Dismantling the Declaration of Independence

Originally posted by finnegan
So to you the outcome of (US) history is the product of a force of nature - human nature - and not the product of historical actions and choices that can be attributed to their proper sources, can be either resisted or transformed or of course reproduced... Politics, then, is futile and there is no prospect of a different world...

How you reach the conclusion after So, is beyond me. Nothing I said leads to predestination.

I wrote that the anti federalist writers had issues with the Constitution as written, and those objections have proved to be valid. Perhaps their advise to slow down and to correct the shortcomings of the document might have been good advice.

Originally posted by finnegan
So to you the outcome of (US) history is the product of a force of nature - human nature - and not the product of historical actions and choices that can be attributed to their proper sources, can be either resisted or transformed or of course reproduced... Politics, then, is futile and there is no prospect of a different world...

Conversely, the Progressive thinks that their collectivist system could work if only.......

The quest for utopia is stronger than the knowledge that no utopia is possible. Instead, the goal should be for personal freedom.

Freedom should be revered more than safely, more than convenience. In the immortal words of Patrick Henry, "Gentlemen may proclaim peace, peace, but there is no peace. Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Sure, he was a drama queen like marauder but I think you get my point. 😛

Originally posted by normbenign
To utter those words, you have to be totally ignorant of Austrian economics. Not to Mention Riccardo and Smith.

The post has to do with whodey's definition of "collectivists" given in another thread.

I'm aware that Austrian Economics is a bizarre religion that disdains the use of scientific method and observation and insists that its principles cannot be disproven by reality.

I am aware that Ricardo and Smith and the rest of Classical Economics was based on massive simplifications that do not long survive contact with real world conditions.

Originally posted by whodey
So this brings up some interesting questions. Was the American Revolution ordained of God? Did God ordain a rebellion? If not, why should we follow it now? If so, why does God seem to change his mind?

Also, was Hitler ordained of God? Should we all have blindly followed Hitler?

To answer these questions, its best to study 1 Samuel 8.

1 And it ca ...[text shortened]... which he replied, "The question is not why I am in here, the question is why you are out there."

When you base your entire world view on ancient texts written by men, you are bound to get caught in contradictions of this sort. So you simply obey the dictates of some "authority" on the text to make it seem consistent with a moral code that exists within you that long predated the texts. In doing so, you surrender the precious gift of Reason that God and/or Nature has given you.

That makes you an object of pity AND scorn.

Originally posted by whodey
Your child like understanding of Revelation is not surprising. No one believes that Jesus has an actual sword coming from his mouth. The Bible uses the sword as a symbol that the Word of God is like a sword. The word is where his power and might are. God created with his Word.

Revelation is nothing more than already written prophecies from Daniel, with ...[text shortened]... it is the power of thoughts expressed as words, none of which are more powerful than God's Word.

So all the armies and the slaying mentioned is just some sort of allegorical mumbo jumbo?

Perhaps you should take that type of reasoning to the New Testament miracles and the Resurrection itself as Jefferson did.

Originally posted by whodey
Who says I don't? I understand he discussed natural law and that he was a Christian apologist. So what? Am I now to relinquish all power and authority to him? He is no better than you or I.

The point isn't that because Grotius said it we should hold it to be true. The point was merely to give Grotius credit for an observation that he made almost 400 years ago that many still can't grasp. Natural Law requires no God though it is compatible with some types of a God though probably not yours (he's a little too "hands on" plus he gives orders that violates the Natural Law many times according to your Holy Book).

Originally posted by whodey
Conversely, the Progressive thinks that their collectivist system could work if only.......

The quest for utopia is stronger than the knowledge that no utopia is possible. Instead, the goal should be for personal freedom.

Freedom should be revered more than safely, more than convenience. In the immortal words of Patrick Henry, "Gentlemen may proclaim ...[text shortened]... or give me death!"

Sure, he was a drama queen like marauder but I think you get my point. 😛

It seems abundantly clear that the Progressive reforms starting in the late 19th Century ushered in more personal freedom than ever experienced in the history of civilization.

Originally posted by no1marauder
When you base your entire world view on ancient texts written by men, you are bound to get caught in contradictions of this sort. So you simply obey the dictates of some "authority" on the text to make it seem consistent with a moral code that exists within you that long predated the texts. In doing so, you surrender the precious gift of Reason that God and/or Nature has given you.

That makes you an object of pity AND scorn.

Life is full of contradictions. It's called the nature of things, or had you not noticed?

I guess in marauders world everything needs to make perfect sense and for a God to exist that God must be easy to understand and comprehend.

I follow a man that I'm proud of, a man who never lied. A man whose teachings are revered around the world and a man whom religions across the globe praise.

It is you who should be pitied. You follow after political leaders who lie for sport, in fact, they are expected to lie to obtain votes. It's the only way for them to get elected.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It seems abundantly clear that the Progressive reforms starting in the late 19th Century ushered in more personal freedom than ever experienced in the history of civilization.

Living in the past again? I thought those people were called regressives, not progressives.

With a government that passes around 40,000 new laws and regulations per year I could not feel any freer, that's because this is as free as I will ever be.

Who knows, pass another billion or so regulations and laws and you might just reach your utopia.

Originally posted by normbenign
That is true, and you may have to face ridicule as well. However, I would presume, perhaps wrongly so, that the intellect of people playing chess is a bit higher than the general population, and that their conduct might be a bit more civil.

Are you saying that whodey doesn't actually know how to play chess?