A confession

[oyarde]

Frustrated ? Yes , as Pete said , you get used to it . I have even learned to use it to my advantage. Superior or better ? I know I am better than no others..... I can though do math though , I also have principle and no fear. In the end I will be content , I am willing to do what is needed to keep mine .

 

[Christian Liberty]

I think you're expecting others to change too quickly.

Be true to your convictions, and honest about them when talking to others, but tactful too. Don't harp on things you already know are going to cause strife. And don't take responsibility for making everyone else change their minds.

I do think that we ought to see more churches, consortiums of churches/denominations, evangelical publishers, magazines, and parachurch organizations, that integrate anti-state tenets into the central points of their doctrine. But the process of developing this is a very lengthy one.

All that said, some churches are relatively better or worse than others. There comes a point where it's wise to leave one for another.

That's kind of what I'm getting at.

With regards to the "expecting people to change too quickly"... I see your point. But would we say the same thing if we were talking about homosexuality or adultery? Would that be something to agree to disagree on? If not, than why murder or theft?

That's essentially what I'm trying to rationalize.

At what point is it wise to leave?

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

I don't understand in the slightest why people are lecturing FF for feeling superior. It's an appropriate emotion toward the intolerance we face in statists.

But I guess it's a question of who judges a mans superiority... and as this thread quickly turned in to a religious debate... we have an answer for many of you.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I don't understand in the slightest why people are lecturing FF for feeling superior. It's an appropriate emotion toward the intolerance we face in statists.

Many of them certainly feel superior to us. "love it or leave it" and all that. Or getting into the "who's more 'patriotic' contest." One person in my world politics class complained because someone didn't take their hat off during the national anthem. If that's not feeling superior, I don't know what is.

All that said, I understand that's not really an excuse either. If its wrong, its wrong, even if other people do it to you.

But I guess it's a question of who judges a mans superiority... and as this thread quickly turned in to a religious debate... we have an answer for many of you.

I have a lot of stuff going on in my head. Ultimately I feel like this is a question of morality, not simply who knows what set of facts. Our morality is fundamentally different from theirs. Ultimately, I understand that that is something that's obviously going to have some religious subtext to it, but its not explicitly religious. I posted it here because I don't really want to debate the merits of various churches other than how it relates to political morality and I didn't want to limit the thread topic to only religious people. This thread also isn't necessarily about me, although the OP is. Anyone else who feels the same or a similar way is welcome to make the thread about them too. The general topic is "Is it wrong for us to feel superior?" And in what sense?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Be true to your convictions, and honest about them when talking to others, but tactful too. Don't harp on things you already know are going to cause strife. And don't take responsibility for making everyone else change their minds.

I can try to be tactful, but some (most) statists get offended by the liberty-minded principles, or at the very least find them inconceivable, even if you present the principles in a soft-toned and non-confrontational way. The other person can respond far more harshly than I present the point and they'll still win the people around them just because frankly, most people are sheep. Which is what bugs me so much, I know I have the truth and they don't, but they have the numbers.

If a Christian thought homosexuality was OK, and that was a popular opinion in his church, would you "not bring it up because its too confrontational"? Or would you get out of the whore church? Are churches that support the police and the military, or worse, have members in good standing that participate in those professions, any better? Why or why not?

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

I think you're expecting others to change too quickly.

Be true to your convictions, and honest about them when talking to others, but tactful too. Don't harp on things you already know are going to cause strife. And don't take responsibility for making everyone else change their minds.

I do think that we ought to see more churches, consortiums of churches/denominations, evangelical publishers, magazines, and parachurch organizations, that integrate anti-state tenets into the central points of their doctrine. But the process of developing this is a very lengthy one.

All that said, some churches are relatively better or worse than others. There comes a point where it's wise to leave one for another.

I wish churches wouldn't be associated with politics. But it's even worse when it's bad politics.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I wish churches wouldn't be associated with politics. But it's even worse when it's bad politics.

I don't really agree with that first statement. Well, I sort of do. If you mean that churches shouldn't be involved in electoral politics, I agree. Churches shouldn't be telling people how, or even if, they should vote. That's not their job.

But morality is the church's concern, at least for its own members, and that falls into the political realm sometimes. The church should be opposed to unjust war (murder), redistribution of wealth (theft), gun control (theft, denial of the God-given right to self-defense, kidnapping), Prohibition of drugs (theft, kidnapping) police abuse (theft, kidnapping, murder, etc.) and other similar issues just as much as they oppose abortion, homosexuality, or adultery. The fact that they generally don't is in fact a huge motivation for this thread.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I wish churches wouldn't be associated with politics. But it's even worse when it's bad politics.

Did you know that there was a time in US history when the various states had official religions? Any time one makes a value judgement(good/bad/indifferent), he uses his religious convictions in some way. Such is the nature of man. Anthropologists agree with this.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Must Christians Follow the Teachings of Jesus?

 

[Sanguine]

I find the majority of western libertarians to be insufferable advocates of the privileged over those that aren't. They claim to be "for the people", but neglect to say "the people" are the elite. Ayn Rand killed Hayek, and the honesty of Adam Smith were swept under the carpet. Groups like ALEC that claim to be free market are just pro-intervention when it fucks over the competition of those that fund or administrated them.

Honestly, it also seems that the intellectuals within the movement are now replaced with dogmatic thinking, and critical thinking is dying. I developed my beliefs off of people like Friedrich Hayek not as influences, but as critics. For every ideology (not just libertarians) now, no one thinks of the game of politics and just makes bogeymen out of "them". Now, it's just that "us and them" mentality with everyone. If I mention that I'm a socialist, I get bombarded with comments on how I love Stalin or whatever else, when in reality I'm a lot closer to people like George Orwell. The Democrats and Republicans will attack each other despite having little policy difference, and even my fellow socialists have gotten over the top with making conspiracy theories about how everyone is out to get them.

My answer would just be to stop seeing yourself as superior and more as a educator or a critic if that's how you feel. Honestly, that's why I'm here, because I want to be the kind of critic that shapes an opposing movement into being more honest.

 

[oyarde]

I don't understand in the slightest why people are lecturing FF for feeling superior. It's an appropriate emotion toward the intolerance we face in statists.

But I guess it's a question of who judges a mans superiority... and as this thread quickly turned in to a religious debate... we have an answer for many of you.

I would never lecture for feeling superior . I like to think of it as differently , maybe as just more enlightened .

 

[erowe1]

I find the majority of western libertarians to be insufferable advocates of the privileged over those that aren't. They claim to be "for the people", but neglect to say "the people" are the elite. Ayn Rand killed Hayek, and the honesty of Adam Smith were swept under the carpet. Groups like ALEC that claim to be free market are just pro-intervention when it fucks over the competition of those that fund or administrated them.

Here's how often the word "libertarian" appears on the ALEC website.
http://www.alec.org/?s=libertarian

 

[Sanguine]

Here's how often the word "libertarian" appears on the ALEC website.
http://www.alec.org/?s=libertarian

And yet on the banner it says "free markets" and "limited government".

 

[Ronin Truth]

And yet on the banner it says "free markets" and "limited government".

I learned long ago to not trust a site by its banner.

 

[fisharmor]

Is it wrong to feel morally superior these people? Do you feel morally superior to these people? What do you do about it? How do you stay sane?

You're having a natural reaction post conversion.
Just wait, it gets much more interesting later on.

Two months ago I finally realized something like 60-70% of the people on this forum are not only either totally incapable of following the arguments that led you and I to where we are or are willfully ignoring them... but they're also perfectly willing to kick our teeth out if it means they get their own little personal statist Nirvana.

My advice to you is this: take care of yourself. Every time you get worked up about something political, shrug, say "fuck it" out loud, and go do something productive. Or at least drink a beer or something.

You're not going to get through to them. I'm not going to get through to them.
Those that come around will be too few in number to do anything other than fuck up some poser's election plans.

It's the only tool we have. Throw your monkey wrenches and then smoke 'em if you got 'em.

 

[Sanguine]

I learned long ago to not trust a site by its banner.

Good, but my point is precisely that it's untrustworthy.

 

[erowe1]

I wish churches wouldn't be associated with politics.

I don't see it as a possibility to purge politics from the Christian faith without apostatizing from it. Christianity is a political movement. To remove politics from it is to remove the political Gospel of Christ crucified, that is an anointed king suffering the ruling regime's penalty for insurgency, his kingship, his lordship, his authority over all heaven and earth, the heavenly citizenship of his loyal subjects, many of whom shed their blood at the hands of statist pretenders who have claimed to themselves authority that rightfully belongs to Christ alone, who knew what too few Christians today do, that one cannot be both a Herod-ian and a Christ-ian.

Acts 15:5-7

5 But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.

6 And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;

7 Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.

 

[mosquitobite]

I don't view it as a superiority thing, when people disagree with me then I view as more of a challenge. A challenge of improving how I convey my views in a more convincing manner or maybe to increase my own knowledge.

So maybe you can look at it that way, viewing yourself as a superior person either intellectually or morally does nothing to spread your views and probably turns people off if people view you as smug/know-it-all. I've learned from experience, it can certainly be frustrating.

This is how I see it as well!

Going based on your username thought, it's kinda funny

 

[Christian Liberty]

You're having a natural reaction post conversion.
Just wait, it gets much more interesting later on.

What do you mean by that last part?

Two months ago I finally realized something like 60-70% of the people on this forum are not only either totally incapable of following the arguments that led you and I to where we are or are willfully ignoring them... but they're also perfectly willing to kick our teeth out if it means they get their own little personal statist Nirvana.

I haven't noticed this at all. Well, you're probably right that 60-70% of people here aren't anarchists. Its not really the minarchists that I feel superior too, although I admit I can't really intellectually justify minarchism (I knew this when I was a minarchist too, but I thought anarcho-capitalism was impossible so I tried... hey, it takes us all a certain amount of time to admit that everything we thought we knew was wrong). Ron Paul isn't an anarchist either, and I'd consider it a life well done if I could have ten percent of the impact he's had.

Its the people who seem to lack any kind of logical moral reasoning that I feel superior to. Maybe that's wrong, but I can't help it.

My advice to you is this: take care of yourself. Every time you get worked up about something political, shrug, say "fuck it" out loud, and go do something productive. Or at least drink a beer or something.

Advocating illegal activity is probably ill advised (Yes, I'm kidding here.)

You're not going to get through to them. I'm not going to get through to them.
Those that come around will be too few in number to do anything other than fuck up some poser's election plans.

It's the only tool we have. Throw your monkey wrenches and then smoke 'em if you got 'em.

I tend to agree, but it still bugs me. The hypocrisy is starting to annoy me.

Some of erowe's points are making me think. Maybe anti-statists aren't numerous enough to win elections, but maybe we are numerous enough to start our own churches, and "Matthew 18" those who continue to justify blatant immorality while calling themselves "Christians"?

Erowe, I'm curious what your thoughts are on this. Does Matthew 18 apply to those who fight in unjust wars or enforce unjust laws? Could it even apply to those who unrepentently justify those actions? If not, does it not apply to those who continue to justify homosexuality as acceptable? If this isn't a valid comparison, why isn't it?

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

I don't see it as a possibility to purge politics from the Christian faith without apostatizing from it. Christianity is a political movement. To remove politics from it is to remove the political Gospel of Christ crucified, that is an anointed king suffering the ruling regime's penalty for insurgency, his kingship, his lordship, his authority over all heaven and earth, the heavenly citizenship of his loyal subjects, many of whom shed their blood at the hands of statist pretenders who have claimed to themselves authority that rightfully belongs to Christ alone, who knew what too few Christians today do, that one cannot be both a Herod-ian and a Christ-ian.

Acts 15:5-7

I understand what you're talking about, I was just referring to churches that preach politics rather than the gospel.