<p>We get it. You’re an anarchist.</p>
<p>But you don’t seem to be making the connection between politics and violence. What part of the relationship is vague? Don’t pay taxes>go to jail>get shot if you try to escape.</p>
<p>This tool is helpful for discovering arguments (ethical, pragmatic, etc.) against forced government and for a stateless voluntary society:
[Freedomain</a> Radio - Philoso-Physician](<a href=“http://www.freedomainradio.com/phiphy/]Freedomain”>http://www.freedomainradio.com/phiphy/)</p>
<p>And for some reason, I suspect the only reason you defended Wright’s statements is because you’re awestruck by Obama rather than the content (which was not offensive at all).</p>
<p>i attempted to use general words because the things i am dealing with are so vast. there are many forms of government and many civilizations, and to specify further would involve leaving out certain groups.</p>
<p>Government is not violence because the word ‘violence’ is not the exact word as ‘government’. If your argument is true, they are still only synonyms. </p>
<p>The imposition of rules is ethical BECAUSE it is necessary to maintain order. It is both. </p>
<p>There are several definitions for ethics according to Merriam-Webster.</p>
<p>The first is: a set of moral principles. The principles that people live by. without these principles, the established rules defining morality can be skewed. </p>
<p>The second is: the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group. Rules (which may or may not be implicit) which show how to behave. </p>
<p>The third is: a guiding philosophy. A set pattern for behavior. </p>
<p>The fourth is: a consciousness of moral importance. An awareness of what is right and what is wrong. Where does this awareness come from? Society. Where does society derive its awareness? Implicit rules stemming from government, religion, culture, ancestry, etc.</p>
<p>The final definition: a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness). The plural form of the above.</p>
<p>Order is desirable. Increasing order increases efficiency. Of course, too much order becomes Orwellian. But too little order becomes chaotic. Thus, a balance is necessary. Rules form order–different rules create differing amounts of order. Violence has always been a method of asserting one’s set of rules over another’s set of rules. Of course, this is not the only way to assert political change (think of the civil rights movement and the changes it made to the US Government’s laws, for instance). </p>
<p>try not paying your taxes with your own government. since you wouldn’t be forced to, what would happen? nothing. you would be able to stay with the current government without contributing a cent. that government will not last long with those sorts of contributions.</p>
<p>“Government is not violence because the word ‘violence’ is not the exact word as ‘government’. If your argument is true, they are still only synonyms.”</p>
<p>Way to play semantics. There are numerous definitions for what constitutes a government, but they almost always include a blurb about the use of force (AKA violence).</p>
<p>"The imposition of rules is ethical BECAUSE it is necessary to maintain order. It is both. "</p>
<p>Order is not synonymous with ethics whatsoever. If it were, then a fascist society (e.g. the Nazis) would be considered ethical for they held order to be the highest ideal by weeding out those they deemed disorderly.</p>
<p>Which Webster definition corresponds to the one you are using? None of them seem to imply any sort of imposition of rules. The first one is what people choose to live by. The second is a mutually-agreed upon set of rules; government does not give people this luxury. The third is the one I am using (at least I think it is). The fourth still does not give you the right to impose that system upon others (e.g. you wouldn’t kill people for not conserving water).</p>
<p>“Order is desirable. Increasing order increases efficiency. Of course, too much order becomes Orwellian. But too little order becomes chaotic.”</p>
<p>So then order has nothing to do with ethics since you yourself concede that too much order is Orwellian (which implies badness and thus unethical).</p>
<p>“try not paying your taxes with your own government. since you wouldn’t be forced to, what would happen? nothing. you would be able to stay with the current government without contributing a cent. that government will not last long with those sorts of contributions.”</p>
<p>What are you talking about? I don’t mean voluntary in the sense that it runs on charitable contributions, but rather voluntary in the sense that it only provides services and imposes rules upon those who agree to it. So if you don’t pay X amount of dollars to government Z, they just won’t give you any services. In the same sense, a business transaction at the 7-11 is voluntary; you are not forced to buy 7-11 coffee, but you can if you wish.</p>
<p>your 7-11 analogy would work if you were to live in the 7-11, buy only the products that 7-11 brought in, pay the prices 7-11 wanted you to pay, and agree to live by 7-11’s rules. but if 7-11 did something you didn’t like (commit unethical acts like holding a 7-11 support rally, etc) and you didn’t want to pay their prices anymore, you couldn’t just find another place like 7-11 in an instant. you would have to drive around until you found that WaWa. but that Wawa is much more expensive. coffee is great, but it costs more than you earn in an hour, and what the hell do you need gourmet cheese for?</p>
<p>So you find the smaller convenience store. but doesn’t have the same goods as you’re used to. the coffee tastes sort of funny. there are pringles instead of lays. the manager’s a prick. </p>
<p>so what now? is there some utopia that’s going to pop up and solve all of your problems?</p>
<p>say it does. the greatest convenience store decides that it’s going to be cheap, efficient, and reliable. it makes kickass coffee and the cashier is a looker at the very least. </p>
<p>7-11 promptly buys the store (because the greatest convenience store owner personally loves yachting and ridiculously expensive balsamic vinegar, and 7-11 has lots of money and fears this great store’s business) and converts it into another franchise. perfectly legal transaction. if the greatest store does not sell, 7-11 uses its larger base to build more 7-11s all around the greatest convenience store, draining its business. because 7-11 is huge, it can absorb these losses; the greatest convenience store is only one store. it goes out of business, and you are back at square one. after a while, 7-11 is king of the area, with Wawa the ruler of the surrounding. you have too much invested in one area to just pack up and leave. besides, who is going to be so stupid as to challenge 7-11’s dominion? who can afford to, and what are the odds that 7-11 doesn’t squeeze them out of business within the year anyway? it makes about as much sense to try and challenge 7-11 as it is to establish an independent country in new jersey. so what? you deal with 7-11’s moderately high (but not too high) prices and sometimes ‘unethical’ actions. 7-11 even lets you choose the staff. certainly not the shaft.</p>
<p>you can’t choose government like convenience stores. you can’t choose to not be in one, for instance, because there is no place on earth where that is applicably true. you certainly can not pretend that government can be treated like a one-time issue. what does the government do if you use violence against its citizens? does it use violence in return? what if you refuse to pay taxes (services are cut off), then refuse to move? does the government just let you stay there? does it redraw maps so that you are not included within its area of law? what if you extend your living area to include part of the Mississippi river, and establish an illegal toll there? is the government going to simply back down and let you do it, or is it going to retake it by force?</p>
<p>if your government uses force, it is the same as any government today. sometimes force is necessitated to maintain order. adherence to rules of conduct eliminates such a need.</p>
<p>your parents adopt a contract with the governing body of the area when they enter a country, and you inherit that contract due to your inability to make rational decisions at birth and early age. the contract requires that you obey the basic rules of law in order to maintain the order established by the majority. if you, at a later time, deem that you do not wish to be a part of the country, you can leave it. however, finding a place on earth where you will not be under the governing body of another nation will be difficult. the resulting principle that anarchists may need to reference is called ‘that sucks’.</p>
<p>ethics is a set of moral principles (i’m not going through the laundry list). you can have too many morals and also too few. it is, like order, completely in the eye of the beholder. thus, people label the amounts that governments use as ‘Orwellian’ or ‘chaotic’. there is no defined line that says ‘at X point, it is Orwellian control’. it is completely opinionated. but having a sense of ethics, much like order, is also necessary in order to function in a group setting.</p>
<p>Coffee; now THERE’S a topic for conversation!</p>
<p>I prefer Kona. I’ve had Jamaican Blue Mountain, and still prefer Kona. How about you?</p>
<p>@enderkin</p>
<p>I don’t know why you went to town with that 7-11 analogy because you focused on a completely different aspect. My argument was that you can only be expected to pay for something to which you agreed to use. If I sell you a pack of gum under the threat of violence, does that make me obligated to pay? No. Similarly, governments provide services and collect income without having people ever agree to such an arrangement.</p>
<p>As for 7-11 buying up all of the competition and/or driving them out of business, let me reflect on a few key points of this argument:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The absolute WORST case scenario that you could come up with is what we essentially already have (e.g. a monopoly). That’s like saying “they should kill innocent people; otherwise, they would kill innocent people”.</p></li>
<li><p>There is no historical precedence for such a thing (e.g. 7-11 being the sole provider of a certain service). The only true monopoly is the government. Something is only a monopoly once there are barriers to entry (e.g. the threat of government). </p></li>
</ol>
<p>So although you may be the only one selling booger-filled tacos in the world, you are not a monopoly. Similarly, there is nothing to stop a competitor from taking away 7-11’s market share. If 7-11 were to continue the path of taking losses for future profits, then who loses? Nobody, we all get cheaper products. Once 7-11 jacks up the price (assuming it does since it wants profit), then a competitor will enter the realm to the extent that it can undercut 7-11.</p>
<ol>
<li>The 7-11 is markedly different from government. As I said before, the only way to maintain a monopoly is with violence. A 7-11 is not threatening competitors, but a government is.</li>
</ol>
<p>“sometimes ‘unethical’ actions. 7-11 even lets you choose the staff. certainly not the shaft.”</p>
<p>Way to just breeze by “sometimes unethical actions”. How many wars were fought between governments? How many people were sent to jail for doing nothing (literally doing nothing)? How many people live under the threat of violence each and every single day (you and me included)? Don’t try to pass these off as one-time things. They are inherent in the nature of government.</p>
<p>Also, the choice between 2 violent alternatives is not a free choice. It’s like asking if you want to be shot in the arm or the leg.</p>
<p>“you can’t choose government like convenience stores. you can’t choose to not be in one, for instance, because there is no place on earth where that is applicably true.”</p>
<p>You keep thinking about government in terms of how it functions today. I am presenting a different idea: the Dispute Resolution Organization (DRO). Just like how you pay an insurance premium to make your care experience more manageable, you pay your DRO a monthly payment for protection services and dispute resolution. So, some DROs will likely have geographic boundaries, but not all will. Furthermore, nobody is forcing you to pick a DRO; you can choose to live somewhere without picking a DRO. Of course, others will not wish to do business with a “rogue” agent, but still you are not threatened with violence to join anybody.</p>
<p>“you certainly can not pretend that government can be treated like a one-time issue. what does the government do if you use violence against its citizens? does it use violence in return?”</p>
<p>Sure, that’s called self-defense and consent is not necessary to act in this manner. If it were, it would be morally reprehensible to defend yourself against attackers without asking them first (which is ludicrous).</p>
<p>“what if you refuse to pay taxes (services are cut off), then refuse to move?”</p>
<p>What makes the government the owner of my property? It has no claim to the land.</p>
<p>“what if you extend your living area to include part of the Mississippi river, and establish an illegal toll there? is the government going to simply back down and let you do it, or is it going to retake it by force?”</p>
<p>It was never their’s to begin with so taking back the land by force is not a form of self-defense. At the same time, I don’t think it is as simple as charging a fee. You can’t charge people to use something you don’t own. Until there is economic incentives to do so, we will not be able to clearly define ownership over water as we do with land. If we ever get to the point where water can be owned and governments miraculously allow competition, we’ll likely have a system to determine boundaries of water by then (there are none as of yet since it’s never been done before).</p>
<p>“if your government uses force, it is the same as any government today. sometimes force is necessitated to maintain order. adherence to rules of conduct eliminates such a need.”</p>
<p>As I said before, force is only justified in self-defense. I think you are hung up in the itty-bitty stuff like how can so and so be provided without force (which BTW I still addressed)? A system of voluntary cooperation can still provide order (and do it without the threat of violence).</p>
<p>“your parents adopt a contract with the governing body of the area when they enter a country”</p>
<ol>
<li><p>What is this contract to be specific? Where are its terms? Why do you people always like to be exceptionally vague when it comes to defining important things like the conditions in which violence can be used upon you (e.g. taxation in the social contract).</p></li>
<li><p>It can only be said that they accepted this implicit contract if the land were owned by the government. This is not true however. You can’t just stake out a massive piece of territory and claim it as yours under the justification of “sovereignty”. You have to homestead it by mixing your labor in without anything stolen like taxes (for example, a man works a piece of land with a a hoe that he stole. That land does not belong to him since it was worked with somebody else’s honest labor in the form of a hoe).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>[A</a> Handout for Statists](<a href=“http://www.strike-the-root.com/72/molyneux/molyneux4.html]A”>A Handout for Statists | Strike-The-Root: A Journal Of Liberty)</p>
<p>^^Anyways, just read that link for a quick summary of our arguments in ethics and government. </p>
<p>[States</a> cannot own property - Mises Economics Blog](<a href=“http://blog.mises.org/archives/002502.asp]States”>http://blog.mises.org/archives/002502.asp)</p>
<p>^^And that is how governments cannot own property.</p>
<p>“ethics is a set of moral principles (i’m not going through the laundry list). you can have too many morals and also too few. it is, like order, completely in the eye of the beholder. thus, people label the amounts that governments use as ‘Orwellian’ or ‘chaotic’. there is no defined line that says ‘at X point, it is Orwellian control’. it is completely opinionated. but having a sense of ethics, much like order, is also necessary in order to function in a group setting.”</p>
<p>Ethics are not relativistic. It simply comes down to whether you are initiating force against another. The fact that you do not “feel” that government is inherently coercive does not change the fact that it is initiating force against other people. Morals ,on the other hand, are personal preferences (e.g. you must give to charity) that you cannot impose upon others (i.e. a violation of ethics).</p>
<p>People need to learn how to quote. These posts are absurdly hard to read.</p>
<p>
[quote<em>]
Text you want to be quoted
[/quote</em>]
</p>
<p>Remove the asterixes.</p>
<p>@enderkin</p>
<p>I don’t know why you went to town with that 7-11 analogy because you focused on a completely different aspect. My argument was that you can only be expected to pay for something to which you agreed to use. If I sell you a pack of gum under the threat of violence, does that make me obligated to pay? No. Similarly, governments provide services and collect income without having people ever agree to such an arrangement.</p>
<p>As for 7-11 buying up all of the competition and/or driving them out of business, let me reflect on a few key points of this argument:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The absolute WORST case scenario that you could come up with is what we essentially already have (e.g. a monopoly). That’s like saying “they should kill innocent people; otherwise, they would kill innocent people”.</p></li>
<li><p>There is no historical precedence for such a thing (e.g. 7-11 being the sole provider of a certain service). The only true monopoly is the government. Something is only a monopoly once there are barriers to entry (e.g. the threat of government).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>So although you may be the only one selling booger-filled tacos in the world, you are not a monopoly. Similarly, there is nothing to stop a competitor from taking away 7-11’s market share. If 7-11 were to continue the path of taking losses for future profits, then who loses? Nobody, we all get cheaper products. Once 7-11 jacks up the price (assuming it does since it wants profit), then a competitor will enter the realm to the extent that it can undercut 7-11.</p>
<ol>
<li>The 7-11 is markedly different from government. As I said before, the only way to maintain a monopoly is with violence. A 7-11 is not threatening competitors, but a government is.</li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>Way to just breeze by “sometimes unethical actions”. How many wars were fought between governments? How many people were sent to jail for doing nothing (literally doing nothing)? How many people live under the threat of violence each and every single day (you and me included)? Don’t try to pass these off as one-time things. They are inherent in the nature of government.</p>
<p>Also, the choice between 2 violent alternatives is not a free choice. It’s like asking if you want to be shot in the arm or the leg.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You keep thinking about government in terms of how it functions today. I am presenting a different idea: the Dispute Resolution Organization (DRO). Just like how you pay an insurance premium to make your car experience more manageable, you pay your DRO a monthly payment for protection services and dispute resolution. So, some DROs will likely have geographic boundaries, but not all will. Furthermore, nobody is forcing you to pick a DRO; you can choose to live somewhere without picking a DRO. Of course, others will not wish to do business with a “rogue” agent, but still you are not threatened with violence to join anybody.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, that’s called self-defense and consent is not necessary to act in this manner. If it were, it would be morally reprehensible to defend yourself against attackers without asking them first (which is ludicrous).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What makes the government the owner of my property? It has no claim to the land.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It was never their’s to begin with so taking back the land by force is not a form of self-defense. At the same time, I don’t think it is as simple as charging a fee. You can’t charge people to use something you don’t own. Until there is economic incentives to do so, we will not be able to clearly define ownership over water as we do with land. If we ever get to the point where water can be owned and governments miraculously allow competition, we’ll likely have a system to determine boundaries of water by then (there are none as of yet since it’s never been done before).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I said before, force is only justified in self-defense. I think you are hung up in the itty-bitty stuff like how can so and so be provided without force (which BTW I still addressed)? A system of voluntary cooperation can still provide order (and do it without the threat of violence).</p>
<p>
</p>
<ol>
<li><p>What is this contract to be specific? Where are its terms? Why do you people always like to be exceptionally vague when it comes to defining important things like the conditions in which violence can be used upon you (e.g. taxation in the social contract).</p></li>
<li><p>It can only be said that they accepted this implicit contract if the land were owned by the government. This is not true however. You can’t just stake out a massive piece of territory and claim it as yours under the justification of “sovereignty”. You have to homestead it by mixing your labor in without anything stolen like taxes (for example, a man works a piece of land with a a hoe that he stole. That land does not belong to him since it was worked with somebody else’s honest labor in the form of a hoe).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>[A</a> Handout for Statists](<a href=“http://www.strike-the-root.com/72/molyneux/molyneux4.html]A”>A Handout for Statists | Strike-The-Root: A Journal Of Liberty)</p>
<p>^^Anyways, just read that link for a quick summary of our arguments in ethics and government.</p>
<p>[States</a> cannot own property - Mises Economics Blog](<a href=“http://blog.mises.org/archives/002502.asp]States”>http://blog.mises.org/archives/002502.asp)</p>
<p>^^And that is how governments cannot own property.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ethics are not relativistic. It simply comes down to whether you are initiating force against another. The fact that you do not “feel” that government is inherently coercive does not change the fact that it is initiating force against other people. Morals ,on the other hand, are personal preferences (e.g. you must give to charity) that you cannot impose upon others (i.e. a violation of ethics).</p>
<p><em>applauds use of quotes</em></p>
<p>What does this 711 analogy has to do with anything this topic is about? </p>
<p>Let’s get back on the serious, and I mean serious question how much by a 17 year association does Obama endorse this lying spinster’s antics and false acusations. And if he doesn’t endorse the same views as Rev Wright, why didn’t he confront him, or at least leave the congregation.</p>
<p>Is it coincidence or telltale sign of a man who doesn’t wear America lapel pins to political functions, refused to cross his hearts during the national anthem, spent parts of his childhood in Indonesia, a muslim country, his father was muslim, and whose wife had never been proud of America until just recently. </p>
<p>We need to have no doubt about what this man was thinking and is thinking now.</p>
<p>Does having a father who was a Muslim constitute an impediment to being president of the US? Does spending one’s childhood in a foreign country constitute an impediment? Or is it just Indonesia that’s objectionable? There are some posters on CC who are US citizens and whose kids grew up in Indonesia. But I don’t know whether they plan to go into politics. :)</p>
<p>One puts one’s hand over one’s heart during the pledge of allegiance, but there is no requirement that one should do so during the national anthem, and no requirement that one should wear an American lapel pin. Did Jefferson? Washington? Lincoln?</p>
<p>It is an open question of one’s upbringing where one spent his childhood. And it is no denying islamic militants are responsible for much of the violence and fear in the world by the method they employed, cowardly killing innocent people around the world in the name of Islam. Spending parts of one’s childhood in an environment where that could shape one’s ideas, is open to question. </p>
<p>Looks like you are willing to let go of anything that can give insight of what this man is about. You may be sure of him. Not so for many of us.</p>
<p>No, I am not willing to let go of “anything.” But religion is not passed on genetically. You mentioned his father as one reason for distrusting Obama. His father went out of his life when he was 2, and as Obama claims, though he had been born of Muslim parents, by the time he married Obama’s mother, he had become a “confirmed atheist.” As was Obama’s mother, whom you fail to mention. Indonesia, especially when Obama lived there (for four years, between the ages of six and ten, part of which he spent in a Catholic school) was not/is not a hotbed of Muslim militancy. So why the fear of contamination? Why no mention of his embrace of Christianity 20years ago? </p>
<p>Here is an excerpt from his wikipedia entry that throws some light on his upbringing:</p>
<p>
[Barack</a> Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama]Barack”>Barack Obama - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Its more confounding to me, while Obama was working to spur social changes in Africa Americans, his pastor was spurring old, unjust hatreds and he and his wife continue that relationship. I still can’t reconcile with that. Can anyone ? It also means the Obama children had listened that senseless diatribe too. What will they think?</p>
<p>I’m sad to see the tenor of these threads at times. After all we are all Americans who want only what’s best for our country. Being raised Roman Catholic, when I was younger, I recall attending a retirement party for our parish priest. He was very well liked but not very charismatic. I asked him how he would liked to be remembered? He gave me a chuckle and said " I hope to be remembered as being kind and quiet." I asked how come. He replied " Then , I know I did my job well, passing on God’s Holy Words to his next chosen servant!" I’ve never forgotten those words.</p>
<p>IMHO The Rev. Wrights, Rev. Hagees of this world have forgotten what there purpose is! It’s not about being the most charismatic or chasing the all mighty buck i.e: 10,000 sq.ft. house w/ 10 mill. loan or 700 club breaking some fund raising record. It’s about passing on the written word w/o being remembered for who they were. As for those who sit in churches such as these, they must look at themselves and evaluate their own judgements.</p>
<p>I thought this thread was closed due to me and afruff23’s combined irrelevancy. Hm. I’m an idiot, I’ll bite. Sorry for everybody else that I’m being a jerk. I just need to settle this. </p>
<p>
But you end up paying, don’t you? Tripping transactions, Batman! The gum is yours now, have fun!
And I would believe that a good majority of the people agree with the system of taxation today. Differences in percentages and specification of spending arise, but I would believe that most Americans overall believe that taxes are necessary. No, really, take a poll.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t see the connection here. The monopoly of government is a trade-in that people accept in order to prevent conflicting governments from arising within the same territory. If we could have multiple governments living within the same area in peace, then we would have them. But too many organizations within an area inevitably leads to violence. </p>
<p>Well, no–too many *people *in an area leads to violence, regardless of organization. Unless, of course, there is an organization to prevent it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There were no monopolies back in the 1800s and early 1900s, when the U.S. government didn’t regulate its industries? No Rockefeller, no Carnegie? I’m sure that those new railroad competitors had a real easy time beating the in-place infrastructure, temporary price drops, and other extralegal practices of the big railroad companies. I don’t think those Midwest farmers liked it as much, though. Sure, they might’ve gotten a nice rate drop for a few months at a time occasionally, but I don’t think they were having a party overall about the situation itself. They knew that the rates were not permanent.</p>
<p>How long did the railroad consortium last? What about Standard Oil, or US Steel? </p>
<p>You’re damn straight that something is stopping a competitor from taking market share away from a big company. The companies of the late 19th century were unrivaled in power and structure. They had vertical and horizontal integration made possible by a lack of government intervention. They crushed competition through any means necessary, without actual violence. It took legal action to topple them all and allow for competition to get through. </p>
<p>Standard Oil alone lasted over 40 years. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Rockefeller never killed anybody to get his way. He just made life economically unfeasible for his opponents. That can happen with any sort of group–a government, a company, a DRO. A leader promises roses so that he gets votes, then delivers only the stems once the election is over. Nothing violent about that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Literally nothing? Probably nobody. The ones who get arrested are those who defy or seem to defy something-whether it be the government, the people, or otherwise. People get arrested for (supposedly) being in opposition to something. Nobody in his/her right mind detains an ally.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because violence will never happen in an anarchist world? Because people will naturally be peaceful as long as they aren’t attacked? Everything will just become fair and balanced for everybody? Not everybody lives in a place that is reliable to live in. Not everybody is happy where they are born. But not everybody can just move. And not everybody can live on the coast, or on fertile land, or near a river. Nobody is always happy. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These actions are inherent in people, not just government. It is unfair to mark governments as constantly evil or scheming or violent. That’s like saying that all companies are all greedy, soulless, and self-serving.</p>
<p>It seems that we can not make any headway in either of our arguments. You do not seem to believe in ownership or sovereignty by any collective government whatsoever. Thus, there is no sensible argument that you will agree with. Taxes are ‘stolen money’, conquest and eminent domain become ‘robbery’, and homesteading/perusing land is not an adequate prerequisite. Yet this is how nations have grown and diminished throughout history. This is how nations grow and diminish today. Saying that a practice is illegal or immoral does not make it false. Governments DO own property–through force or threat of force, nations maintain this notion until it becomes accepted as fact. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:</p>
<p>Ethics: a set of moral principles: a theory or system of moral values</p>
<p>Ethics, morals, and principles are essentially all the same thing by definition. Ethics is an umbrella term which includes morals and principles (thus the definition). Your principles tend to concern what you have learned, rather than what you have been taught. But like morals, principles are relativistic. Not everybody has the same set of ethics, just as people don’t have the same set of principles or morals. I do believe in giving a share of my earnings to charity (a moral stance based in upbringing). But I do not believe in giving 10% of said earnings, because I believe that the God I believe in is interested in the thought, not the amount (a stance based upon principle). The moral and principle stances become my ethical stance–that I believe in donating a significant portion of my earnings to charity.</p>
<p>Think about it. I believe that governments create and maintain sovereignty through legal actions. You do not. I believe that force is oftentimes necessary to assume order. You do not. I believe that government is preferable to anarchy. You do not. Our ethics clash.</p>
<hr>
<p>Edit: in relation to this thread, I agree wholeheartedly with TerpDad’s last post. It is indeed about the spreading of the Word rather than the Fear. I personally do not feel comfortable hearing fire-and-brimstone from a pastor of Christ, who preached good will, faith, and forgiveness. But that is just me. I am not indicative of the whole. While I disagree with Wright’s remarks, and Hagee’s remarks, and many other preachers’ remarks, I try not to paint the associated candidates by their colors.</p>
<p>Well yourworld, you’re undoubtedly going to see and believe what you want to see and believe, but many many people have insisted that the incendiary quotes that everyone has heir knickers in a twist over comprise only a very small part of Pastor Wright’s body of sermons, and they are ever the more incendiary when taken out of context. His congregation is one of only a few predominantly African American Church of Christ congregations. As a denomination, The Church of Christ is overwhelmingly white. What’s more, Pastor Wright has been an very active participant in the denomination’s organizational activities, and has been considered an extremely well respected biblical scholar by his denominational peers. Contrary to what you seem to need to believe, Jeremiah Wright does not hate America, and does not hate white people. He joined the United States Marine Corp, thereby suspending his own college education to answer the call of JFK, who said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”. He is of Dick Cheney’s generation, a man who also undoubtedly heard the same call, but decided instead to remain in college. Wright garnered a number of commendations for service and bravery before returning home and continuing his education. Trinity Church of Christ is not exclusively black. It does have white members, and many white visitors to the congregation claim to have been received very warmly by both Wright and the members of his congregation. If the church “hated white people”, it’s doubtful that they would be welcoming to the concept of white members or white visitors. But go ahead and believe what most feeds your politically motivated caricature.:rolleyes: </p>
<p>Obama has already outlined the things about Jeremiah Wright’s character that he found admirable. Many of the things he claims to have learned from Pastor Wright are what inspired his book, The Audacity of Hope, a book which has been universally lauded, and which no one has ever claimed was anything but uplifting and inspiring. Certainly there’s nothing racially divisive within it’s covers. The man who inspired this book is the man that Obama came to know and admire. If Obama had gotten the impression that Wright was a racist, I very much doubt he would have counted the man among his friends. What’s more, Trinity Church of Christ is a 3000 member body of people who are not its Pastor. It is a vibrant and active community that works to bolster and uplift the community in which they are located, with after school and literacy programs, food pantry services, divorce and drug abuse counseling, and other outreach endeavors. To write off an entire community of people based on a few quotes taken out of context is certainly only to the benefit of those who find it advantageous to do so. </p>
<p>Criticism does not equal hatred, yourworld. If it were so, I would very accurately be able to claim that any number of posters here on CC, who have been vociferously critical of The African American community, are hateful racists. What’s more, the ability to criticize government is the most American of rights, and a true patriot has never been afraid to exercise that right. Wright has never been critical of all white people, only certain groups such as the KKK and those who abuse the power of their governmental positions to enact policies detriment to minorities and others around the world. I believe his own experiences with unapologetic racism have made him cynical, bitter, and down right paranoid at times, but I don’t think he’s a racist, because to be a racist, he would have to believe that black people are inherently better than white people, and I challenge you to show me where he has ever made such a claim. I’m sure you would never actually deign to do a bit of actual digging in order to listen to some of Wright’s criticisms in full context, so I won’t even suggest it. But don’t pretend that your wholesale vilification of Wright, and Obama by extension have to do with anything other than your own politically motivated needs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s been suggested to me many times by very wise people (from people who are Protestant ministers) that you should never join a church because of its pastor, but that you should join because of the people. If a church stakes everything on a pastor, then it is set up to fail whenever that pastor leaves. A good pastor will not encourage this kind of leadership. I think the telling story here is that Trinity continues to thrive (and survive this turmoil) after Wright’s retirement. I know of many churches that have fallen apart after a long time pastor left because too many members put all their eggs in one basket. </p>
<p>I do think it’s interesting that anti-Obama people who fan the flames with baseless Wright criticisms won’t acknowledge the many times that the UCC’s theology and mostly white national membership have been brought up on CC.</p>
<p>And while I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind by relating this story, I have met one of Trinity’s ‘unofficial’ pastors. This time last year, my daughter needed a coach for a musical audition. The reps from her talent agency recommended someone to us, and D met with him for about an hour one afternoon. While he has had some measured success on Broadway, he managed to take some time off and attend divinity school in Chicago (while doing some regional theatre) not far from where I attended. When he and I discovered that we had the seminary and ministry experience in common, we began to talk. He told me he’s a member of Trinity (remember this was a year ago… just weeks after Obama announced he was running). I think he was shocked when I said, “Oh, that’s where Obama’s a member.” I explained that I’d of course, heard of Trinity from some of my seminary professors who attended, but knew Obama attended from reading his book. So we had a brief ten minute chat about Trinity (it’s one of the largest churches in the Chicago area, so its ministries often make the news), and this coach beamed from ear to ear as he spoke about it (although he did say he was interested in talking to me about the hospice ministry I do). </p>
<p>While being a brief encounter, it just validated what I’d known about Trinity for a long time. </p>
<p>There are just some churches that are known for stirring things up. Another one that gets its share of headlines is St. Sabina’s Catholic Church, and its pastor, Rev. Michael Pfleger. God forbid Fr. Pfleger ever have any aspiring politicians in his church. By the way, if you’re looking for pastors who most model what Jesus did, I think these guys win… bucking the status quo and challenging people to get outside their comfort zones to speak for those who can’t. </p>
<p>Am wondering what would have happened, if the week after Jesus confronted the money changers in the temple, one of the disciples had decided to run for office and their opponent attacked them for being associated with Jesus because he was a rebel?</p>
<p>Jesus never made up lies to fan false hatreds. That analogy doesn’t work. </p>
<p>Secondly, I watched the news when the Wright scandal was fresh news and they had several black commentators on, and they all used the ‘taken out of context’ excuse for Wright. So lame. That’s the button you’d push when there’s no other buttons to push. That was the answer that required least thinking. That was the prefab answer. It took me by surprise on CC where so many parents are highly educated and their only excuse was it was “taken out of context”. </p>
<p>Senate leaders have been banished for one slip of tongue. There had been many. Nobody came out with prefab answer for them. Why doesn’t the Rev Wright suffer the consequence ? We seem to have a double standard in American society. One very tough standard for one group of people and a loose standard for another. Yeah, it was only out of context. When does the burden ends ?</p>
<p>Lastly even in a church of a highly motivated congregation, full of devoted christians doing God’s work in the community , canbe led by a selfish,arrogant,scheming pastor. There had been many examples of that.
How can that be in the words Teriwtt, a baseless criticism ? Wright’s act was caught on TV ! How many ways can you spin God d*#!n America ?</p>