Are you voting?

GoodNewsJim said:

It doesn't matter who you vote for, as long as you vote. The last thing you want is for them to abolish voting because of low turn out at the polls.

Click to expand...

Well not having to go through the middle man of making campaign contributions would make it easier for the corporations to run the country.

MacFall, you're probably not going to like me much. That's because I did a couple of things this evening.

(1) I looked up "Agorism".

(2) I thought about the likely outcome of trying to do that here in the USA, our population being what it is.

It's not very pretty. It makes Somalia look like a walk in the park.

Take away government controls and go into anarchy with an agorist economy and I wouldn't give it until nightfall for it to break down into mobs run by warlords grabbing what they can, sure that there's nobody to stop them.

I understand by your sig line that the idea of no king but Christ is a strong idea with you, and indeed will appeal to many Christians. The problem is that American society isn't exactly overrun with people willing to submit to the rule of Christ right now. Even within the Christian community we have our differences of opinion about how it should be done and once you step outside that community all bets are off.

The best you could hope for--- and that assumes everybody at least starts with the idea of following Christ-- would be something that looks like the Book of Judges. God was the King, so there's no problem there. The problem is with the citizenry who couldn't follow God for a full generation. And this in a people who had signed on to the Law Covenant.

Now try this with a pluralistic society and ----- oh, boy, I can barely think of it. A handful of Christians would at least try, the rest of the population would tell you where to put this idea in no uncertain terms--- then grab your stuff and run, certain that no one could stop them because now, under an anarchistic system,there's nobody to stop them.

Agorism depends on good people to make it workable. Sorry, but we seem to be fresh out. So, that leaves us having to set up some form of government. Government has rightly been called a necessary evil. Evil because it tends to come between us and the Living God, necessary because without it we seem to become a good deal worse. So, we vote in order to have some checks and balances on the system, such as it is. Sure, it's not much good, but right now until Jesus sets up His kingdom right it's the best we can come up with on short notice. Pray for our leaders, and thank God it's not worse than it is.

mjmcmillan said:

It's not very pretty. It makes Somalia look like a walk in the park.

Click to expand...

Yes, the fantasies of people who are terrified of letting their neighbors live their lives without being controlled by a territorial monopoly on legalized violence often are very unpleasant.

Take away government controls and go into anarchy with an agorist economy and I wouldn't give it until nightfall for it to break down into mobs run by warlords grabbing what they can, sure that there's nobody to stop them.

Click to expand...

They may be sure, but they'd be wrong. Dead wrong, in fact, and literally so, as Robert Murphy (who has a PhD in economics, just so you know he's not some random blogger) explains here: But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over? - Robert P. Murphy - Mises Daily

Also Roderick Long here (PDF warning): http://mises.org/etexts/longanarchism.pdf

Now try this with a pluralistic society and ----- oh, boy, I can barely think of it. A handful of Christians would at least try, the rest of the population would tell you where to put this idea in no uncertain terms--- then grab your stuff and run, certain that no one could stop them because now, under an anarchistic system,there's nobody to stop them.

Click to expand...

Nobody, that is, except for EVERYONE.

The actual number of people with a tendency toward violent crime is a tiny fraction of society, and most violent crime is enabled by prohibitive laws that create violent black markets (or what agorists would call "red markets"). Do you honestly believe that the only thing that is stopping everyone (except you, of course) from robbing and killing their neighbors - the very people on whom they depend for the provision of their daily wants and needs - is the proximity of a bureaucratic, socialized and hopelessly overextended monopoly police force?

The only thing that is required for peace to exist between people is an agreement not to harm one another, and a recognition of mutual benefit - which is the result of the division of labor in a free market - will bring that about to a large extent. Where agreement cannot be reached, all that is needed is a third party to settle disputes. Failing that, everyone has the right of self-defense and the right to equip himself for that purpose. There is absolutely no reason why a socialized, territorial, compulsory monopoly should be established to provide any of those things, nor will such a monopoly provide them in either a moral or efficient manner.

Agorism depends on good people to make it workable. Sorry, but we seem to be fresh out. So, that leaves us having to set up some form of government.

Click to expand...

So what you're saying is:

There are no good people... and so the solution is to put PEOPLE, who are necessarily NOT GOOD (i.e., BAD), in charge of a territorial monopoly on legalized violence.

People cannot be trusted to rule themselves, so we will give some people the power to rule over others.

People cannot be trusted to live peacefully and to respect other people's rights... and so we must create an institution with the legal power to violently abridge EVERYONE'S rights.

No thanks, that's a horrible idea; count me out. I can rule myself just fine, and so can everyone I personally know. I bet you can too. But if I'm wrong and you do need a bloated class of violent bureaucrats to tell you how to live your life, please do not project your deficiency onto the rest of the world.

Government has rightly been called a necessary evil.

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a "necessary evil". That which is necessary (by presumption, to bring about good) can never be evil, and that which is evil (is opposed to the good) is never necessary. "Necessary evil" is a non-concept.

Evil because it tends to come between us and the Living God

Click to expand...

Everything which comes between us and God must be denounced and cast down. Such a thing can never be necessary.

necessary because without it we seem to become a good deal worse.

Click to expand...

Every society that has existed without a territorial state (which is what you appear to mean by "government") has proven otherwise in no uncertain terms.

Pray for our leaders, and thank God it's not worse than it is.

Click to expand...

I do, but I do not stop there. What people like you are say about people like me today is very similar to what the torries said about the ideas in the Declaration of Independence. They (the signers of the DoI) didn't let that stop them, either.

The territorial state is a false god. People have erected it in the high places of their minds, hearts, and physical lands because it makes them feel safe and gives them something higher than themselves to serve. But we already have a stronghold, and we already have a high purpose, and He has nothing in common with man's political state.

It is also pretty much the worst possible way to get anything done in this world, but that argument is secondary to me. That is why I think we who support the nonpolitical society will win - not why we should, and it is the latter which is more important.

Y'know, someday you really need to pick up a newspaper and actually read the thing. One of the major big-city dailies, or failing that at least Time or Newsweek. Get an idea of what actually happens. Check out "Somalia" anytime you get the chance. They seem to have the kind of system in place that you recommend, let's see how well it works for them.

I've voted in every general election since I turned 18. This year isn't going to be any different.

mjmcmillan said:

Y'know, someday you really need to pick up a newspaper and actually read the thing. One of the major big-city dailies, or failing that at least Time or Newsweek. Get an idea of what actually happens. Check out "Somalia" anytime you get the chance. They seem to have the kind of system in place that you recommend, let's see how well it works for them.

Click to expand...

You didn't even read my post, did you?

If you had, you would have read that Somalia, as mentioned by the authors to which I linked as well as many others, is actually benefiting from its lack of a centralized government. It is now the most technologically advanced nation in Africa on a per-capita basis, because they don't have such things as government-enforced monopolies keeping down competition, nor do they have a UN-backed dictator supplanting all their organic social arrangements which worked so well until the last century or so (contrary to popular notions in which Africa was nothing but a land of tribal barbarism before the Noble White Man came to settle it).

You would also have read that where Somalia is still having problems with "instability", it is because they lack a philosophy of property rights. But that lack is precisely what led to its becoming such a socialist craphole before the collapse, and more importantly, led to the collapse. Furthermore, many of the so-called "warlords" are nothing more than the people's traditional leaders who oppose the UN-sanctioned thugs.

As Murphy notes, if a given civilization lacks the ideology of property rights that would lead to a peaceful and productive free society, that same civilization will produce the most brutal kind of state imaginable. And if a civilization has such an ideology, then a territorial state will only serve to suppress it.

Maybe you should try reading something other than the mainstream media once in a while. It might broaden your horizons a bit, or at least make your curious about things that the government press-release parroting "journalists" never mention.

Ukrainia said:

For Americans this coming Tuesday is election day.

So it's a simple question. Are you voting? Answering yes or no is enough, but it would be interesting to get a sense of what percentage of you are voting considering this is an important election (nationally as well as in many states) and because most of us are younger and generally young people are considered apathetic when it comes to the voting process.

Click to expand...

I will always vote in elections. I think of it this way, one less vote for whomever I'm voting for is a vote for the opposing side.

At least no more VOTE FOR ME ads...on TV, internet, phone calls...

This person is mean and did this...vote for me...

*2 seconds later*

Don't vote for the person that you just saw 2 seconds ago...I've done this and that for this state...I can clean up the mess if you vote for me...

*5 seconds later*

That person is a lying...if you vote for me I will bring milk and cookies to the world and if you don't I will kill 7 kittens...

*10 seconds later*

I will never harm kittens unlike the person before me...if you vote for me I will own those 7 kittens and give each child a kitten...to bring back the love to the world...

>.<

People in Office...they care only when it is VOTING DAY then they will just try to win ya over and be all nice...until they are re-enlisted then BAM same old rulebook...



This message is sponsored by Drewski

God Bless,
Drewski

I took some of my own advice and looked up some info on Somalia. It's still a basket case and still appears in the news associated with criminal activity (notably pirates these days) but you can't rightly call it "anarchy" anymore. That's because they've had a "transitional" government since about 2004 or so.

During the time they had true "anarchy" the place featured mobs and warlords and an inability to get food to people who needed it because the warring factions were using food--- or the lack of it--- as a weapon. Charitable people and nations from all over the world sent food there, and the food rotted in warehouses because it couldn't be shipped to the hungry people. The factions wouldn't let a thing like that happen. This happened, if memory serves, during the first Clinton administration when our government was trying to operate our military services as a global "meals on wheels" outfit--- with indifferent results.

I haven't heard of this happening recently, so I'm guessing that conditions have improved somewhat.

I have a question: What do we do about the 13th chapter of Romans??? Specifically the first 7 verses??? One person here at least knows exactly what I'm driving at here.

Tonight we see who wins and who loses, tomorrow we have peace from political ads--- until February, when the pols mix it up to see who will be mayor of Chicago. I can't vote in that election, but I still have to listen to the ads.

mjmcmillan said:

During the time they had true "anarchy"

Click to expand...

According to the laughably erroneous pop-culture definition of the word, not the actual one.

the place featured mobs and warlords

Click to expand...

As it did while still under a territorial state...

and an inability to get food to people who needed it because the warring factions were using food--- or the lack of it--- as a weapon.

Click to expand...

Which was little different from the way in which whatever despot the UN liked at the time "distributed", or rather, failed to distribute food except as bribes to people who would help keep him in power.

I have a question: What do we do about the 13th chapter of Romans??? Specifically the first 7 verses???

Click to expand...

Seems I find myself reposting this a lot recently.

Paul writes to obey authority with the qualification that said authorities "reward those who do good, and punish those who do evil". When a person in authority is the greatest impediment to good works and the greatest enabler of evil in a society, God cannot have been endorsing those rulers. If he were, then God would have been endorsing evil, and that is impossible.

In its historical context, that apparent contradiction is resolved, as is the one about women in the Church. Christians were being accused of insurrectionism and anomianism by the governments under which they lived. By acting in accordance with the laws of the time, the Church repelled that attack against them.

But the Church is now well-established, especially in Western cultures. A Christian can stand up against unjust governments without threatening the legitimacy of his faith. Do you believe that the signers of the Declaration of Independence were wrong to rebel against the British government? What about men like Dietrich Bonhoeffer against Hitler? Those are two very different examples, but if Christians are to "obey authority" without question, then they both must be condemned as heresy.

Furthermore, what constitutes just authority? Clearly, not all power qualifies; if it did, then every woman under the power of a rapist would have to "submit" to his "authority". But on what basis do we make a moral distinction between that lone rapist and the king's soldiers when they do the same thing? Does anyone who calls himself a "government" deserve the respect of everyone else? Is it enough to have a piece of paper called "the law"? Do you have to win a popularity contest? Or is it simply that whoever has the ability to kill everyone else if they so wished gets to call themselves "government"?

And about the law: I believe that law is truth. It is impossible for something that is untrue to constitute law. Therefore all just law must be predicated on a universal ethic that does not contradict itself in principle. Any law that is not so constituted is objectively wrong, because truth cannot contradict itself. And since law has moral implications, such laws would be, in fact, morally wrong.

There's also the problem of the volume of the law. In the days of the early church, the law for the common person boiled down to "don't hurt other people, don't take their stuff, and don't start trouble for the governor". But today, it is impossible to "obey every statute". One would have to dedicate his ENTIRE LIFE to studying the law in order to be aware of it in its entirety. I know policemen who have told me that as they learn more of the law they reach the conclusion that everybody is breaking some law, all the time. Furthermore, there are laws that directly contradict one another - while you strive to obey one, you break another!

I do not consider that body of jargon to be law, in fact. I consider it to be opinion - the scribblings of legislators and mumblings of judges, both of whom place themselves in the seat of God in their belief that they are qualified to create law!

The law is contained entirely in the words of God. That's all I need to know. God says "thou shall not steal". If man writes a law saying it's okay to steal if you belong to a certain government organization, I say that law is FALSE, and we are not bound by it.

God says "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". If man says that some people have the right to act in a manner that does not respect the rights of others, I say that law is contrary to the spirit of Christ, and a Christian must denounce it.

God lists the fruit of the spirit, and says "against these things there can be no law". If man passes laws that impede action that bears the fruit of the spirit, I say those laws are wicked, and we have a duty to break them.

The idea that God endorses all political power is so full of contradictions that it simply does not withstand examination. I believe that God endorses justice; not power. And I do not believe that there is any modern state that practices justice, no matter what they say or what their peoples believe.

I like turtles

mjmcmillan said:

I took some of my own advice and looked up some info on Somalia. It's still a basket case and still appears in the news associated with criminal activity (notably pirates these days) but you can't rightly call it "anarchy" anymore. That's because they've had a "transitional" government since about 2004 or so.

During the time they had true "anarchy" the place featured mobs and warlords and an inability to get food to people who needed it because the warring factions were using food--- or the lack of it--- as a weapon. Charitable people and nations from all over the world sent food there, and the food rotted in warehouses because it couldn't be shipped to the hungry people. The factions wouldn't let a thing like that happen. This happened, if memory serves, during the first Clinton administration when our government was trying to operate our military services as a global "meals on wheels" outfit--- with indifferent results.

I haven't heard of this happening recently, so I'm guessing that conditions have improved somewhat.

I have a question: What do we do about the 13th chapter of Romans??? Specifically the first 7 verses??? One person here at least knows exactly what I'm driving at here.

Tonight we see who wins and who loses, tomorrow we have peace from political ads--- until February, when the pols mix it up to see who will be mayor of Chicago. I can't vote in that election, but I still have to listen to the ads.

Click to expand...

Is it legal to have a Chicago mayor who is not named Daley?

Yeah I voted today....filled out the ballots completely at random with my eyes closed!

(lol..kidding..kidding...I voted for governor and mayor and a few other things..I had someone with me to give me advice on the candidates and voting and everything though.)

I voted, but not all of the results are in. Several of the candidates I voted for lost, though (and the ones I did vote for that won were in races I didn't particularly care about, and one or two of the races haven't finished tallying yet). However, two anti-gerrymandering amendments look very likely to pass, so that would be a solid victory.

voted for governor and for house rep
and i voted for a tax levy for the libraries

I voted and the Puppy Mill thing passed so I am happy about that. Thank you God for looking out for your innocent animals. I think this is how I will be from now on if there is something I truly care about to be voted for I will vote otherwise I wouldn't.