I know this may seem like a bit of an odd question but I’ve been wondering about it for the past few days and for some reason I can’t escape the feeling that it (atheism) would be a rather ‘conservative’ point of view (that is, at least in title), and yet I’m constantly being called a liberal because of my social and political leanings. I'm just wondering what your views are on this.
PS: I’ll be gone for a few days but I will catch up with this thread when I return.
This just in from someone close to me~ "maybe the rich should have all the power, because they are obviously smart enough to make the money, and everyone else isn't."
I've been told this idea is brilliant
This was after she spent a couple hours reflecting on a documentary she watched about the rich~ she then proceeded to ask me where the laws in the us come from, and to confirm that bejamin franklin wrote the constitution~ when I told her how ridiculous her idea was, she proceeded to tell me that i'm just immature and anti-intellectual, and that I'm not smart enough to get her ideas.
First of all, I do not believe that a political decision should be allowed to influence anything other than who will and how they will protect our individual rights. To keep every individual free from coercion. Second, no, the moral thing is not to let people starve to death. Nor is it to force other people to help. As I have said before, philanthropy and charity, imo, would flourish even more than they do now. I can imagine an organization designed to help people like this, soliciting voluntary contributions perhaps, or starting a business whose profit is dedicated to starving people, with a logo and brand that consumers can be proud they have contributed to what they perceive as a good cause. And, why they are starving has no imapct whatsoever, imo, as to whether or not you force someone to help, as a rule of the land (institutionalized violence), but would certainly matter as to whether I make a decision to help them personally. This is partially why it should be left up to the individual to help or not, as they see fit. And as for mob rule, I think that if we are to elect officials to run the military, national guard, law courts and other valid extensions of retaliatory force, mob rule is the only fair way to go. If it is concerning other non-moral institutionalized violence, the mob should not have a say in where my money goes. The mob is only proper in deciding who and how our individual rights will be protected or what objective laws will be enforced. Park, any reason why you are addresssing me in the third person?
lol only because I was responding to Wanderer, not to you Michael.
>And as for mob rule, I think that if we are to elect officials to run the military, national guard, law courts and other valid extensions of retaliatory force, mob rule is the only fair way to go. If it is concerning other non-moral institutionalized violence, the mob should not have a say in where my money goes.
Who decides what is of a moral nature and what is not? If anything social support programs are of the utmost moral nature, not the military.
I am really just tired of all polemical rhetoric on your behalf, Mike. Enforcing laws is called "violent coercion," the democratic process is "mob" rule~ these notions of 'liberty' are meretricious, and I just don't have much stomach for the same thing over and over and over again without gaining any ground, or making any thoughtful progress.
"with that said, I bid you adieu"