The Morality Of Murder

[Diuretic]

But, totalitarian is the only way it will work. Don’t believe the propaganda: People do not work for the glory of work; they work to make a living. And, any system that over looks that basic fact is doomed to eventually fail.

If it were theorised that way, yes, it would fail. But that's not how it's theorised.

 

[wayne]

If it were theorised that way, yes, it would fail. But that's not how it's theorised.

Please educate, but I warn you I have heard it before.

 

[Diuretic]

Please educate, but I warn you I have heard it before.

I can't educate you wayne, you're the only person who can do that. I'm still grappling with the theory and still reading the original texts. If I were very smart I could probably give it a try, I'm not so I won't.

 

[editec]

Got to agree with Wayne on this one.

Communism (that state where people live in such perfect harmony that government is no longer necessary) is as unlikely as state of being as Libertopia.

We humans are simply bad monkeys.

We agree to limit our individual freedoms because we know perfectly well that if we did not, some idiot monkey would spend all day throwing shit all over us.

One of the things I noted about people who claimed to be anarchists (this was in Europe where some radical people still call themselves anarchists) is that yes, they want to break down the government, true...but not to live in anachy.

Instead, they want to forge either some kind of totalitarian communist or totalitarian fascist form of government after they smash the existing (inevitably too liberal) state.

No sane person who understands what anarchy really means seriously thinks anarchy a viable form of social order.

If you want to see what near ararchy looks like, visit Somalia.

Out of every anarchic breakdown of government arises some form of warlordism, and warlordism is about a diametrically opposed to theoretical anarchy as one can get.

The moment there are two people in a room, and one of them has the hammer, anarchy ceased to exist.

 

[Diuretic]

I'd have to disagee ed.

Anarchy is not anarchism.

Communism is entirely possible. It's probably our destiny. Humans progress. Hegel proved it. Newton said so - If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants.

Humans are driven to progress unless we are turned backwards - and that's our choice.

I reject regression.

 

[DiveCon]

hmmmm interesting

Got to agree with Wayne on this one.

Communism (that state where people live in such perfect harmony that government is no longer necessary) is as unlikely as state of being as Libertopia.

We humans are simply bad monkeys.

We agree to limit our individual freedoms because we know perfectly well that if we did not, some idiot monkey would spend all day throwing shit all over us.

One of the things I noted about people who claimed to be anarchists (this was in Europe where some radical people still call themselves anarchists) is that yes, they want to break down the government, true...but not to live in anachy.

Instead, they want to forge either some kind of totalitarian communist or totalitarian fascist form of government after they smash the existing (inevitably too liberal) state.

No sane person who understands what anarchy really means seriously thinks anarchy a viable form of social order.

If you want to see what near ararchy looks like, visit Somalia.

Out of every anarchic breakdown of government arises some form of warlordism, and warlordism is about a diametrically opposed to theoretical anarchy as one can get.

The moment there are two people in a room, and one of them has the hammer, anarchy ceased to exist.

now to some, that might be seen as racism

 

[wayne]

Editec is right we are what we are and we are not likely to change unless genetic engineering is perfected.

 

[DiveCon]

Edited is right we are what we are and we are not likely to change unless genetic engineering is perfected.

i agree with him on that
thats why i said "to some"

 

[Diuretic]

Humans started out with primitive communism, perhaps sharing really is in our genes. But I still reject regression. Advanced communism is possible if deep inside our DNA we are essentially sharing animals and not selfish.

 

[AllieBaba]

what is it with you cons? making up shit all the time? i never excused anyone....?

including the gvt for breaking the law....they know better...and because of their illegal works, a guilty man is free....

why haven't you condemned the University for hiring the man? What did they see that you don't and that I don't?

Is he a reformed man? No crimes committed in 30-40 years and you KNOW the fbi has been watching him like a hawk? That does say something about him...don't know exactly what...but it could be that he had reformed himself?
People are saying that he said he would do what he did again and wished he had done more...but i have never seen this substantiated with a valid or any link?

I honestly don't know much about the man ayres, never heard of him before the Repubs brought up him being on a board with obama and having some campaign gig for him....

I condemn the university for hiring him. It proves higher ed in this country for the most part is hell bent on conditioning our kids to be America-hating zealots.

He has written unapologetic books about his participation in these bombings, he stated in 2001, THE DAY AFTER 911, that he wished he'd set more bombs.

You tell me. You really think he's reformed, or just holding back to avoid prosecution?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

During World War II and the German occupation of France the resistance killed, that is murdered since they where not fighting under the authority of a sovereign, German solders, civilian officials and French citizens. Were they criminals? Eric Rudolf did the same thing but he went to prison. As he saw it he was fighting fascist that were murdering babies. Now as I see it Eric was taking a simplistic view of abortion. For example I think it is not right to force a raped woman to bare the child of her rapist. She can even take revenge on the rapist by killing, aborting, his child. But, Eric was fighting Nazis in his opinion, but the is now in prison. On the other hand William Ayess and his wife did scores of bombing in support a world wide communist revolution, but they never spent a day in prison. As the Left see it their actions were morally right is there a double standard?

If the government of the US Violates the Constitution, do the people have a right to resist. If it started infringing on the rights citizens to own weapons, by concentrating power in the central government, or by banning talk radio through the Fairness Doctrine, would not resistant groups be justified in doing the same things the French resistance did.

In other words is it morally right to kill people in the defense of freedom?

Murder is the morally unjustified taking of a human life... The Nazis were a clear and present threat to human life, thus killing Nazis and those that promoted their interests was morally justified.

Whenever a power seeks to usurp one's means to exercise their human rights it is te duty of the individual to defend their right. That does NOT however mean that one is morally justified to take the life of someone who is trying to usurp your right. Taking the life of a human being is only morally justified when that human being is a clear and present threat to one's self or another.

The Nazis were killing people by the thousands... if the US government started doing the same, then they would be liable to the same morally justified defense. But that is not the case at present. However the US is succumbing to cultural insanity as is evident by the recent rise to power of the ideological left. Where the ideological left finds unfettered power, catastrophe is never far behind... and such is always a result of popular whimsy where law departs from valid moral principle.

----

I believe as Rudolph believes that life begins at conception. But I also recognize that the issue is one wherein people have strong disagreement and the answer cannot be conclusively known... Thus killing Doctors and nurses that are acting on what they believe to be morally justifiable grounds where certainty cannot be established, I do not believe provides for the moral justification to destroy them in defense of prenatal life; particularly that in the very earliest stages of development, prior to the development of advanced brain function; I do believe that there is a good case to be made for legal protections of prenatal children in the later stages where sentience is clearly established... and were someone to be taking offensive measures to harm such, again, out of the realm of viable medical treatment, killing that person to save that baby and her mother would most definitely be justified; as is indicated by criminal prosecutions of those who are convicted of having done so.


Now even as I write that I am dubious; but the medical community does not believe that the earliest stages of human development represent life and while I vehemently disagree, again... I can't say that I am able to 'know'... nor do I believe that THEY are able to know... but the issue here is intent and given that they are not willfully taking what they themselves know to be human life, provides a fair measure of doubt; while in principle, human life incontestably begins at the beginning (conception). But birth is the culturally undisputed moment at which human life begins to be scored... Rudolph would have served our cause much more effectively as an advocate, than as a misguided killer of those whose intentions are clearly misguided, but are certainly not murderous.

The battle against abortion is one for the conscience... where the weaponry is principled reason and vigilant, dogged, irrepressible determination to encourage our culture to recognize their responsibility to not exercise their rights to the detriment of others and that 'other' includes those conceived through careless and casual sexual intercourse.

Now, to be clear... when they start walking into homes and killing post born children... it's immediate, unwavering war against those that engage in the morally unjustifiable act, along with those that promote their interests. Now some ill no doubt roll their rhetorical eyes as to avoid saying 'yeah RIGHT!'... well that happens all the time and much worse and they happen because to some even that is fine with them, as long as it isn't THEM or their children. So don't roll your eyes and recognize the principle here... It is your duty to defend innocent human life from all threats wherein that threat is advanced on anything less than a valid moral justification... of which there is one: Was that life which was threatened a clear and immediate threat to another human being? Sometimes you can't know and the benefit of the doubt is advanced to what are known to be valid legal authority; but with that said, a legal authority does not always make a valid moral authority and often what was once the former can quickly become the latter, and they do it by acting outside of valid moral principle. At which time it is the duty of every free sovereign to take action to either destroy that authority or return it to valid principle.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Humans started out with primitive communism, perhaps sharing really is in our genes. But I still reject regression. Advanced communism is possible if deep inside our DNA we are essentially sharing animals and not selfish.

ROFL.... Diur... get serious. Communism is not a viable notion beyond very small groups.

If I know you and you know me and through our knowledge of one another we recognize that each is worthy of our respective trust, then I will readily reach out to help you and would expect that you'd reciprocate. We would in effect hold one another accountable... such is the nature of family and community. But absent familiarity accountability is lost and ambition is often lost right along with it... which FTR: can only mean that the viability of what ever effort was being attempted goes right out the door with those two essential elements.

This oxymoron "Advanced Communism" is a misnomer... it is an absurd economic system which has developed into a humanist-cult and rests on stringent socio-economic controls which run counter to the nature of humanity. Its a lethal farce.

 

[Diuretic]

The point I was making was that cooperation is beneficial for humans. In our earliest incarnations we needed to cooperate to survive. I see that as being an essential part of humanity. Even Adam Smith recognised an enlightened self interest that depended on fair exchange between individuals in a social context.

In a future anarcho-communist condition humans can have the benefits of technology and industry without the problems of unrestrained capitalism. The theory is there, it just has to be applied properly.

 

[editec]

I'd have to disagee ed.

Anarchy is not anarchism.

No? What is it then?

Communism is entirely possible. It's probably our destiny. Humans progress. Hegel proved it. Newton said so - If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants.

I doubt it. The theoretical Communist state really depends on people changing their basic natures. It requires that everyone agree to take only what they need while giving all they can to the system.

Humans are driven to progress unless we are turned backwards - and that's our choice.

Times change but I am not sure that its all progress. Was it progress when Rome fell and we went into the dark ages? I mean, I understand if you consider that progress, of course, because progress is in the eye of the beholder.

I reject regression.

That's nice, but is it realistic?

First of all we'd have to define what we mean by regression as it pertains to human society.

I'm not exactly sure I can define human progress or regress in any way that even makes sense...can you?

ABout that only think that seems obvious to me is that the more complex our society gets, the more interdependent it becomes, the greater the loss of individual freedoms seem to come with those changes.

The only perfect communist states I can think of are some highly social insects like bees.

And they seem to have a leg up (actually four legs up) on us because they are genetically predisposed to accept their place in that perfect communist soceity of theirs.

You hojestly think mankind will evolve into a species where greed and averice aren't part of our human natures?

Frankly, I don't.

Still I DO think that if mankind continues to advance technologically, and if his societies become more advanced and therefore more interdependent, the societies he creates are likely to become more and more repressive of individual freedoms.

Is that really communism?

Or can we just agree that totalitarianism is the inevitable outcome of a society which becomes so interdependent because that dependence on things working smoothly depends on people knowing their places and staying in them?

 

[editec]

hmmmm interesting


now to some, that might be seen as racism

Only to damned fools whose world view makes them think about race at every turn, Dive.

Somalia is basically in a state of warlordism now, which is the inevitable outcome when states break down.

Europe was in that state for centuries after rome fell, was it not?

 

[editec]

Humans started out with primitive communism, perhaps sharing really is in our genes. But I still reject regression. Advanced communism is possible if deep inside our DNA we are essentially sharing animals and not selfish.

We're BOTH.

We are social animals, but not entirely socialized given that we are essantially the same..unlike, for example bees.

But it is interesting that every newly laid egg has the possibility of becoming either worker, guard, drone or queen bee depending on what it is fed.

So to some extent Bees are ALREADY doing DNA manipulation and have been for millions of years.

 

[editec]

The point I was making was that cooperation is beneficial for humans. In our earliest incarnations we needed to cooperate to survive. I see that as being an essential part of humanity. Even Adam Smith recognised an enlightened self interest that depended on fair exchange between individuals in a social context.

In a future anarcho-communist condition humans can have the benefits of technology and industry without the problems of unrestrained capitalism. The theory is there, it just has to be applied properly.

A fully functional family is some sort of COMMUNism, is it not?

Or is that a monachy? Or does it depend on the family itself?

Some of us might make the very reasonable argument that their family existed in a state of anarchy, too.

If we work with the definition of communism as: that state of development so perfect that ecery person knows his place and is comfortable being a part of his or her society, then society therefore needs to be no hierachical power structure, then I am convinced that our species can never achive that state.


Why?

Well if for no other reason, power corrupts

I seriously doubt (and history bear me out on this) that mankind ever makes the shift from that socialist state to that stateless state which is the definition of communism.

Main Entry: com·mu·nism Pronunciation: \ˈkäm-yə-ˌni-zəm, -yü-\ Function: noun Etymology: French communisme, from commun common Date: 1840 1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed2capitalized a: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d: communist systems collectively

 

[DiveCon]

Only to damned fools whose world view makes them think about race at every turn, Dive.

Somalia is basically in a state of warlordism now, which is the inevitable outcome when states break down.

Europe was in that state for centuries after rome fell, was it not?

if you were a conservative or even a republican, you would have been called a racist for that comment

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The point I was making was that cooperation is beneficial for humans.

A point to which I stipulated...

In our earliest incarnations we needed to cooperate to survive.

Nothing has changed on that score and it never will...

I see that as being an essential part of humanity.

On this we agree...

Even Adam Smith recognised an enlightened self interest that depended on fair exchange between individuals in a social context.

I've never met anyone that suggested otherwise... why you're standing on it as a point of contention is known only to you...

In a future anarcho-communist condition humans can have the benefits of technology and industry without the problems of unrestrained capitalism.

"ROFLMNAO... Anarcho-communism? BRILLIANT oxymoron.

Capitalism is nothing more than the free exchange of goods and services to the mutual benefit of both parties... the only means for it to exist is 'unrestrained'... "restrained capitalism" begins at fascism and ends at that point where socialism evolves into communism...

The theory is there, it just has to be applied properly.

Yes, the theory does indeed exists and its one of the greatest examples of "DISCREDITED THEORIES" in human history.

 

[Diuretic]

Oh dear, it does seem it's correct that the suggestion that there is an immutable law that says even the best thread will end up in semantics.

Anarchist communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now we're down to the smear of oxymoron.