More Rants

[Socrates]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1336109265' post='2426916']
I like phatmass. I like reading the opposing viewpoints of the ideal. I sometimes feel like Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting without being smart like him and poo.
[/quote]

This guy?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWTzyU5MFgM[/media]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1336170047' post='2427181']
[color=#282828]Anarchism like anarcho-capitalism does not mean absence of law, or even of law enforcement. It is a different means of organization.[/color][/quote]

How under a Voluntaryism, or voluntarism society would law enforcement, [i]enforce[/i] law? Be it an arrest to a conviction, how would the authority of such of body seek justice if the accused did not recognize the authority of that body? It would appear that a Voluntaryism society would not be able to enforce law on the unwilling, for it would have no power to use coercion, and it would have no power over any individual unless it was expressly and strictly given that authority by the consent of the individual.

Man is fallen, when faced with the consequences for the actions of his sins often he runs away from taking responsibility for those actions. So again how would a Voluntaryism society bring a murderer to justice if he did not recognize/rejected its authority over him, and it had no power to coerce the individual to face 'some form of court system'?

[Winchester]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1336796836' post='2429993']
How under a Voluntaryism, or voluntarism society would law enforcement, [i]enforce[/i] law? Be it an arrest to a conviction, how would the authority of such of body seek justice if the accused did not recognize the authority of that body? It would appear that a Voluntaryism society would not be able to enforce law on the unwilling, for it would have no power to use coercion, and it would have no power over any individual unless it was expressly and strictly given that authority by the consent of the individual.

Man is fallen, when faced with the consequences for the actions of his sins often he runs away from taking responsibility for those actions. So again how would a Voluntaryism society bring a murderer to justice if he did not recognize/rejected its authority over him, and it had no power to coerce the individual to face 'some form of court system'?
[/quote]
Anyone would have the right to subdue a murderer. Coercion would be the initiation of violence. However, having a mob isn't conducive to the peace, so it's perfectly acceptable, even desirable, to have a body of law enforcement (essentially hired) use violence to apprehend a murderer.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella15.html#ref
http://www.sobran.com/reluctant.shtml

There's a lot of discussion about how a voluntary society would work (or not work). It's up for debate how practical the moral stance really is in a fallen world. That won't make the state good, but perhaps preferable to the lack of a state. This world will always be a struggle. Letting the Mitts and Obamas of the world continually accrue power isn't struggling; it's surrendering.

[Socrates]

Finally got around to Ranting on my blog, "[url="http://www.thegregorianrant.com"]Gregorian Rants[/url]" again. My latest ought to keep you bleedin' hearts good an' pist.

[Vincent Vega]

I'll just say (in no connection to the above post) that I find it very interesting that there are people who believe that the government is on the verge of throwing Catholics in jail, but at the same time, want the very same government to be able to decide who may and may not marry.
Curious.

Edited May 21, 2012 by USAirwaysIHS

[havok579257]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337574184' post='2433184']
I'll just say (in no connection to the above post) that I find it very interesting that there are people who believe that the government is on the verge of throwing Catholics in jail, but at the same time, want the very same government to be able to decide who may and may not marry.
Curious.
[/quote]

great point.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1337570003' post='2433166']
Finally got around to Ranting on my blog, "[url="http://www.thegregorianrant.com"]Gregorian Rants[/url]" again. My latest ought to keep you bleedin' hearts good an' pist.
[/quote]

i read your first paragraph and i have to ask, how exactly is that being catholic? trust me, i don't like obama and would never vote for him but your first paragraph seems intended to just insult. throwing insults i wouldn't say is something we should be doing.

talking about obamas gay marriage stance is fine but saying insults not very christian.

[MIKolbe]

you don't understand... truth is the ultimate charity.

[havok579257]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1337613649' post='2433232']
you don't understand... truth is the ultimate charity.


[/quote]

truth is charity. insults are not.

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1337620872' post='2433252']
truth is charity. insults are not.
[/quote]

if you were being sarcastic then just ignore my post. hard to discern on the internet.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337574184' post='2433184']
I'll just say (in no connection to the above post) that I find it very interesting that there are people who believe that the government is on the verge of throwing Catholics in jail, but at the same time, want the very same government to be able to decide who may and may not marry.
Curious.
[/quote]I don't want the government to decide...I want it to confirm what has already been decided by a variety of factors, uphold that prior decision, and not try to change it.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1334783317' post='2420383']
I've gotten back to rantin' and ravin' about the Constitution, the HHS Mandate, those damned liberals, and much more in my blog [url="http://www.thegregorianrant.com"]Gregorian Rants[/url].

Y'all are welcome to sign in to comment, criticize, tear my opinions apart - just as long as it's kept charitable and on-topic.

Thanks.
[/quote]

Socrates, I was reading your blog, and may I just say this: I [i]love [/i]you. We're some of the few people here that have these political beliefs, and you are simply amazing.

By the way, I agree: Ted Nugent is [i]a[/i]wesome! I found his speech at the NRA meeting quite inspiring, if not thought-provoking.

[MIKolbe]

well, isn't this bromantic!

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337625221' post='2433266']
I don't want the government to decide...I want it to confirm what has already been decided by a variety of factors, uphold that prior decision, and not try to change it.
[/quote]
I'd be careful with that logic. Seems you could apply that to Roe v Wade pretty easily.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1337632245' post='2433293']
well, isn't this bromantic!
[/quote]

I will gladly have a bromance with one of the few conservatives that has traditional conservative values here. Completely platonic, of course.

[MIKolbe]

don't ask, don't tell

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1337632483' post='2433296']
I will gladly have a bromance with one of the few conservatives that has traditional conservative values here.[/quote]
Oh come off it. Do you realize what you're arguing for? You're arguing to give the government the power to decide who can and can't marry. If that isn't expanding government powers to an unbelievably personal level, then I wouldn't know what is. Expanding government powers is not a "conservative" thing to do.
Besides, that is one of the very few things that separates him (and you, I guess, if you're deciding to espouse his views) from most other Catholics here. Name a single Catholic on this forum who has voiced support for abortion or the HHS mandate. You can't, because Catholics who support that sort of thing generally don't last long around here, and if they do, they get a phishy tag good and quick.
Of course, if you're referring to "trivial" issues (like gun control), you'll find some variance of opinion, but even still, most true conservatives would still agree with you. But, by all means, if it does your heart good to believe that you are so much better than those of us who would like to prevent big brother from picking out our underwear, tell yourself what you need to to get to that point.

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1337632483' post='2433296']
I will gladly have a bromance with one of the few conservatives that has traditional conservative values here. Completely platonic, of course.
[/quote]
you sound so dreamy like sean hannity when you talk like that...

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337633053' post='2433303']
Oh come off it. Do you realize what you're arguing for? You're arguing to give the government the power to decide who can and can't marry. If that isn't expanding government powers to an unbelievably personal level, then I wouldn't know what is. Expanding government powers is not a "conservative" thing to do.
Besides, that is one of the very few things that separates him (and you, I guess, if you're deciding to espouse his views) from most other Catholics here. Name a single Catholic on this forum who has voiced support for abortion or the HHS mandate. You can't, because Catholics who support that sort of thing generally don't last long around here, and if they do, they get a phishy tag good and quick.
Of course, if you're referring to "trivial" issues (like gun control), you'll find some variance of opinion, but even still, most true conservatives would still agree with you. But, by all means, if it does your heart good to believe that you are so much better than those of us who would like to prevent big brother from picking out our underwear, tell yourself what you need to to get to that point.
[/quote]

I'm not going to argue anymore, but I will explain my position. I am not for the government deciding what we can and can't do, I believe the government cannot have a say in something that it never had a right to say in in the first place. It cannot decide what is or is not marriage. That is theology and according to the constitution the government cannot and has no right to lay a finger on it.

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1337633276' post='2433306']
you sound so dreamy like sean hannity when you talk like that...


[/quote]

Thank you. I listen to his radio show as often as I can, right after I am done listening to Rush Limbaugh.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337632417' post='2433295']

I'd be careful with that logic. Seems you could apply that to Roe v Wade pretty easily.
[/quote]Science has provided the means for us to demonstrate that unborn children are in fact alive. By my logic, the government has redefined what life is and has not defended what it ought.

I don't think government is perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I do think Catholic principles work really well for defending things like marriage and life in the political sphere.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1337633383' post='2433307']
I'm not going to argue anymore, but I will explain my position. I am not for the government deciding what we can and can't do, I believe the government cannot have a say in something that it never had a right to say in in the first place. It cannot decide what is or is not marriage. That is theology and according to the constitution the government cannot and has no right to lay a finger on it.
[/quote]
That's funny, because that is not what Socrates supports (per his blog).

[quote][color=#555555]This brings us to the central issue of why marriages are recognized by the state in the first place. While liberals and others will try to deny it, the fact is that marriage between man and woman has always been tied to the begetting and raising of children, and forms the best framework for such activity. It is the most basic and fundamental building block of human society. Homosexual buggery can never result in the procreation of children, and has no more intrinsic relation to the purpose of marriage than masturbating to porno videos. While it’s now fashionable for conservatives and libertarians (including many Catholics) to say that government should “get out of the marriage business” altogether, I’m not so sure that the state failing to give any legal recognition to marriage period is such a wonderful thing.[/color]
[/quote]
I don't want the government to have a say in marriage, either. Socrates clearly does. He seems to want to make the legal prerequisites for marriage identical to those the Church has. The funny thing is that I've never seem him griping about how divorced individuals are allowed to remarry, or that heterosexual unions that will bear no children should be outlawed.
Curiouser and Curiouser.