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.
Sonofliberty's idea is great but problem is that most Americans are not self-sufficient enough to survive not working for even a month. I thought of the idea a long time ago but realized that there are people in America who are working two or three jobs, come home and still don't have enough food to feed their kids AND them.
You want a governmental body to enforce common sense? Are you serious? It is not possible.
Originally posted by Beavers
immediately you'd need a 'ministry of common sense' - a department with the right to cancel any stupid #ing laws or WARS if the public demand it.... and of course ... online government... we the people decide and civil servants go back to serving, rather than controlling...
Again, a governmental body? These "teams" a "ministry of common sense"? Government?
every decision, big or small, can be presented to the public by invidual teams who present the facts about each situation and everyone (who wants to) has a chance to vote....regular checks by 1000s of individuals to avoid corruption..yada
I just flat out disagree here. The new currency sure, backed by some actual medium or with a constant value. Running it by the people? Ummm... how do you prevent counterfeiting? How do you enforce acceptance of some person's "currency"?
oh, and create a new currency without inflation that is run by the people, not private bankers
Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
You want a governmental body to enforce common sense? Are you serious? It is not possible.
Originally posted by Beavers
immediately you'd need a 'ministry of common sense' - a department with the right to cancel any stupid #ing laws or WARS if the public demand it.... and of course ... online government... we the people decide and civil servants go back to serving, rather than controlling...
Again, a governmental body? These "teams" a "ministry of common sense"? Government?
every decision, big or small, can be presented to the public by invidual teams who present the facts about each situation and everyone (who wants to) has a chance to vote....regular checks by 1000s of individuals to avoid corruption..yada
I just flat out disagree here. The new currency sure, backed by some actual medium or with a constant value. Running it by the people? Ummm... how do you prevent counterfeiting? How do you enforce acceptance of some person's "currency"?
oh, and create a new currency without inflation that is run by the people, not private bankers
You have the beginnings of some good idea here, but think about it some more. Government and common sense are mutually exclusive.
Originally posted by Dissent
reply to post by nikkibee
This is what Ive been thinking, it would be the most practical way. The first step is to indefinitely reject money. do pay taxes, don't work, just chill out. Obviously people would be able to get any food, unless the people who run the stores and stockhouses decide to give away the food. This would lead to mass riots and looting, which would be awesome. eventually the government would get involved, sending in riot control. This whole situation would be the return to "survival of the fittest", i believe.
At that point, the people would have to assemble into a massive mob, and march on the riot squads all the way to the White House. Of course people would lose their lives, for good cause if it works out the way it should. The government won't go down without a fight, naturally. When the mob reaches Washington and the white house, i agree it should be burned down, as well as the federal reserve. People do not need money, money is the chain that holds the people down, along with the government who implements the monetary system. people could, even now live with out money, everything could be free to make, produce, and free to have.
If the established government of America were taken down, the majority of the world would be freed. Then the people could unite, freely, and take down any other governments who opress its people. It would all be a very interesting scenario, and a great one to participate in. Eventually the people of Earth would be completely free to live how they wish, without the chains to hold them back.
In the rebellion, I'm sure leaders would arise. Only the people who posses real eyes could tell if these leader were out for power and control or would make good just leaders, ones who only wish benefit and progress human kind. Plato refers to them as "Philosopher-Kings". If it is decided that a real democracy should be installed, if a government at all, these philosopher-kings should be installed as well, maybe like 50 of them. And should decide how to further mankind and ensure it survival perhaps.
These are just my thoughts on the subject, some of it is just wishful thinking
edit on 9-4-2011 by Dissent because: (no reason given)
George Washington did it right. We need another like him.
For the "rebellion" to have a "leader" I think could be fundamentally flawed from the start. Someone to follow and inspire the people maybe but with all that power at his hands a true democratic leader would stand down when asked, would a rebel leader do that? Lots of historical revolutions show not.
Would then that leader not use his people to force his "righteous" vision onto the others?
Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by Mister_Bit
George Washington did it right. We need another like him.
For the "rebellion" to have a "leader" I think could be fundamentally flawed from the start. Someone to follow and inspire the people maybe but with all that power at his hands a true democratic leader would stand down when asked, would a rebel leader do that? Lots of historical revolutions show not.
Would then that leader not use his people to force his "righteous" vision onto the others?
For the individual, Locke wants each of us to use reason to search after truth rather than simply accept the opinion of authorities or be subject to superstition. He wants us to proportion assent to propositions to the evidence for them. On the level of institutions it becomes important to distinguish the legitimate from the illegitimate functions of institutions and to make the corresponding distinction for the uses of force by these institutions. The positive side of Locke's anti-authoritarianism is that he believes that using reason to try to grasp the truth, and determining the legitimate functions of institutions will optimize human flourishing for the individual and society both in respect to its material and spiritual welfare. This in turn, amounts to following natural law and the fulfillment of the divine purpose for humanity. Locke's monumental An Essay Concerning Human Understanding concerns itself with determining the limits of human understanding in respect to God, the self, natural kinds and artifacts, as well as a variety of different kinds of ideas.
Because each research already had a bias, just like your bias in claiming "there is no connection", but your bias is a completely closed mind. The different researchers were looking at what each of them thought could be the connection between solar activity and seismic, as well as magmatic activity on Earth.
When solar activity is low, then our heliosphere becomes weaker, allowing more interstellar dust, high energy particles, radiation, etc to enter the Solar System which affects all planets, and the Sun, and would also affect seismic and magmatic activity in all planets, including Earth.
One thing I have noticed with Chad, and Phage is that they tend to try to separate events, and try to point to just one thing being the cause of earthquakes, when the evidence says the contrary.
You have to look at the whole picture, not just whether solar activity was high. The strength of the Earth's magnetic field, the position of the moon in relation to the Earth, and the Sun. Whether there were any breaches in the Earth's magnetic field. The cosmic ray flux from outside the Solar System, etc, etc.
It is not just one thing, it is everything together that defines whether there would be an earthquake or not