You capitulate to their control, then it is still their control. The difference is you are willing to be controlled.
One man's control is another man's way of life.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The difference is that noone is REQUIRED to be Catholic. If you don't want to be Catholic, then you don't be a Catholic. Who is trying to control whom? Catholic live their faith by voluntary submission, not because it is being forced upon us.
That is why societies establish governments, and retain the right to abolish said government when it becomes abusive.When your arm swings too far and hits that nose, who dictates your punishment if you are unwilling to admit your offense and offer compensation if applicable?
And when I decide, through my own free will, to no longer submit to said dictums of faith, I am freely able to choose another modality of faith without fear of imprisonment, fines, or other forms of control. As such, it is not control, but rather guidance.You capitulate to their control, then it is still their control. The difference is you are willing to be controlled.
One man's control is another man's way of life.
You capitulate to their control, then it is still their control. The difference is you are willing to be controlled.
One man's control is another man's way of life.
This is how I differentiate guidance and control, using example:Please define control.
So the government will exercise it's control on you if you are unwilling to freely provide proper restitution.That is why societies establish governments,
Lady fined for recycling infraction, REVOLUTIONand retain the right to abolish said government when it becomes abusive.
If that is true, doesn't the origin of that truth have to be failure of the Blue state's representatives to serve their constituent's best interests? If what you say is true Blueapplepaste, surely it is only true because Pelosi and crew are asleep at the wheel & letting their home states "get rolled" for the benefit of evil red states.
Can't say your take on the issue paints the blue state's elected in a prettier light.
I agree. Let's roll.So the government will exercise it's control on you if you are unwilling to freely provide proper restitution.
Lady fined for recycling infraction, REVOLUTION
You make a direct comparison between an organization that is established to clarify matters of faith and morality, and an organization that will try to make it illegal for me to eat butter or be prosecuted?
And you have problems with my Nuremburg comparison. However, the corpus of your posts paint a composite picture of you. You are a statist. You are a paradigmnatic control freak. You want groups of people controlling other people. Any you have the audacity to call me pompous? Pomposity is rooted in the notion that some people are simly better than others, which it typically an attribute of an elitist...who also desire to control others...you knnow, for their own good.
Could it be that the blue states send more to the federal government in taxes than they receive back in the form of assistance because their governmental policies foster broader, wider prosperity among their residents?
It also shows that the red state representatives have absolutely no problem with federal spending in their home states. Quite hypocritical to decry federal spending and then take a larger share of the pie, no?
Well, they could always sell that land back to private investors....The pie is on the table, you can't unbake the crust, you can't seal the filling back in the can. No, in some cases it isn't hypocritical . . . in others it is a product of federal mandate . .. for example: Roughly 65% of Alaska is owned and managed by the Federal Government (89.22% if federal and state combined), 1/9 of the state is owned by native peoples. All together, about 1% of Alaska's land is owned by private interests. So, is it really outlandish that Alaska has the Federal spending that it does per tax dollar paid?
Forced distribution of prosperity?Could it be that the blue states send more to the federal government in taxes than they receive back in the form of assistance because their governmental policies foster broader, wider prosperity among their residents?
It is an interesting statistic, that the red states take in more money than the blue states. You would think if all of the Republicans and conservatives were so anti government spending they might start by setting an example. Guess not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?