"So, now you give the devil benefit of law."
"Yes, what would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?"
"Yes! I'd cut down every law in England to do that."
"Oh? And when the last law was down and the devil turned round on you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"
~ Robert Bolt?
It's a great film. It was required in Catholic school that we watch it.
Of course Thomas Moore made his living (and ending) "executing" the King's laws. So the law didn't really work out for him.
Last edited by Kshartle on Tue Jan 28, 2014 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Simonjester wrote:
i suspect"whatever exactly that might be" refers to the differences in your belief in a NAP eschaton and his in a christian one. or another way of saying "what ever form it may take"
Simon, you are correct in your interpretation of "whatever exactly that might be". Thanks for clarifying that for me.
What's your basis for saying that I don't know what that means? I agree that you don't.
..
Your statment where you said "whatever exactly that might be" is the basis for me saying you don't know what that means.
i suspect"whatever exactly that might be" refers to the differences in your belief in a NAP eschaton and his in a christian one. or another way of saying "what ever form it may take"
If that's the case then my mistake. I took "We're all pre-eschaton (whatever exactly that might be)".....to mean he didn't know what that meant.
I think it's easy to see where my confusion came from, the language in the sentence leaves significant room for interpetation.
Regardless....how does being "pre-eschaton" prove that we agree the initiation of force agaisnt other people is necessary?
Kshartle wrote:I think it's easy to see where my confusion came from, the language in the sentence leaves significant room for interpetation.
Sorry about the unclear wording.
Kshartle wrote:Regardless....how does being "pre-eschaton" prove that we agree the initiation of force agaisnt other people is necessary?
Did you ever read the other post, the one I just linked to? It describes that pretty well, I think. You yourself say that government is a symptom, a result, not the cause, of the problem, and that only once children are raised without being "hit" will force go away. So... Please go work on making that happen, instead of advocating for a utopia which you believe to be unachievable until that happens.
Kshartle wrote:I think it's easy to see where my confusion came from, the language in the sentence leaves significant room for interpetation.
Sorry about the unclear wording. No problem...it happens
Kshartle wrote:Regardless....how does being "pre-eschaton" prove that we agree the initiation of force agaisnt other people is necessary?
Did you ever read the other post, the one I just linked to? It describes that pretty well, I think. You yourself say that government is a symptom, a result, not the cause, of the problem, and that only once children are raised without being "hit" will force go away. So... Please go work on making that happen, instead of advocating for a utopia which you believe to be unachievable until that happens. I don't beleive in any utopia. I'm sorry for bouncing into the political discussions where people are debating how the president can or can't help us and pointing out that he can't for a significant reason. It's difficult for me to abstain from them because the notion of the president helping us seems completely laughable. I tried...but then Moda said he thought it was impossible for the president to do it and I had to agree.
Last edited by Kshartle on Tue Jan 28, 2014 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Xan wrote:
Did you ever read the other post, the one I just linked to? It describes that pretty well, I think. You yourself say that government is a symptom, a result, not the cause, of the problem, and that only once children are raised without being "hit" will force go away. So... Please go work on making that happen, instead of advocating for a utopia which you believe to be unachievable until that happens.
immanentize the eschaton!! (bring it about here on earth)
(tongue in cheek) it is a phrase commonly used a pejorative reference to certain utopian projects, such as socialism, communism, and transhumanism.
That is a fun phrase, isn't it? I think it was coined by William F Buckley.
You've already proven yourself the best mod here. No offense to the men who made it all possible. The splitting of the thread and the poll was a great way to do your job while lightening the mood.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
You've already proven yourself the best mod here. No offense to the men who made it all possible. The splitting of the thread and the poll was a great way to do your job while lightening the mood.
I thought modding was supposed to be a thankless job.
Well moda....I'll give you credit for dissproving that theory at least, hah!
l82start wrote:
immanentize the eschaton!! (bring it about here on earth)
(tongue in cheek) it is a phrase commonly used a pejorative reference to certain utopian projects, such as socialism, communism, and transhumanism.
That is a fun phrase, isn't it? I think it was coined by William F Buckley.
Will that be like when Liam Neesan (Zeus) orders "Release the Krakken!"?
For the record, Liam or Morgan Freeman should probably play God in every movie from here on out.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
Please, man, please! You're the most Utopian person I've ever come across, alive or dead. I'm not sure why you'd deny it. I don't think there's anything about Utopia that by definition means it's unattainable. If you believe in a Utopia that you think is attainable (and you do), then admit it.
Kshartle wrote:
It's a great film. It was required in Catholic school that we watch it.
Of course Thomas Moore made his living (and ending) "executing" the King's laws. So the law didn't really work out for him.
So what are you going to do once the law is removed and big business starts oppressing you?
How will they do that?
Can you seriously not imagine a dictator filling in the void left by the government? That is a lot of power simply sitting on the table. You build yourself a little army and you easily have control of the country (this happens all the time)...or at least a civil war with the winner writing history and making all the rules.
I really don't want to get into a huge debate, since I don't enjoy them. I mainly wanted to add that video clip into the conversation.
Please, man, please! You're the most Utopian person I've ever come across, alive or dead. I'm not sure why you'd deny it. I don't think there's anything about Utopia that by definition means it's unattainable. If you believe in a Utopia that you think is attainable (and you do), then admit it.
Scour my posts for the word utopia and you'll see I am constantly telling you guys that there will never be a utopia, no matter how many times you bring it up.
Simonjester wrote:
the Nap is a "semi utopian" idea in that "if "everyone was enlightened enough to live up to it, the world wouldn't suffer the infliction of force by government, or other men.. unlike most utopian schemes it is one you cant force on others... without violating it.
You've already proven yourself the best mod here. No offense to the men who made it all possible. The splitting of the thread and the poll was a great way to do your job while lightening the mood.
I thought modding was supposed to be a thankless job.
Well moda....I'll give you credit for dissproving that theory at least, hah!
Ha. Nice one. For real.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
Gosso wrote:
So what are you going to do once the law is removed and big business starts oppressing you?
How will they do that?
Can you seriously not imagine a dictator filling in the void left by the government? That is a lot of power simply sitting on the table. You build yourself a little army and you easily have control of the country (this happens all the time)...or at least a civil war with the winner writing history and making all the rules.
I really don't want to get into a huge debate, since I don't enjoy them. I mainly wanted to add that video clip into the conversation.
No thats ok. You're just arguing that we need government to prevent worse government. This argument doesn't require a huge debate to see that, as others have pointed out.....your worse case scenario is the present reality.
You haven't been a part of all the other discussions. I think we've at least overcome this argument with nearly everyone who accepts the role that the initiation of force plays in our lives. I've heard from some of them...TennPa being the last one I can recall...saying that the end of government will be the effect....not the cause of a better world.
At any rate.....I'm not interested in back tracking the discussion. I'm over the governemnt thing. It's not the cause of our problems....it's the symptom of them.....as I've said on about 100 or more occasions here.
Kshartle wrote:Scour my posts for the word utopia and you'll see I am constantly telling you guys that there will never be a utopia, no matter how many times you bring it up.
You're certainly right that there won't be one. All you've demonstrated, though, is that you don't like to apply the word to your own philosophy. If the shoe fits, go ahead and wear it.
Kshartle wrote:Scour my posts for the word utopia and you'll see I am constantly telling you guys that there will never be a utopia, no matter how many times you bring it up.
You're certainly right that there won't be one. All you've demonstrated, though, is that you don't like to apply the word to your own philosophy. If the shoe fits, go ahead and wear it.
Kshartle wrote:At any rate.....I'm not interested in back tracking the discussion. I'm over the governemnt thing. It's not the cause of our problems....it's the symptom of them.....as I've said on about 100 or more occasions here.
So PLEASE stop lecturing us about what government should or shouldn't do, and go start creating your ideal society someplace.
Kshartle wrote:At any rate.....I'm not interested in back tracking the discussion. I'm over the governemnt thing. It's not the cause of our problems....it's the symptom of them.....as I've said on about 100 or more occasions here.
So PLEASE stop lecturing us about what government should or shouldn't do, and go start creating your ideal society someplace.
I would never lecture about what government should do.
Compare and contrast with my idea of a private society; I think a lot of things would still be shit, and people would still be violent and greedy, but simply that the systemic properties of the society's institutions would tend to discourage these things to a greater extent that contemporary government societies. It's better (IMHO ), but hardly utopic.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Pointedstick wrote:Compare and contrast with my idea of a private society; I think a lot of things would still be shit, and people would still be violent and greedy, but simply that the systemic properties of the society's institutions would tend to discourage these things to a greater extent that contemporary government societies. It's better (IMHO ), but hardly utopic.
Agreed, PS. As with all reasonable theories about organizing society, yours takes human nature and behavior into account. I think many of us have read your ideas with great interest, and I'm personally impressed with your ability to listen to people poke holes your work, and you go back and try to adjust your theory to fit the facts. Not everyone can do that.
Xan wrote:
Agreed, PS. As with all reasonable theories about organizing society, yours takes human nature and behavior into account. I think many of us have read your ideas with great interest, and I'm personally impressed with your ability to listen to people poke holes your work, and you go back and try to adjust your theory to fit the facts. Not everyone can do that.
Thanks! I do try. And it's sometimes humbling. It's tough now that I'm writing the chapters full of really difficult problems and very strong arguments in favor of at least some government. But at the minimum it's been a very stimulating intellectual exercise.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
You've already proven yourself the best mod here. No offense to the men who made it all possible. The splitting of the thread and the poll was a great way to do your job while lightening the mood.
I thought modding was supposed to be a thankless job.
Well moda....I'll give you credit for dissproving that theory at least, hah!
Ha. Nice one. For real.
Holy smokes, Batman, this is at least two times within a couple of days that I find myself heartily agreeing with you Moda! Am I in another dimension or are you? Maybe there really are alternate universes connected by our consciousness. By the way, was it you or someone else suggested reading "Quantum Physics, Near Death Experiences, Eternal Consciousness, Religion, and the Human Soul"? I am about half way through it ....... really, really, really one of the most bizarre things I've ever read that is purported to be true.
... Mountaineer
“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Romans 6:23
