Vets have broken down barricades at Lincoln Memorial and are carrying them to the White House

[A Son of Liberty]

As I said, I'm not sure there's much of a real committment to liberty and its implications even here.

Sacred Cows.

This is what you get when you mix liberty with party politics.

 

[tod evans]

As I said, I'm not sure there's much of a real committment to liberty and its implications even here.

Sacred Cows.

This is what you get when you mix liberty with party politics.

Whether you agree with veterans or not, it was veterans who tore down those damn "barrycades".

 

[Christian Liberty]

Sacred Cows.

This is what you get when you mix liberty with party politics.

I honestly expect some of this from politicians like Rand Paul, Amash, etc.

I didn't expect it from the people here.

The more I read the more I become convinced that Biblical Christianity, including its political implications (voluntarism in its purest form, or at least something very, very close) is the only thing that can do anything for this country. I'm beginning to see the futility of any kind of political debate with people that don't recognize the auhtority of the Bible. Whether they admit it or not, they are ultimately relativists, and have no choice but to be such.

Whether you agree with veterans or not, it was veterans who tore down those damn "barrycades".

Not that I support putting those up, but again, the only reason for this civil disobedience is based around statism. There's nothing libertarian about it.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

As I said, I'm not sure there's much of a real committment to liberty and its implications even here.

This coming from the one who undoubtedly receives and wastes tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars a year. The responsibility of a plutocratic, global currency, of which you'll have even less control of than you do the Fed will rest at your feet (and countless others) and you don't even see the writing on the wall. A small chance in hell that when the dollar finally collapses (which is apparently what you're working for, or your justification for enjoying the plunder afforded to you) we will revert to a gold standard and free markets. No, there will be a cry to further socialize everything. It's odd to me that you criticize Ted Cruz and the rest as un-pure or that you cast stones so quickly yet at the same time are subsidized by the government. A little hypocritical, wouldn't you say, for you to post what you did?

I think I've heard it all now.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Whether you agree with veterans or not, it was veterans who tore down those damn "barrycades".

Which veterans? THESE veterans?

Those "damn 'barrycades'" are nothing more than cattle gates; and these cows are just pissed off that they can't graze in one particular field.

Don't get me wrong - I'm glad they're riled up. But I'm willing to bet that a solid majority of these folks wouldn't be wranglin' barricades had they been erected by Mitt Romney, around the MLK and FDR memorials.

Red State! Blue State! Just don't you dare say No State!

I honestly expect some of this from politicians like Rand Paul, Amash, etc.

I didn't expect it from the people here.

The more I read the more I become convinced that Biblical Christianity, including its political implications (voluntarism in its purest form, or at least something very, very close) is the only thing that can do anything for this country. I'm beginning to see the futility of any kind of political debate with people that don't recognize the auhtority of the Bible. Whether they admit it or not, they are ultimately relativists, and have no choice but to be such.

My guiding, foundational principles are rooted in my faith in God, but I do not believe that it is impossible to be on solid ground without faith.

Not that I support putting those up, but again, the only reason for this civil disobedience is based around statism. There's nothing libertarian about it.

Agreed. :thumbs:

 

[shane77m]

A piece of bacon hits a protestor in the back of the head. At the :38 mark.

 

[tod evans]

Don't get me wrong - I'm glad they're riled up.

Me too!

Only thing is I don't question the "purity" of their motivation.

Pissed off at government and acting on it gets one response from government.

I'd like to see several other sub-sets of society get pissed enough to do something, even if it's only tearing down "cattle gates"

 

[Christian Liberty]

My guiding, foundational principles are rooted in my faith in God, but I do not believe that it is impossible to be on solid ground without faith.

You can stumble on the right conclusions on certain issues, as many of our atheist anarcho-capitalist friends have done (Rothbard, Block, etc.) but let's say an atheist doesn't. How do you convince them they are wrong? In fact, if there wasn't a God, would statism even be wrong? Why? After all, its just formulated by natural chemical processes, in that case. Darwinism leaves no valid arguments for anything being right or wrong.

Most times when you ask an atheist where his morals come from, its either his own brain, or majority opinion. Neither of which actually mean anything.

I was told by an atheist student in my world politcs class recently taht "There are a lot of good reasons for feeling attached to your State. Your State takes care of you, defends you, provides for you, etc." I wanted to puke, I still do a week later, but I also realize that this kind of state-worship is logically where atheism leads. God protects me, defends me, and provides for me, not the wicked State that is opposed to Him.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

No, not at all. But I don't have an issue with self-defense, and I truly believe that (up until Vietnam) veterans really believed they were fighting for our freedoms and defending our country. There are a lot of conspiracy theories about the attack on Pearl Harbor that led to our involvement in WWII, but as the Internet didn't exist in 1941, those people probably were not aware of the evidence that suggests FDR allowed that attack to happen...and they were worried that Japanese forces might go on to California next and then from there, who knows? They really believed they were defending the U.S. And, if what they believe is true, I have no problem with defense operations under those circumstances. It IS regrettable, but necessary.

Up until Vietnam, I tend to think most Americans viewed our military involvements that way.

Do you have any Vietnam or WWII vets in your family, FF? I believe they would be better qualified to answer that question than I am. I suggest that maybe you should have a discussion about this with them.

Korea wasn't a defensive action. Neither was our incursion in the Philippines. There's more, but you get the point.

 

[Cabal]

Me too!

Only thing is I don't question the "purity" of their motivation.

Pissed off at government and acting on it gets one response from government.

I'd like to see several other sub-sets of society get pissed enough to do something, even if it's only tearing down "cattle gates"

Yeah, it's kinda like that cliche where some guy thinks a hot girl is smiling and waving at him, only to eventually realize she's actually smiling and waving at the guy behind him.

 

[Joeschmo]

Which veterans? THESE veterans?

Those "damn 'barrycades'" are nothing more than cattle gates; and these cows are just pissed off that they can't graze in one particular field.

Don't get me wrong - I'm glad they're riled up. But I'm willing to bet that a solid majority of these folks wouldn't be wranglin' barricades had they been erected by Mitt Romney, around the MLK and FDR memorials.

Red State! Blue State! Just don't you dare say No State!



My guiding, foundational principles are rooted in my faith in God, but I do not believe that it is impossible to be on solid ground without faith.



Agreed. :thumbs:

As someone who was there, i can tell you outright this was not a libertarian movement. It was definitely had Tea Party elements too it, but you could tell from some of the vets speaking out, their was a liberty element to it as well. Either way, it didn't matter. This was about veterans opening up the Korean, Vietnam and WW2 memorials. I can agree with the rest of what you said though.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

You can stumble on the right conclusions on certain issues, as many of our atheist anarcho-capitalist friends have done (Rothbard, Block, etc.) but let's say an atheist doesn't. How do you convince them they are wrong? In fact, if there wasn't a God, would statism even be wrong? Why? After all, its just formulated by natural chemical processes, in that case.

I don't have to convince them they're wrong. Just like I don't have to convince statists that they're wrong. I have no interest in being in a perpetual state of war with everyone around me.

Furthermore, I believe it is entirely possible to deduce logically the "right" conclusions, with regard to human existence, absent belief in God. In fact, that is something that reinforces my belief in God. Thus, it remains entirely consistent to understand that statism is wrong, even without the existence of God.

Darwinism leaves no valid arguments for anything being right or wrong.

Most times when you ask an atheist where his morals come from, its either his own brain, or majority opinion. Neither of which actually mean anything.

I was told by an atheist student in my world politcs class recently taht "There are a lot of good reasons for feeling attached to your State. Your State takes care of you, defends you, provides for you, etc." I wanted to puke, I still do a week later, but I also realize that this kind of state-worship is logically where atheism leads. God protects me, defends me, and provides for me, not the wicked State that is opposed to Him.

It's actually more difficult to argue for statelessness from a theist position than from an atheist position, vis-a-vis a non-believer. Self-ownership is self-evident. You and I happily agree that self-ownership is a gift from God; but a non-believer can logically deduce this themselves (tho', in my opinion, it is because God gave him self-ownership ).

 

[A Son of Liberty]

As someone who was there, i can tell you outright this was not a libertarian movement. It was definitely had Tea Party elements too it, but you could tell from some of the vets speaking out, their was a liberty element to it as well. Either way, it didn't matter. This was about veterans opening up the Korean, Vietnam and WW2 memorials. I can agree with the rest of what you said though.

Honestly, it's not my intention to offend anyone. I'm just calling it like I see it; and I'd be happy to revise my opinion in light of further evidence.

I'm heartily interested in a true uprising against this state. Operative word being, "true", of course. :thumbs:

ETA: My response to a thread about the ACA, in the Individual Liberty sub-forum; as an explanation of my cynicism:

Of course "we" will comply.

The whole foundation has been wiped out. So few people understand basic, foundational principles that there is nothing left to work from.

In order to make logical, rational decisions, one must be rooted in logical, self-evident principles. Take the (likely apocryphal) story of "Horatio Bunce". Where in a thousand men today could you find one like that, who understood such basic principle? Very few, and far between. The foundation has been swept away, and now people are relatively easily led about by pied pipers in media. Red State! Blue State! Just don't you dare so No State! It is as though the law of gravity has been repealed. Now, rather than having both feet planted firmly on the ground, it is as though most men just float freely in the atmosphere, untethered to anything solid and thus very easily pushed in any particular direction.

Primarily, I blame state-directed education and easy money. "We" will comply; and those of us who do not will be dealt with fairly harshly by those who do.

 

[Cabal]

//

 

[Christian Liberty]

I don't have to convince them they're wrong. Just like I don't have to convince statists that they're wrong. I have no interest in being in a perpetual state of war with everyone around me.

Sometimes I feel stuck there

Furthermore, I believe it is entirely possible to deduce logically the "right" conclusions, with regard to human existence, absent belief in God. In fact, that is something that reinforces my belief in God. Thus, it remains entirely consistent to understand that statism is wrong, even without the existence of God.

I think this is something Sola has addressed, and I still haven't seen a good answer to the Is/Ought fallacy.

It's actually more difficult to argue for statelessness from a theist position than from an atheist position, vis-a-vis a non-believer. Self-ownership is self-evident. You and I happily agree that self-ownership is a gift from God; but a non-believer can logically deduce this themselves (tho', in my opinion, it is because God gave him self-ownership ).

I presume that by "Self-Ownership" we mean "As relating to other people" not "As relating to God." God obviously has ownership rights over every person he has created.

A non-believer might be able to deduce it for themselves that allowing people to own themselves is a good idea, but he has no absolute morality to which he can appeal that tells him this is right.

Many "believers" are statists and this drives me nuts to no end, but the Book they claim to believe in teaches Voluntarism, so ultimately if they are statists they are objectively wrong. And it is at least possible to try to convince them of this.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

So because someone legally required you to murder it becomes more acceptable?

Isn't that the very argument you use to justify your own choice to pay taxes which fund "murder"? Aren't you "blaming the victims for submitting"?

blaming the victims for submitting is evil.

Aren't people who submit to legal requirements just being "pragmatic", and didn't you argue that "pragmatism" justifies the choice to support "murder"?

Jesus... did pay a tax that he clearly didn't owe for pragmatic reasons.

 

[Joeschmo]

Honestly, it's not my intention to offend anyone. I'm just calling it like I see it; and I'd be happy to revise my opinion in light of further evidence.

I'm heartily interested in a true uprising against this state. Operative word being, "true", of course. :thumbs:

I'm not offended at all. In this particular case i think that the main concern was the opening up of memorials for veterans by veterans. However, I was definitely in the minority there who were looking for that "true" uprising that your implying. A lot of these people voted for Romney, believing we would be in a better position. One lady was surprised i didn't like Romney and wanted Ron Paul.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Korea wasn't a defensive action. Neither was our incursion in the Philippines. There's more, but you get the point.

I agree, but I think she does too. She's trying to see it from their perspective, not agreeing.

Isn't that the very argument you use to justify your own choice to pay taxes which fund murder? Aren't you "blaming the victims for submitting"?

There's a massive difference between not resisting theft at gunpoint for whatever reason, and actually going out and killing people who aren't a threat to you in any way.

Aren't people who submit to legal requirements just being "pragmatic", and didn't you argue that "pragmatism" justifies the choice to support murder?

There's a difference between a certain degree of pragmatism and utilitarianism.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

There's a massive difference between not resisting theft at gunpoint for whatever reason, and actually [while being kidnapped and compelled by the government at gunpoint] going out and killing people who aren't a threat to you in any way.

That difference is dictated by some "absolute morality" ("the authority of the Bible"), or it's just dictated by your "own brain, or majority opinion (neither of which actually mean anything)"?

There's a difference between a certain degree of pragmatism and utilitarianism.

That difference is dictated by some "absolute morality" ("the authority of the Bible"), or it's just dictated by your "own brain, or majority opinion (neither of which actually mean anything)"?

 

[jmdrake]

What the hell is with the thread de-rail? It's irrelevant whether or not vets are "heros." What's more important is that more and more people are seeing fascism for what it really is.