Leaving The Sacred United States Is Horrible, Citizen

[Fidei Defensor]

Being forced against ones will to do something immoral is a form of slavery. The mandate forces against the will of some citizens to fund immorality. But there are also citizens like you Hasan, that not only tolerant these soft forms of tyranny, but graver ones as well, like the mass-murder of children, another form of slavery, it is after all a human flesh for profit business after all.

 

You are being forced to pay taxes which fund immoral things. Are you a slave to the government?

[Winchester]

You are being forced to pay taxes which fund immoral things. Are you a slave to the government?

 

Yeah.

 

Not to mention Selective Service.

[Maggyie]

I am at work now. I would be happy to do so later tonight. Although I am not really looking forward to it if you intend to keep acting like we are immature morons simply because we do not agree with you. That is pretty bad manners. But you should know that already.

 

Yes, I know, and I do not mean to imply that all are immature grandstanders. I am just a bit perplexed by these arguments - just as I am by those who insist that the only just form of government is monarchy and the United States should quickly crown a king.

 

If one wishes to propose a radical solution to political problems one should follow it up with radical action! and not just with radical speech about the radical solution.

 

The other thing is that I notice all this talk only gained ground after the last election. So it has a slight aura of sore-loser, "I'm going to take my ball and go home"-ness to it.

 

Like the people who said they were going to move to Europe if George W. Bush won a second term. Another "threat" which though it came from the opposite wing, didn't get followed up with concrete action in many cases.

 

I'm just a little bit hmmmmmmmm about it.

[KnightofChrist]

..

Edited February 6, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

You are being forced to pay taxes which fund immoral things. Are you a slave to the government?

 

While I do feel at times my financial liberties are violated when I get my paycheck, not all taxes are immoral (excessive taxes are immoral) and citizens have a duty to pay them for the common good. Excessive taxes could be some form of slavery especially if one did not pay them. 

Edited February 6, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[4588686]

Being forced against ones will to do something immoral is a form of slavery.

 

 

Oh.  So forcing a woman who believes it immoral to carry a particular pregnancy to term, for example a fetus that will be born with severe physical and mental disabilities, is a form of enslavement.  

 

Oh, wait.  I'm sorry.  I forgot that all this bullpoopy pretense to being concerned about freedom and liberty only applied to morals that have been properly formed by the Catholic Church.  

 

The mandate forces against the will of some citizens to fund immorality. But there are also citizens like you Hasan, that not only tolerant these soft forms of tyranny, but graver ones as well, like the mass-murder of children, another form of slavery, it is after all a human flesh for profit business after all.

 

 

I consider abortion a right.  Maybe life is complicated.  I think it's laughable that somebody like you who defended the Bush administration and the criminalization of homosexual activity is going to lecture anybody about supporting freedom.  

[Fidei Defensor]

While I do feel at times my financial liberties are violated when I get my paycheck, not all taxes are immoral (excessive taxes are immoral) and citizens have a duty to pay them for the common good. Excessive taxes could be some form of slavery especially if one did not pay them. 

 

It doesn't matter if they're excessive or not, some of the money you pay goes towards things that are morally disordered.

[4588686]

It doesn't matter if they're excessive or not, some of the money you pay goes towards things that are morally disordered.

Yep.  I had to pay for the Iraq war.  A war based on the deliberate manipulation of evidence and that lead to unnecessary death and suffering on a staggering scale.  Interestingly enough, many of the most fervent advocates of liberty against the jackboot of the state here were supporters of that administration and even defended actions like the torture of detainees.  Some of them have the integrity to just say that they ate a poo sandwich during those years.  But many others are strangely silent about those years and their sudden fear of executive power correlates ever so strangely with the election of that black Muslim.  

Edited February 6, 2013 by Hasan

[KnightofChrist]

Oh. So forcing a woman who believes it immoral to carry a particular pregnancy to term, for example a fetus that will be born with severe physical and mental disabilities, is a form of enslavement.

Oh, wait. I'm sorry. I forgot that all this bullpoopy pretense to being concerned about freedom and liberty only applied to morals that have been properly formed by the Catholic Church.

Disgraceful, shameful, dishonorable this is how future generations will remember your kind, just as other generations remember others like your kind from the past who denied the personhood of their fellowman and advocated violence against them.

I consider abortion a right. Maybe life is complicated. I think it's laughable that somebody like you who defended the Bush administration and the criminalization of homosexual activity is going to lecture anybody about supporting freedom.

I've since recanted my membership to the Republican Party. I would not defend Bush today as I did in the past. I also would never support enslaving persons with same sex attraction or supporting the mass-murder of them.

[4588686]

D
I've since recanted my membership to the Republican Party. I would not defend Bush today as I did in the past. I also would never support enslaving persons with same sex attraction or supporting the mass-murder of them.

 

 

Would you support any criminalization of homosexual activity? 

[KnightofChrist]

Would you support any criminalization of homosexual activity?

Say the "gay gene" exist. Would you support a law against aborting babies thought to have the "gay gene"?

[4588686]

Say the "gay gene" exist. Would you support a law against aborting babies thought to have the "gay gene"?

 

 

No.  

[Nihil Obstat]

Yes, I know, and I do not mean to imply that all are immature grandstanders. I am just a bit perplexed by these arguments - just as I am by those who insist that the only just form of government is monarchy and the United States should quickly crown a king.

 

If one wishes to propose a radical solution to political problems one should follow it up with radical action! and not just with radical speech about the radical solution.

 

The other thing is that I notice all this talk only gained ground after the last election. So it has a slight aura of sore-loser, "I'm going to take my ball and go home"-ness to it.

 

Like the people who said they were going to move to Europe if George W. Bush won a second term. Another "threat" which though it came from the opposite wing, didn't get followed up with concrete action in many cases.

 

I'm just a little bit hmmmmmmmm about it.

Ok, I am home from work now. I am going to answer in a scattershot fashion, so if I miss anything, then c'est la vie.

 

Must radical action follow radical beliefs? Not necessarily. I will die for my faith. I will die for my family, present and future. I am not really interested in going to prison or dying for politics. I respect those who do choose to fly that flag. Adam Kokesh has been arrested because of his antiwar protests. Larken Rose went to prison for 15 months because of his anti-tax protesting. I believe they were right, and I admire their determination. They deserve tons of respect. But I feel no obligation whatsoever to do the same. Why should I? This is politics, not Catholicism. You do not get canonized for being a martyr for your (anti) political cause. 

If I were to get arrested or killed by standing for this particular set of convictions, then what would be the effect? It would be a symbolic martyrdom. Sometimes that is worthwhile, but sometimes it is not. In a few months I am going to be married, so I have an obligation to support my wife. In a few years we will have children, and I have an even greater obligation to support them. Why should I go to prison because I think the US government's taxation is morally illegitimate? I believe I would be right in doing whatever to evade taxes, but would it be worth it, pragmatically? For me, perhaps not. For Larken Rose, he apparently believed it was.

 

How is all this related to Obama's election and re-election? It is an interesting question. Perhaps there is more interest in so-called 'anti-federalist' politics since Obama was elected. I would not know. I am young. I am sure there are people who are jumping on the bandwagon just because they hate Obama, but would be scandalously ok with wars and taxes if they were being enacted by their guy. Ann Coulter comes to mind; I think she is a pretty crass opportunist. She is certainly not even a minarchist, but she is willing to sound like one if she thinks her audience wants her to.

But I can only speak for myself, and I am not one of them. The 'conservative' guy is in power right now here in Canada, and I hate him too. I refused to vote for what some people are calling the "Alberta Tea Party" (Wildrose Party) because I did not think they came close enough to representing my admittedly somewhat extreme opinions. As I have talked about in the past, I am not even convinced voting is the best sort of 'political' action, and for now I am a bit of a conscientious objector when it comes to the vote. All I can talk about is myself; I cannot speak for anyone else, who may or may not be motivated by less than noble criteria.

So if you want a comment on the 'movement' as a whole, you will have to talk to everyone. I can only speak for myself. Winchester can only speak for himself. KofC can only speak for himself. Aloysius can only speak for himself.

[Socrates]

Yes, I know, and I do not mean to imply that all are immature grandstanders. I am just a bit perplexed by these arguments - just as I am by those who insist that the only just form of government is monarchy and the United States should quickly crown a king.

 

If one wishes to propose a radical solution to political problems one should follow it up with radical action! and not just with radical speech about the radical solution.

 

The other thing is that I notice all this talk only gained ground after the last election. So it has a slight aura of sore-loser, "I'm going to take my ball and go home"-ness to it.

 

Like the people who said they were going to move to Europe if George W. Bush won a second term. Another "threat" which though it came from the opposite wing, didn't get followed up with concrete action in many cases.

 

I'm just a little bit hmmmmmmmm about it.

 

People are simply arguing here that states have a right to secede from the Union if they choose, and that under the Constitution, the federal government has no right to force them from peaceful secession.  Obviously, you disagree with that, but that's what a debate table's for.

 

I'm not arguing for violent armed rebellion against the government, as it would currently have no chance of success, and only result in more death and government oppression.  However, I will continue to support the argument that states should be peacefully allowed to secede if they choose, and any peaceful movement in that direction.

 

It's silly to say that no one should argue for the rightness of anything that they are not personally willing to kill, die, or be imprisoned for.

For example, I believe that abortion should be illegal, and that human life should be legally protected from conception (as I presume you do too, as a Catholic).  However, I don't advocate the "radical action" of running around shooting any abortionists or pro-abortion politicians, as such violence would in reality do more harm than good for the pro-life cause.

It does not follow, however, that I should not post anything on behalf of the right to life position on here or elsewhere.

 

And, fyi, I've believed that states have the right to peacefully secede long before Obama ever took office.

 

This is the debate table - we debate ideas. I never claimed that there was anything particulalry bold or noble about me posting on here. If you think an idea is not worth your while to debate, you can simply post elsewhere, rather than ridiculing those arguing a position you disagree with.

[Socrates]

I was referring to KoC. And Socrates. Who still has yet to explain how tolerance for the individual mandate is comparable, in terms of the public's willingness to accept tyranny, to slavery and Jim Crow.

 

Actually, I never compared the HHS mandate to slavery, but cute strawman.

 

I believe the mandate - along with other actions of the federal government in contempt of constitutional rights - to be an example of tyranny.  Granted, such so-called "soft tyranny" may be considerably milder and less blatant than other forms of tyranny, but that does not mean it is not tyranny.

 

While I'd still definitely prefer to live under our current soft tyranny to living in Red China or North Korea, it does not follow that the increasingly dictatorial direction of our federal government -  and the hacking away at rights guaranteed by the Constitution such as the right to free exercise of religion and to keep and bear arms - is a good thing which should be accepted, and not opposed.