The Query of Morality

[nickmoser]

Socialization is defined by a psychologist as the praxis of conditioning children to conform to the rules and norms of society. A person is verbally expressed to be well socialized if he believes in and complies with the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem preposterous to verbalize that many leftists are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a revolter. Nevertheless, the position can be bulwarked. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem. In fact they are so over-socialized that they “continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions” to verbatim the Unabomber. When I was an atheist, I use to equate the SJW with the Religious Right who went on a Pedo-Satanist witch hunt during the 1980s and attempted to ban rock/metal music(I am a connoisseur of music, metal, hard rock, and punk in particular. This change when I became a Christian, this year. Albeit, I often ask myself that if I am being sanctimonious when I find myself sounding like Rick “Butt-Juice” Santorum”(I am against marijuana and yet it seems immoral to poke your nose into others business especially when it does not harm)  In a way the Oversocialized Christian fundamentalist produced a mirror image of themselves(the Cultural Marxist). Anyway, enough my unintelligible rambling. My question is how to create a cultural economic policy(I wonder if the *Amish capitalism led to Crony, consumerist, and degenerate capitalism but I do oppose any if not all state intervention. In fact I think the expansion of the State’s entanglement with economic matters help capitalism to become bloated and degenerate) that will not led to a class of over socialized opposition and/or we become oversocialized ourselves? Or consider the opposite, if we try to avoid the issue, will we become nihilist, such as the fate of the Libertarian Party and their spiritual counterpart The *Church of Satan/ LaVeyan Satanism who was founded by an ex-carnie whose “dream-girl” is no other than (((Ayn Rand)))?   

 

*The Amish are know for piety and their work ethic which I admire despite me being an Orthodox Christian.

*Oddly enough it is states on the Church of Satan’s website that a Marxist could join if he or she wishes. Egregious right, considering Ayn Rand is the complete opposite of Jewish Faggot and full-time Santa,(((Karl Marx)))?  Albeit, both  were materialism.  

[Jsbrads]

I am a conservative, so I would have no trouble with marijuana prohibition if it worked. It doesn’t.

i was only able to follow the first half of your post.

[Tyler H]

3 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

I am a conservative, so I would have no trouble with marijuana prohibition if it worked. It doesn’t.

A man has a plant. Another man dislikes the possession of said plant. The second man says to the first man, “give me that plant so that I can destroy it.” First man says, “uhh, no.” Second man pulls out a gun and says, “I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood, that was not a request. Give me that plant so that I can destroy it. And oh by the way, you’re coming with me so that I can “rehabilitate” you by locking you in a cage where you will need to adapt to a base criminal element and be rendered inadmissible to society for the remainder of your life - oh and there’s a good chance you might be raped. You may be thinking right now of resisting this obviously unjust use of force against you, but I assure you, that if you do, you will be met with such an insurmountable, overwhelming force that you will eventually either succumb or cease to draw breath.”

So kidnapping, raping, murdering, destroying someone’s life; these things are fine as long as they actually stopped people from using marijuana? 

Also, would you follow the same policy for alcohol if it were effective?

[Jsbrads]

Yes, IF the benefits outweighed the costs.

Would you allow drug dealers to give out free first samples of heroine to graduating classes on the first day of summer? (Let’s say all 18 yrs old)

[neeeel]

3 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

Yes, IF the benefits outweighed the costs.

Would you allow drug dealers to give out free first samples of heroine to graduating classes on the first day of summer? (Let’s say all 18 yrs old)

If the graduating class was on private property, you could just eject the drug dealers.

[Tyler H]

17 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

Would you allow drug dealers to give out free first samples of heroine to graduating classes on the first day of summer? (Let’s say all 18 yrs old)

Do you mean would I use force to prevent it? No, I would not. Circumstances change nothing. 

 

18 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

Yes, IF the benefits outweighed the costs.

Considering that in every voluntary economic transaction one man’s cost is the other’s benefit, in other words, the same thing is a benefit and a cost at the same time to two different people; who decides what constitutes a benefit worth murdering someone?

So far you’re principle is if you determine something is a benefit then you can murder someone. 

[Jsbrads]

Killing murderers is a benefit?

or would you rather reward them?

[Tyler H]

12 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

Killing murderers is a benefit?

or would you rather reward them?

All you’ve done is propose a false dichotomy that addresses none of my points.