Along with the rest of the city's estimated 25,000 Christians who had not already fled years of kidnappings, bombings and shootings, Sunni militants gave 36-year-old Fadi, his wife and son until Saturday to comply with a brutal ultimatum: convert to Islam, pay an unspecified tax, leave the city or die.
Does this offend you? This order to convert, pay a tax, leave or die?
If you are looking simply through the lens of a Christian being given a set of choices, you're probably offended and puffy-faced. How dare they oppress Christians!?
Now, replace a few words and post it on every lamp post in America: ...convert to Rightful Liberty, abandon forever coerced Socialism, Communism and their various flavors, leave or die.
Still got a problem with it?
I don't.
Here's the story. Clear the lifetime of conditioning from your eyes, Patriots.
Kerodin
III
As long as taxes aren't in there :)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteToo harsh for a mainstream message (mine is too). Look at the poll results on the right sidebar - even our own won't go that hard - and many of our biggest yappers like MBV take their monthly check and free medical worth millions - then cry out against .Gov.
DeleteFucking hypocrites.
Qualifier: I have NO PROBLEM with military benefits.
Deletehttp://youtu.be/1SEMYx6affo
DeleteDoes this make any sense
His
Yes, I actually see a problem with your restatement (above).
ReplyDeleteThe only way "socialism, communism, or other forms of collectivism" presents a problem to Rightful Liberty is when the advocates use coercion of the state to impose their world-view on others.
I see no problem with with the VOLUNTARY decision to live collectively within a community based on religious or philosophic principles.
Do you plan to drive the Mennonites, Amish, and other Christian orders from our land because they choose to practice elements of collectivism?
As long as my neighbors do not use force of government to encroach upon my person or property, or interfere with my contractual relations, they are free to choose their lifestyle in accordance with Rightful Liberty.
Hans ... in the NC woods
Hans reread what he said...If they believe and practice Rightful Liberty he doesn't have a problem with them...You can live in a hippie commune for all I care as long as your practicing Rightful Liberty...
ReplyDeleteSir - I did read what he said and considered it quite carefully:
Delete...abandon forever Socialism, Communism and their various flavors, leave or die...
Hans ... in the NC woods
And what is wrong with that statement Hans...Anyone of them is someone I don't want around me because they will pick my pocket or break my leg or both...Any of the other various flavors like Marxism, Leninism, Maoism are all people I want to either leave or die because they all don't adhere to Rightful Liberty... I guess I don't understand why you asked it unless you like people picking your pocket or breaking your leg...
DeleteLineman - there are lots of people living around us who would pick our pockets and break our legs if they believed it would bring them gain. This is commonplace theft and battery.
DeleteAs long as those people do not employ force of government to achieve their ends, or use agency of government to prohibit me from defending my self from them, I can pro-actively avoid their encroachments or retro-actively exact justice.
It is government agency used to institutionalize malum-in-se crime that created the horror we wish to eliminate ... examples being Italian Fascism, German Socialism, Soviet Communism, and the redistribution engine of the US IRS and welfare state.
As you said earlier, the hippie commune is no threat to their neighbors or the concept of Rightful Liberty. Whether they subscribe to the philosophy of Marx, Kant, Rand or Rothbard is irrelevant until they use state coercion to encroach on others.
... abandon forever all government implementation of socialism, communism and their various flavors of collectivism and redistribution...
That is philosophically consistent with Rightful Liberty, and a statement I can support.
So as long as I'm not from the government I can get a group of people together and come get your stuff or break your leg...Its OK to live amongst people that want to take your stuff as long as they don't use the government to do it for them...So let's say I have a group of a hundred people that covets your stuff its cool with you if I try and come and get it as long as your able to defend yourself...Good luck with that... I would rather live amongst people that believe in Rightful Liberty and if they dont ask them to either leave or die...
DeleteLineman -
DeleteCheck the post above for changes ... "K" inserted coerced into his restatement:
What was:
...convert to Rightful Liberty, abandon forever Socialism, Communism and their various flavors, leave or die.
Now reads:
...convert to Rightful Liberty, abandon forever coerced Socialism, Communism and their various flavors, leave or die.
I believe this largely resolves our debate.
Hans ... in the NC woods
Hmmm I guess I didn't know you could have voluntary Socialism, Communism, and other flavors...I thought all of those had different levels of force to them...I think your picking nits but thats just me...Maybe you could point out some examples of the former that did not involve force...
DeleteThey all resort to force, even the Amish. First they shun. Then they tell you to leave if you refuse to conform. Then - you leave, one way or the other.
DeleteHi Lineman - I'd be pleased to give you two examples.
DeleteOne is a voluntary Christian program in which members choose to share payment of medical expenses of others within their group. It is called Medi-Share ( mychristiancare.org/Medi-Share ).
Another is the classic American family. We agree to 'have and hold' ... to provide for one another and our progeny 'for better or worse'. If you examine the roles and flow of 'benefits' within the family, you can easily recognize that for kith and kin we are practicing "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
I'm not blessing the Medi-Share program, nor am I condemning the operational basis of the family. Just pointing out that there are viable and non-evil forms of voluntary collectivism.
Have a great day,
Hans ... in the NC woods
;) Mr Klein Your Up... I feel sorry for you Hans I really do that you couldn't see by what was wrote without having it spoon fed to you that K meant that any of the ism's were not voluntary ones...
DeleteThose examples aren't really collectivism, Hans. Collectivism doesn't mean "in a group" any more than Invidividualism means "alone." The distinction is about hierarchy of principle, and what ends are served by what means. Socially, it's about who owns you and nothing else.
DeleteLineman, theoretically one could think about Socialism and not make a single action based upon that thought. It's just never happened yet!
Good Morning, Jim – sorry for the delay … was occupied away from technology
DeleteI understand your focus on “hierarchy of principle” and graciously accept your criticism. I was addressing the topic of collectivism more broadly, wherein the group or society is the basic unit of moral concern.
In contemporary vocabulary, Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human. My comments were intended to address when collectivism transitions from benign to evil.
Collectivism can be divided into horizontal (or egalitarian) collectivism and vertical (or hierarchical) collectivism. Horizontal collectivism stresses collective decision-making among equal individuals, and is thus usually based on decentralization and egalitarianism. Vertical collectivism is based on hierarchical structures of power and on moral and cultural conformity, and is therefore based on centralization and hierarchy. A cooperative enterprise would be an example of horizontal collectivism, whereas a military hierarchy would be an example of vertical collectivism.[1]
I believe we are probably in agreement that the evil of collectivism occurs in the transition from horizontal to vertical (in the description above).
My challenge in the comments above was intended to raise awareness of egalitarian collectivism as an acceptable practice within Rightful Liberty. The original formulation of “K's” statement and the early comments sounded more like Robespierre than Jefferson.
Best Regards,
Hans … in the NC woods
Obviously anything voluntary is fine with me so long as it does not violate my Rightful Liberty - coercion, by the state or a thug, not so much.
ReplyDelete"Too harsh for a mainstream message (mine is too)."
ReplyDeleteI don't think either is too harsh, just to the point and easily understood.
I was thinking more along the line of "If you cannot embrace the concept of Rightful Liberty by sunrise you will be shot." If they don't embrace it and you let them leave, when they see the prosperous benefit of those of us that do embrace it, they'll only return and try and destroy it and we'll have to shoot them anyway. Just nip it all in the bud from the get go. Is that not more pragmatic and effective?
LOL...cut out the middleman, eh? I can appreciate the sentiment, but personally I gave up caring what others embrace, don't embrace, whatever...a long time ago. I only give a hoot about what they do, and even then only if I have some interest in the matter. I'm challenged enough with my own life; no way I wanna figure out what's best for others. But neither will they figure it out for me, duh.
DeleteMYOB solves a large percentage of social problems. I won't be obstructed if I can prevent it, and I won't obstruct those who themselves haven't obstructed. If that ain't enough, the species is gone.
Fixed it,
ReplyDelete