Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah the value and protection of liberty, freedom, rights, prosperity ect are worth so little compared to a view point that is so highly subjective.
Morality or Border Security?
Morality or Gas Prices?
Morality or School Vouchers?
Morality or The Economy?
Morality or Liberty?
Morality or Personal Rights?
Just one non negotiable one. As a public leader, you understand "We, the People" is NOT "I, the individual". You always vote for the greater good of society over either my individual or any group of people's interest, if supporting either would be going against the greater good of general society. I abhor NIMBY candidates, and used to remind State Reps I knew "You are the rep of the State of ____ from the town of _____", you are NOT a "town of ____" rep first and foremost.
I'd say more anarcho-capitalist actually. I think I misunderstood the second part of your post at first...but I do completely agree on coercion, and with your last example. I was thinking of copyright laws when I was reading it and think we shouldn't have them.
I fall into anarcho-capitalist as well. It's tough sometimes falling into the coercion trap myself. I'm sure you can relate. We've been brainwashed for so long.
Yes, no copyrights or patents. A human being can't own an idea or way of doing something when it's entirely possible another person can come up with the idea/solution on his own.
The devil is in the details. There's either left libertarianism (us) or right libertarianism (I think Volobjectarian leans here).
The government as we know it is force: dead wrong and immoral. Smaller voluntary organizations can serve as a "referee" (as Volobjectarian described).
Any hierarchical institution given power to mediate/whatever must first and foremost...and this is not up for debate...be easily disabled/neutered by the people if they so wish. In fact, the people must constantly, to the point of obsession, scrutinize the entity.
Of course we know that is a far cry from the illegitimate bloated crime syndicate known as our government today.
Not at all, but I understand that you too must consistently dupe yourself into thinking good is evil and evil is good to rationalize the patently self-serving avarice that you consider an ethic.
Not at all.
I know clearly what is good and what is evil.
Evil is someone believing they are good and thus entitled to force others to conform to their vision.
Affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person;
Affirm and promote compassion in human relations;
Affirm and promote acceptance of one another;
Affirm and promote each person's own unfettered and responsible search for truth and meaning;
Affirm and promote the right of conscience and the use of the democratic process in society at large;
Affirm and promote justice for all;
Affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
In other words: Morality over more petty concerns.
\
The topic, which I think you failed to understand, is about governance, and what it should do.
Your argument is that governance should be about morality - YOUR version of morality.
The problem with this, is that government is about force. Brute, unrelenting and violent force.
You can't do good with unaccountable force enforcing what fallible people (politicians, the second most corrupt, next to academicians) think everyone else should do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.