Don't

[cashmcall]

Don't be a Warrior

Submitted by Jacob Lyles on Tue, 2012-04-10 01:30
Okay. I'm back. It looks like I can't stop blogging. But I'm cross-posting everything at my personal blog in case Jonathan gets tired of paying the hosting fees.
------------------------------------------------------
Do not think of yourself as a warrior or imagine that the world is filled with enemies. It is too easy for the young soldier to declare war on the wrong target - it is surprisingly difficult to choose the right ones. Many intelligent and honest people find themselves on opposite sides of pitched battles. Frequently they even switch sides as they grow older, fighting ferociously for the position which their younger selves abhored.
Even if you win your war, you may find that the evils caused by the excess of some thing give way to new problems caused by its deficit.
Furthermore, the warrior is not an effective agent of change. The very nature of war is to divide people into allies and foes. An attack generates its own enemies, polarizing neutral bystanders into opposing camps.
Rather than be a warrior, be a builder. Tell a story that appeals to the universal values cherished by human hearts. Synthesize opposing viewpoints into a new worldview that unites former enemies. A fresh story has no enemies and it spreads without resistance, like a fire through dry grass.
In all the teachings of Jesus, he spared hardly a word for the pagan religion of Rome that his religion would replace. He was not on a mission to tear down the old world, but to build a new one. His story of hope, love, and deliverance appealed to Romans surrounded by a brutal and capricious reality. As a builder, he was far more effective than any warrior. The humane, egalitarian ethic introduced by Jesus is still a potent force in the world 2,000 years later.
That is why my I no longer think of my political activity in martial terms like a "warrior for liberty" or a "patriot". I grow tired of the eternal war between libertarian, socialist, progressive, and conservative. As I mature, I recognized the good motives and valid points of my former enemies. Instead of fighting old wars I'm focusing on building new viewpoints which can help people from all political ideologies create a better world.
My current attempt is Structuralism. I used to call it "Structural Libertarianism", but I realized that the structuralist ideas are useful for everyone, not just libertarians. By using the term "libertarian" I imported the old conflicts as if I'm so used to fighting that I forgot how to live in peacetime.

 

[GenSeneca]

Structuralism.

Read the article at the link... I too am a supporter of Seasteading but the concept of a Charter City was new to me, so I wanted to familiarize myself with the concept before commenting...

I like the concept of a Charter City but such cities would have to be free to rise or fall by their own devices. For example, I saw in the Chart City link I posted that, "As of June 2008, 112 of California's 478 cities are charter cities", and the first thought that came to mind was, "How many of those cities have pissed away all their money and are looking to the US taxpayer for a bailout?" I think it's great that people want to try new things, and that, to extent, they are given the freedom to try different approaches to governance. However, I don't want to be forced to cover the costs of their failure nor do I wish to be forced to subsidize their "success".

Give me a city where the charter calls for banning the initiation of the use of force, where society is allowed to spontaneously organize through volitional consent and mutually beneficial exchange, where the ONLY role of the government is to protect Individual Rights. So long as there are no barriers to free trade, the city would explode with growth. Such a city might not be Utopia but it would be the first moral city in the modern world.

The "Structuralism" guy thinks charter cities should outsource their courts to the private sector and I disagree. The Courts are one of only a few services the government should provide. Our author cited some legitimate reasons for being disgruntled with the current state of the court system but it didn't convince me of the logic of having public courts be replaced with private arbitration firms.

A strong city charter, that properly delineates the purpose, role, and function of government, would stand as a purely objective standard that no judge, no elected official, could ever minimize, alter, or abolish. I have no problem with allowing citizens the freedom of choosing private arbitration over public courts in civil cases, but all criminal cases would have to be performed by the city's mayor or city judges. Having criminal trials performed by private arbitration firms sounds like a recipe for disaster.

That's not to say his concept doesn't have merit, I wish him luck... I just don't want to get stuck with the bill.

Our founding fathers pledged to one another their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor when they signed the Declaration of Independence. The "Salty Dog" Seasteaders and Charter City "Slickers" should be willing, and able, to sign such a declaration and then, boom or bust, stick by it to the end.

 

[Dr.Who]

Some people might stop tearing things down and start building. Some might stop using warrior mentality. Some might have been strongly in favor of such things before and now oppose martial thinking. They might even have made such a transformation that they embrace their new philosophy with enough zeal to engage in the exact same activities that their warrior selves engaged in before. (sarcasm) Just saying... Ok there are benefits to new ways of thinking but disadvantages to feeling superior - for those who do that. It s a pretty hard mine field to maneuver - oops I used a war metaphor.

 

[cashmcall]

Read the article at the link... I too am a supporter of Seasteading but the concept of a Charter City was new to me, so I wanted to familiarize myself with the concept before commenting...

I like the concept of a Charter City but such cities would have to be free to rise or fall by their own devices. For example, I saw in the Chart City link I posted that, "As of June 2008, 112 of California's 478 cities are charter cities", and the first thought that came to mind was, "How many of those cities have pissed away all their money and are looking to the US taxpayer for a bailout?" I think it's great that people want to try new things, and that, to extent, they are given the freedom to try different approaches to governance. However, I don't want to be forced to cover the costs of their failure nor do I wish to be forced to subsidize their "success".

Give me a city where the charter calls for banning the initiation of the use of force, where society is allowed to spontaneously organize through volitional consent and mutually beneficial exchange, where the ONLY role of the government is to protect Individual Rights. So long as there are no barriers to free trade, the city would explode with growth. Such a city might not be Utopia but it would be the first moral city in the modern world.

The "Structuralism" guy thinks charter cities should outsource their courts to the private sector and I disagree. The Courts are one of only a few services the government should provide. Our author cited some legitimate reasons for being disgruntled with the current state of the court system but it didn't convince me of the logic of having public courts be replaced with private arbitration firms.

A strong city charter, that properly delineates the purpose, role, and function of government, would stand as a purely objective standard that no judge, no elected official, could ever minimize, alter, or abolish. I have no problem with allowing citizens the freedom of choosing private arbitration over public courts in civil cases, but all criminal cases would have to be performed by the city's mayor or city judges. Having criminal trials performed by private arbitration firms sounds like a recipe for disaster.

That's not to say his concept doesn't have merit, I wish him luck... I just don't want to get stuck with the bill.

Our founding fathers pledged to one another their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor when they signed the Declaration of Independence. The "Salty Dog" Seasteaders and Charter City "Slickers" should be willing, and able, to sign such a declaration and then, boom or bust, stick by it to the end.

To say I liked your post is just not enough, it was great! The reason for my post is simple really...I have been so angry lately and after reading Mr. Lyles post something hit me. Everyone that knows me knows what I am against but not so much what I'm for and I hope to change that. I know your a non-believer and thats to bad..lol.."Christ as a builder, he was far more effective than any warrior. The humane, egalitarian ethic introduced by Jesus is still a potent force in the world 2,000 years later".I am gong to ty and emulate that MAN..

Thanks for all the great reading...Dustin

 

[GenSeneca]

Everyone that knows me knows what I am against but not so much what I'm for and I hope to change that.

Make a thread and see where it goes.

I know your a non-believer and thats to bad..lol..

It's not bad at all, it's actually quite good. Yes, I am an Atheist but I'm not an anti-theist - I do not oppose the belief in God, I simply do not believe one exists. Anti-theists are the ones who you read about, banning Christmas trees in old folks homes, having the 10 commandments removed from the courts, they're the ones who give Atheism a bad name. Their crusade to kill God is evil.

The issue of whether or not God exists will never be an issue for either of us... If we can both agree that 'the initiation of the use of force must be banned from human relationships', then we both get to live as free men, moral men, who deal with one another through volitional consent and mutually beneficial exchange. It's only by banning the initiation of the use of force that the beliefs of our neighbors will neither pick our pockets nor break our legs.

If we can agree with that one central principle, then everything else is academic.

"Christ as a builder, he was far more effective than any warrior. The humane, egalitarian ethic introduced by Jesus is still a potent force in the world 2,000 years later".I am gong to ty and emulate that MAN..

What position did Jesus have on initiating the use of force against others? I can't think of anytime where he advocated for violence, or force of any kind, to be initiated against others... It seems to me that he would support a society based on volitional consent and mutually beneficial exchange. So long as that's the case, I would encourage you, and every other Christian, to follow Christ on that example.

Thanks for all the great reading...Dustin

I liked learning about Charter Cities and appreciate the opportunity your post gave me to do that, thanks.