What's more important to you: the state, religion, or individual liberty? How would you rank them?

What's more important to you: the state, religion, or individual liberty? How would you rank them?

Individual liberty > the state > POWER GAP > religion.

A person's right to practice a religion falls under liberty though, and it's understood that to keep a stable state people should in a fair manner negotiate to lessen or remove some of their liberties in return for being a part of that state.

Religion
Liberty
State

Liberty
Religion
State

Individual liberty > State > Religion

Religion is natural.
Individual liberty comes from religion, philosophy, and pragmatics.
The state is unnecessary, but functionally reasonable.

>individual liberty>individual liberty>individual liberty

> user with the mad max option

OP you are talking about IMPORTANCE

So i would say:

State
Religion (also philosophy)
Liberty

State - physical, material: Attend to first (or it will get you)
Religion (philosophy) - What do we do? Why? What should we not do? Why?
Liberty - are people actually able to do and not be forced to do things?

>Religion is natural.
No more than the state. Both are born from liberty, and individuals coming to a shared understanding and participation for guarantee of safety and well-being.

Individual liberty > the state > POWER GAP > religion.
basically this. I'm a lefty for comparison.

Are you not skewing the results by altering the definition of religion? By assuming philosophy is part of religion you add to it greater worth, but philosophy is not inherently religious nor is religion inherently philosophic.

Individual Liberty>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>State>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Religion

Family
Morality
Invidual Liberty
My ancestor's history


NIGGERS
SHIT
JEWS
THE STATE

Despite what libertards think the state literally gives most of your liberties

What a horrible way to die, poor deer.

individual liberty
religion i don't give a shit about, do what you want as long as it doesn't affect me
the state should be abolished or at least reduced to a bare minimum of power

I thought pic related was OP for some reason, and you confused the shit out of me

fpbp

National unity/stability > Individual liberty > religion

I do think people should be free to practice whatever religion they want, I'm just using religion in the sense that its enforced by the state.

You fucking idiot.
The state can only TAKE AWAY liberty.
You start with unlimited liberty, the liberty of not being stolen from, the liberty of not being disallowed buying guns.

Any "Liberties" that are given, are just communist/socialist/jewish programs.

state
poop
religion
cancer tumor
liberty

I thought Puerto Rico was part of the USA.

But this is the correct order.

More so than the state, the religious mindset is psychologically present within the earlies ages of consciousness within a child. The ability to believe, at all, comes from an obsession with not only truth, but associating important, evolutionarily prudent, aspects of our lives with ritual and tradition.

Liberty is the offshoot from this, if it is to be considered moral. If not it is just natural. But belief itself, in an objective way beyond just spreading your seed, is religious.

The state is just a form of organization once tribes become so large that they require it. It's a progression of civilization--one that nearly always crumbles eventually.

They are all natural, yes. I just made an emphasis on religion because people might especially point it out not to be. But unlike religion, the state is not necessary. You do not need to form a state to operate successfully. You do not need liberty to find meaning. But I think that objective, transcendent meaning requires religion. A solid body of belief acts as a foundation for a culture.

I am not talking only about Christianity here. I am talking about all religions, forever back in time.

did he died

This.

Yeah enjoy your little ancap dream. MUH NAP MUH NAP.

To you guys personally, what's the meaning of this image?

NAP only works in homogeneous, small tribes. And even then a hierarchy and punishment structure has to be present.

Don't put the cart before the horse.

Ancap is unsustainable.
Monarchy is the max we can push in THE CURRENT YEAR.
The only liberty the goveerment is viable to take away is a land tax to sustain police, military and if there is no other way to sustain it, infrastructure.

>punishment structure
>agreed by tribe

Sounds to me like you have a proto state there

I wonder what German deerfucker user thinks about this

But yeah it's sad

>present within the earlies ages of consciousness within a child
Yes, it is a placeholder for what it cannot understand

Moreover, there is no such thing as moral absolutism.

Yeah and why is it essential for the state to fund the police? To protect your liberties

It is not political. And no real government exists. It's more of a culture, than a state. Indeed, a state doesn't require a culture. I mean it will fail if it doesn't have one, but it doesn't need one.

And you.

>Moreover, there is no such thing as moral absolutism.

Then there is no such thing as meaning.

Prosperity>Stability>Technology>Security>Individual Liberty.

State and religion aren't virtues, but social institutions, so they are separate altogether.

There can be nothing without a state. Religion role is minor but not nonexistent.

To protect me from crime not to protect my liberties. I can protect my liberties myself. Being stolen from isn't violating liberties, it's just a fucking crime and criminals should be hanged.

Anyone who puts "Religion" at one or two needs to review pic related.

Ethnicity

Ontological meaning no, but meaning for the individual in an existentialistic sense yes.

>In terms of what's personally important for me:
Religion
State
Liberty

>In terms of what I politically support:
Liberty
Religion
State

Religion
Individual liberty
State

Liberty, fuck the other ones

I would put state first, if the state wasnt completely fucking incompetent at literally everything they do related to governing. And that goes for all countrys

It's cyclical. The original social distinctions are spiritual: before kings and subjects are priests and lay-people; the earliest empires were ruled by god-kings. Political power is just spiritual power stripped of mysticism. Individuals will associate, for various reasons, with people with spiritual power; that spiritual power becomes political power. The three are completely inseparable.