Hold up Henry; what's a libertarian?

[henry quirk]

You are right that social tribes more than biological families shift their boundaries.

I don't recall having said that, but it's probably true anyway. My point was simply that individuals are the basic unit of society, not groups. Groups are illusory, and the ideology of intersectionality destroys them completely. It reduces to the individual again. The libertarians win.

Do you have any proposal that can persuade people to adopt the universalist ethic, especially when divisive politicians are in power??

I wasn't trying. I was just pointing out that "groupthink" invariably results in evil, so the libertarians win on that point again.

Jesus' ethic as illustrated by The Good Samaritan parable was not a libertarian ; in social relations Jesus promoted neither tribalism nor individualism.

The Samaritan was an individual making his own choices for his own reasons. He was libertarian.

The main point is the Jew, neglected by his own, needed the despised Samaritan . A collective needs equality in diversity.

But the Jew's need is not the point of the tale. It's s all about the Samaritan's choice: like it or not, it's a natural rights libertarian bit of moralizin'.

More broadly: the tale is about kindness, compassion, which , by definition, is a choice (more natural rights libertarianism).

That's my interpretation, anyway.

[Immanuel Can]

Your interpretation is insufficient. The main point is the Jew, neglected by his own, needed the despised Samaritan . A collective needs equality in diversity.

There's a "diversity" of two there, but no "equality." And the only collectives (racial and discriminatory) represented are negative, there.

Social classes are not collectives.

Of course, they are. That's exactly what they are.

[Immanuel Can]

The Samaritan was an individual making his own choices for his own reasons. He was libertarian.

Agreed. He did not do "the Samaritan thing," which would have been to leave the Jewish man in the ditch. Instead, he did the right thing: and the whole surprise of the narrative is that he did.

But the Jew's need is not the point of the tale. It's s all about the Samaritan's choice: like it or not, it's a natural rights libertarian bit of moralizin'.

Right. Jesus' follow up question is, "Which one acted as the true neighbour?" Not, "So, how great are Samaritans and Jews?"

More broadly: the tale is about kindness, compassion, which , by definition, is a choice (more natural rights libertarianism).

That's my interpretation, anyway.

Yep. And a good one it is, too.

One cannot find any positive comment about collectivism in that story. There isn't even a collective present: just individuals. And the individuals who act according to the dictates of their remote collectives, the priest and the Levite (or temple assistant), are doing the wrong thing by acting as their collectives would expect. The Samaritan wildly violates the norms of his collective, and is praised for it.

There's no positive collectivism represented there at all.

[Sculptor]

the democrat party proclaims their hatred of America as founded everyday

-Imp

Democrats uphold the spirit of 76. Whilst the Repugs are monarchists in all but name demanding obedience.

enjoy your politically correct freedom

-Imp

Yeah - like that's a bad thing.

[Belinda]

I don't recall having said that, but it's probably true anyway. My point was simply that individuals are the basic unit of society, not groups. Groups are illusory, and the ideology of intersectionality destroys them completely. It reduces to the individual again. The libertarians win.


I wasn't trying. I was just pointing out that "groupthink" invariably results in evil, so the libertarians win on that point again.

Jesus' ethic as illustrated by The Good Samaritan parable was not a libertarian ; in social relations Jesus promoted neither tribalism nor individualism.

The Samaritan was an individual making his own choices for his own reasons. He was libertarian.

The main point is the Jew, neglected by his own, needed the despised Samaritan . A collective needs equality in diversity.

But the Jew's need is not the point of the tale. It's s all about the Samaritan's choice: like it or not, it's a natural rights libertarian bit of moralizin'.

More broadly: the tale is about kindness, compassion, which , by definition, is a choice (more natural rights libertarianism).

That's my interpretation, anyway.

About choice, true. The parable of The Good Samaritan was not about a good Jew who chose kindness,or a good Roman who chose kindness,or a good Greek who chose kindness, it was about a member of a despised people a Samaritan who was kind and generous to a member of the group that despised Samaritans.

It's like President Trump lay injured ,was ignored by rich white men, and was rescued , housed , and fed by a Latino illegal immigrant.

[henry quirk]

Jesus' ethic as illustrated by The Good Samaritan parable was not a libertarian ; in social relations Jesus promoted neither tribalism nor individualism.

The Samaritan was an individual making his own choices for his own reasons. He was libertarian.

The main point is the Jew, neglected by his own, needed the despised Samaritan . A collective needs equality in diversity.

But the Jew's need is not the point of the tale. It's s all about the Samaritan's choice: like it or not, it's a natural rights libertarian bit of moralizin'.

More broadly: the tale is about kindness, compassion, which , by definition, is a choice (more natural rights libertarianism).

That's my interpretation, anyway.

About choice, true. The parable of The Good Samaritan was not about a good Jew who chose kindness,or a good Roman who chose kindness,or a good Greek who chose kindness, it was about a member of a despised people a Samaritan who was kind and generous to a member of the group that despised Samaritans.

It's like President Trump lay injured ,was ignored by rich white men, and was rescued , housed , and fed by a Latino illegal immigrant.

No, it's as if Obama were sprawled out on the sidewalk, battered and bleedin', left to his own devices by a passing Sharpton, Jackson, and Waters, and the only one to deliver aid was me.

[Belinda]

Henry, are you patriotic? Do you recognise what your country does for you?

I agree with your illustration of the parable, which is to choose to help people who are from a different tribe, political party, race. or creed.

[gaffo]

Crusades anyone?

Do you mean the comparatively small-scale Catholic crusades done for manifestly political and anti-Christian reasons,

noted your irrelivant "anti-christian" wording - to distance your sefl (good that you do) - for the right reasons, (you being a good guy, not that Catholics are are not Christian (I've no time for such games, Catholics are Christians, and some are thugs too.)


(I know my history per Spain in this instance, so bare this in mind). I do not think you are dick, but just ignorant of history. so read up on it per this matter.

or the large Islamic ones that spanned several centuries, done in explicit obedience to Mohammed and his successors?

??? do you know history?

i suspect not so much. there was no mass expulsion of non-Islamics from the Middle East - as there was of Jews by Christian Spanish around 1000 AD.

instead the Muslims allowed the non-muslims to live on thier lands - but to pay a tax and live is second class citizens with less rights (not good - but better than the Christian Spanish allowed for (instead Chrsitians demanded "leave Spain" as the only option - or death maybe) the Jews around the same time).

I know my history and not a Christian - so objective. the show that you may not know history and are a christian, so not objective.

so if you play the bias game of "no true Scottman (Chrstian (Catholics not Christian))" bullshit game - i will have to stop talking to you - you choosing tribal pigheadedness over education.

Out of a Muslim ethos, we got the majority of the Middle East,

Tunisia kicked out their asshole 7 yrs ago and is doing well.[/quote]
One down, perhaps; but plenty more to go. [/quote]

yes too many to go unfortunately.

And the jury's still out on Tunisia.

jury is always out Bubba - American and Trump anyone?

give credit where it is due. the thug that rulled Tunisia is gone and that nation today is doing better than it was before.

ruled by Muslims - shock of shocks!

- check your bias/bigotry.

and yes Islam is not a religion of peace, the opposite in fact, but people are people and if enough muslim people in possisions of power remove a thug, and are of higher character, then Tunisia is a better place today than it was yesterday.

you want to play "Athiest countries bad Christian one good"

No. I wouldn't do that, and you don't want to do that.

Trust me, if we do, it's not going to come out well, statistically or factually.

lets do it!

Secular regimes killed over 100 million people in the last century alone.

1/3 less, but ok per Stalin and Mao.

10 mil by Stalin, 30? by Mao - just a estiment, there are no records.

so ya, assholes will be asshole.

BTW there are assholes Karadich, and Milsovish - both Christians, the former a DOCTOR, that killed 1/2 million in the 90's.

and 4 yrs later other Ruwandian Christian Hutus murdered "cut the trees" 1/3 million Christian Tutsis

No religious regime of any kind, nor all of them together, have ever come up to more than a tiny fraction of that (with half of that fraction, at least, to Islam).

As one that knows history, religions and am Athiest (and an honest one) - the Athiests have the highest blood count via Stalin and Mao, then the Christians.

Islam is down to near nothing, orders of magnitude in the death count - on par with the Hindus (you can thank the Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers for that - their death count outnumbered all the Isalamists in the last century via of Iraqnam).


snipped the rest of bullshit. you do not know your history Sir.

[gaffo]

...
so be mindful-informed of history when you cast your stone sir

See any Brits here missing themselves off their list of mass-murderers?

???

I just saw a Brit slamming Yanks via my peoples history, and just stated your people's history is no worst nor better.

thats all.

I rem the Fauklands war in 83, and watched an excellent BBC documentary about it - 5 yrs ago - i via netflicks upload, i noted the comments, there was a high ratio of "anti-Argie" (and pure racist filth via i assume brits) - posting under that video.

the racism i read -predated Brexit by 3 yrs - but i noted the filth. there was one Argie that posted in defense of his countrymen (he did not say "brist are dogs" - just posted in good faith about the dead and his countrymen that died. your countrymen pilled on (so you need to take a look at your own people - many are racist DOGS - germany's 1933 finest of Britian!).

thats all i sayin Bubba.

................

per the Falkland's, the Argies had no claim, 400 of them died over it, and 200 of your did too (BTW the rascist Brist assumed the Argies would not could not fight - they did and they killed 200 of your lot).

I just note your countrymen's racism and did not note any racism from Argintines toward your people.

Gammon!!! rules your Nation now - need i say more?

yes i'm american but via Brexit, learned all about The Gammon.

[henry quirk]

"Henry, are you patriotic? Do you recognise what your country does for you?"

My fortunes are tied to the fortunes of the U.S., so: it's in the best interest of me and mine that America do well (even if it doesn't always do good). What I recognize: I pay a tidy sum on a regular basis to the state and federal govs, both which spend my contributions poorly. Both should do less.

So, what I am is: a practical, somewhat disgruntled, citizen.

[Impenitent]

Democrats uphold the spirit of 76. Whilst the Repugs are monarchists in all but name demanding obedience.

enjoy your politically correct freedom

-Imp

Yeah - like that's a bad thing.

and he loved Big Brother

-Imp

[Belinda]

"Henry, are you patriotic? Do you recognise what your country does for you?"

My fortunes are tied to the fortunes of the U.S., so: it's in the best interest of me and mine that America do well (even if it doesn't always do good). What I recognize: I pay a tidy sum on a regular basis to the state and federal govs, both which spend my contributions poorly. Both should do less.

So, what I am is: a practical, somewhat disgruntled, citizen.

Of course! Good man that you are your reply is as I expected.
Your fortunes are tied to the fortunes of that Collective called The United States of America. That great collective is organised as a democracy and the disgruntled citizens are needed for the democratic process to work. I hope the time never comes when no citizens are disgruntled, same with my own country.

[henry quirk]

"Henry, are you patriotic? Do you recognise what your country does for you?"

My fortunes are tied to the fortunes of the U.S., so: it's in the best interest of me and mine that America do well (even if it doesn't always do good). What I recognize: I pay a tidy sum on a regular basis to the state and federal govs, both which spend my contributions poorly. Both should do less.

So, what I am is: a practical, somewhat disgruntled, citizen.

Of course! Good man that you are your reply is as I expected.
Your fortunes are tied to the fortunes of that Collective called The United States of America. That great collective is organised as a democracy and the disgruntled citizens are needed for the democratic process to work. I hope the time never comes when no citizens are disgruntled, same with my own country.

America ain't a collective. Warren and Sanders would have it be a collective, but it's not, and it won't be. There are far too many formal and informal divisions, and the country is just plain too big to have the cohesion associated with a collective.

No, America is a nation, a big, fractured, nation.

And: America ain't a democracy. America is a constitutional republic.

[Belinda]

Henry Quirk wrote:

America ain't a collective. Warren and Sanders would have it be a collective, but it's not, and it won't be. There are far too many formal and informal divisions, and the country is just plain too big to have the cohesion associated with a collective.

No, America is a nation, a big, fractured, nation.

And: America ain't a democracy. America is a constitutional republic.

America's constitution is democratic as compared with communist or theocratic republics.

[henry quirk]

Henry Quirk wrote:

America ain't a collective. Warren and Sanders would have it be a collective, but it's not, and it won't be. There are far too many formal and informal divisions, and the country is just plain too big to have the cohesion associated with a collective.

No, America is a nation, a big, fractured, nation.

And: America ain't a democracy. America is a constitutional republic.

America's constitution is democratic as compared with communist or theocratic republics.

No, it's more libertarian than anything. It's specifically chains the government and the masses: that is, gov has specific, narrow powers and the masses cannot vote on everything. The single man is defended from predation from those in the state house and those who are his neighbors. Democratic process comes into play in the selection of representatives/proxies and in referendum, but our reps are limited in what they can do and our referendum are supposed to be rare.

I believe the degree that America fails, is failing, as a nation is directly tied to the degree it has become untethered to those foundational notions of tightly limited government and proxies and has embraced a technocrat-directed, democracy.