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.
There is no "compromise" between individual human freedom or slavery to the fictional collective or "majority". Freedom or slavery.
So everything in the world is black or white.
When the First Continental Congress met here in my city they were wrong to compromise?
Every president since George Washington, every member of congress, every governor has betrayed the nebulous concept of "freedom" because they compromised?
Everything thing must be your way of thinking or it constitutes "slavery."
This way of thinking is Fascism. This is how the Nazis thought. To hell with democracy, reason, give-and-take, respect for other points of view, recognizing minority opinions, the nuances of the rule of law.
Obama has create a divide of hate that nobody will be able up close. Add to that the two ideologies are polar opposites one can surmise the two will never agree. It's always been this way the difference today is Obamas open distain for conservatives.
Not Obama's fault.
Obama's disdain for conservatives? I see out and out prejudice and hate coming from the conservatives directed against all those segments of the American population they deem "liberal" although they carefully choose their words: African-Americans, Jews, union members, educators, gays and lesbians, Hispanics especially Mexicans, etc.
I squarely put the blame on the extremist ring-wing talk show hosts like Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, and their contemptible ilk who started their rants of a thousand insults and defamation against anyone who was a liberal, a moderate, or a Democrat. It started long before Obama. Their hatred of Democrats in particular is fiery hot with a seething rage. That is why ultimately they are failing and the Republicans will lose the White House again just as they did in 2008 and 2012.
Obama has create a divide of hate that nobody will be able up close. Add to that the two ideologies are polar opposites one can surmise the two will never agree. It's always been this way the difference today is Obamas open distain for conservatives.
When the First Continental Congress met here in my city they were wrong to compromise?
Every president since George Washington, every member of congress, every governor has betrayed the nebulous concept of "freedom" because they compromised?
Everything thing must be your way of thinking or it constitutes "slavery."
This way of thinking is Fascism. This is how the Nazis thought. To hell with democracy, reason, give-and-take, respect for other points of view, recognizing minority opinions, the nuances of the rule of law.
There is nothing wrong with VOLUNTARY cooperation or "compromise" in any way whatsoever.
However, there is no such thing as "voluntary" or "compromise" when either party uses initiations of force against the other.
In the case of "government" as we have it, a secret "ballot" supposedly give a fictional and immoral "right" to for "some" people to impose their will upon "other" people through violence and aggression. Being forced or compelled at the end of the barrel of a government gun is not "compromise".
I am all for any people or groups making voluntary agreements with each other. However, I am against any person, group, or government which initiates force upon any person, group, or government.
It is simply a consistent stance for human freedom and a consistent refusal to "justify" human slavery and aggression.
No group who agrees to compromise with each other suddenly has a moral "right" to force everyone else into that agreement by aggression and violence. The idea that such a thing is justifiable or moral is beyond the insanity of a delusional tyrant.
Just to be clear, so that you don't "hate" me or something...
If two of your neighbors "compromised" to take your house so that they could buy iphones, or whatever they wanted, do you believe that they have a "right" to do so? Do you believe that you would "join" this "compromise"?
If two of your neighbors believed that eating vegetables should be illegal because they don't like them, do they have a right to arrest you and take away your natural freedoms if you do eat vegetables? Is there a "compromise" to reach with them?
And more generally...
Do any of your neighbors, for any reason, have a "right" to initiate force upon you, against your will, for any reason?
Would you enter into any agreement with any other human being which grants them a "special" right to impose their personal will or interest upon you? Would you "voluntarily" choose to be a slave to the whim of your neighbor?
All rhetorical of course...just trying to explain by analogy...
No person, group, or government ever has a right to initiate force upon any person, group, or government for any reason, ever. All initiations of force are evil and immoral to anyone who is not a delusional thug or tyrant.
And to accept/condone/benefit by the initiations of force against your neighbor is anti-human, anti-freedom by any standard. Furthermore it requires a sense of superiority to your fellow man and a hatred of humanity and human freedom.
When the First Continental Congress met here in my city they were wrong to compromise?
Every president since George Washington, every member of congress, every governor has betrayed the nebulous concept of "freedom" because they compromised?
Everything thing must be your way of thinking or it constitutes "slavery."
This way of thinking is Fascism. This is how the Nazis thought. To hell with democracy, reason, give-and-take, respect for other points of view, recognizing minority opinions, the nuances of the rule of law.
In this case, it is black and white. Yes to everything except the bolded lines.
I actually did laugh out loud at the Fascism part... it was perfectly ironic, even though I do understand why you would say that. He's saying that people should respect each others' self-ownership and free will...there is no compromise to be had there. It's like compromising on rape...
A: We should make rape an acceptable practice in society. Some of us are less fortunate in the area of dating and relationships.
B: No, we shouldn't. It's never okay to rape, ever.
A: Surely we can come to a compromise here...let's say we're allowed to rape once a month. That seems reasonable.
B: No. Absolutely no rape.
A: So everything needs to be your way? You know what you are? A Fascist. You aren't willing to look at the gray areas, the nuances, and you're unwilling to respect others and their opinions. Everything is black and white with you.
And yes, it is slavery, even if it's a milder form of it. There were slave owners back in the day who let their slaves be relatively free compared to others, have decent lives, and keep some of what they produced. It wasn't just 100% control and taking everything they produced that made them a slave. It was that the master claimed the right to control them and take what they produced, no matter how much that was.
Anyone claiming a right to control you and take from you by force is claiming ownership over you.
There is nothing wrong with VOLUNTARY cooperation or "compromise" in any way whatsoever.
However, there is no such thing as "voluntary" or "compromise" when either party uses initiations of force against the other.
In the case of "government" as we have it, a secret "ballot" supposedly give a fictional and immoral "right" to for "some" people to impose their will upon "other" people through violence and aggression. Being forced or compelled at the end of the barrel of a government gun is not "compromise".
I am all for any people or groups making voluntary agreements with each other. However, I am against any person, group, or government which initiates force upon any person, group, or government.
It is simply a consistent stance for human freedom and a consistent refusal to "justify" human slavery and aggression.
No group who agrees to compromise with each other suddenly has a moral "right" to force everyone else into that agreement by aggression and violence. The idea that such a thing is justifiable or moral is beyond the insanity of a delusional tyrant.
Just to be clear, so that you don't "hate" me or something...
If two of your neighbors "compromised" to take your house so that they could buy iphones, or whatever they wanted, do you believe that they have a "right" to do so? Do you believe that you would "join" this "compromise"?
If two of your neighbors believed that eating vegetables should be illegal because they don't like them, do they have a right to arrest you and take away your natural freedoms if you do eat vegetables? Is there a "compromise" to reach with them?
And more generally...
Do any of your neighbors, for any reason, have a "right" to initiate force upon you, against your will, for any reason?
Would you enter into any agreement with any other human being which grants them a "special" right to impose their personal will or interest upon you? Would you "voluntarily" choose to be a slave to the whim of your neighbor?
All rhetorical of course...just trying to explain by analogy...
No person, group, or government ever has a right to initiate force upon any person, group, or government for any reason, ever. All initiations of force are evil and immoral to anyone who is not a delusional thug or tyrant.
And to accept/condone/benefit by the initiations of force against your neighbor is anti-human, anti-freedom by any standard. Furthermore it requires a sense of superiority to your fellow man and a hatred of humanity and human freedom.
In other words, or long story short version, the United States of America was never justifiable or moral? It never should have come into being?
The fight is PATHETIC from both sides, they are both sickening in their own ways. Both sides not one.
The fight at this point, should be about protecting our Homeland, from the terror that is happening here and abroad.
Understanding from Obama's point of stupid view JV TEAM CONTAINED, his Butt! The plan not to say what the real problem is, not going to stop future killings from taking place, You see these barbarians, don't care about any political correctness. They are going to continue to kill, here and abroad, because they can, sorry but you have to fight fire with fire, or lose the fight all together.
They should come together, and have a plan a plan is better then not having one at all.
Or the future of this Country and for your own children, is looking pretty bleak.
They need to get off their high horses, and think about the future of this Country, and protecting it's citizens
In other words, or long story short version, the United States of America was never justifiable or moral? It never should have come into being?
No, in other words, The United States is never justifiable or moral whenever it initiates force upon any person. I simply never condone aggression and violence by any person (or fictional entity created by persons) upon others. I don't believe any person, (or group) ever has a "right" to use aggression to impose their will upon others. The only use of force that I ever condone is retaliatory force against aggressors.
I would add, that I would never enter into an agreement with any institution or person which gave itself/themself a right to initiate force upon me. Who volunteers to be a slave and victim of the other partie's special interest? A masochist?
And no one alive, (and virtually no one at the time), ever signed that agreement. Again, I would never sign a contract or enter into an agreement with another that claims that I am their property to do with as they will. I would never sign away my natural rights to an entity that claims a "right" to initiate force upon me for its benefit or whim of the "majority". Although I would never stop anyone from doing so as it is their choice to choose slavery over freedom for whatever reason.
No, in other words, The United States is never justifiable or moral whenever it initiates force upon any person. I simply never condone aggression and violence by any person (or fictional entity created by persons) upon others. I don't believe any person, (or group) ever has a "right" to use aggression to impose their will upon others. The only use of force that I ever condone is retaliatory force against aggressors.
I would add, that I would never enter into an agreement with any institution or person which gave itself/themself a right to initiate force upon me. Who volunteers to be a slave and victim of the other partie's special interest? A masochist?
And no one alive, (and virtually no one at the time), ever signed that agreement. Again, I would never sign a contract or enter into an agreement with another that claims that I am their property to do with as they will. I would never sign away my natural rights to an entity that claims a "right" to initiate force upon me for its benefit or whim of the "majority". Although I would never stop anyone from doing so as it is their choice to choose slavery over freedom for whatever reason.
The Constitution condoned slavery although it was one of the mostly hotly debated issues at the Convention. It was pretty evenly divided. Those against owning people as property compromised yet most of those thought there would be an end & the issue would come up again in 20 years. The Constitution prevented further discussion for 20 years. Was that a reasonable compromise?
The United States of America entered into a Civil War over slavery. Lysander Spoon, while having ideas perhaps similar to your own, had a plan for abolitioning slavery.
The Constitution condoned slavery although it was one of the mostly hotly debated issues at the Convention. It was pretty evenly divided. Those against owning people as property compromised yet most of those thought there would be an end & the issue would come up again in 20 years. The Constitution prevented further discussion for 20 years. Was that a reasonable compromise?
The United States of America entered into a Civil War over slavery. Lysander Spoon, while having ideas perhaps similar to your own, had a plan for abolitioning slavery.
This is an awesome question. I'd like to hear your own answer on it.
Feel free to touch on Spooner's fight against the USPS as well.
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.
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.
