In America today, who has it worse?

[AlecTheGardener]

The social contract.

We give up some of our liberties to maintain personal and national security, roads, safety inspections of all sorts, etc, etc.

The supreme court ruled that money is speech, you are giving up a little bit of your liberty to fulfill this contract along other liberties.

It could be suggested that because you relinquished some of your liberty to exist within the contract the tax money was never yours to begin with. Not theft but you fulfilling the contract.

I do not agree with above necessarily, but it is an interesting thought.

 

[reasonevangelist]

why should anyone care who the president worships or not?

That is such a massively complex question...

And on that note: why should we even care who is the president? It's not like HE is the one causing all the problems, and he damn sure isn't going to fix them, regardless of his theology.

Worshiping a fictitious "higher being," indicates some pretty disturbing cognitive/character traits, all of which i would suggest should not be present in any "leader" or "official," or anyone else granted any "authority" over other beings.

If you believe in any god, whatever god in which you believe, is irrelevant, unless you impose whatever you say is "the will of (your) god" upon your environment; which contains other people who realize your god is fiction.

I always have a hard time articulating why it's wrong to impose changes on others, based entirely on arbitrary and fictitious grounds.

It's wrong to just make shit up and use that invented shit to manufacture justification to impose suffering on others. If you want to impose suffering on yourself, in accordance with whatever fiction you choose to believe, that's fine, because "that's on Your body."

 

[Wilksey]

I always have a hard time articulating why it's wrong to impose changes on others, based entirely on arbitrary and fictitious grounds.

It's wrong to just make shit up and use that invented shit to manufacture justification to impose suffering on others. If you want to impose suffering on yourself, in accordance with whatever fiction you choose to believe, that's fine, because "that's on Your body."

That doesn't apply to religion alone, but ANY dogma that exists without empirical evidence, or DESPITE empirical evidence.

Case in point, pretty much EVERY "social" program we have to help the "poor". Examining the evidence shows that these programs don't solve the problems they intend to solve, but that instead they ENCOURAGE the problems.

Another dogmatic bullshit concept is "equality" among the sexes. Again, examining the empirical evidence concerning the performance of females in certain jobs and or duties clearly shows that they are less efficient and less effective than their male counterparts.

There are countless examples of bullshit being strewn about and implemented as policy that have little to NOTHING to do with ANY religion, and they are just as detrimental to our society.

 

[reasonevangelist]

That doesn't apply to religion alone, but ANY dogma that exists without empirical evidence, or DESPITE empirical evidence.

Case in point, pretty much EVERY "social" program we have to help the "poor". Examining the evidence shows that these programs don't solve the problems they intend to solve, but that instead they ENCOURAGE the problems.

Another dogmatic bullshit concept is "equality" among the sexes. Again, examining the empirical evidence concerning the performance of females in certain jobs and or duties clearly shows that they are less efficient and less effective than their male counterparts.

There are countless examples of bullshit being strewn about and implemented as policy that have little to NOTHING to do with ANY religion, and they are just as detrimental to our society.

Yep! And we need an airtight and succinct way of expressing "why it's wrong to impose fiction-based conditions upon non-consenting others," or the point gets lost in semantics and intellectual dishonesty... because that's typically how those with dogmatic positions go about justifying themselves. They discover they are unjustified and unjustifiable, and so to allow natural progression of logical and reasonable discourse, would only harm their agenda... which leaves them with only the option of disallowing the natural progression of discourse, which will result in the logical dismantling of their dogma.

 

[reasonevangelist]

I've had a few spirited debates with some on this forum that homosexuals have a bit of relief to the discrimination they face because their sexuality isn't able to be known without their disclosure.

This is true, I do not wish to rehash if it is good or not.

But that has gotten me to thinking. Another group that faces discrimination in this country is atheists.

We have no (to my knowledge) atheists in either branch of the legislature, none on the highest court, and the idea of an atheist being able to be elected president is laughable.

I think many conservative Republicans would sooner vote for Obama than someone who is an atheist, at least Muslims believe in a God, is what they undoubtedly would say.

I'm sure some localities and probably state government's have elected officials who are atheists.

It seems most of you here are atheists, and i put myself there as well.

How come we never talk about that?

I think part of the problem here, is that atheists have abandoned the notion that "talking about god" is a worthwhile endeavor. We tend to focus on other, more important things, instead... which has the unintended consequence of allowing theism to run rampant and only trivially checked (as opposed to "unchecked," since it clearly is not entirely unchecked...).

In other words: the only reason it's "important" to talk about being atheist, is due to rampant theism. Without theism, no one would need to live in "the atheist closet."

"Atheism" means "without belief in any god." It is not the same as nihilism, though there is apparently substantial crossover.

And then there's the problem with people claiming to be "agnostic," which really can only result in atheism, since there is still no valid evidence to indicate the existence of any god.

"Agnostic" is not a gray area; Faith is purely binary: you either Believe, or you Do Not. If you "Do Not," then you are Atheist.


However... there exists what are called "assertive atheists," whom "go around insisting there can be no god." While i agree with their interpretation of the lack of evidence, i don't agree that it's impossible for any type of god to exist. I can't agree that "a god" is "impossible," because we cannot test and/or analyze everything in and/or beyond the universe, so we cannot "know" that "there can be no type of god." We can, however, sufficiently scrutinize any "holy text," and acceptably conclude that none of the "God" described in any of those holy texts, can actually exist.

So, when "assertive atheists" insist "there can be no god," what they really mean, is that YOUR god is impossible, according to the very same self-contradictory texts which assert its existence.

"IF" there is "a god," then it is not what any of the "holy texts" describe... which invalidates all currently established theistic religions, and by extension, all of their imposed dogma and conditional restrictions. It is unacceptable and unjustifiable to impose changes upon others, based on fictitious and "debunked" claims... and what's worse, is how the "memetic parasitism" compels those theistic zealots to hold fast to their "Faith," seeing our disagreement and rejection as "a challenge" to be righteously overcome, as if it's their god "testing them."

 

[UncleBuck]

EVERY "social" program we have to help the "poor". Examining the evidence shows that these programs don't solve the problems they intend to solve, but that instead they ENCOURAGE the problems.

if we undid the war on poverty, the poverty rate would more than double overnight.

you are an idiot.

 

[Rob Roy]

You're correct. The only problem is that a country could not function if it was only financed through voluntary contributions.

So we couldn't have roads, schools, military, and all sorts of other things that society needs but no one or group would build due to lack of profit motive.

The sad thing is there is no place for folks like you to go and live in the "state of nature."

Perhaps it is worth it, Rob, because it has existed in fairly recent times and people put in a government every time.

At the risk of sounding like a know-it-all, I declare you wrong again.

Of course there would be roads. The fact that many were built with stolen funds doesn't mean that they wouldn't be built if the funds were not stolen. Also alternative means of transportation could be developed that are more efficient if the regulatory bullshit were eliminated.

Schools funded using involuntary measures are hardly a place to begin teaching children how to properly interact with others. You should research the Prussian School model and how it came to the USA and what the real purpose of it is.

Military isn't needed by "society", it is needed by coercive government to ensure their particular gang turf is protected. Absent a military the threat of nuclear annihilation and "collateral damage" becomes less.

A society without a coercive government is not one without rules, it simply doesn't vest all the authority in one entity that has coercion at its core.

A country as a political entity is not necessary and is counter productive to the advancement of mankind. A country is merely a euphemism for the particular gang that holds sway in a given geographical area.

 

[Rob Roy]

The social contract.

We give up some of our liberties to maintain personal and national security, roads, safety inspections of all sorts, etc, etc.

The supreme court ruled that money is speech, you are giving up a little bit of your liberty to fulfill this contract along other liberties.

It could be suggested that because you relinquished some of your liberty to exist within the contract the tax money was never yours to begin with. Not theft but you fulfilling the contract.

I do not agree with above necessarily, but it is an interesting thought.

The so called social contract has alot of holes in it and is a flawed premise. Any contract that is designed to exist with or without the actual assent of the individual parties held to the contract, is a uni-lateral contract and isn't valid.

 

[Rob Roy]

if we undid the war on poverty, the poverty rate would more than double overnight.

you are an idiot.

If there were a degree in stupid, you would have graduated with honors. High honors even.

 

[Rob Roy]

you sure have a thing with gerbils. Scary shit

I should probably apologize to Uncle Buck and mix it up a little bit. I should call him meathead more often maybe?

You sure have thing for avoiding answering questions about why you endorse making people use their body and property in ways they'd prefer not to.

 

[SmokeyDan]

At the risk of sounding like a know-it-all, I declare you wrong again.

Of course there would be roads. The fact that many were built with stolen funds doesn't mean that they wouldn't be built if the funds were not stolen. Also alternative means of transportation could be developed that are more efficient if the regulatory bullshit were eliminated.

Schools funded using involuntary measures are hardly a place to begin teaching children how to properly interact with others. You should research the Prussian School model and how it came to the USA and what the real purpose of it is.

Military isn't needed by "society", it is needed by coercive government to ensure their particular gang turf is protected. Absent a military the threat of nuclear annihilation and "collateral damage" becomes less.

A society without a coercive government is not one without rules, it simply doesn't vest all the authority in one entity that has coercion at its core.

A country as a political entity is not necessary and is counter productive to the advancement of mankind. A country is merely a euphemism for the particular gang that holds sway in a given geographical area.

Of course there would be roads and schools and services in the wealthy areas.

But not in the other places.

 

[Rob Roy]

Of course there would be roads and schools and services in the wealthy areas.

But not in the other places.

Of course there would be roads and schools and services in the wealthy areas.

But not in the other places.

First of all, a "service" is not something that is provided via extortion. A real service is an exchange of value for value on an agreed to and mutual basis.

Absent government it is very likely that the standard of living for many people would rise as there would be less energy spent on complying with inane edicts, waste, parasitism and war and more energy spent on providing real goods and services people actually want.

Absent some coercive government protectionist regulations the modes of transportation would likely change as well. Flying cars and other modes would probably have been developed enough that the economies of scale would have made them feasible to own for many people.

Of course this website would likely be different too as the need for being secretive about weed would vanish if people were allowed to truly own themselves.

 

[SmokeyDan]

First of all, a "service" is not something that is provided via extortion. A real service is an exchange of value for value on an agreed to and mutual basis.

Absent government it is very likely that the standard of living for many people would rise as there would be less energy spent on complying with inane edicts, waste, parasitism and war and more energy spent on providing real goods and services people actually want.

Absent some coercive government protectionist regulations the modes of transportation would likely change as well. Flying cars and other modes would probably have been developed enough that the economies of scale would have made them feasible to own for many people.

Of course this website would likely be different too as the need for being secretive about weed would vanish if people were allowed to truly own themselves.

You're not wrong, Rob.

But the real world doesn't work that way.

If we had no coercive government, we would have coercive individuals, warlords.

The rule of law is favorable in all circumstances to the rule of man.

Your utopia has existed at no point in recorded human history.

If it did it would not be pretty

 

[UncleBuck]

I should probably apologize to Uncle Buck and mix it up a little bit. I should call him meathead more often maybe?

You sure have thing for avoiding answering questions about why you endorse making people use their body and property in ways they'd prefer not to.

so you'd prefer not to serve a sandwich to a paying customer who happens to be black?

that's pretty racist.

 

[Rob Roy]

so you'd prefer not to serve a sandwich to a paying customer who happens to be black?

that's pretty racist.

I'd prefer to have you and nobody else determine how you use your body and your justly acquired property. As long as you are deciding what to do with your property and not the property of others you should be free to shit on your bathroom floor.
Freedom to shit on your own floor, but not the floor of others is what I have for a motto in my "Utopia".

I've said many times race is irrelevant to me when it comes to who I'll transact with, but if it is important to you, I'm not going to force you to associate with anybody you'd prefer not to.

By the way Meathead, on a different topic what's your opinion of Jordan of the Islands seeds?

 

[UncleBuck]

I've said many times race is irrelevant to me

then why all the racial slurs and the rigid stance opposing civil rights?

i'm having a hard time believing you.

 

[Rob Roy]

You're not wrong, Rob.

But the real world doesn't work that way.

If we had no coercive government, we would have coercive individuals, warlords.

The rule of law is favorable in all circumstances to the rule of man.

Your utopia has existed at no point in recorded human history.

If it did it would not be pretty

The level of destruction and forced control that a world of coercive governments can accomplish is far greater than what would result in the absence of coercive governments as a standard.

I am not advocating a world of "no rules". I am advocating that the first rule should not be that coercion is the basis for a systemic norm, which is the present paradigm. Laws that create crimes where there are none will always result from the present coercive systems.

A serious thought for you....You might consider reading a couple of books. The first is Healing Our World, by Dr. Mary Ruart. The other is The Market For Liberty, by Linda and Morris Tannehill. Peace.

 

[greenlikemoney]

 

[MaleFeminist]

I'd prefer to have you and nobody else determine how you use your body and your justly acquired property. As long as you are deciding what to do with your property and not the property of others you should be free to shit on your bathroom floor.
Freedom to shit on your own floor, but not the floor of others is what I have for a motto in my "Utopia".

I've said many times race is irrelevant to me when it comes to who I'll transact with, but if it is important to you, I'm not going to force you to associate with anybody you'd prefer not to.

By the way Meathead, on a different topic what's your opinion of Jordan of the Islands seeds?

"Justly acquired property" is a term that white men use to refer to things that spring from Mother Earth that they supposedly "own." The bounty that springs from our mother belongs to all of her children, not just thugs like you that think they can own the Earth.

We were meant to live communally and in balance with our ancient mother. All wars are based upon trying to take "property" from others.

Who dwelt upon this land before you "bought" it? What happened to those people? Who killed them? Who raped their womyn and children? How is this a just means of acquisition?

You are a rapist.

 

[Rob Roy]

then why all the racial slurs and the rigid stance opposing civil rights?

i'm having a hard time believing you.

I don't believe I slur people racially and if I have it's not my intention. My hen house has many flavors of chicken and they all taste good.

"Civil rights" are a false construct in that they purport to "solve" one problem, but in that process they end up creating another.... government does those things often. Forcing people to associate is the flip side of not allowing people to associate, even those that wish to. Human interactions should be on a consensual basis or not at all, it is how peace is fostered.

Nobody has a right to make others serve them, but everybody has the right to be left alone if that is their choice. All word games aside, I think you are misguided when you believe by violating a persons right to control their own property you are accomplishing something positive.