Would you rather have no rights and be protected or...

Originally posted by harvib
It seems there is an ongoing debate regarding protection vs. rights. If you were able to choose between two extremes what would you choose.

A Country where there is no law. Therefore there is no impediment to your rights and no accountability by the Government for your actions. This also of course applies to your fellow citizens. There is no protection offered by the Government against crime or terrorism.

or

A Country where all rights are assigned by the Government and may be removed at any point for any reason. However in this said Country there is no crime and no terrorism.

Your questions are flawed. You are giving the two extremes here. There is something in the middle where the founding of the republic of the United States, the great experiment, was based off of. I would reply but you see, you are limiting this discussion to something that gives little to be discussed.

Wasn't there a good deal of protection before 9/11? Wasn't the government smaller? Wasn't the rights of the citizens of the U.S. more in tact back then than they are now?

You see, smaller government is what this country was founded on. They WORK FOR THE PEOPLE, not the other way around like with virtually every other form of government in this world and throughout history. It is their duty to provide protection.

So, that brings us to rights and protection. I'll admit this right now. IF, and that is a HUGE IF, the government can provide SOLID proof with substantial evidence to back it up that they KNEW nothing or had NOTHING TO DO with 9/11 then I would be more willing to accept that there really is a huge terrorist network out to get our children and eat them up.

You see, I'm a fan and student of psychology and that is all I see being played with by the government. They are fear mongering and war profiteering right now. Both sides. Not just the Repubs but the Dems as well.

I could go on but like I said, you have severely limited the real options on this subject.

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by sos37

 

So what you are saying is you may be willing to give up a bit of your right to privacy to help law enforcement identify individuals who use controlled substances. I can understand that point.

Exactly. As long as they didn't want to take a blood test or haul me into the station after not finding drug paraphanalia in my car then I wouldn't mind a search of the vehicle.

Originally posted by Tapped In
reply to post by justamomma

 

You are absolutely right. It IS a privilege. We haven't deserved them because of our inaction towards the rape of of society...

This will change. Very soon.

you know. i hope so. i have the idea in my head of what things could be and even if i don't see it my lifetime, i want to know that my kids will have it. i want to know that they will be entitled, not to everyone else's earnings, but to their earnings. i want to know that they can sit comfortably in their homes at night w/out wondering if something they have said will provoke power hungry *snips* to come and haul them away under some bogus PATRIOT bs (how dare they name a bs law that). i want to know that they can turn to natural pain relief rather than addictive chemical agents w/out fear of being locked away 5- to life.

i just want to leave this world knowing that i have done everything i could to make their world a safer place....... not from terrorist, or criminals, their neigbors, or even starvation (hey, their momma had to work and they most definately are learning you get what you give); but from those who would would corrupt power. i don't want to give them a free ride, but a chance at a happy and fulfilled ride.

~ sorry for the rant lol, but i feel a great responsibility to the future generations of this country to set this train back on the right track ~

Since I consider myself an employer class in my country and the government paid employee, and since I consider corporate involvement in science, banking and shadow government TREASON, I would never give away a single sovereign right!!!!
I merely wait for other employers to wake the F**K up so we can swiftly fire our employees and imprison all the traitors and reform a better democracy like the Scandinavian countries, with a good banking system, and representational democracy so women take up half the positions and our social programs ROCK!!! As well, all monopolies gone forever and a thriving free enterprise system where we buy from each other and a more bearable tax system does incredible things. Oh and our many employees in public office would not get more than 50,000 a year.

Theres no war, nuclear attack or act of terrorism these guys could conspire amongst themselves and do in their mutiny of our democracy that does not make me SEE RED AND WANT TO MARCH ON PARLIAMENT BARRELS LOADED!!!!!

[edit on 3-7-2008 by mystiq]

[edit on 3-7-2008 by mystiq]

I would definitely choose the first option. Not because I'm some die-hard ultra-extreme libertarian, but because I think a government that did not protect it's citizens at all would not last very long. It would leave an enormous power vacuum that would immediately be replaced by some militia or guerilla organization that would act as a de-facto government.

Unfortunately, this de-facto government would probably behave more like the second option than the first (I think it would take a form something like a Samolian warlord's thugs driving around in pickup trucks with AK-47's, generally bossing people around and making them miserable), so there isn't really much of a choice IMO.

For me, the ideal system, would be a streamlined government, consisting of experts in their respective fields, rather than a load of politicians who are only knowledgeable in the areas of self promotion and discrediting others. Merely having the experts, would reduce the ridiculously large number of people who are paid huge salaries, purely for their image and presentation skills. For example, the minister of health, should be a person from the field of medicine, who has vast experience of running medical facilities, not a chum of the pm who has a degree in politics.

The government should also be solely responsible for issuing currency, with the currency being hard, issued as representative value of a tangible asset, be it gold, silver or something else. That way, there would be no need for an interest rate, as the government could directly manage the money supply to control inflation. Interest rates indirectly manipulate the money supply, because of the effect ithey have on the cost of borrowing. In a system without interest rates, the government would directly reduce the amount of currency it allows into circulation. Direct manipulation and no levy in the form of interest to the private bankers that own the central banks.

A system of referendum would also be preferred, with important issues going to public vote. Credited experts advising the public on the issues, providing evidence and reason for proposed bills and addressing the pros and cons. This would enable the public to make informed decisions, whilst at the same time retaining their right to vote against a proposal, even if it is recommended by experts. I am only talking about maybe a few votes per year, on the most important issues, for example - id cards, the eu constitution, military intervention in countries that are not a realistic threat. For me, the most important aspects, would be a government controlled money supply and freedom of information. A well informed public, is very important.

Come on guys. Choosing a thrid option is just a cop-out! Haven't you ever played that "who would you rather do..." game with your drinking buddies? You hafta choose one or the other.

Great Thread! Well done everyone.

I suppose that I can not let this pass without attempting to contribute something.

You asked a question early on that seems to have remained unanswered. The nature of the question really impacts strongly on the choices you present.

You asked; How do we determine what are human rights? (paraphrased)

What is a human right, and how do we come to define and accept them is central to the core of what I consider to be humanity. I believe that nature, as in natural law, drives us to these axioms of human reality.

Since the beginning of what I recognize as humankind's foray into compulsive communication, our first objective had to have been to achieve a common understanding and a common agreement between people. To cooperatively exist created a disproportionately elevated chance to survive in a world full of hazards. Teamwork manifests itself as the natural order of social creatures.

As common ground becomes desirable, and people begin to cluster in larger and larger numbers, cooperative efforts lightened the load of struggling to exist, freeing our minds and imaginations to conjure more elaborate and rewarding relationships between ourselves and the world as we conceive it.

Such growth and elaboration increase the complexity of human undertaking and the natural antidote to the confusion of misunderstanding and error is leadership. Leadership provides the 'sheet music' to which the band must march to achieve its aim. Leadership is the adoption of goals larger than oneself, and a commitment to see those goals attained. With leadership comes authority and personal power towards those ends. On a darker note, herein may also be the genesis of the aspiration to the glamor of power and control over others.

Larger groups, larger undertakings, require more, if only lesser, leaders be identified and recognized. Thus governance began.

It is HERE that the initial question of human rights becomes most relevant.

Humans enter a social contract in which they accept that their leaders direction is to be followed, regardless of personal desires or motivations. Something has to be surrendered to follow another, that thing exists independently of the 'state' or 'tribe' - it is called free will, or in todays terms, freedom. It is the unrestrained ability to express yourself mentally, physically, or in anyway that releases a particular urge within your own self.

Philosophers still debate to this day regarding the natural tendencies of mankind's 'urges.' I won't explore that because I want to get to the point of saying that in large part, the culmination of the philosophical debates undertaken by great thinkers through our history seems to be embodied in such documents as the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution.

These documents appear touched by a cultural sense of spirituality, but clearly and unequivocally denote that the right to exists is meaningless without the freedom to exercise your own will in the process. Rights extending to each human are not the subject of 'give' or 'take'; they either exists or they don't.

In the context of our Constitutional Republic, any rights not specifically curtailed are deemed to exist. In a Napoleonic context, unless the government specifically recognizes a right, it does not exist. The differences are stark. There are arguments on both sides, though I prefer and adhere to the former.

Humans can not by definition give up their rights. They can choose not to exercise them, or forgo defending them, but the rights are inherently theirs nevertheless.

In a world where this is not so, as you have offered as the second choice, the rights are mediated by a supervening authority and dispensed and regulated without the direct consent of the citizen - existence is simply an act of survival.

I would have to choose dispensing with a governing authority to avoid the arbitrary abuse that comes inevitably with such supreme power in the hands of a few unaccountable individuals. I would have to take responsibility for my own defense and safety, and hope to have the good fortune to align myself with like-minded people likely to agree and cooperate towards achieving common goals. In essence, starting over. Ironically it could lead back to the same problems of governance. But it would be a chance I would have to take.

MM

Great topic!

I would have to choose freedom for myself, as well. Too many people falsely rely on the police to protect them from crime. The police attempt to solve crimes that have already happened, much more than they prevent them from happening in the first place. Someone in another thread summed it up best (paraphrasing): The police will respond in minutes when seconds count. That said, I'd rather rely on myself.

reply to post by harvib


i would chose complete/true freedom

war on terror is a scam..no doubt about it.

all good humans of light are on the same team...

racism/religion/etc. is used to divide and conquor..



i find it wierd/funny that every time i bring up NESARA on this site it is banned and/or locked...heh..they should join the light for the win..judgement will be soon


www.fourwinds10.com...
www.nesara.us...
www.white-knights911.net...
www.luisprada.com...
www.roguegovernment.com...
www.exopolitics.org...
www.jordanmaxwell.com...

much love to all good beings of light

There's no doubt in my mind that I would take FREEDOM any day. Alot of people don't know what truly being free means, so I'll explain a little. Being free is having all the rights granted to us by the Constitution. Freedom is the absence of government intervention. True freedom is providing your own health care, your own way in life without the government forcing you into policies. Right now we have a democratic government that is just as bad as a Dictator like Hitler or Saddam. We need our republic back and the government doing nothing but national defense and protecting our rights, liberties and property. I'm all for the fair tax and less government. Give me the real freedom we all deserve any day.

reply to post by jfj123

Simply follow the Constitution and we'll be ok.

Too bad that the Constitution isn't the law of the land, and hasn't been for a long time...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

...but yes, I do agree that pre-Civil War government and the Constitution had the right idea.





[edit on 7/3/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by phl0gist0n


Well, I never liked litmus tests.....but did you ever see the episode of star trek where kirk took the test, and passed it? The test was designed to fail. Kirk hacked the test. He passed.

I'm no longer afraid of death, so give me my rights!

I could just as easily die from a "terrorist" bomb as I could getting run off the road by a woman driver or eaten by a pack of stray dogs.

reply to post by whitl103


And always give us our guns so we can protect our selves. Government has never been good at anything else but national security. WE the people and our state representatives can handle the rest.

Originally posted by Skipper1975
reply to post by harvib

 

racism/religion/etc. is used to divide and conquor..

individuality is a beautiful thing. it is when they use these ugly sides that we don't see the beauty in it anymore. get culture and religion out of the schools!! these should be left up to the parents discretion to teach at home. i respect and value the differences in ppl (the world would be a boring place if we were all alike), but you can't respect it when it is being force fed down your throat.

reply to post by grover

Your first is called anarchy and despite those who advocate for a small government it won't work on a nation this size and complexity.... given the fact that half the country is armed and there are deep and abiding social, racial and cultural hatreds... and there are... no laws would be an invitation to a blood bath make no mistake about it.

There probably would be a bloodbath for a time, as a backlash to all these years of tyrannical government rule. But I don't see why a nation of this "size and complexity" cannot abide by something as straightforward as the Constitution.

The problem with half the country being armed is just that, only half the country is armed. If everyone were armed, they would be able to protect their rights. There would not be a "weak" portion of the population suitable for opression.

Most of the deep-rooted hatreds in this country, such as racism, are nearly entirely the result of manipulative government policy. If the South had won the Civil War, blacks would have been assimilated into the socio-economic structure and it would not have taken them a century to win their civil rights. Instead, we have a large segment of the population that still remains socio-economically disadvantaged as the result of government policies.

All of our rights and freedoms, including the one to have this discussion are given or allocated by the government and it doesn't matter if that government is a democracy, monarchy or dictatorship...

A freedom that is given, can be taken away, and is therefore not a freedom at all. The government DOES NOT give us freedom. The Constitution was meant to restrict government from interfering with our God-given inalienable freedoms as human beings.






[edit on 7/3/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by sos37

As long as they didn't want to take a blood test or haul me into the station after not finding drug paraphanalia in my car then I wouldn't mind a search of the vehicle.

What if you were coming home from the mall with your spouse, with their surprise birthday gift in the trunk? The police open the trunk, tear open the wrapping, and ruin the surprise.

The reason I ask this, is because something similar happened to me during a subway bag search.

Also keep in mind, that it is not so uncommon for evidence to be planted during a search.

In the end, where does one draw the line? Fifty years ago, not a single red-blooded American would have ever submitted to a warrantless search without aty least signifiganct probable cause. Today we see so many people suffering "boiling frog syndrome." Ten or twenty years from now, you are the sort of person who would tolerate being hauled into the station for a random drug test.

I'd be all about the no government. Yes, that's technically anarchy, but stop and think about it.
If the law was dissolved tomorrow, would YOU go out to rape, pillage, loot? Probably not (well, maybe loot), because you're PROBABLY a decent human being. most people are like this, and aren't going to just willfully hurt people because the prison system is suddenly removed.
Fair enough, there are some people who WOULD willfully hurt others for no reason, or just out of laziness (stealing their stuff, etc.). And let me put to you another question. Let's say that in this hypothetical anarchistic society, you have neighbors. Let's say these neighbors are your friends, and you hang with them. Let's say that two @$$holes pull up to their house and start some sh!t, and you see this. Are you going to sit there, and be cool with it? NO, you're going to man (or woman) up and grab your glock and you're going to help your fellow man. You're going to do it because the police aren't coming, and if you don't do it, these people you like and respect are going to get hurt.

I wouldn't be really worried about large roving bands of outlaws. Sociopaths do NOT play well with others, and since there's no oppressive government getting rich and fat while malcontents starve, there's no need to stage a long and bloody coup (see Africa), continuing violence against the other political party because given half a chance they'd do the same to you. I don't think you could convince people to follow you while you stole things people worked hard to DIRECTLY produce FROM THEIR HANDS.

Maybe I'm idealistic, but I don't really care. I can get along with people. I can work to get my own food. I LIKE other people. I just don't see why we need a system in place to tell us not to kill each other. Especially when that system breeds anger, and widens the gap between the haves and have-nots.

No question, number one. However, I live in a remote area of Alaska, you would have a very difficult time imposing option 2 here. If it ever gets to this point, I'll keep my freedom.