60 votes

Show some tolerance can we?

I've seen so much fighting between many "liberty" lovers it drives me crazy. We have enough problems trying to deal with the statists, can't we at least show some tolerance towards others who are fighting for liberty? I hear so many people say "So-and-so is pretty good on liberty but his stand on (fill-in-the-blank) is completely out of step with TRUE liberty ideals."

You know what? We ALL have stances that are unique to ourselves. We ALL believe our positions are correct (or else we would change them). I'm not going to agree with you on everything and you are not going to agree with me. We can agree on the "non-aggression principal" as a good place to start but even then we have perhaps slight differences on what that means. One thing that IS certain, we need as many fighting for liberty as we can get to succeed over the collective will of the statists.

So if you come across someone who "believes in liberty", but they think (x) is wrong while you think (x) is right, just accept them and move on. You can discuss (x) when we have managed some real progress towards reversing the power of the goons who want to dictate our lives to us.

PEACE BROTHERS AND SISTERS !!!




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
ChristianAnarchist's picture

Thanks for your tolerance... :)

A great example of how we can (or perhaps can't) work together happened to me last night. I brought some "#STANDWITHRAND" bumper stickers that I had purchased to the Memphis Campaign for Liberty meeting and one of the ladies who I've known for quite a while said she would NOT take one because Rand "supports" amnesty. Some people are so damn narrow minded and can't see through their single-issue glasses. For one thing, this "Constitution" has NO authority in it for the control of the border. There's only mention of having authority in "naturalization". So how about it all you people who are such strict "constitutionalists"? How about following this part of the constitution? Remember that whatever is NOT spelled out as a power of the feds IS NOT authorized...

P.S. Even though I'm an anarchist, I see profit in using the idea of a fiction government as long as it results in LESS infringement of our rights.

It's understandable that...

someone with the username "ChristianAnarchist" would be asking for tolerance. I'm sure the Apostle Paul heard similar requests from members of churches in Corinth, Galatia, etc., who Paul had reproved for not following sound teaching. So why should Christians quietly tolerate false teachers who suggest that God and Christ are anarchists? Answer: They shouldn't.

Nor should libertarians who believe in mission statement at the top of every DP page (Dedicated to Restoring Constitutional Government to The United States of America) be silent when anarchists equate their ideology to that of America's founding principles of limited government.

Nor should libertarians be silent when American troops, willing to fight and die to preserve the Constitution and Bill of Rights, are being used to build an anarcho-barbarian world economy.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

of course God is an anarchist

He gave you free will, didn't he?

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

The

only things not to be tolerated are aggression and injustice. Everything else should be concidered open for debate, disagreements can make our particular views sharp and well grounded, we should attempt to pursuade others if we think our views are valid. Disagreement need not be a source of conflict, tollerance of differences is surely part of the recipe for a peaceful society.

Enonesoch

There is nothing wrong with

There is nothing wrong with discussing X and Y with someone.

That is how you get to know someone.

In fact, even being on the same side, trying to work with strangers you don't get to know would be a little tough.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Hmmmm

Wasn't addressing my last comment to any one person, but rather the tone of the combined posts. If you want to take it as a personal comment to you, that's fine. Really don't know what comment about Ron Paul you are referring to.

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Comments about what I believe...

Some have asked what I believe and that has been established clearly by my past posts but really I believe in NO government. Not only that, I believe we have never had a "LEGITIMATE" government in the history of the planet (no authority delegated by the Creator to any man or group of men to form a "government"). Some will claim that this is not true, that King Saul was delegated authority by God... I'm not so sure of the accuracy of the story of Saul, but assuming it is accurate, I only see that the people of Israel were the ones who "chose" Saul and God only agreed to let them have their way (free will) and God even warned them that they were making a big mistake.

Therefore my position is that "anarchy" is the natural, current and always state of man. There is a difference between a legitimate government (one with "delegated" authority) and a gang of thugs with guns (a mafia if you will). The later is what we have and it is proof that we live in anarchy. There are NO laws, only the appearance of laws. If you really believe there are laws then tell me how someone can order the bombing of people all across the globe, murdering thousands of innocents, and NOT get arrested and thrown in the pokey?? Can't explain it? I can, it's ANARCHY!

No Thanks

I prefer to call things and people what they are, as they relate to core fundamental liberty and fundamental principles.

Your mileage obviously varies.

ChristianAnarchist's picture

What I think we should do...

When someone takes a position that we (or I) disagree with (like Peter Schiffs Iran comment) is to tell them we disagree. "Bombing is wrong for reason 1, 2, and 3... Now, lets work together on ending the fed, Mr. Schiff. I see we agree on that and it's a VERY important task that needs to get done."

That's how I would handle it. Hey maybe I'm wrong and the correct way to handle it is to tell everyone what a war monger Schiff is and how we need to throw him under the bus...

So when peter schiff says if

So when peter schiff says if Iran won't allow weapons inspectors we should blow them up, we should not worry about what Dr. Paul would say?

This time don't give us Barabbus!

That Right There...

...is some weird cult-like rhetoric.

Does your ethic, philosophy and belief revolve around Ron Paul and what he has done or would do?

Don't you have sufficient independence of philosophy, mind, ethic and belief, to personally assess things on their merit, rather than on what 'Ron' would say or do?

'What would Jesus do'

'What would Ron do'

Is that it, really?

Let me clear this up for you.

Let me clear this up for you. "We marched right in we can march right out" doesn't mean we should march in to start with! That includes bombing Iran, Mali, Libya, Iraq, or your house.

This time don't give us Barabbus!

Pssst...

...my comment was not related to anything Schiff said or advocated, it was pointed directly at YOU and your 'worry what Ron would say' dogma.

Try to keep up, please.

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Discussion is good...

Of course I was not trying to say one cannot discuss positions and within that discussion you would of course try to show the errors in the views of others. The "tolerance" part comes in accepting those who do not agree 100% with your position and working together with them on the things you DO agree on. If we can agree 60% with someone, we work together with them on those issues. Ron Paul even worked with some demoRats on some bills. We need to use ALL assets to gain ground in the liberty battle even if we don't agree completly with everyone we are fighting alongside. We REALLY need lots of people to work together here. We can't afford to shut people out who haven't QUITE obtained perfect understanding yet...

Ron Paul's farewell speech

Recall that in Ron Paul's farewell speech to Congress that he mentioned the two emotions that need to be realized: tolerance and envy.

When you catch yourself disagreeing, decide if either of those two are clouding your judgement.

Agree with me

and we'll get along fine... or agree to disagree. Don't argue with me though. Don't debate clear points of fact because you don't want to admit you don't have all the information. ASPIRE to intelligence - don't belittle it.

Be okay with not knowing everything. There's a lot of mental conditioning we've been exposed to all our lives and most of it was done with the intent of keeping us dumbed down.

Stop listening to the TV - TURN THE DAMN THING OFF! Ignore politics! That's the shiny thing THEY want you to pay attention to! Learn the law - stop financing the BAR system monopoly!

Pipedream

which I have an intolerant pipebomb for. Get used to the in-fighting, it ain't going away.

paulhakel.info
loveGodwithallyourheart.com

"The world has never known more oppressive governments or bigger governments than those which profess the cult of liberty." - Donald Sanborn

the price of liberty is eternal vigilance

And that includes vigilance against efforts, whether conscious or unconscious, to corrupt or dilute the libertarian message. I think it would be helpful if we focused on criticizing a person's actions, rather than criticizing the person. I think this is what Ron Paul prefers to do. So, when Rand does something unlibertarian, rather than saying "Rand sucks," we should say "this thing that Rand did sucks." However, this is a nutsack that swings both ways. So when someone says "this thing that Rand did sucks," others shouldn't interpret it as an attack on Rand the person.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

No Offense But

Isn't Christian and anarchist a contradiction in itself? Just asking. Seems so to me. Not trying to be mean but I am sure to piss everyone off that is Christian here. by asking. So much for having tolerance.

skippy

I reckon it depends on the

I reckon it depends on the definition of anarchist. If anarchist means there are no rulers with any inherent authority or dominion over other men then there is no contradiction. If anarchist means one can never have a ruler, even a self appointed one then there would appear to be a contradiction.

Ditto

Just my thoughts. I have to submit myself to God's rule, if I allow myself to be a Christian. It is just the way it is! But, I can also believe that we can exist without government rule, if all men follow the Golden Rule. As yet, that is not the reality of our, human, situation!

how so?

I don't see any inherent conflict between being a Christian and being an anarchist

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

What about absolutes?

What about absolutes?

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Some missed the point...

The point of this thread is that we CAN disagree with someone on a point where we consider them a bit of a "statist" an still work with them toward liberty. Did Peter Schiff say to bomb them all?? Yes, he did. What was his thinking?? I don't know. Maybe he was pandering to the powers that be to try to convince them he was NOT a "libertarian" so that he could get enough votes to actually get elected and do some damage to the statist machine, I don't know. Maybe he actually MEANT what he said and in the couple of years since he made that statement he's changed his mind. I know I've changed my mind a couple of times (ok, more than a couple of times).

Anyway, seems that my attempt at "making peace" among the tribes here has just stirred up more vitriol among the natives...

I hate to be a grammar nazi,

but it's the "non-agression principle," not a peaceful guy in charge of a high school :)

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

JustLiberty4US's picture

Ed, at least give people a

Ed, at least give people a way to remember the correct word. The principal is your "pal." :)

Yes, I know, it's dumb. But it tends to help.

Aggression

Isn't it aggression? Not sure of anything anymore.

skippy

haha, yeah

that's what I get for being a tool, I misspell a key word :)

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

JustLiberty4US's picture

That's pretty funny. :)

That's pretty funny. :)

Monkeys like bananas

No they don't.
Yes they do.

You must be a plant!

No, monkeys eat plants. Specifically bananas.

Bananas are not the only thing monkeys eat.

That's not what I was saying... That is ONE thing they eat.

But you only mentioned bananas!

WTF??

This is directed at the comments not the article..

Truth is treason in an empire of lies