Concerned For Our Response To Politics

[Great Fiction]

Of course Marx and Engels had a flawed idea in communism. It is an utopian ideal that can never work because of people will not want to release control of the tiny central government (this is made true by every instance so far), lazy people that do not want to help, greedy people that are self-entitled and will not share, and isolationists and elitists that cannot comprehend that we are ALL equal.

I agree that utopianism is not possible, nor is it ethical for any group to force society to attempt it.

Can we also agree that we are not “economically equal?” For equality is for “justice” where our natural rights are equally delegated by God. For many today do not know how to separate “justice which is virtuous” from “social-justice which is economically despotic.” Can we agree that social-justice is compulsory despotic fairness?

But getting back to the meritocracy, you asked "Yet “who” will choose demonstrated abilities?". I think your answer is in the last two words. Results driven people would be selected to put their candidacy forth. That way the people can vote on them.

Please forgive my repetition, but you recycled the point, from “who will choose demonstrated abilities” to “who will select results driven people?” Thus the authority must reside “somewhere,” and its in this “illegitimate authority” that I am a meritocratic antagonist.

It is NOT about money at that point, nor cronyism. It is purely about what the level of experience is.

In all governments where “intervention exists” it must be paid for, and how is this done? All money “is taken using force” to finance the intervention. Thus economics are at the heart of all intervention, even a Meritocratic selection process. For the process will have committees, oversight, funding, legislation, and law; all of which require money, higher management and higher oversight, and this money must be taken from someone else immorally.

The most important question is then, “who” will be in charge and by what authority will they be in charge? Who's interest will they have in mind? For all taken money allocated to socialism requires oversight. For I contend that “ethics” are thrashed to fund any socialistic method and will empower a few to gain the system over the many. Thus if any “laws” are made to construct a Meritocracy then the new socialism transfigures to legal-plunder like all socialism does; for there is no “ethical restraint” that says “thou shalt not steal.”

When ethics are lawfully established, illegitimate authority will be restricted. This ethical restraint if established using solid strategy will forbid the despot from engaging in legal-plunder and to gain all things using unjust law. For no matter how good the rules are or even the ideas, the despot moves in the dark to subvert all economic transitions in the confines of unjust law. Thus restraint is our greatest strategy and not more good ideas for him to twist to his own favor using unjust law; for good ideas forced in the law without ethics is despotism manifest.

The general or admiral that has years of experience in command would be ideal for any war position. There are very few at the top of that group so the pool would be small. Same with commerce, transportation, legal matters, etc. There are very few at the top of the tops of each field. Those are the ones that exhibit a valid reason to be considered.

Yet remaining respectful and pointing to more endless repetition kindly, “by what authority?” For who will keep it honorable, keep it free of despotism, and ensure it operates properly? I should say “the same few that ensure it now, or eventually someone of the likes of Stalin,” who then will cause a fouled electorate process to appear similar to the one we have now or far worse. It will only engineer new laws even more compulsory than they are now, also laced with furthering interventionist control, and will continue to push away even more liberty from the individual.

An election is held and they are chosen. They lead the nation and we profit from their experience, not who they know or how much money they have. You will not wind up with a vapid talking head.


It would not dim at all the idea of parents raising their children as they see fit. As parents want their children to be the best and that would be rewarded based on what they do and how well they do it. It will increase the chances of children growing up and being recognised for their skills and talents. Far often in the US, people's skills go untapped when they could be of great benefit. Society will seek to create generations that as The King said are teleios, perfect in completeness. All will be inspired by these people to better themselves because it will be a trickle down to daily life and business.

I will agree with you that all these ideas “are good,” yet I will argue that all of them are evil if “man uses illegitimate authority not granted by God to lawfully force any of these things upon other people.” I hold to the “ethical position” that you cannot “manufacture good ideas using despotism in the law.”

For why is Natural Rights Theory so important? Why are ethics so important? Because “life” is important, and no political configurations of mankind has ever valued it when Natural Rights is abolished. Natural Rights Theory is the only ethical foundation that stands rigid against, legal-plunder, economic collapse, starvation, genocide, mass-murder, mass-rape, sanctioned brutality, poverty, and crimes against humanity.

If you allow “ethics” to be crushed in the confines of the law, then life, liberty and property will be crushed in society.

The bold and skilled will be rewarded and the lazy and timid marginalised or made to improve themselves through social ques. We will have less people gaming the system and not contributing. And ethically, we will be better off because it is all based on service, honour and dedication.

Yet can it be that we should not ethically support “anyone” to game the system despotically? For if we support a single soul to act with illegitimate authority, then are we not also aligned with despotism?

As a Christian do you feel we have a duty to ethically repudiate any force, power, institution or person who would bring despotism to another? Thus also for government, are we to repudiate despotism as well, and then support ethics unto “life instead?” For what man is worthy to sit upon Gods throne and act with authority to commit arbitrary acts of violence against person or property?

I do not see a downside to a meritocratic republic. Sure beats the current oligarchies we have now. They are wasteful and ineffective.

I will agree readily that our current system is highly flawed, plagued with legal-plunder, and will pray always that our country will return to ethical considerations; yet we must agree to disagree on a Meritocracy; for I see it highly “unethical.” Though it is full of good ideas, so is Communism, Collectivism, Socialism and Corporatism, yet all of these route the economy immorally with legal-plunder and violence; not because of the variation of ideas, but because ethics are choked out.

I will say though Dave, I see in a lot of your postings, a sincere desire to establish liberty, and that makes us both advocates of a thing in common; we just may have differentiating views for accomplishing it.

 

[Dave Lucas]

I agree that utopianism is not possible, nor is it ethical for any group to force society to attempt it.

Can we also agree that we are not “economically equal?” For equality is for “justice” where our natural rights are equally delegated by God. For many today do not know how to separate “justice which is virtuous” from “social-justice which is economically despotic.” Can we agree that social-justice is compulsory despotic fairness?



Please forgive my repetition, but you recycled the point, from “who will choose demonstrated abilities” to “who will select results driven people?” Thus the authority must reside “somewhere,” and its in this “illegitimate authority” that I am a meritocratic antagonist.



In all governments where “intervention exists” it must be paid for, and how is this done? All money “is taken using force” to finance the intervention. Thus economics are at the heart of all intervention, even a Meritocratic selection process. For the process will have committees, oversight, funding, legislation, and law; all of which require money, higher management and higher oversight, and this money must be taken from someone else immorally.

The most important question is then, “who” will be in charge and by what authority will they be in charge? Who's interest will they have in mind? For all taken money allocated to socialism requires oversight. For I contend that “ethics” are thrashed to fund any socialistic method and will empower a few to gain the system over the many. Thus if any “laws” are made to construct a Meritocracy then the new socialism transfigures to legal-plunder like all socialism does; for there is no “ethical restraint” that says “thou shalt not steal.”

When ethics are lawfully established, illegitimate authority will be restricted. This ethical restraint if established using solid strategy will forbid the despot from engaging in legal-plunder and to gain all things using unjust law. For no matter how good the rules are or even the ideas, the despot moves in the dark to subvert all economic transitions in the confines of unjust law. Thus restraint is our greatest strategy and not more good ideas for him to twist to his own favor using unjust law; for good ideas forced in the law without ethics is despotism manifest.



Yet remaining respectful and pointing to more endless repetition kindly, “by what authority?” For who will keep it honorable, keep it free of despotism, and ensure it operates properly? I should say “the same few that ensure it now, or eventually someone of the likes of Stalin,” who then will cause a fouled electorate process to appear similar to the one we have now or far worse. It will only engineer new laws even more compulsory than they are now, also laced with furthering interventionist control, and will continue to push away even more liberty from the individual.



I will agree with you that all these ideas “are good,” yet I will argue that all of them are evil if “man uses illegitimate authority not granted by God to lawfully force any of these things upon other people.” I hold to the “ethical position” that you cannot “manufacture good ideas using despotism in the law.”

For why is Natural Rights Theory so important? Why are ethics so important? Because “life” is important, and no political configurations of mankind has ever valued it when Natural Rights is abolished. Natural Rights Theory is the only ethical foundation that stands rigid against, legal-plunder, economic collapse, starvation, genocide, mass-murder, mass-rape, sanctioned brutality, poverty, and crimes against humanity.

If you allow “ethics” to be crushed in the confines of the law, then life, liberty and property will be crushed in society.



Yet can it be that we should not ethically support “anyone” to game the system despotically? For if we support a single soul to act with illegitimate authority, then are we not also aligned with despotism?

As a Christian do you feel we have a duty to ethically repudiate any force, power, institution or person who would bring despotism to another? Thus also for government, are we to repudiate despotism as well, and then support ethics unto “life instead?” For what man is worthy to sit upon Gods throne and act with authority to commit arbitrary acts of violence against person or property?



I will agree readily that our current system is highly flawed, plagued with legal-plunder, and will pray always that our country will return to ethical considerations; yet we must agree to disagree on a Meritocracy; for I see it highly “unethical.” Though it is full of good ideas, so is Communism, Collectivism, Socialism and Corporatism, yet all of these route the economy immorally with legal-plunder and violence; not because of the variation of ideas, but because ethics are choked out.

I will say though Dave, I see in a lot of your postings, a sincere desire to establish liberty, and that makes us both advocates of a thing in common; we just may have differentiating views for accomplishing it.

Here is the issue that I have in your thought processes.

You stick to the utopian construct of Natural Rights Theory. In God's eyes we have ONLY one right by nature. Death. No other.
So I am not sure why you would want to gainsay God and hold true to a human concept. So we are all equally dead in natural humanity by God's eyes. Elitists will argue that we are unequal as it bolsters their continuance in being elite.

Sadly we all die, you cut all of us we bleed, we all starve with no food and dehydrate without fluids. In cases of life and death, the elite fail just as the non-elite do.

Also the usage of the phrase "Can we also agree" is not working, because we do not agree. It is a fine way to try and railroad a conversation for those that have shaky opinions, but not effective against those adamant in their position.

As for who will ultimately police the meritocrats, as I espoused before it would be a meritocratic republic. So the people would have the authority by means of a vote of no confidence to the government, leading to a new election to replace the old. As for the God granted legal rights, they are made moot if these governments do not follow the Great Commandments. As all nations are fallen, God is not granting squat to these nations. He is NO respecter of men.

The US never adopted this premise, because the politicians in power use their job as a career, not a service to the republic.

Now there is this point here you make:
"As a Christian do you feel we have a duty to ethically repudiate any force, power, institution or person who would bring despotism to another? Thus also for government, are we to repudiate despotism as well, and then support ethics unto “life instead?” For what man is worthy to sit upon Gods throne and act with authority to commit arbitrary acts of violence against person or property?"

Define repudiation. Is this a code word for carnal war to be waged to overthrow despotism?

If so that is Levitical and is proper for fallen men.
As a Christian, carnal war is NOT our calling. If so, then all of the early Christians killed at the hands of Rome SHOULD have taken up sword and shield and waged war against Rome. The praise the Lord and pass the ammunition is the drinking of old wine. Old wine and old wineskins cannot receive the Holy Spirit nor be part of The Kingdom.

My question to you is if you are against most forms of ideology, what one(s) do you stand behind? Because the current reliance on oligarchies have failed greatly.

 

[Great Fiction]

Here is the issue that I have in your thought processes.
You stick to the utopian construct of Natural Rights Theory.

What is “Utopianism” for clarity, and how it vastly different than Natural Rights Theory?

Definition - “the views or habit of mind of a utopian; impracticable schemes of political or social reform.”

Utopia was termed first by Sir Thomas Moore (1478–1535) in a fictitious-publish where a socially engineered island would offer a utopia, one where no natural rights could exist. A place of Lords who enforced slavery, the subjugation of women, a communistic styled society, and riddled with authoritarian rule.

It was then later that Charles Fourier (1772 – 1837) then wanted to build socialistic communities of “perfect harmony.” A place where 810 personality types would be required to be in pairs totaling 1,620 people , all of which must eat from a central kitchen and eat together in a single dining hall. This of course would eventually be held together with anarchy where no domestic chores or domestic work would exist.

Then later came Robert Owens (1771-1858) who built sixteen “Villages of Cooperations” where all them failed due to the lack of liberty. For though Owens wanted “economic equality” to excel, all of them plummeted instead.

Then came Saint-Simon (1760 -1825) who wanted a planned socialistic bliss to be ran, organized, and ruled by a technocratic elite, thinking that the “few” were technologically equipped to force rule.

All of these contributers of Utopian Socialism defined the first of the two major brands of “Socialism” that exist to this day with Utopian ideology.

Then came Pierre Proudhon, Friedrich Engels, and Karl Marx who then added a plethora of scientific and anarchical twists, including that of dialectical-materialism in the spirit of Hegelian dialectics, which is to transitionally derive from Utopian socialistic ideologies. All of them predicated upon utilitarian-violence that will devalue all life to be mere particles that can suffer eradication to achieve the perfect collective bliss. A bliss of economic fairness forced into place from the thrones of the totalitarian State, and all justified by the far-reaching mystical notions of Hegel.

For Utopianism is a construct of “Socialism,” also secretes social-intervention, central-planning, and every kind of ideology coming from man that would “force-plan” violence in the confines of the law in order to achieve a perfect or economically-fair society; yet its all based on immoral ideology instead of ethics.

There is one Libertarian Utopian proponent by the name of Robert Nozick who wrote the book “Anarchy, State, and Utopia.” Nozick in my opinion has the least-despotic argument for a Utopian society, but he also gave up the ethical-premise for Natural Rights in its purity. He too like the Socialists would fail to support Natural Rights Theory, then resolving to minimal amounts of unjust law.

Natural Rights Theory is “opposite of Utopianism” for it prohibits it. It is also supported rigorously in scripture, for it is God's delegation to mankind in Gen-1:26. For God himself made mankind in His image and then delegated to mankind authority over all the earth and everything in it. For the State of Nature precedes any civil constructs of men, as the delegation from God exists prior to any government. It is in the State of Nature that “self-ownership” or “self-management with full authority” is justifiably the baseline for humanity by contractual delegation. For God owns all things and then by contract to humanity, He “delegated” His property (our persons/ the earth/ all that is in it) to us, which is our natural bodies (corporeal property) and all earthly property. We are indeed owners of our own self, yet temporarily in this natural world.

It is then that “covenants/contracts” began to appear, such as the covenants/contracts with Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses. Finally the greatest contract offering of all which is the contract of salvation through Jesus Christ. In each of these contracts we then have obligation to adhere to these contracts rigidly. However the final contract which is available by Christ and Him crucified is also filled with grace; for He is the perfect sacrifice, where His shed blood reconciled us all that would repent to contractual obedience. For at salvation we acknowledge that our bodies are no longer our own to manage, but now through salvation are the re-embraced property of Christ. For we do indeed have a “lease on life” till we die or till we give ourselves back totally to Him. Thus our bodies, and property is our delegation from God when we are born.

The Bible is also filled with “restraint” especially in our final contract with Christ. For we are “restricted” from taking life, taking liberty, and taking property from any person who is not guilty of despotism. We are commanded from the word to not steal, not kill, and not to harm. Natural Rights Theory from John Locke reverberates the “ethical foundation from scripture” but also via Murray Rothbard provides secular deployment also that is “synonymous” with the scriptural foundation of Natural Rights Theory.

 

[Great Fiction]

In God's eyes we have ONLY one right by nature. Death. No other.
So I am not sure why you would want to gainsay God and hold true to a human concept. So we are all equally dead in natural humanity by God's eyes.

We are created and a given a delegation to live in the natural, to multiply and to possess the earth. Yet we are restricted ethically to take life, liberty and property from others. Yet at salvation our contract is to crucify our fleshly desire, die to self, kill the worldly old-man, and to dedicate mind, body and spirit to Him.

Elitists will argue that we are unequal as it bolsters their continuance in being elite.

We are equal as people, all born with natural rights, but we are not “economically equal.” Scripture does not guarantee economic equality, nor does it support violence in the law to force it so.

Sadly we all die, you cut all of us we bleed, we all starve with no food and dehydrate without fluids. In cases of life and death, the elite fail just as the non-elite do.

I totally agree here if you see the elite as the unjust, “For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike.”

Also the usage of the phrase "Can we also agree" is not working, because we do not agree. It is a fine way to try and railroad a conversation for those that have shaky opinions, but not effective against those adamant in their position.

I apologize, I only meant to be polite. I want to propose ideas instead of declaring them. For I respect your liberty to difference, even if we disagree.

As for who will ultimately police the meritocrats, as I espoused before it would be a meritocratic republic. So the people would have the authority by means of a vote of no confidence to the government, leading to a new election to replace the old. As for the God granted legal rights, they are made moot if these governments do not follow the Great Commandments. As all nations are fallen, God is not granting squat to these nations. He is NO respecter of men.

The US never adopted this premise, because the politicians in power use their job as a career, not a service to the republic.

You mention that “the people will have the authority by means of a vote” - thus my earlier point now comes to focus that socialistic referendums that trespass the ethics of Natural Right Theory will be compromised by the “oversight” instituted to ensure its integrity. For the “oversight will be that authority.” For a mass of people cannot oversee a bureaucratic or socialistic process. The process will be hi-jacked and compromised overnight. It will unfortunately not be any different than the two-party system we have now, but with more laws to harm further whats left of our inalienable natural rights.

Yet the ethical dilemma continues, “who” is that special person or group to ensure its good? Also “who” will they despotically take money from to finance the process?

Now there is this point here you make:

Great Fiction said - "As a Christian do you feel we have a duty to ethically repudiate any force, power, institution or person who would bring despotism to another? Thus also for government, are we to repudiate despotism as well, and then support ethics unto “life instead?” For what man is worthy to sit upon Gods throne and act with authority to commit arbitrary acts of violence against person or property?"

Define repudiation. Is this a code word for carnal war to be waged to overthrow despotism?

I will say no, yet I will elaborate

Technical Definition - repudiate
1. To reject the validity or authority of:
2. To reject emphatically as unfounded, untrue, or unjust:
3. To refuse to recognize or pay

In my own words unto application: To morally reject the premise of despotism, declare it as being immoral and unjust, to not support it, and if the spirit leads to disobey in like manor with the exemplar demonstration of Christ when He disobeyed unjust theocratic laws of men. Christ was a “radical ethicist” but he was not a “civil revolutionary.” For like Christ our mission is to “ethically” stand with all courage even if it costs us our lives. We are like lambs sent among wolves.

Yet scriptural advocation of the innocent suffering at the hands of despotism is also different than Godly altruism. Also self-defense can be argued scripturally as well.

If so that is Levitical and is proper for fallen men.
As a Christian, carnal war is NOT our calling. If so, then all of the early Christians killed at the hands of Rome SHOULD have taken up sword and shield and waged war against Rome. The praise the Lord and pass the ammunition is the drinking of old wine. Old wine and old wineskins cannot receive the Holy Spirit nor be part of The Kingdom.

I totally agree with your wise analogy, yet I do not agree that pure pacifism is scripturally mandated to be circumstantially homogeneous to all people, and there is a time to defend the innocent from sociopathic mad-men and despotic brutes.

My question to you is if you are against most forms of ideology, what one(s) do you stand behind? Because the current reliance on oligarchies have failed greatly.

First let me say that your antagonism to the worlds array of oligarchical configurations is most wise in my opinion. For most people are oblivious to the massive and organized systems of economic despotism. Your antagonism in not only appreciated but warranted.

I believe ethics from Natural Rights Theory must first provide society with a deontological premise within the confines of the law (not in the Kantian method, but in the Lockean and Rothbardian ethical method) “before” any a political/economic prescription can be constructed. Then with the substrate in place, a confederated constitution with strategic restraint allocates autonomy but not sovereignty to its union states. Decentralized autonomous society would manage themselves locally through participation.

It would be “messy” not “Utopian,” there also would be many flavors of local society, however people would have “ethical law” in place to protect life, liberty and property. Advantaged corporatism would disappear, and so would authoritarian tyranny. It would often be most “unfair” economically yet the very poorest of society will live as good as most middle class people do now. There also would be far less disparity between the rich and the poor. Also the rich will have to “earn” their wealth and not lawfully take it from someone else. There would be a “true” level playing field, not a skewed one provided by despots, as the free market void of lawful advantage would provide it. Money would have “value” (commodities) and would not exist as a compulsory fiat monopoly managed by the few who have legal advantage.