Yeah you might be right. Any government will inevitably grow corrupt and needs healthy fear of the people to keep them honest. Or as a wise man once put it: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
I identify as politically conservative, and if I’m not mistaken that’s nearly the same as fascist in your eyes, which you’ve just stated is deserving of violence. Would you feel justified using violence against me if you saw me at the polls and knew that I were planning to vote conservative? I can’t believe I’m asking this question, but I’m honestly not sure.
You legally and morally can’t resort to violence over politics, and if you think you can, then you shouldn’t be protected by the social contract regarding free speech. Basically, you are not compatible with modern society and should be locked up or banished. Also I’m not a liberal.
That’s crazy, and now in order to remain competitive and get workers, other businesses will also need to raise their pay. Capitalism.
The problem with your argument is that it’s giving carte blanche to political zealots to resort to shooting their opposition in the face because it’s “ok to shoot fascists”, and also apparently ok to label your opposition as fascist without having to define that label or justify your labeling. Why does nobody ever answer that question? Seems like every time I ask this question I get some variation of “found the fascist”, or deflecting like you’ve done. Why don’t you just admit that you don’t have a practical definition of what it means, and that you use the term to justify violence done by your team?
Removed by mod
How exactly do you define fascism though? Seems like that term gets used quite a bit.
Too many people in the world crave an identity that is original enough to be interesting, but not so original that it can’t be quantified or defined by accepted or understood identity templates. They need to be able to put a name to their identity so they can talk about it.
I’d make the case for that being tea, but very cool regardless!
With so much going on in the world beyond our control and maybe more importantly our increased access to news about those events, we need a way to process things that we can’t influence, but that may impact us anyway. Stoicism can provide that in an increasingly secular society, where it used to be religion.
The main problem with this book is in how it is applied by various people to Christianity in general (as opposed to a fringe cult), or used as an analogy of events today. It might apply in some cases, but those are so rare and unusual (back woods polygamist cults and the like), that they really don’t deserve to be discussed in context of current politics.
Other than political gain for one team or the other, what is the argument for expanding the supreme Court?
Well that depends on the motivation for the bomb threat.