them all out.  The Jews live in Israel.

I think that I agree with you though that an economic seduction is the best solution for peace in Gaza.  I think that the Gazan people need to look at the West Bank which has finally settled down and is making money and is not fucked with by Israel as much because of the fact that they're not launching rockets at Israel every day. 

Hamas needs to learn the lesson that the Israeli people will not put up with their shit.  Everytime they launch an RPG into Israel Gaza gets fucked over hard.  This is no longer the case in the West Bank though, I believe because they are no longer promoting violence as they are in Gaza, and they are more interested in developing economically.


Palestine is just the name I'm using for the general area that contains Israel, Palestine and Gaza.

Is the West Bank really settled down and making money? Aren't the people living under all kinds of restrictions on their liberties and numerous indignities? How long do you think it will take before there's another uprising?

I understand why the Israelis feel they need to control them in order to suppress terrorism but they are going about this by denying them their basic rights and will continue to do so as long as they are autonomous, for the reasons I mentioned above.

The Israelis must learn to live with all the people under its rule, not segregate them into prison-like ghettos. Attempts to create Palestinian states only result in the current unacceptable and explosive situation.

34
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: July 19, 2009, 03:15:15 AM »
I posted this on another thread. One of the implications is that anarchism is more compatible with primitive theology than the Christian religion.


It seems to me that anarchy is very compatible with Christianity and may even be basic to it (it is with me anyway).  Christ, Paul, John the baptist, etc. were all pretty much "anarchist" as pertains to earthly "governments".  Even the few places where (primarily Paul) wrote that seem to indicate some kind of acceptance of this concept of "government", can be easily taken in a different light which I feel is the correct understanding - that the "powers" spoken of are Godly powers and not those of "government".  I have shown many times where this thing called "government" is nothing more than a cult with all the trimmings of a cult and indeed is the worst of all cults resulting in the deaths and imprisonment of billions of people (not to mention all the fortunes stolen)...

You are confusing "government" with "the state".

Do you govern your own life? Does that make you a state?

Isn't your voluntary participation in groups that govern the action of its members also an act of self government? Do these groups have to be states?

If you enter into a voluntary agreement with other people to govern some aspect of your actions regarding some purpose, be it a business enterprise or a civil organization of mutual defense, then aren't you a principle or client of a governmental agency that is not necessarily a state?

A state is simply a form of civil government that institutionalizes aggression. Why would you believe that aggression is the only way to govern? The free market is just voluntary government in action. Why couldn't non-monopolistic free enterprise serve as a model for civil governmental agencies that judge disputes and provide for defense and protective services in the competitive marketplace?

It's to the great advantage of the statists that so many people, including the enemies of the state, believe that the state is the only possible form of civil governance. This mindset is responsible for the fact that most supporters of liberty regard the state as a necessary evil. There is no such thing as a necessary evil. It's only a fallacy that's based upon a misconception that causes people to conclude that since government is a requirement of civilized society, then institutionalized aggression is too. This ignores the fact that the concept of government contains nothing that's inherently evil, but that only certain forms of government do.

If you understood this, then you would change your name to "ChristianVoluntaryist" or something along those lines.

35
General / Re: If Gaza was granted statehood.
« on: July 19, 2009, 02:04:07 AM »
Both fatcat and avshae are correct. They just interpret the situation from different perspectives. In my opinion all this simply underscores the futility of creating a Palestinian state/s.

It's unlikely that a Palestinian state that isn't run by terrorists armed and funded by powers hostile toward Israel could last for long, even if it could exist at all.

The only hope for peace is for Israel to reabsorb all Arabs that reside in palestine into their society with full respect for their personal and economic rights. If the Israelis are not up to this task, they face a future of continuous warfare and/or civil war and, ultimately, their doom.

Under normal circumstances, states can get away with ignoring the rights of their subjects, as long as they at least maintain some popular support for these policies with their voters. This won't work in Israel. It will take much more than treating Arabs and Jews as equals to overcome old grievances. Both sides need to be seduced by the opportunities of extreme economic and personal freedom in order to forget their hatreds.

My guess is that the Israelis are not up to the task.( May they prove me wrong.) My advise to any Jew or Arab in palestine is to find some way to get themselves and their families out, before it's too late.

36
General / Re: If Gaza was granted statehood.
« on: July 17, 2009, 04:18:20 PM »
Imagine if Gaza was granted statehood immediately and unilaterally.

Israel just said, yup, you can govern yourselves. They then ended Gazas restrictions on the airports, and sea.

Then what?

Other nations couldnt justifiably send money to them in the form of aid forever because they would have to open up some sort of economy? What would they do? Less then 1% of the area is arable. People there dont have many trades.

Any act of terror by Hamas could legitimately be viewed as a causus-belli, and treated as such.

They dont have anything to mine, or farm and manufacturing is nonexistent.

Think about it, what kind of country could it be?

Yes. A terrorist state won't work. The Jews and Arabs will either learn to live together as equals or they will die together as enemies. The Israelis have the upper hand, so the responsibility falls upon them to allow the people of Gaza and other Arab aliens to trade and travel freely, while cracking down hard on any terrorists and their organizations, be they Hamas or crazy settlers.

Only fair but tough treatment of both sides, opening up markets and reduction of the state will offer a chance for peace to take hold.

I'm not holding my breath.

37
General / Re: Extreme libertarian...
« on: July 17, 2009, 03:27:52 PM »

38
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: July 17, 2009, 02:32:43 AM »
I posted this on another thread. One of the implications is that anarchism is more compatible with primitive theology than the Christian religion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the primitive mind the universe seemed inexplicably chaotic. To explain this Man invented capricious spirits, demons and gods. This was a fiat universe, where reality was subject to the decree of the deities that were imagined to exist.

As early philosophy and science began to develop, men began to discover underlying principles to how the world worked, or the beginnings of universal law. Theology, too, began to evolve along with this new perspective. Now the gods were replaced with one God and his universal law( God's Law) to which even God, claims of his omnipotence to the contrary, was subject. God became the anthropomorphization of universal law. Now the world as seen by both the scientist and the theist is one of rich infinitely complex beauty and order, that is governed by the underlying principles of universal law.

So Man's perception of the universe evolved from that of an anarchic chaos subject to the caprice of deities, to the modern view of the universe as ordered complexity through the government of immutable universal law.

Government versus anarchy is not merely a political issue, but, more broadly, it's an ontological one.

39
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: July 17, 2009, 02:22:44 AM »
Sometimes people, especially theologists, like to claim that atheism is a religion, out of a mistaken notion that a religion is defined as ANY belief whatsoever. But, that is incorrect--at least, according to my dictionary. My dictionary defines "religion" as "A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny." Second definition: "An institution to express belief in a divine power."

All dictionary definitions are not the truth. They are a listing of meanings that people rightly or wrongly ascribe to words. The examples that you quote are religions, but they aren't the general definition. The general definition is the only one that can be logically correct. The other ones, even if they're more popular are still incorrect, because they exclude the other possibilities. Only the general definition includes all religions.

The whole idea of a dictionary is to describe the general use of words. In any case, when I use words, I try to stick to the dictionary definition. Otherwise, the meaning becomes whatever someone with an agenda SAYS it is.

In effect, you are claiming that logic and reality are subject to the winner of an opinion poll.

The order in which definitions are listed is only a reflection of popularity in usage. The definition that I use is the correct one because it encompasses all the other definitions. In logic, a concept is not defined by its particulars. It's that which all the particulars have in common that defines the concept.

If you define a car as a 1955 Chevy convertible, then you have committed the same fallacy as your claim that theology is religion.

If enough people commit a logical fallacy in their usage of a word, then it becomes definition #1, but educated people are still allowed to avoid these common misconceptions. That's why the proper definition is still listed.

When you allow the corruption of words to corrupt the way you think, then you mentally become enslaved to the misconceptions and delusions of the masses.

40
General / Re: Extreme libertarian...
« on: July 17, 2009, 01:51:34 AM »
sounds chaotic

The universe is chaotic....

The universe is surprisingly orderly. After all, it's governed by universal laws.

Some elaboration:

To the primitive mind the universe seemed inexplicably chaotic. To explain this Man invented capricious spirits, demons and gods. This was a fiat universe, where reality was subject to the decree of the deities that were imagined to exist.

As early philosophy and science began to develop, men began to discover underlying principles to how the world worked, or the beginnings of universal law. Theology, too, began to evolve along with this new perspective. Now the gods were replaced with one God and his universal law( God's Law) to which even God, claims of his omnipotence to the contrary, was subject. God became the anthropomorphization of universal law. Now the world as seen by both the scientist and the theist is one of rich infinitely complex beauty and order, that is governed by the underlying principles of universal law.

So Man's perception of the universe evolved from that of an anarchic chaos subject to the caprice of deities, to the modern view of the universe as ordered complexity through the government of immutable universal law.

Government versus anarchy is not merely a political issue, but, more broadly, it is an ontological one.


41
General / Re: Extreme libertarian...
« on: July 16, 2009, 09:27:23 AM »
sounds chaotic

The universe is chaotic....

The universe is surprisingly orderly. After all, it's governed by universal laws.

Quote
    * I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
          o Acceptance Speech as the 1964 Republican Presidential candidate. Variants and derivatives of this that are often quoted include:
            Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue.
            Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
            Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue; extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice.

42
Well for one thing, you would see a lot more affect on middle class and higher jobs. The immigrants would be able to get licenses and education that the lack of today keeps them in wage labor jobs. Doctors, Lawyers, and engineers would move here. If it suddenly happened there would be a few years of low-wages and high population growth. Crime would increase a bit. The economy would grow, because the combined demand of the immigrants and natives would increase prices and job growth would increase.

The immigrants would ghettoize into specific areas. Cities would have quarters for immigrants connected by former nationality. 2 generations later those places will be filled with good restaurants and mixed bilingual couples.

This is of course without gov't manipulation. If gov't was in the mix.

Politicians would take sides on the issue. Proponents would cater heavily to the immigrant vote. Opponents would whip up a frenzy about how the immigrants are fools that are ruining the democratic process.

Allowing immigrants to vote would only corrupt them with power and they would become just like us, but probably worse.

OTOH, two parallel systems of subjects of the state(citizens) versus aliens, who must be responsible for themselves, without the suffocating materialism of the nanny state, will show the disadvantages of participation in the "protective" cocoon of the state in comparison to aliens who will form their own free market based health, education and welfare organisations to serve their communities.

People would begin to quit the state and renounce their citizenship in favor of the greater degree of voluntary governance that, as aliens, they would enjoy in their lives.

43
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: July 16, 2009, 08:57:36 AM »
Sometimes people, especially theologists, like to claim that atheism is a religion, out of a mistaken notion that a religion is defined as ANY belief whatsoever. But, that is incorrect--at least, according to my dictionary. My dictionary defines "religion" as "A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny." Second definition: "An institution to express belief in a divine power."

All dictionary definitions are not the truth. They are a listing of meanings that people rightly or wrongly ascribe to words. The examples that you quote are religions, but they aren't the general definition. The general definition is the only one that can be logically correct. The other ones, even if they're more popular are still incorrect, because they exclude the other possibilities. Only the general definition includes all religions.

If, in some future time, the number one definition of religion became Islam, would that mean all other theologies were no longer religions?

The dictionary also gives the first definition of "cat" as the domestic cat or house cat. This is false. If this was the most truthful definition, then you should "correct" me, as you did above, if I claim that a tiger is a cat.

Saying that a cat is a house cat, a cat is a tiger, religion is theological or that religion is atheism are all false statements, regardless of how popular these definitions may be.

44
The Polling Pit / Re: Fetal "right to free exit"
« on: July 16, 2009, 08:27:23 AM »
The legal standard whereby a person can be convicted of double homicide on a pregnant woman is after 24 weeks of gestation. There are two reasons that fetuses of 24 weeks gestation are given this status.  There is a chance of survival outside of the womb and fully functioning brain wave activity.   I think that a woman has had 24 weeks to make a choice to terminate a pregnancy and to wait til after the 24th weeks is murder.   Otherwise the penalties for causing a woman to terminate a 24 week plus pregnancy due to an assault could no longer be considered murder.

This is why I voted for right to free exit at the closest answer to 24 weeks which was 6 months when technically it is considered 5 months.  Not every month of pregnancy consists of 4 weeks.  The total gestation is 40 weeks which would be 10 months if the months consisted of even 4 week intervals.

I will be very happy when technology is advanced enough to keep all unwanted fetuses alive and healthy so they can be adopted.

The chances of survival outside of the womb are not a valid criteria for determining whether a child is a person. Advances in medical technology do not suddenly change your status as a person.

Once the embryo becomes a fetus (about three months) it has a functioning nervous system. The idea of "a fully functioning nervous system" is misleading. Nervous development continues throughout life.

Arguments about whether a child with a newly functioning nervous system is a person are fine for speculative scientific and philosophical discussions, but should not be used as a rationalization for murder. E.g., you may not know whether an unconscious person is alive or dead, but shooting him in the head without cause is still murder.

The mother's body is also part of the child's body until it can live separately from it. That includes the period of time that the child is dependent on his mother's milk unless a substitute for the milk or a substitute for the mother can be found.

Late abortion, infanticide and death from child neglect are all moral grounds for a murder charge.

45
General / Re: Wikicracy??
« on: July 16, 2009, 07:01:19 AM »
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicracy


discuss....

Does this consist of participants posting proposals that get voted up or down by the other participants?
If so, then I guess it amounts to a political opinion poll, where the public gets to participate in what questions to ask.

I suppose that it could be another forum for libertarians to make their proposals.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 27

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 30 queries.