Government is immoral.

hmm, well government enforces itself at gun point, that is amoral to you?

 

He shouldn't. But that's the way it's always been, and people are afraid of change and responsibility.

 

No, It's immoral. Immoral, meaning it's wrong. Amoral would imply that it isn't right or wrong. I'm saying that it wrong.

I don't really understand what this means and what it has to do with my post. Elaborate? PS, I don't mean to sound mean or anything. I know it can come out that way since I can't express my tone.

 

well since you can't own property, man, it's not your money!

 

You can't own property?

 

nope. property belongs to all mankind.

 

Are you being serious or are you joking?

Are you saying that you don't believe in private property?

 

ok. done joking now. but many libs believe that. whatever the government lets you keep you should get on your knees and thank it for.

 

Yes, because only the winners of popularity contests can be trusted to rule over others as they only have the best interests of their constituents at heart. Unless, of course, they happen to be in the party in which you are not, in which case they are the very face of evil. Or something.

 

What a sad joke the system is, eh?

 

Amoral in the sense that it operates on a level above we poor mortals. It does what it wants and is self serving. Here is a better explanation...

"That's the difference between governments and individuals. Governments don't care, individuals do." - Mark Twain, A Tramp Abroad

 

Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

 

hmm, I don't think caring is a requisite for morality.

 

and yet that is likely a position FDR would have sympathized with.

 

I volunteer nothing if no one else has to pay anything.

Maybe you can find a voluntaryist/Market Anarchist/Agorist society to see how it would work. Like Somolia.

 

Yet not caring is far more likely to result in an immoral result than is caring, as long as that care is not self serving...

An example of the self serving wrapping themselves in the mantle of caring and hence morality is the lefts current call to loot the rich. In exchange for looting a third party the left gets either goodies from those looted folk or gains political power derived from those getting the goodies.

Put another way 'caring' is only associated with morality when it is not self serving.

 

Nah, he had a staff to do his lying for him....

 

the point, I believe (that you were making), was that government is not capable of caring so its not capable of morality (or immorality) so it must be amoral. I reject that the ability to care is a requisite for morality (...or immorality).

see above.

 

I meant that my original statement about property is something FDR would have sympathized with, and thus no lying would have been necessary.

 

Without government, your labor and money wouldn't be worth spit. Hell, you wouldn't even be able to subsistance farm without government.

 

There is a difference between 'government' with a small 'g' as in an organization to provide general order and GOVERNMENT, the overwhelming all encompassing being not unlike the God of the old Testament, and equally remote, the being that must be obeyed or destruction will be reigned down on one from on high.

While the first is desirable the later is simply tyranny wrapped in the cloak of order.

 

I'm always amused to listen to people rail against the government while supporting corporations and big business.

 

What a ludicrous claim. My goodness. You cannot be serious. Wow. Oof.

 

Dead serious. But I'd be willing to entertain any suggestion of 6 months worth of survival sans government.

 

No corporation has ever forced me to do anything but government does every day...