To cater to the common good is to coax incompetence.
To say that my refusal to accept that it is moral to compel me against my will is somehow ITSELF an imposition of my will on others…is categorically irrational. It’s desperation in sophist guise. It is an admission of one’s utter rejection of reason, and an one’s arrant unwillingness to admit the Truth of the sanctity of the human being; the only rational moral and epistemological reference–the Self.
There are people who feel that those who are non-threatening are weak, and that the point of weakness is to exploit it. Avoid them.
In the capacity of science, scientists are brilliant, and hard and tireless workers. But as philosophers they are the most intellectually lazy and obtuse bunch of rubes I have ever come across; for even the most basic rational contradiction seems entirely beyond them.
By the time a child is old enough to understand the concepts of “authority” and “submission” you shouldn’t be appealing to them.
Apologetics for government begins with the right of the good man to be protected from the avarice of the evil. From this we can directly extrapolate the following equation:
The right of the virtuous to be protected from the non-virtuous = the vast majority of men shall be subject to the authority–that is, the coercive violent force–of a tiny minority of men.
This is a logical fallacy.
To protect virtue by compelling all men through violence entirely wrecks virtue by nullifying moral and intellectual agency and is a contradiction in terms.
Which is why all governments are simply degrees of tyranny.
Faith absent reason cannot provide an answer for itself–that is, its purpose and relevancy–which means it cannot be considered in any way efficacious.
And the answer to a question cannot be redundant or a contradiction, because that’s not an answer, it’s merely a priggish regurgitation of the question. So when you are asked the reason for your faith, use reason to answer. Otherwise you are nothing more than that kid in middle school who bragged about having a girlfriend in Canada. All claim, no dame.
A thing’s identity–whether that thing be an abstraction or a concrete–is violated when it is said to be or do two mutually exclusive things at the same time.
(Examples: God is infinite and God is distinctly Himself; man may choose and man is governed by God’s will/natural law; the Big Bang began with an infinitely dense and infinitely hot singularity (what is infinite cannot be valued and thus it cannot be measured, you see, and it also cannot be compared, so it is impossible to claim it “hot” or “dense”–appeals to a thing’s infinite existence preclude appeals to any specific properties); God created everything from nothing (ex nihilo)–nothing by definition cannot beget something–“is not” and “is” are categorical antipodes; time has a beginning (time cannot be subject to itself–logical fallacy); space can be folded (implying that there is space between space which must be mitigated via folding it–again, logical fallacy.
These are just some of my favorite specimens.)
A willingness to die for one’s beliefs is honorable; a willingness to kill for them is a contradiction and an atrocity.
If you believe there’s even one man who may be truly convinced by your ideas, then you may harm no man in service to them.