It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Dangerous Anti-government Revolutionaries!!!
page: 1share:
Anti-government sentiment is not cause for fear, a sign of insanity, or a precursor of tragedy. Quite the contrary. Anti-government sentiment signifies attentiveness, understanding, and a love of liberty. If you truly value freedom, then you absolutely must distrust and despise government with every fiber of your being.
www.activistpost.com...
I thought this was a pretty good read. It does make a lot of sense. I don't understand if our Government even knows whats happening, or if they choose to ignore it. Surely they can't be that stupid. Or am i giving them too much credit?
This is an excellent article, that puts our freedoms in perspective. Our government doesn't grant us our rights, they exist in a natural state
without any government present.
Now the question is, how do we get the people to believe that? We the people have more power than our Government but we are afraid to exercise it.
It's the Pro-government types that are truly dangerous and have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghans, or do they not count as
people?
When only left with the choice of 2 crime families to vote for (democrat and republican) one can safely say we have lost our ability to restrain our own government or to make it conform to the wishes of the governed.
Don;t blame me or the other voters for this mess.
We haven't been bought off by lobbyists, banks and corporate interests.
It;s those in power who have not only robbed America economically but who have sent so many of our jobs overseas to satisfy the greed of a few elite shareholders.
Those who profit at the expense of the American people and their freedoms are the real traitors to this country,
When only left with the choice of 2 crime families to vote for (democrat and republican) one can safely say we have lost our ability to restrain our own government or to make it conform to the wishes of the governed.
Don;t blame me or the other voters for this mess.
We haven't been bought off by lobbyists, banks and corporate interests.
It;s those in power who have not only robbed America economically but who have sent so many of our jobs overseas to satisfy the greed of a few elite shareholders.
Those who profit at the expense of the American people and their freedoms are the real traitors to this country,
edit on 20-1-2011 by
Asktheanimals because: corrections
Originally posted by SKinLaB
Now the question is, how do we get the people to believe that? We the people have more power than our Government but we are afraid to exercise it.
To quote an old phrase; "When the government fears the people, there is liberty, when the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
We need to remind "ourselves" that we have control, that we are the masters of our own destiny. Speak, write, post, shout, pray, . . . . . . LEAD!
Originally posted by Asktheanimals
It's the Pro-government types that are truly dangerous and have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghans, or do they not count as people?
When only left with the choice of 2 crime families to vote for (democrat and republican) one can safely say we have lost our ability to restrain our own government or to make it conform to the wishes of the governed.
Don;t blame me or the other voters for this mess.
We haven't been bought off by lobbyists, banks and corporate interests.
It;s those in power who have not only robbed America economically but who have sent so many of our jobs overseas to satisfy the greed of a few elite shareholders.
Those who profit at the expense of the American people and their freedoms are the real traitors to this country,edit on 20-1-2011 by Asktheanimals because: corrections
Obviously if you love something you care about how it managed and who manages it. We care about america. The banker/globalists/corporate interests don't care about america. Simple as that. They are using the government as a tool to steal from the public. Like vultures they will move on to another carcass when they are done drinking our life blood. US now China and EU next.
But they will label anyone with "extremist" beliefs a t3h'w0r1s'st or r4d\qal. We can't be free because they won't allow us to. Corpo-media adores the flawed marxist leninist model of societal management. Herd em for thier own well being! Ha!
Praise Mao!
We are on a downward spiral. The people are afraid to stand up against our Government in fear of what the repercussions would be. Exactly what our
Government wants.
Power by numbers would be the only way. The populous is too cowardly to stand up though.
Power by numbers would be the only way. The populous is too cowardly to stand up though.
reply to post by SKinLaB
I'm not Anti-Government...
I'm Anti- A corrupt,tyrannical Government hell bent on destroying the laws that founded them and wiping out our freedom and way of life at record pace, while robbing us blind in the process...
We need REAL Government, in accordance with the constitution...
Anti-government sentiment is not cause for fear, a sign of insanity, or a precursor of tragedy
I'm not Anti-Government...
I'm Anti- A corrupt,tyrannical Government hell bent on destroying the laws that founded them and wiping out our freedom and way of life at record pace, while robbing us blind in the process...
We need REAL Government, in accordance with the constitution...
Originally posted by SKinLaB
We are on a downward spiral. The people are afraid to stand up against our Government in fear of what the repercussions would be. Exactly what our Government wants.
Power by numbers would be the only way. The populous is too cowardly to stand up though.
The numbers are their, the fuel is there, all the people need is a spark
reply to post by beezzer
The problem is that 300+ million people trying to lead the other 300+ million (minus one) people ends up in a mess.
The real problem is that people need to stop being stupid. The government is supposed to be an entity with authority as it is intended to be a mechanism by which people can collectively make decisions (our government, at least).
To draw a comparison: you need to drive somewhere. Doesn't matter where or why - you just need to drive as it is impractical to walk. A car, or some other vehicle, is generally required for this. In order to get where you want to go and do what you need to do - you must work in concert with the controls of that vehicle. You can say to yourself that you need to get to your destination all you want to - you can do your best to act like a car and make the same noises, but to little effect of actually getting you where you want to go.
We are not so much a nation where the people need to take back control from the government - but where people need to realize they have been asleep at the wheel and simply start driving the car back where they want it to go. The car has no mind or brain of its own. The government doesn't, either. It is a direct extension of the people. When the people are flustered and chaotic - the representatives are flustered and chaotic. When the people are divided, the representatives are divided. When the people are extremely different - the representatives are extremely different.
We don't need to jump from a moving vehicle, rebuild the car, or pray for space aliens. We just have to start taking a responsible and active role in the function of our government. It drives itself about as well as a car drives itself.
You people make this crap harder than it needs to be.
We need to remind "ourselves" that we have control, that we are the masters of our own destiny. Speak, write, post, shout, pray, . . . . . . LEAD!
The problem is that 300+ million people trying to lead the other 300+ million (minus one) people ends up in a mess.
The real problem is that people need to stop being stupid. The government is supposed to be an entity with authority as it is intended to be a mechanism by which people can collectively make decisions (our government, at least).
To draw a comparison: you need to drive somewhere. Doesn't matter where or why - you just need to drive as it is impractical to walk. A car, or some other vehicle, is generally required for this. In order to get where you want to go and do what you need to do - you must work in concert with the controls of that vehicle. You can say to yourself that you need to get to your destination all you want to - you can do your best to act like a car and make the same noises, but to little effect of actually getting you where you want to go.
We are not so much a nation where the people need to take back control from the government - but where people need to realize they have been asleep at the wheel and simply start driving the car back where they want it to go. The car has no mind or brain of its own. The government doesn't, either. It is a direct extension of the people. When the people are flustered and chaotic - the representatives are flustered and chaotic. When the people are divided, the representatives are divided. When the people are extremely different - the representatives are extremely different.
We don't need to jump from a moving vehicle, rebuild the car, or pray for space aliens. We just have to start taking a responsible and active role in the function of our government. It drives itself about as well as a car drives itself.
You people make this crap harder than it needs to be.
reply to post by Aim64C
I would offer a different comparison, and in the form of a fable. The fable is of the frog and the scorpion:
A frog is about to cross a river when a scorpion approaches the frog and politely asks that frog if he may hop on his back and catch a ride across the river. The frog - not so politely - refuses the scorpions request, explaining that to acquiesce to such a request would be madness for surely the scorpion would sting him, and then the frog would drown.
The scorpion respectfully disagreed and reasonably explained that if he were to sting the frog while he was crossing the river that both of them would drown and such a move would not at all be in the scorpions best interest. Thus, as the scorpion explained, it is unlikely I would sting you.
The frog thought about this and saw the reasonableness of the scorpions explanation, so he agreed to taxi the scorpion across the river, and told him to hop on his back. The scorpion did so, and the frog began the journey across the river.
About halfway across the river, the scorpion stung the frog, which paralyzed the frog, but not so much so that the frog was incapable of asking the scorpion; "Why did you do that? Now we will both drown!" The scorpion responded; "I am a scorpion. It is what I do. I sting."
The government is not a car that We the People drive, it is a scorpion whose nature it is to sting. Even if we do not allow the government on our backs that government will still act in ways to reign in freedoms. However, allowing that government to ride upon our backs is a sure invitation to have our freedoms reigned in.
I would offer a different comparison, and in the form of a fable. The fable is of the frog and the scorpion:
A frog is about to cross a river when a scorpion approaches the frog and politely asks that frog if he may hop on his back and catch a ride across the river. The frog - not so politely - refuses the scorpions request, explaining that to acquiesce to such a request would be madness for surely the scorpion would sting him, and then the frog would drown.
The scorpion respectfully disagreed and reasonably explained that if he were to sting the frog while he was crossing the river that both of them would drown and such a move would not at all be in the scorpions best interest. Thus, as the scorpion explained, it is unlikely I would sting you.
The frog thought about this and saw the reasonableness of the scorpions explanation, so he agreed to taxi the scorpion across the river, and told him to hop on his back. The scorpion did so, and the frog began the journey across the river.
About halfway across the river, the scorpion stung the frog, which paralyzed the frog, but not so much so that the frog was incapable of asking the scorpion; "Why did you do that? Now we will both drown!" The scorpion responded; "I am a scorpion. It is what I do. I sting."
The government is not a car that We the People drive, it is a scorpion whose nature it is to sting. Even if we do not allow the government on our backs that government will still act in ways to reign in freedoms. However, allowing that government to ride upon our backs is a sure invitation to have our freedoms reigned in.
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Again, this is a completely inaccurate comparison. You're separating the people and government into two separate conscious entities. This is accurate for, say, dictatorships and non-representative forms of government - but completely inadequate to describe our form of government.
A car's nature is to turn in the direction its wheels are pointed.
Our government cannot make any substantial changes without the support of the people - or complete ignorance. An example of this would be the current attempt to repeal "Obamacare" - while mostly symbolic at this point - it is similar to your car hitting the rumble-strip on the side of the highway; the people, as the drivers, wake up and turn the wheel to make the car correct itself.
The government has no express purpose to "sting" anymore than a car has the express purpose to crash. A car with incompetent, ignorant, or unconscious drivers will, ultimately, veer onto a course that is not desirable for those in the car. It is not, however, the car's nature to venture off course or to crash. It is merely a result of a lack of positive control being employed by the drivers.
This government has been behaving exactly the way the wheel has been turned and the bumps have sent it. The people have been ignorant and complacent - content with policy so long as they can pay the bills and eat hamburgers. None of the idiot-lights are lit up on the dashboard to indicate a problem, and we're free to eat, text, etc inside the car and ignore what lie beyond the transparency of the windshield.
Now, we've hit the rumble strip and realize that we should have made a left back at Albuquerque... and we're about to run off a cliff.
Some people think we should turn the wheel right. Others think we should turn it left. Some thing we should slam on the brakes - and others think we should just hit the gas and fly (despite the lack of wings). Some go into catatonic shock while others want to over-correct and roll the car in trying to avoid disaster. Some blame the car, others blame space aliens.
In the end - some combination of the above reactions will go into effect - and the car will behave exactly as physics says it should. It won't pull a Herby the Love Bug on us.
What you're doing by separating the two into separate conscious entities is disassociating the actions and behavior of the people (including yourself) and the consequences that has within the government. It's a sort of desire to believe we have alien hand syndrome (Dr. Strangelove syndrome, as it is also known) because our government is doing some undesirable things at the time.
The fact is - it's exactly what the people have wanted. Less personal responsibility and liability - more sports and half-naked chicks on TV.
I would offer a different comparison, and in the form of a fable. The fable is of the frog and the scorpion:
Again, this is a completely inaccurate comparison. You're separating the people and government into two separate conscious entities. This is accurate for, say, dictatorships and non-representative forms of government - but completely inadequate to describe our form of government.
The government is not a car that We the People drive, it is a scorpion whose nature it is to sting. Even if we do not allow the government on our backs that government will still act in ways to reign in freedoms. However, allowing that government to ride upon our backs is a sure invitation to have our freedoms reigned in.
A car's nature is to turn in the direction its wheels are pointed.
Our government cannot make any substantial changes without the support of the people - or complete ignorance. An example of this would be the current attempt to repeal "Obamacare" - while mostly symbolic at this point - it is similar to your car hitting the rumble-strip on the side of the highway; the people, as the drivers, wake up and turn the wheel to make the car correct itself.
The government has no express purpose to "sting" anymore than a car has the express purpose to crash. A car with incompetent, ignorant, or unconscious drivers will, ultimately, veer onto a course that is not desirable for those in the car. It is not, however, the car's nature to venture off course or to crash. It is merely a result of a lack of positive control being employed by the drivers.
This government has been behaving exactly the way the wheel has been turned and the bumps have sent it. The people have been ignorant and complacent - content with policy so long as they can pay the bills and eat hamburgers. None of the idiot-lights are lit up on the dashboard to indicate a problem, and we're free to eat, text, etc inside the car and ignore what lie beyond the transparency of the windshield.
Now, we've hit the rumble strip and realize that we should have made a left back at Albuquerque... and we're about to run off a cliff.
Some people think we should turn the wheel right. Others think we should turn it left. Some thing we should slam on the brakes - and others think we should just hit the gas and fly (despite the lack of wings). Some go into catatonic shock while others want to over-correct and roll the car in trying to avoid disaster. Some blame the car, others blame space aliens.
In the end - some combination of the above reactions will go into effect - and the car will behave exactly as physics says it should. It won't pull a Herby the Love Bug on us.
What you're doing by separating the two into separate conscious entities is disassociating the actions and behavior of the people (including yourself) and the consequences that has within the government. It's a sort of desire to believe we have alien hand syndrome (Dr. Strangelove syndrome, as it is also known) because our government is doing some undesirable things at the time.
The fact is - it's exactly what the people have wanted. Less personal responsibility and liability - more sports and half-naked chicks on TV.
reply to post by Aim64C
The United States of America imprisons more people per capita than any other industrialized nation in the world. More than China, and more than the Soviet Union did at the height of their tyranny. The canard that a democratic government and the ability of people to elect their representatives is the foundation of freedom is a lie that has cost the people of the United States much for believing this lie. All governments exist by the consent of the governed, whether that be a Monarchy, dictatorship, republic or some form of a democratic government. The government in China exists by the consent of the governed, and Saddam Hussein existed by the consent of the governed, as did Hitler.
A car doesn't have a nature. Scorpions have a nature, but a car is an artifice that's purpose is to transport its passengers and drivers.
It is unclear, using this example, if you are suggesting that "Obamacare" is legislation that exists by will of the people, and that the effort to have it repealed is not, this handily demonstrates the problem with your argument. You are the one who has insisted that separating government from the people under our Constitutional form of government is wholly inappropriate, but if we are to understand the purpose of that Constitution, which guarantees the states in the Union a republican form of government, then we understand that the will of the people is checked by the unalienable rights of the people.
A good example of the "will of the people" being used to impose upon the people legislation that was clearly not the will of the people would be the 18th Amendment. Congress was heavily influenced by the temperance movement when they passed the 18th Amendment. Now, you can, if you wish, declare that the temperance movement represented the will of the people, but the reality was that just 13 years later Congress was forced to repeal the 18th Amendment because the will of the people demanded it. Congress passed legislation that the Supreme Court upheld as Constitutional but the people told the federal government, as well as the states, to piss off, and of course, some 130 years before prohibition there was the Whiskey rebellion, which was a rebellion simply because a tax was imposed upon whiskey.
More importantly, when it comes to the fundamental rights of the people, and under our Constitution/s, (both federal and states), the right of an individual cannot lawfully be denied or disparaged simply because a majority of the people, or well oiled political movement, think that, or those rights, should be denied or disparaged, and yet governments will and do deny and disparage the rights of individuals in spite of the Constitutional restraints that have been placed upon them. It may be more appropriate to compare the Constitution to an automobile, and the government as a scorpion. The Constitution should drive the government, but it should be driven by a profound reverence for unalienable rights. Scorpions do not tend to show such reverence.
All governments tend towards an aggregation of power, and the United States has been no different. Both the federal and states of the United States have steadily moved towards expanding government, and the plethora of administrative "alphabet agencies" that have been imposed upon the people were not even in existences at the time the United States was founded. It has often been the invention of some new technology that has been used as an excuse to expand government, and the argument being that the technology has to be regulated, but what happens in effect is that rights are regulated. The Federal Communications Commission is just one example. The argument was that the FCC was necessary to regulate the airwaves, but what has in effect been regulated is speech.
The government heads in the direction it does because, as Jefferson aptly put it, "whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct." That rottenness is a desire to aggregate power.
Here is precisely what is wrong with your wholly inappropriate car analogy. When government officials are acting lawfully, it matters not what some people think the in terms of which direction the government should go. If that direction is a denial or disparagement of rights then regardless of how many people want the government to go in that direction, the answer is, lawfully speaking, no. Politicians, however, are prone towards making promises to appease voters, and will gladly sting whomever is the closest to sting without any regard for the consequences of such an action.
What I am doing is going by my understanding of the Constitution's put in place that have established the current government. A careful reading of the Preamble makes clear that we the people have come together in order to form a more perfect union, and have ordained a Constitution with the intent of restraining government from intruding upon our lives. What I am doing is insisting that free people have a responsibility to govern themselves, and that law is the right to self defense, and by that reason it follows the we the people have the right to a collective self defense. What I am doing is carefully reading the Bill of Rights, which at no point uses any language that could be construed to deny or disparage rights retained by the people, and in fact is a list of Amendments that act as prohibitions on government. "Congress shall make no law...shall not be infringed...no soldier shall...shall not be violated...no person shall be held to answer for a capital crime...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property..." and so on. These are impositions placed upon the federal government, not the people. It is a treatise instructing the government what they cannot do.
As far as We the People go, what we cannot do is, outside of self defense, or defense of others rights, is harm others. If what we do causes no harm, the what we do, we do by right.
This is what I am doing. I am making the argument that the Constitution for the United States of America is a profound indictment upon government, recognizing that governments cannot and should not be trusted.
Again, this is a completely inaccurate comparison. You're separating the people and government into two separate conscious entities. This is accurate for, say, dictatorships and non-representative forms of government - but completely inadequate to describe our form of government.
The United States of America imprisons more people per capita than any other industrialized nation in the world. More than China, and more than the Soviet Union did at the height of their tyranny. The canard that a democratic government and the ability of people to elect their representatives is the foundation of freedom is a lie that has cost the people of the United States much for believing this lie. All governments exist by the consent of the governed, whether that be a Monarchy, dictatorship, republic or some form of a democratic government. The government in China exists by the consent of the governed, and Saddam Hussein existed by the consent of the governed, as did Hitler.
A car's nature is to turn in the direction its wheels are pointed.
A car doesn't have a nature. Scorpions have a nature, but a car is an artifice that's purpose is to transport its passengers and drivers.
Our government cannot make any substantial changes without the support of the people - or complete ignorance. An example of this would be the current attempt to repeal "Obamacare" - while mostly symbolic at this point - it is similar to your car hitting the rumble-strip on the side of the highway; the people, as the drivers, wake up and turn the wheel to make the car correct itself.
It is unclear, using this example, if you are suggesting that "Obamacare" is legislation that exists by will of the people, and that the effort to have it repealed is not, this handily demonstrates the problem with your argument. You are the one who has insisted that separating government from the people under our Constitutional form of government is wholly inappropriate, but if we are to understand the purpose of that Constitution, which guarantees the states in the Union a republican form of government, then we understand that the will of the people is checked by the unalienable rights of the people.
A good example of the "will of the people" being used to impose upon the people legislation that was clearly not the will of the people would be the 18th Amendment. Congress was heavily influenced by the temperance movement when they passed the 18th Amendment. Now, you can, if you wish, declare that the temperance movement represented the will of the people, but the reality was that just 13 years later Congress was forced to repeal the 18th Amendment because the will of the people demanded it. Congress passed legislation that the Supreme Court upheld as Constitutional but the people told the federal government, as well as the states, to piss off, and of course, some 130 years before prohibition there was the Whiskey rebellion, which was a rebellion simply because a tax was imposed upon whiskey.
More importantly, when it comes to the fundamental rights of the people, and under our Constitution/s, (both federal and states), the right of an individual cannot lawfully be denied or disparaged simply because a majority of the people, or well oiled political movement, think that, or those rights, should be denied or disparaged, and yet governments will and do deny and disparage the rights of individuals in spite of the Constitutional restraints that have been placed upon them. It may be more appropriate to compare the Constitution to an automobile, and the government as a scorpion. The Constitution should drive the government, but it should be driven by a profound reverence for unalienable rights. Scorpions do not tend to show such reverence.
The government has no express purpose to "sting" anymore than a car has the express purpose to crash. A car with incompetent, ignorant, or unconscious drivers will, ultimately, veer onto a course that is not desirable for those in the car. It is not, however, the car's nature to venture off course or to crash. It is merely a result of a lack of positive control being employed by the drivers.
All governments tend towards an aggregation of power, and the United States has been no different. Both the federal and states of the United States have steadily moved towards expanding government, and the plethora of administrative "alphabet agencies" that have been imposed upon the people were not even in existences at the time the United States was founded. It has often been the invention of some new technology that has been used as an excuse to expand government, and the argument being that the technology has to be regulated, but what happens in effect is that rights are regulated. The Federal Communications Commission is just one example. The argument was that the FCC was necessary to regulate the airwaves, but what has in effect been regulated is speech.
This government has been behaving exactly the way the wheel has been turned and the bumps have sent it. The people have been ignorant and complacent - content with policy so long as they can pay the bills and eat hamburgers. None of the idiot-lights are lit up on the dashboard to indicate a problem, and we're free to eat, text, etc inside the car and ignore what lie beyond the transparency of the windshield.
The government heads in the direction it does because, as Jefferson aptly put it, "whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct." That rottenness is a desire to aggregate power.
Some people think we should turn the wheel right. Others think we should turn it left. Some thing we should slam on the brakes - and others think we should just hit the gas and fly (despite the lack of wings). Some go into catatonic shock while others want to over-correct and roll the car in trying to avoid disaster. Some blame the car, others blame space aliens.
Here is precisely what is wrong with your wholly inappropriate car analogy. When government officials are acting lawfully, it matters not what some people think the in terms of which direction the government should go. If that direction is a denial or disparagement of rights then regardless of how many people want the government to go in that direction, the answer is, lawfully speaking, no. Politicians, however, are prone towards making promises to appease voters, and will gladly sting whomever is the closest to sting without any regard for the consequences of such an action.
What you're doing by separating the two into separate conscious entities is disassociating the actions and behavior of the people (including yourself) and the consequences that has within the government. It's a sort of desire to believe we have alien hand syndrome (Dr. Strangelove syndrome, as it is also known) because our government is doing some undesirable things at the time.
What I am doing is going by my understanding of the Constitution's put in place that have established the current government. A careful reading of the Preamble makes clear that we the people have come together in order to form a more perfect union, and have ordained a Constitution with the intent of restraining government from intruding upon our lives. What I am doing is insisting that free people have a responsibility to govern themselves, and that law is the right to self defense, and by that reason it follows the we the people have the right to a collective self defense. What I am doing is carefully reading the Bill of Rights, which at no point uses any language that could be construed to deny or disparage rights retained by the people, and in fact is a list of Amendments that act as prohibitions on government. "Congress shall make no law...shall not be infringed...no soldier shall...shall not be violated...no person shall be held to answer for a capital crime...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property..." and so on. These are impositions placed upon the federal government, not the people. It is a treatise instructing the government what they cannot do.
As far as We the People go, what we cannot do is, outside of self defense, or defense of others rights, is harm others. If what we do causes no harm, the what we do, we do by right.
This is what I am doing. I am making the argument that the Constitution for the United States of America is a profound indictment upon government, recognizing that governments cannot and should not be trusted.
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The ignorant always feel cheated. It's not anyone's fault but your own that you lack the will and/or capacity to comprehend.
None of those governments included the people in the decision-making process beyond compliance with the decisions of another person.
Freedom and responsibility go hand-in-hand. A government existing where people are simply not responsible enough to represent their own needs will never continue to be (or lead to) a government of a free society.
That's... what I already said. It's rather crucial to the point I was attempting to make. I see, now, it flew right over your head.
To use the cliche line: "What we have here, is a failure to communicate."
You just need to check your argumentative nature and read what I have said. Stop trying to think for me, and let what I have to say process.
"Obamacare" is a result of the short-sighted and complacent climate that has been developing in our country since the late 50s. People were willing to shirk responsibility for convenience. However, recent events have caused people to realize we are both in and heading further in a direction we do not want to go. Thus - the repeal of "Obamacare" is, also, exactly what the people are demanding.
Both are entirely the will of the people. And one of the interesting things you will find about people is that they are often smart, but unwilling to commit their thoughts to the future. This is exacerbated by the "microwave mentality" and MTV generations that hinge on an attention span of a humming bird and cannot tolerate any kind of discussion that doesn't consist of Stewart or Colbert. This leads to people making a lot of stupid decisions and thinking things are going to be a great idea right up until the point it bites them in the ass.
The fact of the mater is that "the government" didn't come up with either idea. Some people did, and put it through the process of government. Because the majority of people were not paying attention - the government put legislation into effect that later found itself in great opposition to the will of the people.
In cases like the Whiskey Rebellion - certain concentrations of the population believe it will be a good idea to enforce their ideals upon other groups - until those other groups decide to not play a game of Russian Roulette and it becomes obvious there's no recourse but to repeal.
The government doesn't. People do, and other people sit there and let it happen, despite the government being specifically designed to enable the people to prevent interest groups (large and small) from causing problems like that.
By separating the people and the government, you are ignoring the real problem - which is an overall ignorance and unwillingness to use the process of our government to prevent people from taking advantage of each other.
Again - the government did none of this. The people elected to office by people did. Those election regions then failed to be responsible and ensure their needs and concerns were being represented by their representatives.
You can attempt to demonize the government all you want. The fact is that the people generally lack the self-respect and worth necessary to maintain a free society. This is why I have a rather cynical view of people and find them to be worthless and undeserving until proven otherwise on an individual basis.
It's blaming the car for crashing when the person was drunk, asleep at the wheel, fornicating, or otherwise distracted from the responsibilities of the driver's seat.
Which is exactly why we have to endure those annoying campaign ads and vote in the guy who has been there so that we can shut them up for a few years.
What other purpose could the election cycle POSSIBLY serve?
You're talking about politicians as if they are some kind of extra-terrestrial flesh-eating species of demonic hatred. You've obviously not interfaced much with people if you believe that is anything other than what people are/can be if you simply focus on the negative aspects.
Such a simple and incomplete reading.
It's meant to keep people from taking advantage of each other through the process of government. So long as you separate people and government you will always be doomed to a fool's game. The government has no ambitions - it is a process for people to make practical decisions. It is a process for, say, building a bridge the community requires. It is a process for deciding how education is to be run within the jurisdiction of that body as determined by the Constitution.
It is a processed staffed by representatives of the people and monitored/maintained by the population as a whole. Those people can have goals and ambitions - correct, incorrect - crazy and sane. It must be by the will of the people that these individuals serve in the office - and it must be by their complacence that undesirable legislation be passed or continue to exist past the next election cycle.
People are the problem. Always have been. Always will be. It will be a long time before any human population is truly living as a free, self-aware society capable of sustaining its freedom. People are just dumb and will ultimately doom their own creation regardless of its construction. It doesn't matter if you try and take people out of the equation through the use of computers or some other fanciful machinations. People are involved, even if just as subjects, and will mess the whole thing up.
Everything has a cycle. We cycle between being awake and asleep, day and night, summer and winter, etc. Society is no different - we cycle between freedom and tyranny, active and complacent, etc. Perhaps, some day, we can become aware of these cycles as a whole and manage them in such a way as to prevent entire collapses into tyranny or other undesirable periods.
The canard that a democratic government and the ability of people to elect their representatives is the foundation of freedom is a lie that has cost the people of the United States much for believing this lie.
The ignorant always feel cheated. It's not anyone's fault but your own that you lack the will and/or capacity to comprehend.
All governments exist by the consent of the governed, whether that be a Monarchy, dictatorship, republic or some form of a democratic government. The government in China exists by the consent of the governed, and Saddam Hussein existed by the consent of the governed, as did Hitler.
None of those governments included the people in the decision-making process beyond compliance with the decisions of another person.
Freedom and responsibility go hand-in-hand. A government existing where people are simply not responsible enough to represent their own needs will never continue to be (or lead to) a government of a free society.
A car doesn't have a nature. Scorpions have a nature, but a car is an artifice that's purpose is to transport its passengers and drivers.
That's... what I already said. It's rather crucial to the point I was attempting to make. I see, now, it flew right over your head.
It is unclear, using this example, if you are suggesting that "Obamacare" is legislation that exists by will of the people, and that the effort to have it repealed is not, this handily demonstrates the problem with your argument. You are the one who has insisted that separating government from the people under our Constitutional form of government is wholly inappropriate, but if we are to understand the purpose of that Constitution, which guarantees the states in the Union a republican form of government, then we understand that the will of the people is checked by the unalienable rights of the people.
To use the cliche line: "What we have here, is a failure to communicate."
You just need to check your argumentative nature and read what I have said. Stop trying to think for me, and let what I have to say process.
"Obamacare" is a result of the short-sighted and complacent climate that has been developing in our country since the late 50s. People were willing to shirk responsibility for convenience. However, recent events have caused people to realize we are both in and heading further in a direction we do not want to go. Thus - the repeal of "Obamacare" is, also, exactly what the people are demanding.
Both are entirely the will of the people. And one of the interesting things you will find about people is that they are often smart, but unwilling to commit their thoughts to the future. This is exacerbated by the "microwave mentality" and MTV generations that hinge on an attention span of a humming bird and cannot tolerate any kind of discussion that doesn't consist of Stewart or Colbert. This leads to people making a lot of stupid decisions and thinking things are going to be a great idea right up until the point it bites them in the ass.
A good example of the "will of the people" being used to impose upon the people legislation that was clearly not the will of the people would be the 18th Amendment. Congress was heavily influenced by the temperance movement when they passed the 18th Amendment. Now, you can, if you wish, declare that the temperance movement represented the will of the people, but the reality was that just 13 years later Congress was forced to repeal the 18th Amendment because the will of the people demanded it. Congress passed legislation that the Supreme Court upheld as Constitutional but the people told the federal government, as well as the states, to piss off, and of course, some 130 years before prohibition there was the Whiskey rebellion, which was a rebellion simply because a tax was imposed upon whiskey.
The fact of the mater is that "the government" didn't come up with either idea. Some people did, and put it through the process of government. Because the majority of people were not paying attention - the government put legislation into effect that later found itself in great opposition to the will of the people.
In cases like the Whiskey Rebellion - certain concentrations of the population believe it will be a good idea to enforce their ideals upon other groups - until those other groups decide to not play a game of Russian Roulette and it becomes obvious there's no recourse but to repeal.
and yet governments will and do deny and disparage the rights of individuals in spite of the Constitutional restraints that have been placed upon them.
The government doesn't. People do, and other people sit there and let it happen, despite the government being specifically designed to enable the people to prevent interest groups (large and small) from causing problems like that.
Scorpions do not tend to show such reverence.
By separating the people and the government, you are ignoring the real problem - which is an overall ignorance and unwillingness to use the process of our government to prevent people from taking advantage of each other.
All governments tend towards an aggregation of power, and the United States has been no different. Both the federal and states of the United States have steadily moved towards expanding government, and the plethora of administrative "alphabet agencies" that have been imposed upon the people were not even in existences at the time the United States was founded. It has often been the invention of some new technology that has been used as an excuse to expand government, and the argument being that the technology has to be regulated, but what happens in effect is that rights are regulated. The Federal Communications Commission is just one example. The argument was that the FCC was necessary to regulate the airwaves, but what has in effect been regulated is speech.
Again - the government did none of this. The people elected to office by people did. Those election regions then failed to be responsible and ensure their needs and concerns were being represented by their representatives.
You can attempt to demonize the government all you want. The fact is that the people generally lack the self-respect and worth necessary to maintain a free society. This is why I have a rather cynical view of people and find them to be worthless and undeserving until proven otherwise on an individual basis.
It's blaming the car for crashing when the person was drunk, asleep at the wheel, fornicating, or otherwise distracted from the responsibilities of the driver's seat.
The government heads in the direction it does because, as Jefferson aptly put it, "whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct." That rottenness is a desire to aggregate power.
Which is exactly why we have to endure those annoying campaign ads and vote in the guy who has been there so that we can shut them up for a few years.
What other purpose could the election cycle POSSIBLY serve?
Here is precisely what is wrong with your wholly inappropriate car analogy. When government officials are acting lawfully, it matters not what some people think the in terms of which direction the government should go. If that direction is a denial or disparagement of rights then regardless of how many people want the government to go in that direction, the answer is, lawfully speaking, no. Politicians, however, are prone towards making promises to appease voters, and will gladly sting whomever is the closest to sting without any regard for the consequences of such an action.
You're talking about politicians as if they are some kind of extra-terrestrial flesh-eating species of demonic hatred. You've obviously not interfaced much with people if you believe that is anything other than what people are/can be if you simply focus on the negative aspects.
This is what I am doing. I am making the argument that the Constitution for the United States of America is a profound indictment upon government, recognizing that governments cannot and should not be trusted.
Such a simple and incomplete reading.
It's meant to keep people from taking advantage of each other through the process of government. So long as you separate people and government you will always be doomed to a fool's game. The government has no ambitions - it is a process for people to make practical decisions. It is a process for, say, building a bridge the community requires. It is a process for deciding how education is to be run within the jurisdiction of that body as determined by the Constitution.
It is a processed staffed by representatives of the people and monitored/maintained by the population as a whole. Those people can have goals and ambitions - correct, incorrect - crazy and sane. It must be by the will of the people that these individuals serve in the office - and it must be by their complacence that undesirable legislation be passed or continue to exist past the next election cycle.
People are the problem. Always have been. Always will be. It will be a long time before any human population is truly living as a free, self-aware society capable of sustaining its freedom. People are just dumb and will ultimately doom their own creation regardless of its construction. It doesn't matter if you try and take people out of the equation through the use of computers or some other fanciful machinations. People are involved, even if just as subjects, and will mess the whole thing up.
Everything has a cycle. We cycle between being awake and asleep, day and night, summer and winter, etc. Society is no different - we cycle between freedom and tyranny, active and complacent, etc. Perhaps, some day, we can become aware of these cycles as a whole and manage them in such a way as to prevent entire collapses into tyranny or other undesirable periods.
Is there a difference between being ruled by a royal family and being ruled by a political family such as the Kennedy family? To take it a step
further, is there a difference of being ruled by a royal family and being ruled by a constant stream of Ivy League and corporate elites?
We have reduced ourselves to being led by an elitist Oligarchy
We have reduced ourselves to being led by an elitist Oligarchy
reply to post by Aim64C
Ah yes, it is a universal characteristic of the arrogant to not only presume knowledge they lack, but it is their hubris to assume that those who disagree with them are ignorant. What is tragically ironic is that you declare me ignorant because you have taken what I said about it being a lie that democratic elections are the foundation of freedom and have assumed this means I feel cheated. The fact of the matter is that I have never been cheated, and I have regularly relied upon the law to assert my unalienable rights to ensure I am not cheated. Fools come in all shapes and sizes, and the pretentious are always the biggest fools.
That compliance is more than enough.
Rhetoric is problematic enough, empty rhetoric is entropic. Governments do not ensure free societies, quite the opposite they intrude upon them. Free societies are brought about by people who insist upon self government, and only come together to form governments to ensure the collective right to self defense.
Your point was not missed, (that government is an artifice), what also was not missed was your bad analogy. Just as too many cooks spoil the broth, a boat load of back seat drivers guarantee a collision course. This is why your analogy is so putrid. It is the height of foolishness to view government as some sort of vehicle where the people collectively drive it. While government is indeed an artifice, so are nests, and within government there exists a nest of scorpions.
Uh-huh. The arrogant cannot stand disagreement, and the line from Cool Hand Luke is hardly a cliche. A cliche is a platitude or obvious remark. Your failure to communicate was certainly obvious, but the context of which the line from Cool Hand Luke was not used as an admission by Strother Martin, nor are you admitting to your bad communication, but was used to suggest that he was not being understood. You were not understood because of your poor communication. Learn how to communicate, particularly because you insist on being so arrogant. As long as you think you can write as sloppy as you do and then get away with castigating others for not understanding your sloppy communication, you will continue to look foolish in your arrogance.
This is a perfect example of your sloppy communication. All you have managed to communicate is that you place yourself above the "short sighted and complacent climate" and the "People willing to shirk responsibility for convenience". The reality is that it should have been clear to both Obama and Congress that "Obamacare" is not at all the direction the people want to go, but both Congress and Obama ignored this and insisted on pushing through their particular brand of competent incompetence. They were, in fact, rather competent in their incompetence, and one has good reason to suspect that this competent incompetence is a strategy designed to push forth even more intrusive legislation. An even greater reality is that there are many who subscribe to a certain Marxist dogma who believe that they should be given benefits, (or privilege), and declare such a thing a right. What is even clearer than this is that far too many people are willing to equate insurance schemes with health care. Also what is clear is that this complacency you speak of has led to far too much regulation of what people like to call a "free market". What is not so clear is what the people are demanding. Why this is not so clear is because the people in this nation, as they always have been, are greatly divided.
When I first entered this thread, I had made no assumptions what-so-ever about your politics. After reading your two replies since, I do not need to make any assumptions. Your insistence on framing government as being "the will of the people", while dismissing the notion that all governments exist by consent of the governed, makes it fairly presumed that you advocate democracy over democratic republics that seek to restrain democracy in favor of unalienable rights. This is why you began with your laughable attempt at erudition in your last post. It is not that you are too stupid to understand the principle of individual rights preexisting government, you just have no respect for this, and instead have some other agenda. Further, you are not too stupid too understand that out of democracy rises tyranny. Indeed, you fully understand this, and it appears even embrace it.
Never mind the fact that you will not find a single post of mine in this site that ever references "Colbert and Stewart", unlike you, or MTV, unlike you, you have stupidly dismissed me as ignorant while you bore us all with your pretentiousness and lamentations of "microwave mentalities", at least you have enough wherewithal to acknowledge that people are often smart, but regardless of how smart people are, the underlying form of your screed is the notion that law is something that is made instead of discovered. That whatever the "will of people" say regarding law, is the way law will go. However, the "will of the people" during the time of Galileo was that we lived in a geocentric universe, instead of a heliocentric universe, and any discovery to the contrary be damned. The "will of the people" prior to the invention of airplanes was that humanity was never intended to fly. This did not make those people stupid, just stubborn...much like yourself.
The fact of the matter is that this is precisely what I said, at least regarding prohibition, of which was legislated due the political pressure from a minority of people known as the "Temperance Movement". The tax on whiskey I referenced that led to the infamous "Whiskey Rebellion", on the other hand, was undeniably a government concoction, which is to say "some people" within government thought it a good source of revenue generation. It was not, as you would have people believe, a product of the "will of the people", nor was it a product of people not paying attention. Just as people were paying close attention to "Obamacare" and made it clear they were not at all in favor of such legislation, people then were paying attention and had made it clear prior to the passage of the whiskey tax, that they were not in favor of such a tax. Government, or as you put it, "some people" in government ignored this disfavor and pushed it through anyway.
It would behoove you, rather than pretend erudition on a subject you clearly know nothing about, to take the time to read the historical accounts that led up to the Whiskey Rebellion. The rebellion was handily quashed by Washington and met with approval by a large majority of the national population because it showed the federal government was capable of responding to such rebellions and handling them in a fashion that showed federal strength, and at the same time willing to negotiate with the rebels. The repeal, however, did not come during Washington's tenure, and only came in Jefferson's Presidency, (the third President following John Adams Presidency, [the President who presided over the Alien and Sedition Acts - hardly some legislative response to the will of the people - for your edification), and only repealed because it was a tax too difficult to collect revenue on, and far too easily defeated by the people in a peaceful manner. The game of Russian Roulette you speak of was not the reason the whiskey tax was repealed.
Your silly game of semantics is nothing more than bad sophistry. Congress, along with President Obama pushed forth legislation colloquially known as "Obamacare". Yes, the vast majority of Representatives and Senators who passed this legislation, and Obama are people, but collectively they are the government and did not in anyway serve the people who elected them. They acted as a government and were as arrogant as you are in this thread.
By
By pretending that people can be prevented from taking advantage of each other you are ignoring reality. Justice does not work in a positive sense, which is to say that we cannot impose justice as a preventive measure. Justice works in the negative sense, which is to say that we can only offer remedy for those who have been the victim of an injustice. Even a murder prevented is not a positive act of justice, it is a negative act of justice in that people have the reasonable right of expectation to not have to suffer the attempts of murder. This is why attempted murder is illegal. The law that makes clear attempted murder is wrong does not prevent an attempt at murder, only provides for a reason to offer remedy in the event of an absence of justice. We do not recognize justice. What we recognize is an absence of justice, and we define justice as the remedy offered in that absence.
This pointless sophistry is becoming ludicrous, and all simply to defend a position that the better analogy is one of an automobile rather than a scorpion. Your stupid assertion that "those election regions then failed to be responsible and ensure their needs and concerns were being represented by their representatives ignore the Supreme Court which is often used for its power of judicial review. Citizen's United is a prime example of "election regions" continuing to fight illegal legislation after Congress ignored their that "election region" and pushed through legislation contrary to their legal authority. The problem, of course, is that the SCOTUS does not always do their job and strike down legislation contrary to the Constitution. This is why so many "election regions" have become obsessed with choosing Presidents based upon their likelihood to nominate Supreme Court Justices. Your arrogance reveals such a simplistic understanding of the political process it is amazing you find the temerity to flaunt this arrogance. I am no fan of humility and believe pride is something that is earned, and that there is no such thing as "false pride", but it is always astonishing to watch fools pretend intellectualism.
Unlike you, I always give people the benefit of the doubt until all doubt is removed. You have, with this last post of yours removed all doubt, and it is now time to call a spade a spade and a fool a fool. You have a rather cynical view of We the People, but have stupidly declared that you will find them to be worthless and undeserving until proven on an individual basis. Regardless of how stupid you think the people are, they are no where near so stupid as to believe that you will ever have the chance to get to know each and everyone of them on an individual basis, which means you will remain cynical of the vast majority of the people for the rest of your life, and for no better reason than you are just too sloppy and lazy to live up to your own expectations.
I have known some stupid people in my time, but never met anyone so stupid as to blame a car for the collision caused by drunkenness. I do known many a smart person that would blame a scorpion for stinging them, but I also know many a wise soul who would take responsibility for being stung by a scorpion, and I have had the profound privilege of knowing a few very wise souls who have managed to never be stung by a scorpion. It is my guess that you have been stung a few times by scorpions. Hence the cynicism, You are just to ignorant to know that the what is causing you pain is a scorpion sting.
I have no doubt you endure those annoying campaign ads, it is after all, you who referenced "Colbert, Stewart, and MTV". It is not that you are so heavily influenced by television I find so annoying, it is your stupid belief that by electing a person into government that you will shut them up that is so annoying.
Is it at all possible that it serves the purpose that it makes fools like you think you are shutting up fools like them?
Interesting choice of a phrase "interfaced much with people". Interface is either a relationship between two things in chemistry, (e.g., liquids, or chemical phases), where a boundary is formed, or it is a relationship between a user and the system of a computer, or an overlap of theories, such as the overlap of theories in chemistry and biology. It only closely resembles the bonding people tend towards in computer science when the circuitry of hardware is linked with one another. It is a term, (interface), that is rather impersonal, much like yourself. Transfer much?
This you assert in response to my assertion that the Constitution is a profound indictment on government, and then follow with this:
It is you playing the fools game, pretending that corporations have not taken full advantage of the Constitutional government We the People have established, and demanded, under the pretense of "equal under the law" that sole proprietors be regulated in the same way chartered artifices be regulated. The government has chartered these corporations and have done so through ambition. The process of building a bridge does not requirement government, nor does the process of education. Both the building of bridges and education have been monopolized by government, and in doing so have taken advantage, largely through ambition, of the people.
Complacence? Be rest assured that few of the Founders held such contempt and disregard for the people. It is not complacence that leads to the competent incompetence of government, it is expedience. As Jefferson so aptly put it in the Declaration of Independence, that; "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." This suffering of "sufferable" evils is not due to complacency, but due to expedience and prudence. Most people are not nearly as insufferably arrogant as you, and will give the benefit of the doubt until all doubt is removed. However, once all doubt has been removed, it is demonstrable that the people will; "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
You began your post by asserting that people were often time smart, and in closing you assert, without a hint of irony, that people are the problem and dumb. Just because the vast majority of people tend to be reasonable while a handful of people think themselves smarter than the masses, and will act in unreasonable ways, this does not make people the problem. This makes certain individuals a problem, and one can often identify these individuals by their language. The language you use is an example of that identifiable language of those problematic people. These are the people who believe themselves destined to rule by divine right, rather than serve the people. You are clearly not one inclined to serve the people, and God forbid you are, or wind up in a government position, but even if you are not, or never do, be rest assured that plenty of people who subscribe to your particular brand of elitism are. People are not the problem, people like you are the problem.
The ignorant always feel cheated. It's not anyone's fault but your own that you lack the will and/or capacity to comprehend.
Ah yes, it is a universal characteristic of the arrogant to not only presume knowledge they lack, but it is their hubris to assume that those who disagree with them are ignorant. What is tragically ironic is that you declare me ignorant because you have taken what I said about it being a lie that democratic elections are the foundation of freedom and have assumed this means I feel cheated. The fact of the matter is that I have never been cheated, and I have regularly relied upon the law to assert my unalienable rights to ensure I am not cheated. Fools come in all shapes and sizes, and the pretentious are always the biggest fools.
None of those governments included the people in the decision-making process beyond compliance with the decisions of another person.
That compliance is more than enough.
Freedom and responsibility go hand-in-hand. A government existing where people are simply not responsible enough to represent their own needs will never continue to be (or lead to) a government of a free society.
Rhetoric is problematic enough, empty rhetoric is entropic. Governments do not ensure free societies, quite the opposite they intrude upon them. Free societies are brought about by people who insist upon self government, and only come together to form governments to ensure the collective right to self defense.
That's... what I already said. It's rather crucial to the point I was attempting to make. I see, now, it flew right over your head.
Your point was not missed, (that government is an artifice), what also was not missed was your bad analogy. Just as too many cooks spoil the broth, a boat load of back seat drivers guarantee a collision course. This is why your analogy is so putrid. It is the height of foolishness to view government as some sort of vehicle where the people collectively drive it. While government is indeed an artifice, so are nests, and within government there exists a nest of scorpions.
To use the cliche line: "What we have here, is a failure to communicate." You just need to check your argumentative nature and read what I have said. Stop trying to think for me, and let what I have to say process.
Uh-huh. The arrogant cannot stand disagreement, and the line from Cool Hand Luke is hardly a cliche. A cliche is a platitude or obvious remark. Your failure to communicate was certainly obvious, but the context of which the line from Cool Hand Luke was not used as an admission by Strother Martin, nor are you admitting to your bad communication, but was used to suggest that he was not being understood. You were not understood because of your poor communication. Learn how to communicate, particularly because you insist on being so arrogant. As long as you think you can write as sloppy as you do and then get away with castigating others for not understanding your sloppy communication, you will continue to look foolish in your arrogance.
"Obamacare" is a result of the short-sighted and complacent climate that has been developing in our country since the late 50s. People were willing to shirk responsibility for convenience. However, recent events have caused people to realize we are both in and heading further in a direction we do not want to go. Thus - the repeal of "Obamacare" is, also, exactly what the people are demanding.
This is a perfect example of your sloppy communication. All you have managed to communicate is that you place yourself above the "short sighted and complacent climate" and the "People willing to shirk responsibility for convenience". The reality is that it should have been clear to both Obama and Congress that "Obamacare" is not at all the direction the people want to go, but both Congress and Obama ignored this and insisted on pushing through their particular brand of competent incompetence. They were, in fact, rather competent in their incompetence, and one has good reason to suspect that this competent incompetence is a strategy designed to push forth even more intrusive legislation. An even greater reality is that there are many who subscribe to a certain Marxist dogma who believe that they should be given benefits, (or privilege), and declare such a thing a right. What is even clearer than this is that far too many people are willing to equate insurance schemes with health care. Also what is clear is that this complacency you speak of has led to far too much regulation of what people like to call a "free market". What is not so clear is what the people are demanding. Why this is not so clear is because the people in this nation, as they always have been, are greatly divided.
Both are entirely the will of the people. And one of the interesting things you will find about people is that they are often smart, but unwilling to commit their thoughts to the future. This is exacerbated by the "microwave mentality" and MTV generations that hinge on an attention span of a humming bird and cannot tolerate any kind of discussion that doesn't consist of Stewart or Colbert. This leads to people making a lot of stupid decisions and thinking things are going to be a great idea right up until the point it bites them in the ass.
When I first entered this thread, I had made no assumptions what-so-ever about your politics. After reading your two replies since, I do not need to make any assumptions. Your insistence on framing government as being "the will of the people", while dismissing the notion that all governments exist by consent of the governed, makes it fairly presumed that you advocate democracy over democratic republics that seek to restrain democracy in favor of unalienable rights. This is why you began with your laughable attempt at erudition in your last post. It is not that you are too stupid to understand the principle of individual rights preexisting government, you just have no respect for this, and instead have some other agenda. Further, you are not too stupid too understand that out of democracy rises tyranny. Indeed, you fully understand this, and it appears even embrace it.
Never mind the fact that you will not find a single post of mine in this site that ever references "Colbert and Stewart", unlike you, or MTV, unlike you, you have stupidly dismissed me as ignorant while you bore us all with your pretentiousness and lamentations of "microwave mentalities", at least you have enough wherewithal to acknowledge that people are often smart, but regardless of how smart people are, the underlying form of your screed is the notion that law is something that is made instead of discovered. That whatever the "will of people" say regarding law, is the way law will go. However, the "will of the people" during the time of Galileo was that we lived in a geocentric universe, instead of a heliocentric universe, and any discovery to the contrary be damned. The "will of the people" prior to the invention of airplanes was that humanity was never intended to fly. This did not make those people stupid, just stubborn...much like yourself.
.
The fact of the mater is that "the government" didn't come up with either idea. Some people did, and put it through the process of government. Because the majority of people were not paying attention - the government put legislation into effect that later found itself in great opposition to the will of the people.
The fact of the matter is that this is precisely what I said, at least regarding prohibition, of which was legislated due the political pressure from a minority of people known as the "Temperance Movement". The tax on whiskey I referenced that led to the infamous "Whiskey Rebellion", on the other hand, was undeniably a government concoction, which is to say "some people" within government thought it a good source of revenue generation. It was not, as you would have people believe, a product of the "will of the people", nor was it a product of people not paying attention. Just as people were paying close attention to "Obamacare" and made it clear they were not at all in favor of such legislation, people then were paying attention and had made it clear prior to the passage of the whiskey tax, that they were not in favor of such a tax. Government, or as you put it, "some people" in government ignored this disfavor and pushed it through anyway.
In cases like the Whiskey Rebellion - certain concentrations of the population believe it will be a good idea to enforce their ideals upon other groups - until those other groups decide to not play a game of Russian Roulette and it becomes obvious there's no recourse but to repeal.
It would behoove you, rather than pretend erudition on a subject you clearly know nothing about, to take the time to read the historical accounts that led up to the Whiskey Rebellion. The rebellion was handily quashed by Washington and met with approval by a large majority of the national population because it showed the federal government was capable of responding to such rebellions and handling them in a fashion that showed federal strength, and at the same time willing to negotiate with the rebels. The repeal, however, did not come during Washington's tenure, and only came in Jefferson's Presidency, (the third President following John Adams Presidency, [the President who presided over the Alien and Sedition Acts - hardly some legislative response to the will of the people - for your edification), and only repealed because it was a tax too difficult to collect revenue on, and far too easily defeated by the people in a peaceful manner. The game of Russian Roulette you speak of was not the reason the whiskey tax was repealed.
The government doesn't. People do, and other people sit there and let it happen, despite the government being specifically designed to enable the people to prevent interest groups (large and small) from causing problems like that.
Your silly game of semantics is nothing more than bad sophistry. Congress, along with President Obama pushed forth legislation colloquially known as "Obamacare". Yes, the vast majority of Representatives and Senators who passed this legislation, and Obama are people, but collectively they are the government and did not in anyway serve the people who elected them. They acted as a government and were as arrogant as you are in this thread.
By separating the people and the government, you are ignoring the real problem - which is an overall ignorance and unwillingness to use the process of our government to prevent people from taking advantage of each other.
By
By pretending that people can be prevented from taking advantage of each other you are ignoring reality. Justice does not work in a positive sense, which is to say that we cannot impose justice as a preventive measure. Justice works in the negative sense, which is to say that we can only offer remedy for those who have been the victim of an injustice. Even a murder prevented is not a positive act of justice, it is a negative act of justice in that people have the reasonable right of expectation to not have to suffer the attempts of murder. This is why attempted murder is illegal. The law that makes clear attempted murder is wrong does not prevent an attempt at murder, only provides for a reason to offer remedy in the event of an absence of justice. We do not recognize justice. What we recognize is an absence of justice, and we define justice as the remedy offered in that absence.
Again - the government did none of this. The people elected to office by people did. Those election regions then failed to be responsible and ensure their needs and concerns were being represented by their representatives.
This pointless sophistry is becoming ludicrous, and all simply to defend a position that the better analogy is one of an automobile rather than a scorpion. Your stupid assertion that "those election regions then failed to be responsible and ensure their needs and concerns were being represented by their representatives ignore the Supreme Court which is often used for its power of judicial review. Citizen's United is a prime example of "election regions" continuing to fight illegal legislation after Congress ignored their that "election region" and pushed through legislation contrary to their legal authority. The problem, of course, is that the SCOTUS does not always do their job and strike down legislation contrary to the Constitution. This is why so many "election regions" have become obsessed with choosing Presidents based upon their likelihood to nominate Supreme Court Justices. Your arrogance reveals such a simplistic understanding of the political process it is amazing you find the temerity to flaunt this arrogance. I am no fan of humility and believe pride is something that is earned, and that there is no such thing as "false pride", but it is always astonishing to watch fools pretend intellectualism.
You can attempt to demonize the government all you want. The fact is that the people generally lack the self-respect and worth necessary to maintain a free society. This is why I have a rather cynical view of people and find them to be worthless and undeserving until proven otherwise on an individual basis.
Unlike you, I always give people the benefit of the doubt until all doubt is removed. You have, with this last post of yours removed all doubt, and it is now time to call a spade a spade and a fool a fool. You have a rather cynical view of We the People, but have stupidly declared that you will find them to be worthless and undeserving until proven on an individual basis. Regardless of how stupid you think the people are, they are no where near so stupid as to believe that you will ever have the chance to get to know each and everyone of them on an individual basis, which means you will remain cynical of the vast majority of the people for the rest of your life, and for no better reason than you are just too sloppy and lazy to live up to your own expectations.
It's blaming the car for crashing when the person was drunk, asleep at the wheel, fornicating, or otherwise distracted from the responsibilities of the driver's seat.
I have known some stupid people in my time, but never met anyone so stupid as to blame a car for the collision caused by drunkenness. I do known many a smart person that would blame a scorpion for stinging them, but I also know many a wise soul who would take responsibility for being stung by a scorpion, and I have had the profound privilege of knowing a few very wise souls who have managed to never be stung by a scorpion. It is my guess that you have been stung a few times by scorpions. Hence the cynicism, You are just to ignorant to know that the what is causing you pain is a scorpion sting.
Which is exactly why we have to endure those annoying campaign ads and vote in the guy who has been there so that we can shut them up for a few years.
I have no doubt you endure those annoying campaign ads, it is after all, you who referenced "Colbert, Stewart, and MTV". It is not that you are so heavily influenced by television I find so annoying, it is your stupid belief that by electing a person into government that you will shut them up that is so annoying.
What other purpose could the election cycle POSSIBLY serve?
Is it at all possible that it serves the purpose that it makes fools like you think you are shutting up fools like them?
You're talking about politicians as if they are some kind of extra-terrestrial flesh-eating species of demonic hatred. You've obviously not interfaced much with people if you believe that is anything other than what people are/can be if you simply focus on the negative aspects.
Interesting choice of a phrase "interfaced much with people". Interface is either a relationship between two things in chemistry, (e.g., liquids, or chemical phases), where a boundary is formed, or it is a relationship between a user and the system of a computer, or an overlap of theories, such as the overlap of theories in chemistry and biology. It only closely resembles the bonding people tend towards in computer science when the circuitry of hardware is linked with one another. It is a term, (interface), that is rather impersonal, much like yourself. Transfer much?
Such a simple and incomplete reading.
This you assert in response to my assertion that the Constitution is a profound indictment on government, and then follow with this:
It's meant to keep people from taking advantage of each other through the process of government. So long as you separate people and government you will always be doomed to a fool's game. The government has no ambitions - it is a process for people to make practical decisions. It is a process for, say, building a bridge the community requires. It is a process for deciding how education is to be run within the jurisdiction of that body as determined by the Constitution.
It is you playing the fools game, pretending that corporations have not taken full advantage of the Constitutional government We the People have established, and demanded, under the pretense of "equal under the law" that sole proprietors be regulated in the same way chartered artifices be regulated. The government has chartered these corporations and have done so through ambition. The process of building a bridge does not requirement government, nor does the process of education. Both the building of bridges and education have been monopolized by government, and in doing so have taken advantage, largely through ambition, of the people.
It is a processed staffed by representatives of the people and monitored/maintained by the population as a whole. Those people can have goals and ambitions - correct, incorrect - crazy and sane. It must be by the will of the people that these individuals serve in the office - and it must be by their complacence that undesirable legislation be passed or continue to exist past the next election cycle.
Complacence? Be rest assured that few of the Founders held such contempt and disregard for the people. It is not complacence that leads to the competent incompetence of government, it is expedience. As Jefferson so aptly put it in the Declaration of Independence, that; "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." This suffering of "sufferable" evils is not due to complacency, but due to expedience and prudence. Most people are not nearly as insufferably arrogant as you, and will give the benefit of the doubt until all doubt is removed. However, once all doubt has been removed, it is demonstrable that the people will; "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
People are the problem. Always have been. Always will be. It will be a long time before any human population is truly living as a free, self-aware society capable of sustaining its freedom. People are just dumb and will ultimately doom their own creation regardless of its construction. It doesn't matter if you try and take people out of the equation through the use of computers or some other fanciful machinations. People are involved, even if just as subjects, and will mess the whole thing up.
You began your post by asserting that people were often time smart, and in closing you assert, without a hint of irony, that people are the problem and dumb. Just because the vast majority of people tend to be reasonable while a handful of people think themselves smarter than the masses, and will act in unreasonable ways, this does not make people the problem. This makes certain individuals a problem, and one can often identify these individuals by their language. The language you use is an example of that identifiable language of those problematic people. These are the people who believe themselves destined to rule by divine right, rather than serve the people. You are clearly not one inclined to serve the people, and God forbid you are, or wind up in a government position, but even if you are not, or never do, be rest assured that plenty of people who subscribe to your particular brand of elitism are. People are not the problem, people like you are the problem.
edit on 24-1-2011 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)
reply to post by SKinLaB
I also think this a very good article. It gets to the heart of a topic instead of making excuses or protecting the American government like mainstream media. Here is an idea...Let's put the politicians on a treason watchlist for not voting the wishes of the American citizens and put them on trial for their betrayals. Why must politicians get away with committing the greatest crime of all...betraying the citizens that elect them. It is my opinion that it is time politicians should be held accountable too...severely!
I also think this a very good article. It gets to the heart of a topic instead of making excuses or protecting the American government like mainstream media. Here is an idea...Let's put the politicians on a treason watchlist for not voting the wishes of the American citizens and put them on trial for their betrayals. Why must politicians get away with committing the greatest crime of all...betraying the citizens that elect them. It is my opinion that it is time politicians should be held accountable too...severely!
reply to post by SKinLaB
Just some ideas to answer your question....
1) Advocate to the local schools for a more in depth education program of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, citizen rights, and electorial process (how to run for office & requirements). Make it a yearly required course. Too many Americans are clueless about the process.
2) Speak out more publicly about your point of views with your children and friends. (Hardly anyone talks politics anymore until something upsets them)
3) Attend more political rallies (there are very few of them since the 1960's)
Just some ideas to answer your question....
1) Advocate to the local schools for a more in depth education program of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, citizen rights, and electorial process (how to run for office & requirements). Make it a yearly required course. Too many Americans are clueless about the process.
2) Speak out more publicly about your point of views with your children and friends. (Hardly anyone talks politics anymore until something upsets them)
3) Attend more political rallies (there are very few of them since the 1960's)
Just wanted to quote a part of my signature.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.-Thomas Jefferson
All being supported by The Tea Party Movement. Anti American swine needs to go away and get out of political discourse.
new topics
-
Gaza Genocide Real or Propaganda
Middle East Issues: 46 minutes ago -
Akkabadori: history of tolerant euthanasia
History: 4 hours ago -
Don Trump-Quixote
Political Issues: 6 hours ago -
Paranoia that will tear apart Russia and China
World War Three: 7 hours ago -
SecretKnowledge sez howaryiz all, im back.
Introductions: 10 hours ago
top topics
-
Egypt to join South Africa genocide case at ICJ
Middle East Issues: 12 hours ago, 8 flags -
SecretKnowledge sez howaryiz all, im back.
Introductions: 10 hours ago, 3 flags -
Don Trump-Quixote
Political Issues: 6 hours ago, 3 flags -
Paranoia that will tear apart Russia and China
World War Three: 7 hours ago, 2 flags -
Akkabadori: history of tolerant euthanasia
History: 4 hours ago, 2 flags -
Gaza Genocide Real or Propaganda
Middle East Issues: 46 minutes ago, 2 flags -
Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes
Movies: 15 hours ago, 1 flags
active topics
-
Killings of Palestinian children are soaring in the West Bank.
World War Three • 186 • : Welrus -
Christianity superior to other faiths for very specific reasons. Awaken to true FREEDOM..!!
Conspiracies in Religions • 34 • : DoubleDNH -
Bibi’s Dilemma
Middle East Issues • 287 • : namehere -
Candidate TRUMP Now Has Crazy Judge JUAN MERCHAN After Him - The Stormy Daniels Hush-Money Case.
Political Conspiracies • 1509 • : matafuchs -
Gaza Genocide Real or Propaganda
Middle East Issues • 6 • : BernnieJGato -
Don Trump-Quixote
Political Issues • 7 • : budzprime69 -
Truth Social goes public, be careful not to lose your money
Mainstream News • 135 • : matafuchs -
Trump Record Breaking Campaign Rally 5/11 in New Jersey Draws 100,000 People
2024 Elections • 112 • : CarlLaFong -
Ashley Biden's 'INAPPROPRIATE SHOWERS WITH DADDY' Diary is Real--DOJ
US Political Madness • 138 • : WeMustCare -
"We're All Hamas" Heard at Columbia University Protests
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 322 • : FlyersFan