Naomi Wolf: Secret Libertarian

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Fascism will come under the flag of getting rid of religion in the US.

Look at all the fear and hatred in this very thread.

All you stupid fuckers need is for someone in government to start playing to your fear and glaring ignorance, and we will indeed be on our way to a fascist state.

Reid and Barry will take your 401K’s and you stupid fucks will cheer it on - especially if they kill a christian or two in the process.

If that is true, it has already begun, because there is a campaign to declare that all religions are dangerous delusions that lead to violence.

Since it is the tenet of utilitarianism to maximize happiness, should we not get rid of something as dangerous as religion when we ban something as harmless as weed?

How many people has marijuana killed, but religion?!?

However, I think that you overlook that when such an argument is even possible for weed, cocaine, prostitution or gambling you already ARE living in a fascist state and now they are coming for you.

[/quote]

You make the mistake of thinking the anti-drug folks are ALL christians.

I’m a christian, and I have a fairly well documented track record of being in favor of legalization of most drugs as well as prostitution. Gambling is already legal in most states with an Indian reservation - but gambling and prostitution is strictly a states-rights issue.

You already have fuckwads who want to gut the 10th amendment. This will be a mad push by Big Brother - not the state governments.

You are right, though. It has already begun. And the fear and ignorance filled hatred of those in this very thread will only add fuel to the fire.

62

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Fascism will come under the flag of getting rid of religion in the US.

Look at all the fear and hatred in this very thread.

All you stupid fuckers need is for someone in government to start playing to your fear and glaring ignorance, and we will indeed be on our way to a fascist state.

Reid and Barry will take your 401K’s and you stupid fucks will cheer it on - especially if they kill a christian or two in the process.

If that is true, it has already begun, because there is a campaign to declare that all religions are dangerous delusions that lead to violence.

Since it is the tenet of utilitarianism to maximize happiness, should we not get rid of something as dangerous as religion when we ban something as harmless as weed?

How many people has marijuana killed, but religion?!?

However, I think that you overlook that when such an argument is even possible for weed, cocaine, prostitution or gambling you already ARE living in a fascist state and now they are coming for you.

You make the mistake of thinking the anti-drug folks are ALL christians.

I’m a christian, and I have a fairly well documented track record of being in favor of legalization of most drugs as well as prostitution. Gambling is already legal in most states with an Indian reservation - but gambling and prostitution is strictly a states-rights issue.

You already have fuckwads who want to gut the 10th amendment. This will be a mad push by Big Brother - not the state governments.

You are right, though. It has already begun. And the fear and ignorance filled hatred of those in this very thread will only add fuel to the fire.

[/quote]

It is not so much about anti-drug folks but about pro- greater good folks.

Classic liberalism tried to hold governments accountable, using the very same mores people were used to be judged by.

After all, if governments derive their power from the people and people cannot transfer more rights than they have, how could governments murder or steal.

Along comes Bentham/Mills with the theory of a “greater good” and POOF, we regress behind the age of enlightenment.

Whoever thinks that the “greater good” or “society” justifies any aggression against someone else basically agrees that he is next once his personal hobby is deemed to be detrimental to the abstraction du jour.

63

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Fascism will come under the flag of getting rid of religion in the US.

Look at all the fear and hatred in this very thread.

All you stupid fuckers need is for someone in government to start playing to your fear and glaring ignorance, and we will indeed be on our way to a fascist state.

Reid and Barry will take your 401K’s and you stupid fucks will cheer it on - especially if they kill a christian or two in the process.

If that is true, it has already begun, because there is a campaign to declare that all religions are dangerous delusions that lead to violence.

Since it is the tenet of utilitarianism to maximize happiness, should we not get rid of something as dangerous as religion when we ban something as harmless as weed?

How many people has marijuana killed, but religion?!?

However, I think that you overlook that when such an argument is even possible for weed, cocaine, prostitution or gambling you already ARE living in a fascist state and now they are coming for you.

You make the mistake of thinking the anti-drug folks are ALL christians.

I’m a christian, and I have a fairly well documented track record of being in favor of legalization of most drugs as well as prostitution. Gambling is already legal in most states with an Indian reservation - but gambling and prostitution is strictly a states-rights issue.

You already have fuckwads who want to gut the 10th amendment. This will be a mad push by Big Brother - not the state governments.

You are right, though. It has already begun. And the fear and ignorance filled hatred of those in this very thread will only add fuel to the fire.

It is not so much about anti-drug folks but about pro- greater good folks.

Classic liberalism tried to hold governments accountable, using the very same mores people were used to be judged by.

After all, if governments derive their power from the people and people cannot transfer more rights than they have, how could governments murder or steal.

Along comes Bentham/Mills with the theory of a “greater good” and POOF, we regress behind the age of enlightenment.

Whoever thinks that the “greater good” or “society” justifies any aggression against someone else basically agrees that he is next once his personal hobby is deemed to be detrimental to the abstraction du jour.[/quote]

People do have the right to kill in certain instances. Does that mean government and civilization have the right to self preservation and defense? If they do, they can foreseeably kill (though not indiscriminately).

64

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Fascism will come under the flag of getting rid of religion in the US.

Look at all the fear and hatred in this very thread.

All you stupid fuckers need is for someone in government to start playing to your fear and glaring ignorance, and we will indeed be on our way to a fascist state.

Reid and Barry will take your 401K’s and you stupid fucks will cheer it on - especially if they kill a christian or two in the process.

If that is true, it has already begun, because there is a campaign to declare that all religions are dangerous delusions that lead to violence.

Since it is the tenet of utilitarianism to maximize happiness, should we not get rid of something as dangerous as religion when we ban something as harmless as weed?

How many people has marijuana killed, but religion?!?

However, I think that you overlook that when such an argument is even possible for weed, cocaine, prostitution or gambling you already ARE living in a fascist state and now they are coming for you.

You make the mistake of thinking the anti-drug folks are ALL christians.

I’m a christian, and I have a fairly well documented track record of being in favor of legalization of most drugs as well as prostitution. Gambling is already legal in most states with an Indian reservation - but gambling and prostitution is strictly a states-rights issue.

You already have fuckwads who want to gut the 10th amendment. This will be a mad push by Big Brother - not the state governments.

You are right, though. It has already begun. And the fear and ignorance filled hatred of those in this very thread will only add fuel to the fire.

It is not so much about anti-drug folks but about pro- greater good folks.

Classic liberalism tried to hold governments accountable, using the very same mores people were used to be judged by.

After all, if governments derive their power from the people and people cannot transfer more rights than they have, how could governments murder or steal.

Along comes Bentham/Mills with the theory of a “greater good” and POOF, we regress behind the age of enlightenment.

Whoever thinks that the “greater good” or “society” justifies any aggression against someone else basically agrees that he is next once his personal hobby is deemed to be detrimental to the abstraction du jour.

People do have the right to kill in certain instances. Does that mean government and civilization have the right to self preservation and defense? If they do, they can foreseeably kill (though not indiscriminately).[/quote]

People can kill when their own rights are in danger. So, governments can kill when people´s rights are in danger.

Whenever I have the right to defend myself, the government has the right, actually the obligation, to defend me. That is why I am paying them after all. It is their reason of being.

It becomes problematic when governments start to kill when it is for the greater good of an abstract entity like race, class, all “true” believers, whatever else.

65

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
People do have the right to kill in certain instances. Does that mean government and civilization have the right to self preservation and defense? If they do, they can foreseeably kill (though not indiscriminately).[/quote]

First off, only individuals can act, so yes people in certain instances will kill in the name of self-defense.

Government cannot act. Individuals within government act and it is acceptable to assume they will act in the same manner as the example given above.

The question arises in what situation a government employee would need to defend himself in such manner. In most instances these employees are killing in the name of immoral regulation, such as drug laws, etc.

Government has no rights; on the contrary, the classical liberal notion of government is to merely preserve the rights of individuals. It is a contradiction of this notion when it violates those rights by stealing property, murdering in the name of immoral legislation, and conscripting its citizens to fight wars of aggression.

66

[quote]orion wrote:
It is not so much about anti-drug folks but about pro- greater good folks.

Classic liberalism tried to hold governments accountable, using the very same mores people were used to be judged by.

After all, if governments derive their power from the people and people cannot transfer more rights than they have, how could governments murder or steal.

Along comes Bentham/Mills with the theory of a “greater good” and POOF, we regress behind the age of enlightenment.

Whoever thinks that the “greater good” or “society” justifies any aggression against someone else basically agrees that he is next once his personal hobby is deemed to be detrimental to the abstraction du jour.[/quote]

So now are we talking about killing, or drugs, gambling and prostitution?

Please explain your notion of “aggression against someone”. Are we talking about war? The killing of someone in commission of a crime? Self-defense? Abortion?

You use way too broad of a brush to paint your position.

I’m wondering if there isn’t an abundance of excellent frogs hopping about Austria the past couple of days.

67

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
It is not so much about anti-drug folks but about pro- greater good folks.

Classic liberalism tried to hold governments accountable, using the very same mores people were used to be judged by.

After all, if governments derive their power from the people and people cannot transfer more rights than they have, how could governments murder or steal.

Along comes Bentham/Mills with the theory of a “greater good” and POOF, we regress behind the age of enlightenment.

Whoever thinks that the “greater good” or “society” justifies any aggression against someone else basically agrees that he is next once his personal hobby is deemed to be detrimental to the abstraction du jour.

So now are we talking about killing, or drugs, gambling and prostitution?

Please explain your notion of “aggression against someone”. Are we talking about war? The killing of someone in commission of a crime? Self-defense? Abortion?

You use way too broad of a brush to paint your position.

I’m wondering if there isn’t an abundance of excellent frogs hopping about Austria the past couple of days. [/quote]

Is you insane?

We have ten degree below zero, and that is in Vienna, i.e. the plains, plus Russia has closed her gas pipelines.

Any remaining frog probably have flown to the Caribbean with their girlfriends, or whatever it is they do in the winter.

The very broad brush I use is the raison d´etre of the modern state.

It is to serve the “common good”. This however was what poisoned liberalism because it is such a deeply flawed and highly subjective concept.

Once you have accepted that their is an entity above you that can force you to make sacrifices on its behalf it is only a matter of time before they come after your specific hobby that is allegedly detrimental to society.

And, how could you not agree?

Not necessarily, YOU, you, but everyone that thinks that the state can steal, plunder, torture, prohibit substances, guns, whatever, “for the greater good” and that that “greater good” is determined by politicians, how could someone like that not agree when they come for his churches and holy scriptures?

Interestingly enough that idea of a “greater good” serves the exact same role as the deification of leaders served thousands of years ago in our society.

It elevates the state, again, above the rules that it enforces against us mere mortals.

68

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
It is not so much about anti-drug folks but about pro- greater good folks.

Classic liberalism tried to hold governments accountable, using the very same mores people were used to be judged by.

After all, if governments derive their power from the people and people cannot transfer more rights than they have, how could governments murder or steal.

Along comes Bentham/Mills with the theory of a “greater good” and POOF, we regress behind the age of enlightenment.

Whoever thinks that the “greater good” or “society” justifies any aggression against someone else basically agrees that he is next once his personal hobby is deemed to be detrimental to the abstraction du jour.

So now are we talking about killing, or drugs, gambling and prostitution?

Please explain your notion of “aggression against someone”. Are we talking about war? The killing of someone in commission of a crime? Self-defense? Abortion?

You use way too broad of a brush to paint your position.

I’m wondering if there isn’t an abundance of excellent frogs hopping about Austria the past couple of days.

Is you insane?

We have ten degree below zero, and that is in Vienna, i.e. the plains, plus Russia has closed her gas pipelines.

Any remaining frog probably have flown to the Caribbean with their girlfriends, or whatever it is they do in the winter.

The very broad brush I use is the raison d´etre of the modern state.

It is to serve the “common good”. This however was what poisoned liberalism because it is such a deeply flawed and highly subjective concept.

Once you have accepted that their is an entity above you that can force you to make sacrifices on its behalf it is only a matter of time before they come after your specific hobby that is allegedly detrimental to society.

And, how could you not agree?

Not necessarily, YOU, you, but everyone that thinks that the state can steal, plunder, torture, prohibit substances, guns, whatever, “for the greater good” and that that “greater good” is determined by politicians, how could someone like that not agree when they come for his churches and holy scriptures?

Interestingly enough that idea of a “greater good” serves the exact same role as the deification of leaders served thousands of years ago in our society.

It elevates the state, again, above the rules that it enforces against us mere mortals.
[/quote]
Deify and indemnify.