Collaboration - Demanding more freedom

Hello ATS members! I'm pondering some things today, I'm thinking about how we as the people need to collaborate to see any type of change, we need to be a louder voice as one rather than always fighting about partisan this or that, I think ( I cannot definitively say ) most people want more freedoms. More freedom with where their money goes, more freedom with what activities they want to participate in - Whether it be smoking marijuana, having sex, or taking our guns to the shooting range - without those rights being infringed upon. I have to believe that one day this could happen.

It might be too late, but to go against my pessimistic/skeptic side, sometimes I need to believe in something good happening, in a brighter future - This future starts with us.

We need to set aside our differences and realize that what others think and believe matters, we need to come to a middle ground, no matter our background, if we could all just act with a little more compassion and understanding, and less with malice and hatred and intolerance... We'd be something great.

This isn't about pointing fingers, or blaming anyone, or calling out the individuals, nor groups that need to change - This ideology applies to so many of us that we could all just take a step back and think about what really matters to us, and realize that others feel just as passionately about something else. This is about the atheist and creationist respecting each others views and allowing them the freedom to express themselves in any non-violent way they desire, this is about the 2nd amendment advocate realizing that illegalization of substances and activities also causes those to go underground and create far worse situations than simply allowing us more freedoms in general. It's just coming to the realization that if someone is not truly harming you ( or others for that matter ) , and they are happy - That's okay. I also believe the word harm shouldn't be defined based on opinions, belief, nor anomalies - It should be a direct approach - Physical, emotional, sexual harm, in a direct way, is what I believe we need to avoid - Suppression, illegalization, censorship, and restrictions often do nothing to lessen those evils. It should be about the individual, it's about all of us being free.

Isn't that the true American dream?

Anyways, that is what was on my mind - It may be a bit rough, I may have not written everything I wanted to in a clear and concise way, but it is what it is - Thank you for reading, fellow ats members.

-Deadlyhope

P.S - realize my first draft rarely, if ever, expresses my thoughts in their entirety. If you need clarification, elaboration, explanation about anything, let me know. I have a busy work schedule lately, but I do try being active in my posts, so I'll get back when/if I can.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
Hello ATS members! I'm pondering some things today, I'm thinking about how we as the people need to collaborate to see any type of change, we need to be a louder voice as one rather than always fighting about partisan this or that, I think ( I cannot definitively say ) most people want more freedoms. More freedom with where their money goes, more freedom with what activities they want to participate in - Whether it be smoking marijuana, having sex, or taking our guns to the shooting range - without those rights being infringed upon. I have to believe that one day this could happen.

It might be too late, but to go against my pessimistic/skeptic side, sometimes I need to believe in something good happening, in a brighter future - This future starts with us.

We need to set aside our differences and realize that what others think and believe matters, we need to come to a middle ground, no matter our background, if we could all just act with a little more compassion and understanding, and less with malice and hatred and intolerance... We'd be something great.

This isn't about pointing fingers, or blaming anyone, or calling out the individuals, nor groups that need to change - This ideology applies to so many of us that we could all just take a step back and think about what really matters to us, and realize that others feel just as passionately about something else. This is about the atheist and creationist respecting each others views and allowing them the freedom to express themselves in any non-violent way they desire, this is about the 2nd amendment advocate realizing that illegalization of substances and activities also causes those to go underground and create far worse situations than simply allowing us more freedoms in general. It's just coming to the realization that if someone is not truly harming you ( or others for that matter ) , and they are happy - That's okay. I also believe the word harm shouldn't be defined based on opinions, belief, nor anomalies - It should be a direct approach - Physical, emotional, sexual harm, in a direct way, is what I believe we need to avoid - Suppression, illegalization, censorship, and restrictions often do nothing to lessen those evils. It should be about the individual, it's about all of us being free.

Isn't that the true American dream?

Anyways, that is what was on my mind - It may be a bit rough, I may have not written everything I wanted to in a clear and concise way, but it is what it is - Thank you for reading, fellow ats members.

-Deadlyhope

P.S - realize my first draft rarely, if ever, expresses my thoughts in their entirety. If you need clarification, elaboration, explanation about anything, let me know. I have a busy work schedule lately, but I do try being active in my posts, so I'll get back when/if I can.

Collaboration requires compromise which is in short supply in the modern dogma driven political scene.

Collaboration and compromise produce moderates, also in short suppy:

a reply to: deadlyhope

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

-Barry Goldwater

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: deadlyhope

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

-Barry Goldwater

I will take the source into consideration and note that it supports my premises.

a reply to: FyreByrd

It is a harsh but, logical conclusion. Compromise is not a desirable outcome.

compromise

a way of reaching agreement in which each person or group gives up something that was wanted in order to end an argument or dispute

something that combines the qualities of two different things

a change that makes something worse and that is not done for a good reason

Between totalitarianism and liberty, there can be no tolerable amalgamation though, it must be recognized that neither can ever be fully realized.

This is not to say that, at any given moment, elements of both are not present. It is the process of movement toward one or the other that we confuse with their coexistence.

a reply to: FyreByrd

OK, explain to me how we compromise between totalitarianism and libertarianism because statism is totalitarian in its aims.

If the statist and the libertarian each give half of what they want, the statist is 50% closer to his goal of ultimate control and the libertarian is 50% less free. Who won and who lost?

Or as my husband says, it's like arguing about drinking poison. One person wants you to drink it and you, of course, don't want to. So how do you compromise? Drink half the poison? Who actually won there and how do you get any kind of win from that?

As long as people choose to follow outdated.. failed systems along with the corrupt bastards they call "leaders" they will be slaves with the illusion of "freedom" ...

a reply to: ketsuko

and in reply to greencmp:

Because you compromise on specifics of policy, laws, action.

Compromise is impossible between ideals.

I really have trouble with those that can't keep the proper scope of things, ideas, classes, and such separate and therefore are unable to discuss such things intelligently.

You both, by demanding how you 'compromise' libertarianism and authoritarianism (actually it would more appropriately be communism as libertarianism is really authoritarian corporatism), are comparing an esoteric ideal, ideal, dogma with practical day-to-day reality. Apples and Oranges people.

You are correct in that there is no 'ground' for compromise in a dogma. But 'isms' exist only in the mind of theorists and do not or ever have existed in the real physical world any more then any other archetype.

Day-to-day life is by it's very definition - unending compromise with others and circumstance around us.

Believing in the possibility of a libertarian paradise is as delusional as believing in the possible reality of a communist paradise.

Comparing fantasy (theory, idealism) with reality is a fallacious comparison.