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.
Originally posted by nenothtu
Originally posted by Kokatsi
Unless you are very rich, you WILL be involved by corporations and their rule.
You will breath in Monsanto's pollen, use chemicals developed by Big Pharma companies etc.
Scary world you live in. The pollen I can sort of see, since it can travel a few hundred miles, right? Not sure why I should be more scared of breathing Monsanto pollen than common ragweed pollen, though. Not grasping the concept behind the allegation of Big Pharma chemicals, at all. Can you give me a compelling reason for WHY I would use them whether I like it or not?
Well, one can be against democracy, but it is not a popular stance these days - the alternatives are dictatorship or royalty and popes.
I live in a Constitutional Republic. we've done fairly ok so far without the aid of dictators, kings, or popes. As far as the popularity of my stance goes, it matters nary a bit. I've never really been in the popular crowd, and really haven't missed it.
From this point of view, I see little difference between the "constitutional monarchy" and "democracy" - although many tried to educate me on these pages. Ultimately, it depends on this:
The Founding Fathers of America were at the forefront of a world movement which did not believe people were fallen, sinful slaves that should be ruled with an iron fist by tyrants and so on. Now this was known later under many names: revolution, democracy (term borrowed from Plato but used in a different way than in his works), republican ideas, equality before the law and so on. As opposed to tyranny, theocracy, royalty and rule by aristocracy which believed man is ultimately NOT perfectable, people should be ruled etc.
A "monarchy", constitutional or not, involves a monarch. "democracy" involves mob rule. There is a world of difference between the two. I'm not sure where you get the notion that the Founding Fathers of America called their system a "democracy". several warned specifically AGAINST democracy. It was only in the early to mid 20th century that the term came into vogue to describe a system alien to it's definition.
As an aside, it's odd to me how the Marxists used to refer to a "dictatorship of the proletariat" that sounded suspiciously close to the concept of "democracy", while at the same time their alleged opposition was trying to promote "democracy", which sounded suspiciously like the concept of a "dictatorship of the proletariat".
If a rose by any other name still smells the same, then so does a skunk.
Yes, freedom is frightening to some. But it is a worthwhile vision.
Honestly, I believe that very few humans can handle freedom, which probably explains why so many seem to agitate for a crowd to tell them what to do.
America that used to be at the forefront in terms of human freedom is not at the forefront any more. Its life has been overshadowed and very much determined by the power of corporations and banks - precisely what some of the Founding Fathers were afraid of. (Not Hamilton, he welcomed it.)
America has not been at the "forefront of freedom" in a very long time. seems like everyone and his brother and/or sister is clamoring for someone else to tell him what to do, which appears to be a motivating factor in the fear of corporations. For some odd reason, folks seem to think that someone else HAS to tell them what to do, and the only choice they see is between having a collection of neighbors tell them what to do, OR a corporation somewhere. I don't really know what has become of independent thought and decision making.
Personally, I don't see much difference between allowing a corporation to dictate every facet of your existence and allowing any other collection of strangers to do so. Either way, you are forfeiting your self determination.
If the masses are consumer idiots and TV addicts today, you may ask who advertises those products and who broadcasts TV. The answer is the same: corporations with money interests.
Could be. the "masses" don't concern me much. If they can't look after themselves and make their own decisions, it's not my job to do so for them. If they allow a corporation to rule them, they have made their own choice. A poor one from my perspective, but it's their choice to make.
It is in their interest to atomize society, to degrade the average person and to make him or her dependent upon their power.
It seems to me that dependency on ANY external, be it governmental or corporate, can't be a good thing. I can't see a nickel's worth of difference in them. Dependence is dependence, and directly opposed to INDEPENDENCE, which was part of the title in some old document or other that the US used to place stock in... before they got all dependent on whatever came along.
Now how on earth do you resist advertisements and TV if you are a few years old, your parents ar working, society has been broken up and atomized by the time they were adults, so there is nowhere to turn?
Sounds like a failure in parenting to me.
The African saying was that you need a whole village to raise a child.
A very good reason to avoid Africa altogether, then. Perhaps they didn't sign that Independence document I referred to a bit earlier.
Where are those villages?
In Africa, I presume.
Where are the communities of America?
I recommend taking a peek out the front door. Perhaps that will answer that question. I recommend NOT leaving your kids to be raised at the mercy of a community, however. Mine contains several crack heads and gangsters and what not. Not the sort of folk I want raising my kids.
To allow your kids to be raised by a village is a dereliction of your duty as a parent, and simply cannot end well for your kids.
I know historically there is less and less as consumerism is pushed into people's lives with the brutality of a Stalinist dictatorship, but certainly with more refinery.
There is a wonderful word in the English language which, if properly employed, can alleviate much of that problem. That word is "NO". Practice it. My kids are very adept at it's use.
Can you raise a child without the Disney mind control?
So far, so good. Of course, I've raised them largely on my own. Early on, when their mother was around, there was some conflict of philosophy in the matter of Disney and the like.
Not really if you have to work to support yourself.
Terribly sorry about that. I found the TV to be an unacceptable stand in for a baby sitter while working. I wouldn't recommend that for raising your children any more than I would an African village.
edit on 2011/8/13 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Kokatsi
First of all, you keep on educating everyone here as if you knew better about every single thing on earth.
This is my last post - I am going to press the ignore button because this attitude is pretty much insufferable.
I am fifty, have several degrees, and an American citizen. I raised a kid and I am raising another - despite the horrendous pressure of commercialism all around and the lack of old communities. Where I come from, grandmothers and aunts etc. were also part of raising a kid. That is what I meant by quoting the African saying.
Second, I do not look down upon Africans. A lot of ancestors of modern Americans I like and respect came from there - albeit not willingly. Many African societies possess wisdom modern man could do better with, such as the Zulu knowledge about family systems psychologists model.
I got out of the Disney fascism, thank you, despite having to work AND raise kids, and I am not a neglecting parent, never been one. But I would have much preferred the family system I grew up with - hardly anything of that remains now, due to the relentless corporate conquering of our world.
What I am worried about is not myself or the Übermensch you posit yourself to appear in your posts on this thread, but the innocent masses of ordinary people.
So you live on your own, you take no medicines even when you are ill?
If you do, you are dealing with corporations. And they are not always honest.
You will taste the difference between GMO weeds and ragweed when GMO gets to you...
If we have a democracy, they will not, unless you expressly allow them.
If it is the corporate fascism the American right wing allows and sometimes prefers, then they will, no matter if you want them or not. THAT is the difference.
(Mob rule will be enforced on you - democracy and government are probably your best protection. Sorry.)
Forgive me, but as someone that studied history to greater depth than most of my compatriots, the difference between democracy and constitutional republic seems to be splitting hairs compared to the difference between outright tyranny (which is what corporate rule begins to remind one of, and I HAVE lived under one) and having a bottom-up system. Holland and Norway and the US on one hand, Stalinist Russia, Mugabe or North Korea - or Saudi Arabia - on the other hand. THAT is the difference that matters. Not that there is nothing special about the US.
Others that followed this increasingly bad-mood-debate may not with interest that apart from the well-known Locke, Hume and Rousseau, there was another effect that may have had a formative role on the very formation and the spirit of the American Constitution, perhaps the most important of all: the Iroquis Confederacy and its so-called Great Rule.
In that spirit, as with most native American tribal gatherings, democracy does not mean "mob rule", neither the will of the majorioty being forced on the minority. That is truly one crucial bit of difference modern people from democratic societies forget, and it IS peculiar to the US among modern democracies.
In tribal gatherings, the representatives argue until the minority is convinced that the tribe does better if the other decision (the majority's) is adopted. If there is a single person unconvinced and not willing to cooperate with the majority's will, they stop the decision from being made. Despite days and days of bringing arguments up and down to come to a decision, these were pretty efficient societies - if we whites had not had our biological warfare (like infected blankets) we would have never vanquished them.
Now. You seem to take an Übermensch-type of stance that you are above and totally independent from society. Then you should ask yourself the question why on earth you want to answer people in a forum? Why not be just content with yourself?
Besides, language itself is a community thing. Presumable you learned English from somebody. Language research shows that people left completely alone do not develop language skills. Period.
Do you know how the Greeks called the individual standing only by himself?
IDIOTES.
Originally posted by beezzer
Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by dakota1s2
Do you think most of America would support the threat of the default of the american economic system to get thier political issues enacted ?
The threat of default???
wow.
The Tea Party is trying to save the country. If it takes a default to do it, then by god! that's what we need to do. Spending our way out of this mess has worked realy well. So we should do more of the same?edit on 30-7-2011 by beezzer because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by nenothtu
Clearly you are way off the grid, and I admire your independence, but we can't all live in the backwoods, and I do not see that as freedom.
We should be able to live anywhere in the U.S. and be free from corporate control, but in most places in this country, that is impossible. Our cities are set up around the use of the automobile, and without one, you are severely limited in most of the U.S., so most are forced to deal with corporations.
Yours is a very unique situation, that is not feasible for most people,
and I am willing to bet severely limits ones freedom.
If you want to travel across country to see Big Sur,
or visit relatives, how are you going to do that without a license and insurance for an automobile? Ride a horse?
We should all have access to technology and travel, without being forced to pay into the corporate system. That is freedom. The corporation did not create our technology, why should they control it?
Originally posted by aching_knuckles
Originally posted by beezzer
Tough talk from a man who doesnt even live in America, or is even American.
posted by poet1b
We should all have access to technology and travel, without being forced to pay into the corporate system. That is freedom. The corporation did not create our technology, why should they control it?
nenothtu's response
That's a lovely thought, and I'm on board if you can figure out a way to implement it. Money to create infrastructure and maintain those systems has to come from somewhere, so how do you propose to make it all free? The money ultimately comes from the end-user, whether you pay it to a corporation, or pay it to a government. Either one is the same to me, except that if I pay it to a corporation and have a beef with them, I'll find a different corporation to deal with. Finding a different government to deal with is a bit more problematic.
Case in point, I recently got the red-ass at ATT, and fired them. Now my phone and internet come through a different supplier, and if I develop a beef with them, I'll fire them too, and move on to the next. If I develop a problem with the government, then I have to wait at least until the next election cycle to fire them, if I can even fire them at all. Oddly (and I KNOW you'll find this hard to believe), not everyone around here thinks like I do.
Originally posted by poet1b
We can more than afford the technology without paying into the corporate system. We are more than twice as productive now than we were back in the fifties and sixties when we built our current interstate infrastructure, paid down the largest debt in our nations history, rebuilt Europe, and fought a few wars at the same time. We fought the cold war, and sent men to the moon, all with out building huge government debt, in fact, we were a net creditor nation.
What is the difference between then and now?
Back then our fathers were smart enough to believe in government, and used government to keep greedy corporations in check. We had high taxes on the super rich, and strong regulator enforcement in place. This is the difference between then and now.
You don't drive a car because you have been conned into believing that government is bad, when in fact our government is your best chance of getting back your freedom.
Participating in our government to get our government to start putting corporations back in check is the answer. It worked in the past and it can work again.
Congrats, you fired the devil's corporation, and hired Satan's corporation to be your new link to the world.
You can fire the government by moving to Canada, or some other country. It is a lot more inconvenient than changing cel phone companies, but you will actually get results,
As long as people keep buying into the tea party, which only promises more of the same that GW gave them, then we will never get change. You can keep pretending that by not driving a car, you are more free, but the truth is that you have allowed corporations to take away even more of your freedom.
Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by macman
. That's a good excuse for not presenting something THAT YOU KNOW I WILL KNOCK DOWN, as I have refuted all the points in this thread already by the Tea party lovers.
All arguments I have countered with truth because I am
JUST THE FACTS MAN, INFOREAL!