Murder - For the Greater Good

Look, I know you spent a lot of time on your "proposal", but I'm sorry I just can't get interested in the details at the level you laboriously wrote out. We both know you are not serious, and there really is no point in batting around ideas at that level of fantasy.
[Prog On]
I am serious... I take hunger, homelessness, poverty and crime very seriously, they aren't a fantasy to me (or anyone else who happens to suffer from these social afflictions) and it's not fantasy to say the proposals would solve all these problems, they would. I backed up all my claims with facts and math to prove it's real, not fantasy.

On what possible grounds could you object to eradicating ALL hunger, ALL homelessness, ALL poverty, and drastically reduce felonious crime in America?

Two laws, that's it, just the passage of two little laws is all that stands in the way of actually solving every single one of those problems!

So, my fellow Progressive, what possible objection could you have?
[Prog Off]
 
Werbung:
[Prog On]
I'm surprised that none of the knuckle-dragging KKKonservatives/Rethuglicans have come out against my proposals... We all know they HATE poor people and LOVE the Rich 1%ers. They must be scared... They know I have the moral high ground. They can't claim it would be wrong to execute convicted felons, those "Pro-Life" hypocrites support the death penalty! They certainly can't argue the death penalty is unconstitutional! They can't claim it's a violation of rights because it would be done legally - through due process!

These laws could only be passed with a legislative majority and, as any Collectivist will tell you, a voting majority can do whatever the hell it wants to do - people in the minority have no "right" to refuse the will of the Collective! The only "rights" individuals have are the ones we, as a Collectivist society, allow them to have. They think they have the "right" to be greedy and accumulate obscene amounts of wealth? They think they have a "right" to live in luxury while so many people are wallowing in poverty? Fine, we'll pass laws to rob them of their life, liberty, and property - and there's nothing they can do to stop us!

Being a Collectivist is all about being moral... The difference between Collectivists and common street thugs is simple: We both impose our will on others by force - BUT - Collectivists do it legally... That's the only civilized way to rob, murder and enslave your fellow man, that's the only way to do it morally - by way of laws.

Criminals do those things illegally and that's immoral. The Capitalists, Conservatives, and Libertarians oppose using government to do those things legally - even when it's for the Greater Good - and that makes them immoral. We Collectivists want to do those things legally - for the Greater Good - and that makes us moral. Anyone who isn't a Collectivist obviously suffers from extreme moral cowardice.
[Prog Off]
 
You have to excuse my unresponsiveness on this thread. Maybe I should explain further. These are a couple posts that I made last December in a different context. It should explain more on how I think and where I'm coming from.
I am not looking for a God within me, let alone a "sky God". Actually, I go beyond Einstein's God of Spinoza. I have a sort of reverence for nature and not just the laws of nature. I will not kill spiders or lizards, but will put them outside. When I caught mice in a trap, I would release them outside, and even leave them in a warm compost heap in the winter with food. I am a tree hugger. Basically I am a Pantheist (not to be confused with Paganism.) I don't believe my feelings are religious, but just a quirk that I don't expect many others would have.
This is a excerpt I made in another thread, "a question for the atheists"
I started interest in Taoism, and Buddhism decades ago, and have been very active in Tai Chi. The Tao Te Ching, was written in the 6th century BC in 81 paragraphs with 5000 Chinese characters.

These ancient excerpts are to show that a concept of God or Christianity is not needed to discover virtue.

Chapter 8. http://www.wussu.com/laotzu/laotzu08.html
5 In meditation, go deep in the heart.
6 In dealing with others, be gentle and kind.
7 In speech, be true.
8 In ruling, be just.
9 In business, be competent.
10 In action, watch the timing.
11 No fight: No blame.

This excerpt from Chapter 31 summarizes my view on assault rifles and why I want to see the 2nd amendment modified.
http://www.egreenway.com/taoism/ttclz31.htm

Armies are tools of violence;
They cause men to hate and fear.
The sage will not join them.
His purpose is creation;
Their purpose is destruction.
Weapons are tools of violence,
Not of the sage;
He uses them only when there is no choice,
And then calmly, and with tact,
For he finds no beauty in them.
Whoever finds beauty in weapons
Delights in the slaughter of men;
And who delights in slaughter
Cannot content himself with peace.
So slaughters must be mourned
And conquest celebrated with a funeral.

The precepts of the Tao Te Ching are very succinct and have no room for people like Jerry Falwell who thinks AIDS is God's punishment and no room for Paul Broun on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology who said evolution embryology and the Big Bang are "lies straight from the pit of hell".
 
You have to excuse my unresponsiveness on this thread. Maybe I should explain further. These are a couple posts that I made last December in a different context. It should explain more on how I think and where I'm coming from.

This is a excerpt I made in another thread, "a question for the atheists"
Liberals can only exist in a modern society. When Man had to hunt for survival, liberals were weeded out by Natural Selection. In other words, they became lunch for other predators.And that in itself is proof we could not have evolved, because there would be no liberals...The closest mechanism Mankind has today for thinning the Liberal Herd is abortion, something no one wants but most liberal agree with...One can only dream of a simpler time when men were hunters, and liberals were Tiger-bait.
 
Liberals can only exist in a modern society. When Man had to hunt for survival, liberals were weeded out by Natural Selection. In other words, they became lunch for other predators.And that in itself is proof we could not have evolved, because there would be no liberals...The closest mechanism Mankind has today for thinning the Liberal Herd is abortion, something no one wants but most liberal agree with...One can only dream of a simpler time when men were hunters, and liberals were Tiger-bait.
I disagree. Man certainly had to hunt for survival, but man existed in clans. The survival of everyone was dependent on the survival of the clan. Yes, the men were men but they shared their hunt with their clan. That sounds like they were also liberals. If they didn't share, the clan would not survive. Even todays other primates understand sharing when one primate discovers a bounty. The idea of a clan is sort of the antithesis of libertarianism.
 
I disagree. Man certainly had to hunt for survival, but man existed in clans. The survival of everyone was dependent on the survival of the clan. Yes, the men were men but they shared their hunt with their clan. That sounds like they were also liberals. If they didn't share, the clan would not survive. Even todays other primates understand sharing when one primate discovers a bounty. The idea of a clan is sort of the antithesis of libertarianism.
I guess in this case the bounty is our tax dollars/ our money and the the money of generations to come..
 
I guess in this case the bounty is our tax dollars/ our money and the the money of generations to come..
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Monkey's in captivity were taught the value of tokens in exchange for things they wanted. They would strive to get tokens with the same effort as to get food. If they were taught what credit cards are for, I'm sure they would max them out just like most people do.
 
Gensenca...This guy know's how to get you attention...Libertarianism
By
David Boaz
I give a lot of speeches and interviews about libertarianism. Often I have to begin simply by explaining what libertarianism is. Always I’m looking for effective ways to convey the essential libertarian ideas. So today I’m just setting out very briefly my Top 10 Ways to Talk about Libertarianism.
10. When I talk in the broadest terms about Americans who hold libertarian views, I often use the popular journalistic phrase “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” — as in my new ebook with David Kirby and Emily Ekins,The Libertarian Vote: Swing Voters, Tea Parties, and the Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal Center.
9. I’m also partial to Adam Smith’s lovely phrase, “the simple system of natural liberty.” Set up a few simple rules, protect people’s rights, and liberty is what happens naturally.
8. The most eloquent piece of libertarian writing in history is Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, and “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is a great statement of the libertarian vision.
7. I like this rarely quoted line from Ayn Rand:
If men of good will wish to come together for the purpose of upholding reason and establishing a rational society, they should begin by following the example of the cowboys in Western movies when the sheriff tells them at the door to a conference room:“Gentlemen, leave your guns outside.”​
Exactly. Civilized people rely on persuasion, not force.
6. Sometimes I organize a speech around three key ideas of libertarianism:
Spontaneous order: the understanding that most of the order in society, from language and law to the economy, happens naturally, without a central plan; Natural rights: the rights to life, liberty, and property that we have inherently, not as a gift from government; and Limited government: the political system that protects our rights without infringing on our freedom.​
5. At Tom Palmer’s urging, I created a speech, or at least a speech opening, around the theme that “Libertarianism is the application of science and reason to the study of politics and public policy.” That is, libertarians deal in reality, not magic. We know that government doesn’t have magical powers to ignore the laws of economics and human nature.
4. Inspired by Robert Fulghum’s bestsellerAll I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten, I like to tell people that you learn the essence of libertarianism— which is also the essence of civilization — in kindergarten:
Don’t hit other people.​
Don’t take their stuff.​
Keep your promises.​
3. Another pithy explanation I like came from a highschool libertarian newsletter some 20 years ago: Smokey the Bear’s rules for fire safety also apply to government — keep it small, keep it in a confined area, and keep an eye on it.
2. In Libertarianism: A Primer, I described the fundamental libertarian principle this way:
The corollary of the libertarian principle that “Every person has the right to live his life as he chooses, so long as he does not interfere with the equal rights of others” is this: No one has the right to initiate aggression against the person or property of anyone else.
This “non-aggression axiom” is perhaps most associated with Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard, but its roots go back to Spencer, Mill, Locke, Pufendorf, and even Epicurus.
1. And finally, the number 1 way to talk about libertarianism — or at least a sentence I found effective when I was talking about Libertarianism: A Primer on talk shows: “Libertarianism is the idea that adult individuals have the right and the responsibility to make the important decisions about their lives.” Every word is important there: We’re talking about individuals. We’re talking about adults; the question of children’s rights is far more complex. Responsibility is just as important as rights.
Of course, today government claims the power to make many of those decisions for us, from where to send our kids to school to what we can smoke to how we must save for retirement. And that is why it’s important for us to promote the ideas of liberty and to do so as effectively as we can.

I like this guy...

That is excellent. Thanks for posting. If only the principles of Libertarianism were taught in government schools, rather than the statist liberal shit, we would have a great nation.
 
I disagree. Man certainly had to hunt for survival, but man existed in clans. The survival of everyone was dependent on the survival of the clan. Yes, the men were men but they shared their hunt with their clan. That sounds like they were also liberals. If they didn't share, the clan would not survive. Even todays other primates understand sharing when one primate discovers a bounty. The idea of a clan is sort of the antithesis of libertarianism.

Didn't work for the pilgrims. They soon found that clan sharing created lazyness and resentment.
 
Werbung:
The trolley problem and some kids on a school bus were silly games, why were those silly games worth playing?
The trolley problem is an old but simple problem. Your game is many paragraphs which I don't want to wade through. If you really want an answer, here it is:
[insanity on] Great idea. Yeah kill all the felons and 1 percenters. [insanity off]
 
Back
Top