Politics And Religion

[All Else Failed]

Politics IS a religion. It's nothing more than an irrational superstition about 'nations' and impossible collectivist groups like 'society', inculcated so the real acting-existing entity (all us individuals) to sacrifice upon its altar to this god - of course, the state (government) 'represents' this god, just as the churches get all the obediance and money that is allegedly earmarked for 'god'. One can't 'seperate church and state' because the state is a church, with its own priests (politicians) and theologians (intellectuals) and evangelists (popular media). All the inquisitions, forced conversions and religious wars are still here, only now they're done in the name of democracy, or Socialism, or Lebensraum or whatever.

Religion demands belief in supernatural happenings


government does not.


But, I guess you could say a THEOCRACY is a religious form of government.

 

[LiberalVichy]

Religion demands belief in supernatural happenings

"Robbery can make you richer"
"Extortion can protect you"
These are logically contradictory statements that cannot be deemed anything other than mystical or supernatural. That's not even getting into the minutia of things like Keyens and the like. Also, government is always making statements about 'America' or 'the arabs' or 'our security', all of this implying nonsensical collectivist nouns. Society does not exist. Groups do not exist. They are nothing more than the composite of an individual. Nations cannot have a destiny, a vision, a well-being. Only individuals can. Collective-groupings which mean anything except 'a delination of individuals' are magical nonsense, and it is clear that politicoes and their pseudo-intellectual justifiers cannot be using the proper term since it is obvious that one cannot make 'America' safe if doing so involves infringing upon the property, health and freedom of individuals within America.

 

[All Else Failed]

"Robbery can make you richer"
"Extortion can protect you"
These are logically contradictory statements that cannot be deemed anything other than mystical or supernatural. That's not even getting into the minutia of things like Keyens and the like. Also, government is always making statements about 'America' or 'the arabs' or 'our security', all of this implying nonsensical collectivist nouns. Society does not exist. Groups do not exist. They are nothing more than the composite of an individual. Nations cannot have a destiny, a vision, a well-being. Only individuals can. Collective-groupings which mean anything except 'a delination of individuals' are magical nonsense, and it is clear that politicoes and their pseudo-intellectual justifiers cannot be using the proper term since it is obvious that one cannot make 'America' safe if doing so involves infringing upon the property, health and freedom of individuals within America.

Those aren't supernatural, by definition anyways.

I see your logic though.

I totally agree with your statements about government propaganda. Its frightening.


I disagree, however, with your claim that groups and societies not existing. Its in our biology to gather in societies, and in groups. Plus you can group people in categories based on certain things, as well.

 

[LiberalVichy]

I disagree, however, with your claim that groups and societies not existing.

You can't, if you understand the meaning of the words. I don't say that people don't socialize or influence one another, what I am saying is that the only beings that have desires, make decisions and take actions are individual human beings.

In reply to Parka:
Democracy is a fucking stupid idea, probably the worst possible political organization. I wish Americans would stop lumping 'democracy' in their brain with political liberalism (in the classic sense), since the two are not only un-identical but antithetical in tendency.

Anyway, I do not care enough to argue with someone who views anarchy as though it were Carmageddon.

 

[All Else Failed]

You can't, if you understand the meaning of the words. I don't say that people don't socialize or influence one another, what I am saying is that the only beings that have desires, make decisions and take actions are individual human beings.

In reply to Parka:
Democracy is a fucking stupid idea, probably the worst possible political organization. I wish Americans would stop lumping 'democracy' in their brain with political liberalism (in the classic sense), since the two are not only un-identical but antithetical in tendency.

Anyway, I do not care enough to argue with someone who views anarchy as though it were Carmageddon.

Those desires can be held by an entire group of people though. Of course individuals are the ones spurring those desires on in the group, but once people of the same brand come together with the same ideas, you can't ignore the fact that the group takes on a life of it's own.

 

[Peter Parka]

In reply to Parka:
Democracy is a fucking stupid idea, probably the worst possible political organization. I wish Americans would stop lumping 'democracy' in their brain with political liberalism (in the classic sense), since the two are not only un-identical but antithetical in tendency.

So how would you get people to live your way then? Force them to?:unsure:

 

[All Else Failed]

dear anarchists: I want your society to build me a national highway system, hydro-electric plants and hospitals.

 

[LiberalVichy]

dear anarchists: I want your society to build me a national highway system, hydro-electric plants and hospitals.

Pay for it.

 

[All Else Failed]

Pay for it.

"But I don't want to!" said the anarchist masses.

 

[LiberalVichy]

So you won't get it. Apparently you preferred something else more. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is hardly civilized conduct.

To put it another way, I'd rather not have highways than have robbery viewed as a social service.

 

[All Else Failed]

So you won't get it. Apparently you preferred something else more. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is hardly civilized conduct.

lol so no hospitals? Electricity? A means to transport vital materials to people who need it? Good luck.

 

[LiberalVichy]

Only if you assume people don't value hospitals and electricity which, given the history of private hospitals and electrical plants (and the obvious desire people have for these things) is pretty absurd. And, if people didn't want these things, then it's obviously destructive to force them to build them. There is no standard of value except what individual human beings value.

 

[Peter Parka]

So how exactly are people going to organize this without any organization which is essentially what a government is?

 

[All Else Failed]

Only if you assume people don't value hospitals and electricity which, given the history of private hospitals and electrical plants (and the obvious desire people have for these things) is pretty absurd. And, if people didn't want these things, then it's obviously destructive to force them to build them. There is no standard of value except what individual human beings value.

Good luck finding surgeons that didn't get to go to those fancy government funded schools to work at those hospitals. You're also assuming the the average layman would know what is necessarily important to pay for at the time. I doubt farmer john would throw money at your hospital if he thinks paying for a new grain silo is more important.

 

[All Else Failed]

So how exactly are people going to organize this without any organization which is essentially what a government is?

Organize? That would mean more learned people would eventually direct other on what to do! Thats baaaad.

 

[LiberalVichy]

Surgeons existed long before government schools, and government school increases coincide with a lowering of literacy and knowledge in a host of areas.
But this is minutia. You're arguing from a position whose basic premises are untenable. Thus for me to debate you on such terms would be not only pointless, but rather nonsensical from my perspective.

The notion that the government introduces 'organization' is nonsense, and PepsiCo is perfectly organized, but they don't shoot anybody or steal my money.

 

[Peter Parka]

Surgeons existed long before government schools, and government school increases coincide with a lowering of literacy and knowledge in a host of areas.

Which areas exactly?

 

[LiberalVichy]

History, science, philosophy, political theory. It's all over the tests, especially the international ones which aren't predicated upon protecting the reputation of these incompetent lying hacks in the school system.

 

[All Else Failed]

Surgeons existed long before government schools, and government school increases coincide with a lowering of literacy and knowledge in a host of areas.
But this is minutia. You're arguing from a position whose basic premises are untenable. Thus for me to debate you on such terms would be not only pointless, but rather nonsensical from my perspective.

The notion that the government introduces 'organization' is nonsense, and PepsiCo is perfectly organized, but they don't shoot anybody or steal my money.

Of course they did, but through history and the cooperation of scientists, scientific organizations and governments giving them large amounts of money to research, they have gotten better. health and medical things have gotten better.

Of course governments organize. If I know about the fine points of fishing, and I have 5 people that do not, and we have to catch fish, I am the one who will tell them what to do to catch fish. I have just established a government. I know what to do, so I organize and I teach. I'm not saying this is the same as governments that run countries, but I am running a government all the same.

 

[LiberalVichy]

You see, from the perspective of economics, what your saying is literally impossible. That is a fundamental roadblock in this discussion. Again, there is nothing wrong with ignorance in these areas - I certainly don't know a damn thing about trout fishing or meterology - but these fields are prerequisites for meaningful discussion of political theory and one should not hold a vociforous opinion on a subject when one is admittedly ignorant of vast tracts of information which bear upon it.