Response: "inaugural celebration"

 I take offense at the assumption that anyone who was or is excited about our new president needs grace. I certainly don't think the 105 year old African-American woman who spent 7 hours in the cold yesterday in order to see a truly remarkable moment in history is in need of grace for doing so. 

No offense intended, but I must ask you, why does this woman not deserve grace?  I cannot imagine she would spend seven hours in the cold for something she did not think was good.  Surely she was excited because she thought this was the beginning of something very good.  Though she be wrong, I would guess her intentions are well, and that she deserves grace.

On the other hand, perhaps it is not the assertion that many deserve grace but the unspoken "assumption" that the state is essentially the negation of liberty that offends you.  If so, then the origonal article that was linked to, is probably also distasteful to you.  If you are interested, we should probably first discuss the moral (or lack thereof) justification for the state.

I don't disagree with you either, Adam, but we must not minimize the terribleness of the state.  1 Corinthians 15:24-25 points out a very interesting step in the process of the world ending, and all power and authority being returned to God by Jesus:

Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.  For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. ~NIV

Clearly the state could not exist without "dominion, authority and power;" hence the state -- all governments -- will be destroyed as it is clearly identified as an enemy of God.  Verse 26 points out the worst enemy of all:

The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

Interestingly, this is the ultimate tool the state uses in imposing its will, and it too, will be destroyed.  Praise God!

Adam, your point is well taken but all the razorwire in the world would not protect me from the US Government thugs if I deceided not to fund their empire or did something they did nt want me to do. In his piece Richman is referring to life, liberty, and property being safe from government. I have not consented to be taxed but can be thrown into a cage for not doing so. I guess I can feel safe as long as I do the governments bidding. Is the non corrupt governmrnt in El Salvador protecting you?

Isn't being excited about the new president because of the color of his skin a step backwards. We all need grace. They know not what they do.

Okay, just been chatting with Somer and I think I'm seeing why my post was taken as offensive.  Several of us that post here have strong anti-state convictions.  These convictions are relatively new, so we're a bit rough on how to handle them -- especially me.  Let me explain why I said what I did, though I now recognize it was poor judgment to post as I did.

My comment, made in the context of the anti-state position, means a very different thing than the same comment, made to a group of mixed persuasions.  I was responding to Ron's post, which is clearly anti-state.  I was pointing out that while we can believe that those who accept or appreciate the state are wrong, many of them are well intentioned and thus should be treated respectfully -- with grace.  I recognize that some of you may not agree with the anti-state position, and I respect that although I do think you are wrong.  (Hang there!)  I recognize that this doesn't actually mean you are wrong -- maybe I am -- but to the best of my ability, I have found the anti-state position to be very compelling: both from a philosophical and biblical perspective.

I do not think that I am simply right about everything, and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.  It is my desire to learn, and sometimes I do make a point strongly in the hope that it will receive criticism and thus be tested  I should point out that if I learn a compelling argument in favor of the state, I will change my position.

Now, as to the poor old lady standing in the rain for seven hours: My comment that she deserves grace was not intended as a slap-in-the-face way to say she's all wrong, but rather an insider note that those of us who are anti-state, should respect her even though we strongly disagree with her.

 I'm not sure what you are asking.  Maybe you're being sarcastic.  The government here is extreamly corrupt and no, they are not protecting me. That is why I need the razorwire and the security guard.  I understand that Governments do bad things.  They always have, and I assume they always will.  But what are you proposing as an alternative?  If there was no "State" then would there be more security and prosperity? If you say yes, I would love to hear how.  I think we all agree that the government does not always - or even frequently do the best thing for me, but how would not having any government make my situation better?  Maybe I could keep 30% more of my paycheck, but I probably have to spend more than that just to protect my property and possesions.  I don't believe that everyone would just do the right thing if there were no rules or laws enforced.  I guess I just would like to hear a good alternative.

Well, what I am hearing is an anarchist viewpoint.  And I agree with Adam.  There are definitely things that need to be changed in our government.  But I cannot imagine no government.  What chaos!  It would be every man for himself.   We live in a pretty civil society and are so much better off than most of the rest of the world.  What exactly are you advocating?  Why all the 'state hate'?   I repeat "What are you advocating"?

How  is the anti_state position compelling from both a philosophical and biblical perspective?  I see nothing compelling about it from any perspective.  We need to be diligent about the system we have and work to improve it and right some wrongs, but I don't see the reason behind your comments.

 Two things: You're right. We do all need grace. That is a basic Christian tenet. But I am uncomfortable with someone trying to define sin in my life, outside of the ten commandments. The implication that I need grace because I don't agree with the anti-state position sounds oppressive, even arrogant. As for recognizing the color of someone's skin...I see how one could argue that we obviously are still caught up in racism if we even notice that Obama is black. But on the other hand, how can we judge the African-American's sense of elation and wonder at Obama's presidency when we have never experienced true oppression and violence from the state like they have? I for one am not ashamed that I had a surge of hope as Obama took the oath of office. 

Yes I was being sarcastic, and yes If there was no state then there would be more security and prosperity relative to what we have now. But that is a rather weighty matter I would rather not get into right now. I will post more on a stateless society on a seperate blog and we will see where it goes.

My post was not outlining the anti-state arguments that I have found compelling, but merely noting that I have found them compelling.  I agree with Ron: it's a big issue, and not one that can be presented in a short essay.  I will point out that the anti-state position is very foreign to anything many of us have ever experienced.  The journey from a statist to an anti-statist is a long one, and the implications are HUGE and far reaching; I am still grappling with them myself.  I will try to organize my thoughts and present them here at a later time.

But I should be graceful to you even if I think you are wrong.  I am not intending to say that God should show grace to you even though you are wrong.

Perhaps using the word "grace" adds to the confusion since it is so often used in reference to God.

Anarchy does not equal chaos.  Anarchy is a misused and abused word in the English language.  When identifying the anti-state position as anarchy, it is important to clarify what anarchy means this context: without political authority.

I agree!

..from the home page ...

"This is a place where you can share your talents and experiences or be uplifted and encouraged through the talents and experiences of others."

.....does this focus need to be re-evaluated?  The banter is entertaining, but seems there are folks who for reasons unknown to me, are no longer visible on NLD.  Are they turned off by this focus that's been exhibited during and after the elections?  I can enjoy the exchanges, but I'd like to stick to sharing of ideas without this underlying sense of anger and rush to judge those who don't agree.  Outrage can be healthy but in this arena, I for one am not gaining anything from it. 

 Yeah, this is what I wish I'd said...

Apparently, what is encouraging and uplifting some of us, is having quite the opposite impact on others.  While I don't deny that some of my comments may have been careless (considering the wider audience), I do not think they are misplaced.

Perhaps it is appropriate for us to begin a discussion about what NoLessDays is, and how we can organize it so as to better portray our purpose.  I'll start a thread on this; please join in.

Please understand, my political (or rather apolitical) persuasion is one of hope and peace.  I desire greatly that we all find peace and prosperity; having been so thoroughly persuaded that the state is a primary source of pain and suffering in this world, I find it difficult to stand silently in the face of what I perceive as mass confusion and deception.  Please help me!?  How do I communicate the following thoughts without offending people while retaining the urgency and importance of the message?

1. I believe the state is evil.
2. I believe that the state derives it's power from the people.
3. I believe that most people supporting the state do not realize that the state is evil.
4. I believe that continued support of the state will result in increased intensity of evil.
5. I believe that the state is responsible for the pain, suffering, and death of millions of people around the globe, both now, and in the past, and will be in the future.

I could keep going, but those probably represent well the core of my understanding.

Now, realizing that I have made no effort here to convince anyone that my position is correct, place yourself in my shoes briefly, and pray tell how you would handle yourself; how would you communicate this in a blog or on a forum?  (For what it's worth, I have no desire to prematurely end my life.  So don't suggest it.)

Aside: Interestingly, our political discussions have been among the most active.

 I'll get to the meat of your last post later, when I have more time, but to respond to your note that the political discussions have been the most active - they may have been more active, but fewer participated.  For most times, it seems it's just you and Ron.

We have seen what you believe (over and over).  But what is your solution?  And when you say 'state' I am assuming that you mean government.  I certainly don't agree with a lot that comes out of Washington.  It is not perfect.  But I still don't understand what you are advocating.  I think when we try to have a discussion about political issues you cannot comment without saying how evil the state is.  Everything seems to be an example of how evil the state is.  And it kind of kills the discussion. 

I say lighten up and enjoy the banter. If someone has something that they consider uplifting by all means please post. But it seems without the ideological exchange this site is dead. We are sharing ideas and I personally don't sense any anger (yet) :) All of my anger is directed at my slow internet connection.

It hasen't killed the discussion yet.

I am enjoying the banter.  But just get tired of every other sentence being 'the evil state'.  I am angry at the cat for pooping on the floor!

I sincerely believe what I do.  It is not that I have some insatiable hate for the state, but that I really see the state as destructive.  I think I understand how you perceive me as always bashing the state when there is an attempt to discuss it, but I really do feel that most of what the state does is a grand example of why no state would be better.

I haven't ever undertaken to lay out my complete line of reasoning for my anti-state position, (in fact, I have only arrived at a truly anti-state position recently), so perhaps this is the problem.  I generally take more of a blogger/comment approach to lay out my thoughts, assuming that others will ask questions if more detail is needed; but perhaps this is creating too big a leap.

Maybe we need to take issues one at a time and discuss the state vs. anti-state approach to dealing with them.  For example: roads, or health care.  I think it's important to remember that this post was started with the presupposition of an anti-state stance.

I am sorry if I have discouraged or offended anyone.

But the discussion is not on the original idea.  It always comes back to the evil state.

 is it OUR (US)  evil state, or worldwide evil state? 

When I refer to "the state," I am referring to the idea that one person or group of persons should rule over any other person or group of persons without the consent of the governed.  This would include, the US government, my local government, any foreign government, the mafia, terrorists, etc.  They all, to some degree, force their will on others.

(How was that?  Did I successfully avoid inflammatory language?)

 Nice job!  Well done!

It seems like we are going around in circles here. Maybe we should end this thread and start anew one. But since I started this particticular one I will fire one last parting shot. Here goes.. and please don't reply just start a new entry.

I think the point is that we need to be vigilant and recognize that the government can and does implement policies that erode our freedoms. We must not be complacent. Sometimes frustration in watching people blindly follow our so-called leaders, tend to cause some of us (myself included) not to be as diplomatic as perhaps we should.  I guess I look at all this it a sort of a warning. Ignore it at your own risk. Speaking of warnings, I think that the “canary in the coal mine” if you will, is the erosion of our second amendment rights and the militarizing of our police departments. As these go so go our liberty. I would suggest keeping eyes and minds wide open.

Disclaimer: I am not suggesting that anyone reading this does not have an open mind. So no need to get your boxers in a wad.

A 

response to Ron's blog: inaugural celebration.

I particularly like Sheldon's point that "it is not so much the man as the office."  Nobody should be happy we have a president.  Only those who gain from the governments oppression of others will cheer.

There is grace for many who cheer -- they do so ignorantly.  Their gain is psychological while simultaneously taking a loss to their own life and liberty.

The author said:

No person’s life, liberty, and property are safe as long as the occupant of the White House possesses the powers that are invested in the presidency (and government generally).

I don't disagree.  But I think his statement is a bit misleading.  It think it would be better to say,

No persons life, liberty, and property are safe. Period.

Irregardless of the government, country, or age that you live in these things will never be sure, safe, secure or guarenteed on this side of heaven. 

I have to say that I certainly would feel more secure and as a property owner in the US than I would here in El Salvador - even with the razorwire and a paid security guard.