Liberty Frightens People

Sometimes facts and reality appear to a few as hysteria.

 

There is, therefore, no government on earth that should be obeyed completely.

Compliance with law is no excuse for being complicit with what is wrong.

 

You just completely contradicted the OP. For the OP says liberty is making ones own laws when one sees fit.
And liberals, have most of liberty, right in the name.
Liberals are for liberty, Conservatives are for oppression. Conservatives are like ME countries with sharia law. Everyone must conform or suffer the wrath of the RW.

 

The only liberals that were for liberty were classical liberals like the Framers. Today's liberals are almost a complete 180.

 

Reread the OP. No balancing anywhere in there.
There are no unconstitutional laws, or at least not for long. The USSC will over turn them.
So, I think it is you who missed the context.
See my other post about RWers wanting others to conform to what they think everyone should follow. Unlike liberals who want to take responsibility and not blindly follow.

 

We have that. That is what the USSC does.

 

Liberty is the individual's authority over and responsibility for them self. Neither the right or the left, the Republicans or the Democrats promote liberty.
Both the left and the right, the Republicans and the Democrats want to usurp the liberty of others and shed personal responsibility. They are all perfectly willing to forfeit authority over themselves to achieve their goals. I want no part of all that. I opt out, and I get away with it.

 

Weren't the founders and those who fought before them, radical liberals?
Isn't that the foundation of our country?

 

But not when it's your ox being gored. We saw the same thing with Obama, no?

 

We ignored it when obama wanted his signature legislation passed. What will the left do if Trump ignores the law in the same manner?

 

A complete 180 from liberal is conservative. Come on man.

 

How will trump ignore the law?

 

You rephrased by saying "No laws that are actually enforced are immoral".

I didn't ask for a list of laws that you believe are immoral, but rather how you came to that conclusion. What is the thinking process behind that idea. You rephrased it by changing it from laws on the books to laws that are enforced. It's a difference without a difference because nobody, and I'm kinda guessing this means you as well, understands how you arrived at that conclusion.

Additionally, by rephrasing it, you run up against a whole slew of other problems because you are merely changing the morality of the law from the laws themselves, to the enforcement of those laws. Every speeding ticket issued has the moral authority of righteousness behind it. Every guy in prison is there because it is morally right. Every time the cops shoot some kid with a toy gun because they were scared was morally correct.

It's no longer the laws themselves that are morally right, but rather the enforcers who are, by dint of very definition, morally correct. We still don't know how you arrived at that conclusion.

 

I guess I disagree with your interpretation of the facts. I believe our government is functioning well within the constitution and what was laid out in the declaration of independence. As such, if you choose to disobey the law you are an anarchist, who doesn't deserve to be an American citizen. I will take a Syrian refugee who seeks our country because we are so amazing, before you who only wants to destroy it.

 

That depends on what you hope to achieve with enforcement of those laws. Is it a simple case of wanting people to stop committing them? If so, then the death penalty seems an appropriate response. Is it rehabilitation? If that's what you want, then I would ask a radical behaviorist. If we can teach dolphins how to jump through hoops, we can teach humans how to go to work instead of doing drugs.

Feudalism wasn't entirely bad. It made a lot of sense for the day. True, you might prefer to be a king instead of a peasant, but it was a system that worked.

Anarchy works quite fine in most situations. It's chaos that you want to avoid.

 

Hehe yea, ok!

 

I rephrased it to get around your literal application, which is a technique used by those who have no argument.

How I came to the conclusion that to simply disobey a law that you disagree with is asinine is because there at no currently applicable laws that are immoral. Therefore no, it is not a duty to pick and choose.

How you did not possess the capability to apply the very little amount of critical thinking to come to that conclusion on your own us beyond reason.

Again, take your own advice lol.

 

Each and every one of us has the combined knowledge of human history at our very fingertips thanks to the internet, and to prove that, you have managed to discover circular logic.

 

Oh the irony! Lol

You are exactly what you describe lolol.

 

So you are trying to justify violence towards Americans over different political views. Typical liberal.

I'm just glad as a whole, liberals are weak. Otherwise we might be in trouble.

 

Anarchy IS chaos. They are one and the same.

 

Anarchy is what you probably see when you walk outside your house and take a walk around your neighborhood. People aren't killing or robbing or raping each other because of the police, but because you are neighbors and a civil society is required in order to live together. Chaos is the lack of that civil society. It is the barbarians when they finally break down the gates. There is no social order within a chaotic society.

When you are with your friends, is there a leader? Somebody who makes the rules of your social circle and everybody within it follows that rule or gets kicked out by the leader? Probably not. It's probably like with my friends. No leader as such, but rather just guys that enjoy hanging out together. Within that circle, there are guy rules that are followed or everybody within that circle will ostracize the rule breaker. That probably means no porking your friend's woman, or stealing money from his wallet when he's passed out drunk. No refusing to buy the next round when everybody else has already bought a round.

That's anarchy. No central authority figure, but rather everybody is on equal footing with the other, and respect is deserved by all.

 

And what happens when someone does something you don't like? Who decides the punishment? You? Your friends collectively? Do you just ignore it? What if it's a significant disturbance? Anarchy, ie no government, can only work in a utopia like society which we know as of right now does not and cannot exist.

Maybe in the future when we as a species are not so violent. But in anarchy, without government playing the middleman and punishing bad behavior, individuals would. And an individual's punishment in a lot of cases will not be near as reasonable.

People will always inherently form groups on a societal level. And call it what you want, but it will have rules, rule enforcers (for the inevitable rule breakers), and punishments for breaking the rules.

 

Oh dear, so weak.
I merely asked you a question.

 

That's not anarchy. That's friendship.