It’s not about being tough at all. It’s about being willing to do what’s necessary to survive no matter what. Not because it’s pleasant but because if I don’t someone else will.
This “deplorable condition” will exist with or without my support.
I know enough about war to know it’s a horrible mess. Don’t give your money for it.
Finally. A hint of backbone. How refreshing. You should try it more often, just because you are a scum bag who if dropped dead tomorrow would leave the world a better place doesn’t mean you also need to be a coward and a hypocrite.
You make it sound like there’s some way to end the murder of Jews. There isn’t. Someone is going to die.
To everyone: Keep it clean.
No one individual matters in the long run Marko. I read an obituary today full of people, they’re dead the world keeps turning. If I die, someone else takes my place. Big deal.
Yes, someone is going to die. I don’t think I’m going to end Jews getting killed. Just hopefully lessen the number of Jews who do get killed.
Then come out and say it that you support murdering people. Don’t hide behind “maybe”, “unfortunately”, “to some extent”, “a little more”, “not that simple”. Nobody likes a hypocrite.
Would you murder a non-Jew to protect a Jew?
I support doing what is necessary. If that involves murdering people, so be it. It brings me absolutely no pleasure. This world makes me sick. But it is what it is.
If I thought I had to. Don’t really want to. Would rather there be peace. But there is no peace.
Why the qualifier? Sounds like you’d be a criminal in practice, too.
The idea of a guy who “owns his principles” scares the hell out of me – you’re basically saying you will ignore your principles as soon as you desire something. You could ignore the principle of non-aggression at any time, for any reason. Whatever limits you place on yourself are arbitrary and inconsistent. The fact that this describes almost everyone is exactly why I hate dealing with people in general and prefer to surround myself with people with ethics (and always walk around armed, and in excellent health and athleticism).
My fav quote so far.
Maybe I would be. That’s not for me to decide. Anyways, I learned from the Gracies to always be ready. Never let any rules get in the way of what needs to be done. Lots of people are like that. It’s unfortunate. I don’t blame you for walking around armed. You’re a smart man for being prepared imo.
Says the guy who actually supports the situation by where, this actually becomes an issue.
So you support only one kind of genocide [anyone but the Jews], correct?
Yo, filc… how’s this one? [+o(]
No, you’d be a criminal in reality. You’d be a murderer.
Also bloom, don’t be a coward - be a man… retract your lies about my position.
That’s fine. I’ll settle for the little pleasures.
Conza, do you have the cure for war?
I’m the same way.
Best quotes so far. I’ll have to back through and re-read to compile a list.
I’m pretty sure we’ve answered this one for you at least a dozen times now, if memory serves.
O that’s right, I forgot, we eliminate the state and there’s no more war. How can I possibly be so foolish as to not support anarchism?
Answer my questions, retract your lies, stop being a coward, then we’ll potentially address your mix of red herring & strawman, since anarcho-capitalists are not “utopians” at all.
In the mean time…
The Case for Radical Idealism - MNR
"While it is vital for the libertarian to hold his ultimate and “extreme” ideal aloft, this does not, contrary to Hayek, make him a “utopian.” The true utopian is one who advocates a system that is contrary to the natural law of human beings and of the real world. A utopian system is one that could not work even if everyone were persuaded to try to put it into practice. The utopian system could not work, i.e., could not sustain itself in operation. The utopian goal of the left: communism—the abolition of specialization and the adoption of uniformity—could not work even if everyone were willing to adopt it immediately. It could not work because it violates the very nature of man and the world, especially the uniqueness and individuality of every person, of his abilities and interests, and because it would mean a drastic decline in the production of wealth, so much so as to doom the great bulk of the human race to rapid starvation and extinction.
In short, the term “utopian” in popular parlance confuses two kinds of obstacles in the path of a program radically different from the status quo. One is that it violates the nature of man and of the world and therefore could not work once it was put into effect. This is the utopianism of communism. The second is the difficulty in convincing enough people that the program should be adopted. The former is a bad theory because it violates the nature of man; the latter is simply a problem of human will, of convincing enough people of the rightness of the doctrine. “Utopian” in its common pejorative sense applies only to the former.
In the deepest sense, then, the libertarian doctrine is not utopian but eminently realistic, because it is the only theory that is really consistent with the nature of man and the world. The libertarian does not deny the variety and diversity of man, he glories in it and seeks to give that diversity full expression in a world of complete freedom. And in doing so, he also brings about an enormous increase in productivity and in the living standards of everyone, an eminently “practical” result generally scorned by true utopians as evil “materialism.”
The libertarian is also eminently realistic because he alone understands fully the nature of the State and its thrust for power. In contrast, it is the seemingly far more realistic conservative believer in “limited government” who is the truly impractical utopian. This conservative keeps repeating the litany that the central government should be severely limited by a constitution. Yet, at the same time that he rails against the corruption of the original Constitution and the widening of federal power since 1789, the conservative fails to draw the proper lesson from that degeneration.
The idea of a strictly limited constitutional State was a noble experiment that failed, even under the most favorable and propitious circumstances. If it failed then, why should a similar experiment fare any better now? No, it is the conservative laissez-fairist, the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, “Limit yourself”; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian."
Bloom = unrealistic**, Utopian, fairly land dreamer**.