Imperialism/Colonialism: Not a Bad Thing

[Swordsmyth]

To Anarchists: Get lost you stupid hypocrites, your self defeating philosophy prevents you from infringing on my right to tyrannize others. (Promote and defend GOOD, and oppose and attack EVIL)

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

To Atheists: Without God you can't give me a single reason why the freedom of man doesn't justify the tyrant, after all he is free to do whatever he can, is he not.

The posters on this thread constantly confuse all of the concepts under discussion. Take a look at my previous post If any of you are at all interested in separating the various elements, and discussing them rationally.

To Libertas: Don't waste your time on the Anarchists and Atheists, the only thing that would satisfy them is their own personal brain-scanning holo-deck where they were allowed to do exactly as they pleased and everyone else automatically followed their own custom moral code so they did not have to think about how to prevent what they believe to be bad. Make them dictator of the world and half of them would suddenly forget all their egalitarian tripe and become the worst tyrants ever, the other half would refuse to act to protect their Utopia and then sulk and whine because not all men are perfect. They might be happy in heaven where all men will be perfect, except they refuse to be ruled by the laws of good and evil, demanding the right to be a law unto themselves, so they will not be allowed spoil heaven for those who make it there.

[erowe1]

To Libertas: Don't waste your time on the Anarchists ... they refuse to be ruled by the laws of good and evil, demanding the right to be a law unto themselves, so they will not be allowed spoil heaven for those who make it there.

You have it backwards. If anyone is ruled by the laws of good and evil, they can't possibly advocate a state, which by definition must violate those laws.

[Swordsmyth]

Couldn't deal with the center portion of that statement?

And without government what will you do to prevent the crime of tyranny?

"..." the last refuge of a weak argument.

"..." can do anything, just watch: Thou shalt ... commit adultery.

[erowe1]

Couldn't deal with the center portion of that statement?

And without government what will you do to prevent the crime of tyranny?

There's no such thing as "without government." But you can't submit to the laws of good and evil by doing evil, which is what makes the state the state. Understanding the difference between government and the state is essential.

I'm not sure what you mean about not dealing with the middle part. I replied to the part that I meant to reply to. I'm not an atheist, and what you say about atheism isn't what I wanted to reply to.

[Swordsmyth]

So with out a "State" what/who will prevent the crime of tyranny?
The common man is to busy/weak/disorganized, he must hire specialists to protect him from would be tyrants, and then you have a "State".
I will not argue any further as I do not believe that this argument can be defeated. And I refuse to beat my head on the brick wall of mindless abstract anarchism.

[erowe1]

So with out a "State" what/who will prevent the crime of tyranny?

The crime of tyranny is what the state is.

The common man is to busy/weak/disorganized, he must hire specialists to protect him from would be tyrants, and then you have a "State".

If he hires them, that's not a state. That's a voluntary transaction.

[Swordsmyth]

If he hires them, that's not a state. That's a voluntary transaction.

Sorry but unless everyone who benefits is made to share the cost, no private security guards will hold off the would be tyrants. No rich man could afford to maintain the required army. Of course your alternative is the draft in time of war.

[Swordsmyth]

Render unto ceasar the things which are ceasars has been twisted and abused by both sides of the argument. So just check the old testament where god gave his people judges. (officers of the State to rule them)

[erowe1]

Sorry but unless everyone who benefits is made to share the cost, no private security guards will hold off the would be tyrants.

Why not? All the available evidence proves that the free market provides better services than central management.

Also, I don't see the point of this line of argument. You don't have to provide a plan to eliminate some sin from the world before you can say it's sin. Just because I don't propose a way to rid the world of theft, that doesn't stop me from saying that theft is wrong. It's the same with the state. You seem to be saying that unless I can show you how to maintain a stateless world, I'm obligated to foreswear my conviction that the state is evil. But that's not so.

[erowe1]

Render unto ceasar the things which are ceasars has been twisted and abused by both sides of the argument. So just check the old testament where god gave his people judges. (officers of the State to rule them)

Judges in the Old Testament weren't officers of the state. Where did you get that idea?

In fact, in both testaments, God says that he is no respecter of persons. His moral law applies equally to all. There is no subset of the population where what's sin for everyone else isn't sin for them. Therefore, the state (which by definition is such a subset of the population) is prohibited.

[Swordsmyth]

1 Economics, the brigands/tyrants turn a profit, the rich man is losing money on non productive employees.
2 So they and the princes (who are constantly recognized in the scripture) didn't rule (and protect) the people?

[Swordsmyth]

The bible condemns evil rulers and commends good ones.
Christ will bring us his KINGDOM. Not his ANARCHY.

[erowe1]

1 Economics, the brigands/tyrants turn a profit, the rich man is losing money on non productive employees.

You'll need more than this. My understanding of economics is that the free market works better than central management. If you have proofs to the contrary, this little soundbite doesn't cut it.

2 So they and the princes (who are constantly recognized in the scripture) didn't rule (and protect) the people?

No, they didn't rule the people. Where did you get the idea that they did?

As a matter of fact, that's one of the themes of the whole book of Judges. The people did what was right in their own eyes because there was no king (Judges 21:25).

See especially Judges chapter 9, when the people made Abimelech king, and were punished by God for it.

I'm not sure what princes you're talking about.

[erowe1]

The bible condemns evil rulers and commends good ones.
Christ will bring us his KINGDOM. Not his ANARCHY.

The evil rulers the Bible condemns include every ruler other than Christ. Christ is the one single legitimate king of all the world. All authority in Heaven and on Earth belongs to him. All others are satanic illegitimate pretenders to his throne. The very act of ruling people by force makes them evil rulers. In doing that they violate God's laws. All the things they do that would be sins if you or I did them, those things are sins when they do them too.

And even Christ's kingdom will be one of voluntary submission to him, and not subjugation of subjects without their consent.

"Your people will volunteer freely in the day of Your power." (Psalm 110:3).

ETA: For what it's worth, your point about Christ is part of why I am averse to calling myself an anarchist. I do believe that there is one true legitimate ruler. But only one.

[Swordsmyth]

The tribal princes who are constantly dealt with throughout the old testament, being given specific parts in various religious rites etc.

And the people doing what was right in their own eyes was A: a bad thing and B: Anarchy and C: refers to religion not to criminal law.
Making Abimilech their king was rebellion against the government god gave them.

As far as the economic point goes: who is richer than the rest of us can possibly imagine? the Tyrants of this world, that's who.
Theft is far more efficient than the labor required to build wealth in the first place, therefore when left un-suppressed bands of brigands grow much bigger than security guard contingents, plus they are in constant practice of their combat skills and the guards are not.

[Swordsmyth]

The evil rulers the Bible condemns include every ruler other than Christ. Christ is the one single legitimate king of all the world. All authority in Heaven and on Earth belongs to him. All others are satanic illegitimate pretenders to his throne. The very act of ruling people by force makes them evil rulers. In doing that they violate God's laws. All the things they do that would be sins if you or I did them, those things are sins when they do them too.

And even Christ's kingdom will be one of voluntary submission to him, and not subjugation of subjects without their consent.

"Your people will volunteer freely in the day of Your power." (Psalm 110:3).

ETA: For what it's worth, your point about Christ is part of why I am averse to calling myself an anarchist. I do believe that there is one true legitimate ruler. But only one.

Sorry Many Kings and rulers are praised and promised heavenly rewards for their good performance in office. Hezekiah being just the first to come to mind.
And God refers to a future "David their king" who he will send to rule the people of Isreal in righteousness in the latter days, in several prophecies.

[erowe1]

The tribal princes who are constantly dealt with throughout the old testament, being given specific parts in various religious rites etc.

Can you cite any examples?

And the people doing what was right in their own eyes was A: a bad thing and B: Anarchy and C: refers to religion not to criminal law.

A: How do you know? B: Correct. C: How do you know?

Making Abimilech their king was rebellion against the government god gave them.

You just said that the government God gave them was A: bad, B: anarchy, and C: religious and not civil. You seem to be of two minds here.

As far as the economic point goes: who is richer than the rest of us can possibly imagine? the Tyrants of this world, that's who.
Theft is far more efficient than the labor required to build wealth in the first place, therefore when left un-suppressed bands of brigands grow much bigger than security guard contingents, plus they are in constant practice of their combat skills and the guards are not.

And you learned this all by a study of economics? Can you cite any economic texts that make this case?

[erowe1]

Sorry Many Kings and rulers are praised and promised heavenly rewards for their good performance in office. Hezekiah being just the first to come to mind.
And God refers to a future "David their king" who he will send to rule the people of Isreal in righteousness in the latter days, in several prophecies.

Those prophecies are about Jesus, the Messiah. Yes he will be the one righteous king, accomplishing what no one else ever has or will.

I don't deny that some kings did some good things. The Bible doesn't mention any heavenly rewards for them. But it does praise certain deeds.

But they are never praised for statecraft, whereby they do things that would be sins if anyone else did them. Kings in the Bible are bound by the same law as everyone else. What's theft when a commoner does it is theft when a king does it. The good things kings did would be good if commoners did them. And when kings did anything that would have been wrong for commoners to do, it's wrong for them too.

But what's clear is that when Israel chose to put a king over themselves, they made a terrible mistake. God condemns them for it in 1 Samuel 8. He warns them that kings will practice taxation, conscription, imminent domain, war, and other things, all of which are wrong. These are all violations of God's law, since if any commoner did them, they would be theft, kidnapping, and murder. But it would be impossible for any state to exist without practicing the things. Not to do them would entail not being a state.

[Swordsmyth]

Hits self in head for not taking his own advice.
THIS is my LAST reply.

1. I don't have my bible handy, but they are easy to find. I remember them donating wealth for the original tabernacle for instance, and they are mentioned in Daniels prophecies.

2. A: The Bible condemns it. B: That is what Anarchy means. C: Because the bible is discussing their rebellion against god. Do you really believe the tribal princes of the era (who were wicked and so fit both our definitions of tyrants) just quit enforcing (though undoubtedly in a corrupt manner) the laws to prevent people from stealing or killing, since this function is what gave them their legitimacy real or pretended.

3. No he gave them the tribal princes and the judges. and sometimes he gave them foreign conquerors to punish their rebellion against his law.

4. I am not required to appeal to authority in matters of common sense. (and your demand that I do so is further evidence of the weakness of your case)

5. Since when is Christ half Ephraim or named david?

[erowe1]

Hits self in head for not taking his own advice.
THIS is my LAST reply.

1. I don't have my bible handy, but they are easy to find. I remember them donating wealth for the original tabernacle for instance, and they are mentioned in Daniels prophecies.

The princes in Daniel's prophecies are angelic beings. There were no princes when the tabernacle was built. Nor was there any state. Israel at that time was a stateless society. There are Bibles available online by the way.

2. A: The Bible condemns it.

No it doesn't, it's the exact opposite. The Bible condemns Israel for demanding a king, not for being without a king when they were without one.

B: That is what Anarchy means.

Given that definition of anarchy, then yes, that was anarchy. And according to the Bible, it was a good thing.

C: Because the bible is discussing their rebellion against god.

That's not the case in the verse I was talking about.

But regardless, you don't think that God's laws pertain to how crimes are dealt with? One can't rebel against God by supporting a tyrant? On the contrary, when Judges says that Israel had no king, it is clearly not just referring to religious law. First of all, there was no such distinction in antiquity. Second of all, even if that were the case, it would undermine your entire argument, since it would mean that all the rulers you're talking about were purely religious ones who never dealt with criminal matters.

Do you really believe the tribal princes of the era (who were wicked and so fit both our definitions of tyrants) just quit enforcing (though undoubtedly in a corrupt manner) the laws to prevent people from stealing or killing, since this function is what gave them their legitimacy real or pretended.

I have no idea what tribal princes you're talking about. Is this in the Bible somewhere?

But no, whatever tyrants you're talking about, I'm not making any claim about them ceasing to do any of those things. But I do dispute your claim that such a function gave them legitimacy. That is not true. The duty to prevent people from stealing or killing belongs equally to all of us. There is not some special subset of the population who has that responsibility all to itself. Nowhere does the Bible suggest such a thing. And, while we all have that duty equally, we also are all equally prohibited from stealing and killing. There is no subset of society (such as the state) which is allowed to do those things such that, while they would be wrong when you or I do them, they're not wrong when that special group does them.

3. No he gave them the tribal princes and the judges. and sometimes he gave them foreign conquerors to punish their rebellion against his law.

That's true. God is sovereign over all that is. This includes evil tyrants. But the fact that God uses evil people to accomplish his ends doesn't make their evil any less evil.

4. I am not required to appeal to authority in matters of common sense. (and your demand that I do so is further evidence of the weakness of your case)

But you didn't appeal to common sense. You said yourself that you were appealing to economics. But then you went on to make a claim that contradicts the laws of economics. It now looks like you simply made it up and calling it common sense is your way of avoiding your lack of support for it.

5. Since when is Christ half Ephraim or named david?

I don't know what "half Ephraim" means. But the Messiah is referred to as David in some Old Testament prophecies (eg. Jeremiah 30:9; Ezekiel 34:23; Hosea 3:5).

[PierzStyx]

What an absurdly stupid argument. Colonialism screwed millions of lives, and continues to do so now. The problems with Africa? A direct result of the carving up of Africa by European powers and the artificial creation of centralized powers and nations based on the whim of the imperial powers. The Middle East's political situation comes from the exact issues. You also display an incredible ignorance about the condition of the natives that were conquered and dominated before they were conquered, as well as incredible level of arrogance about the worth of European thought and Native forms of civilization, culture, religion, and government- the later of which you most likely have no real understanding of or education on beyond what your ignorant self read on Wikipedia.

You also apparently have no understanding of anarchy is either.

How does anti-liberty garbage like this get traction on this site?

[Swordsmyth]

What an absurdly stupid argument. Colonialism screwed millions of lives, and continues to do so now. The problems with Africa? A direct result of the carving up of Africa by European powers and the artificial creation of centralized powers and nations based on the whim of the imperial powers. The Middle East's political situation comes from the exact issues. You also display an incredible ignorance about the condition of the natives that were conquered and dominated before they were conquered, as well as incredible level of arrogance about the worth of European thought and Native forms of civilization, culture, religion, and government- the later of which you most likely have no real understanding of or education on beyond what your ignorant self read on Wikipedia.

You also apparently have no understanding of anarchy is either.

How does anti-liberty garbage like this get traction on this site?

See my earlier post and then make some solid non-general arguments if you wish.

To briefly respond to your vague assertions:

Man has pretty much NEVER had good government. The main issues of this thread mostly concern how bad things have been at various times. Things used to be better, Now they are worse for everyone. Things keep getting worse at nearly every stage of history. The Bill of rights being one of the few positives in centuries, and a rather weak one at that.

[erowe1]

Things used to be better, Now they are worse for everyone.

Why do you think that?

[Swordsmyth]

Why do you think that?

???
The Conspirators now do things to gang rape the world on nearly a daily basis that would have provoked riots 200 years ago.
Are average people more free or less? Richer or poorer?

How can you even think things are not far worse these days?

[erowe1]

???
The Conspirators now do things to gang rape the world on nearly a daily basis that would have provoked riots 200 years ago.
Are average people more free or less? Richer or poorer?

How can you even think things are not far worse these days?

On the question of richer or poorer, it's not even debatable that average people are richer than ever before. The question of more free or less free is more difficult to answer.

Note that your claim wasn't just that things are worse, but that they're worse for everybody.

[Swordsmyth]

Richer on a Golden Chains basis I grant you. But relative wealth (which pertains to power) and the ability to live Debt free (an important factor in living truly free) are plummeting and have been since at least The FED's creation.

And we are constantly bombarded with reports of outrages all over the world. So yes everybodies chances of being robbed, tortured, killed etc. are much worse these days.