Post has attachment
Before you burn your retinas tomorrow...

A nation is essentially a group of people choosing to associate on the basis of a certain common attribute, such as language, religion, et cetera.

A state is a coercive monopoly which forces people to associate with it regardless of their will.

You see where I'm going with this?

Everyone remember to wish ron paul a happy birthday.

"You can't argue that there isn't universally preferable behavior without in essence arguing that universally preferable behavior is to have no universally preferable behavior. A contradiction, so to speak." Hoppean Snake Memes

Post has shared content

Post has shared content
What? How could anyone be wrong about these RACIST monuments?!? 😂

You know, reading isn't really my favorite thing, but I have read a lot about Robert E. Lee.

I find this whole focus on getting rid of statues to be an odd thing. We should remember the good and the bad of our history.

I bring up Robert E. Lee, because he was one of the greatest generals of all time. He garnered respect and admiration from his men and his enemies. He was very strategic and orderly. In the midst of war, he didn't hate the other side, and he held onto compassion.

There are so many things that can be learned from his life. Lincoln wanted him to lead his side of the fight. Had he, the war probably would have been much shorter.

What we choose to focus on, is what we will see. The focus of media right now, is our differences. Not just that, but that our differences must be done away with. We were called the "melting pot." Our differences should be celebrated and yet meshed.

Bringing up old hurts, for the purpose of spouting hate and blame; has no good return. Taking away statues that remind us of where we have come from; allow us to forget and perhaps let it happen again.

Most importantly, restricting people's speech or expression, is the beginning of tyranny. Sadly, that is being celebrated by the media.

We can see what the media and many of the leaders of this nation, want. What do you want? Will you blindly follow? Will you stand? Can we say enough with the divisions?

I hope we can!

Post has attachment
Finally I'm a card-carrying member of the Libertarian party! 😃

Post has shared content
In thinking about Nazis in the modern day and last century, I was thinking about my ancestors, who lived as germans in Poland for a few centuries, as a part of the Moravian church movement, and they got along very well with their non-german neighbors, as far as I can tell... until german ethno-centricism and nationalism disrupted all that.

At any rate, it got me musing and reading-up, and I hadn't noticed the Moravian church's motto, which I quite like, and it struck me as very libertarian, especially considering that the Moravian church was one of the first churches to protest roman hierarchical church governance, and the quasi-state-like power of Rome. The "Hussians" protested before Luther published his theses, and came up with a motto that puts liberty pretty strongly in the center of social considerations.

So I wrote a little thing, below, about it.
I just discovered that the motto of my paternal ancestral religion (the Moravian church, or Unitas Fraternum, the first protestant denomination, preceding even Luther), was:

latin: In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
english: "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; and in all things, love"

I know that doesn't superficially square with modern libertarian jargon, but if you parse it a little, and think it through, I think it's pretty fucking close, and with a good balance.

If you interpret "essentials" to be "the preconditions of social cohesion" e.g. "justifiable boundaries of personal action" (a.k.a. property), non-initiation of force against innocent parties, respect for consent/contract, etc., then I think libertarian theory does expect there to be unity on those fundamentals. That is, libertarianism expects those "ground norms" to be present for there to be liberty, or even for civil society to exist (as opposed to oppressively organized hierarchical groups).

But beyond those fundamentals, the norm should be liberty (which implies a healthy potential for diversity, though it doesn't mandate it). "In all things, love," is a moral precept perhaps not necessary to, but certainly not contrary to core libertarian thought, and it's one that I find personally very appealing.

As with all mottos, one could interpret it very differently, because "essential" vs. "non-essential" is undefined in the motto. I mean, it's a motto, not a treatise. But, if you assume a reasonable interpretation of essential/non-essential, then I think it's actually a pretty beautiful formulation.

Post has attachment
Remember The Donald supposedly hates losers.
Why does he feel so heart felt about the hateful confederate white supremists ones?
Wait while more posts are being loaded