Comment: We BOTH agree about the fundamentals of human - TopicsExpress



          

Comment: We BOTH agree about the fundamentals of human interaction insofar as no one should be forced, coerced, etc to pay or do things that they dont like or want to do. But...all living things have a hierarchy; you cant just wish it away. How will society REALLY function without someone(s) in positions of authority to (dare I say it) ENFORCE the common good ? We can debate as much as you want about the limits of government, etc. But at the end of the day, we are talking about people: HUMANS. Humans have a natural desire to control things, sometimes including other people. Indeed, you obviously understand that this is true because you rail against it - which is a GOOD THING. Keep it up. But it cannot be changed, it can only be mitigated because it is inherent in the human condition... By all means, keep government on as short a leash as possible - Ill be right there with you, fighting for the common man. But the leaders of the cult of voluntaryism are in it for their own ends too, even if they have the best intentions. They may indeed have the very best of intentions, but are they not themselves leaders (I dare not say government, or masters) of their flock ? Do they not make money from book sales, or simply favors done by those that agree with their viewpoint(s) ? Are they NOT profiting in some ways from advocating their viewpoint ? Are they somehow ABOVE the rest of us for their understanding of the way the world should be? Sounds a lot like religion to me... ------------------------------------- Cash: I have no issue with those who want to wear a leather collar and live in a cage and would die defending their right to have mentors and religous codes of their own choosing. I have an issue with the people who want to abduct and murder, either directly or by proxy, people who dont consent to being dominated. Choosing teachers because you see they have much to teach you, and showing them the respect they merit is not what I rail against. Having rulers you didnt choose, and who do not merit your respect, appointed and imposed onto you against your consent is what I rail against. Those who dont question it when authorities are appointed (even by a gang that outnumbers you) are STUPID, and people have the right to be stupid if their stupidity doesnt intrude on the rights of others. When they advocate and support FORCING their stupidity onto people who arent as stupid, they have become aggressors. A society of stupid aggressors is a much bigger problem than a society of stupid people who live and let live. Statists, slavers, have trouble seeing this simple and obvious difference. They imagine that in a society of voluntary interactions, businesses which have hierarchical management would cease to exist. They point to people voluntarily respecting and assisting mentors in Keene, NH as hypocrites, because they cant imagine how an organization, how any group endeavor, can exist without people being enslaved. They simply dont grok the word voluntary. It doesnt compute to someone who is a slaver. But the point is not whether people can make rules on their own property. The point is whether you are permitted to have your own property where you also make your own rules. The key question is, do you let people dont respect you and didnt choose you as their mentor opt out without abducting them for disobeying you and murdering them when they resist being abducted. THAT is the key issue. “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”~ Frédéric Bastiat
Posted on: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 10:44:04 +0000

Trending Topics



Recently Viewed Topics




© 2015