church

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse The Mises Institute doesn't see it the way you do. They are people devoted to liberty and economic principles surrounding individualism. While accusing others of being closed minded for wanting to marry within their culture, the same open minded goomba is now exercising the very logic he is against, "going with what you know". And the same person who liked to quote Socrates in how it is essential to question everything with regard to the discussion on God or free will, to sound semi intelligent, is now doing the exact opposite.

The fact that you cannot engage in any form of critical thinking and how dependent you are on the system, is the exact reason why I expect the response that you gave. That other people may be victim because of Imperialism, abroad, and at home, and some may have their individual rights violated, is of no concern, as long as you have your football, and your ability to churn up love stories.

Thus when you proved yourself incapable, or unable to discuss this, it is expected that you would accuse me of "pedogogy" or earlier of "idealism" which is the exact thing I am against, which shows to me, you don't pay attention, nor bring your beliefs to question.

I think your behavior is just a big lard of contradictions that if used to cook bacon, wouldn't produce the desired results.

Your big long rant here doesn't change the fact that refusing to vote is not going to effect any change other than office-holders being appointed by other office-holders instead of by popular election.

I'm not sure where I indicated that individual rights are not any concern of mine.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Your big long rant here doesn't change the fact that refusing to vote is not going to effect any change other than office-holders being appointed by other office-holders instead of by popular election.

I'm not sure where I indicated that individual rights are not any concern of mine.

Your trivial focus on "office holders" appointing other "office holders" makes no sense, since people would then not identify themselves with these external State institutions, thus back to my question, who would be left for them to rule anyway? It is also a characteristic of power to corrupt, per Lord Acton, so it wouldn't be wise on the part of the "office holders" to appoint too many people, since their own power would be abrogated.

Of course assuming that there is an anarchical society, there wouldn't be any room for these to exist. To go further and state this as an idealism, begs the question, for no matter what we do in our lives is geared toward idealism, so I'm left wondering what it is you are trying to argue here.

As far as voting, well that is probably the worst thing to ever happen. One can make an argument that if it weren't for Democracy, much of the bloodshed in the 20th century could have been avoided.

If you legitimize the existence of the State, then you are ipso facto identified as not standing up for the individual, since all individuals come after the State and are a means to an end for the State.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Your trivial focus on "office holders" appointing other "office holders" makes no sense, since people would then not identify themselves with these external State institutions, thus back to my question, who would be left for them to rule anyway? It is also a characteristic of power to corrupt, per Lord Acton, so it wouldn't be wise on the part of the "office holders" to appoint too many people, since their own power would be abrogated.

Then they will likely appoint themselves. The offices will need to be filled somehow, and believe me, they will be. The people will be ruled whether they like it or not. The only way your idea could even possibly work is if every person in the world simultaneously agreed to not recognize any leaders nor have any desire to be a leader themselves. I'll give you two guess as to whether or not that's ever going to happen. If that isn't idealism, I don't know what is.

Originally posted by Anonymouse If you legitimize the existence of the State, then you are ipso facto identified as not standing up for the individual, since all individuals come after the State and are a means to an end for the State.

That's a bit like saying legitimizing the existence of God negates any sense of individuality, as all of His children are necessarily subordinate to him and ruled over with the threat of eternal damnation. What is more tyrannical than that?

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Then they will likely appoint themselves. The offices will need to be filled somehow, and believe me, they will be. The people will be ruled whether they like it or not. The only way your idea could even possibly work is if every person in the world simultaneously agreed to not recognize any leaders nor have any desire to be a leader themselves. I'll give you two guess as to whether or not that's ever going to happen. If that isn't idealism, I don't know what is.




That's a bit like saying legitimizing the existence of God negates any sense of individuality, as all of His children are necessarily subordinate to him and ruled over with the threat of eternal damnation. What is more tyrannical than that?

See my response in the anarchy thread.

[loseyourname]

I did. Give me a little more detail on how that idea might work, and how it doesn't constitute a state, and you might find me a little more receptive than when you simply rant and insult.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse If you legitimize the existence of the State, then you are ipso facto identified as not standing up for the individual, since all individuals come after the State and are a means to an end for the State.

So you illegitimize the state by not voting? Meanwhile, you receive a taxpayer-funded education at a state university. Way to stand up for what you believe in.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname So you illegitimize the state by not voting? Meanwhile, you receive a taxpayer-funded education at a state university. Way to stand up for what you believe in.

So much for "taxpayer funded education". I'm paying so much, they might as well call it a private school.

[loseyourname]

Call it what you want. It doesn't change the fact that you are legitmizing the state's existence.

[Anonymouse]

Well, if you can argue that way, I would be legitimizing the State's existence, but am I voting politicians into office that later authorize U.S. military using cluster bombs on Iraq?

If you argue it in the way that the State has virtually caused the rising prices, fixed wages, taxation, that this is somehow had debilitating effects on me and the general economy of a market society, leaving me with no choice but for practicality and proximity to attend the school I do, then I wouldn't be directly justifying the State, simply out of necessity because of the State.

[loseyourname]

Many people feel the same way about voting. And I have not voted any politicians into office.