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 nightstalker46
Considering that all three philosophies, as forms of governance, are contrary to the basic intent of personal freedoms, liberties and sovereignty of the individual, as established by the Constitution: Why do we allow anyone, who professes or proselytizes those belief's, to become involved in government at any level. And why should those who openly advocate the overthrow of those Constitutional principals, not be charged and prosecuted as traitors. What greater threat to liberty than that from within. This should be interesting
"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." —David Rockefeller, from his own book, Memoirs.
Anarchists are those who advocate the absence of the state, arguing that inherent human nature would allow people to come together in agreement to form a functional society allowing for the participants to freely develop their own sense of morality, ethics or principled behaviour. The rise of anarchism as a philosophical movement occurred in the mid 19th century, with its idea of freedom as being based upon political and economic self-rule. This occurred alongside the rise of the nation-state and large-scale industrial state capitalism or state-sponsored corporatism, and the political corruption that came with their successes.
*snip*
The word "anarchy" is often used by non-anarchists as a pejorative term, intended to connote a lack of control and a negatively chaotic environment. However, anarchists still argue that anarchy does not imply nihilism, anomie, or the total absence of rules, but rather an anti-statist society that is based on the spontaneous order of free individuals in autonomous communities.
Immanuel Kant's societal categories
The German philosopher Immanuel Kant defined "Anarchy" in his article about anthropology in the chapter "Freiheit und Gesetz" (korpora.zim.uni-duisburg-essen.de...) as follows:
A Law And Freedom without Violence (Anarchy)
B Law And Violence without Freedom (Despotism)
C Violence without Freedom And Law (Barbarism)
D Violence with Freedom And Law (Republic)
That is the problem. All people are created equal, but not all put out an equal amount of effort. If I work 6 days a week 50-70 hours a week to get the things I want, why should I be forced to donate part of my very life to support those who WILL NOT do the same? If I work all day, and you play video games all day, why should you benefit from my labor?
Originally posted by Unvarnished
reply to post by nightstalker46
If there is anything socialism promises, its the equality of every human being.
Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
If I work all day, and you play video games all day, why should you benefit from my labor?
Quit being obtuse. You know exactly what I am referring to, and I am not talking about the funds necessary to keep the streets paved. I am referring to the income redistribution programs.
Originally posted by whaaa
Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
If I work all day, and you play video games all day, why should you benefit from my labor?
What are you talking about?
First off, I don't benefit from your labor. The game I play is holdem. I'm a very good poker player, very lucky and make a nice living.
I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes to keep up the infrastructure, ex. roads, bridges, parks, schools etc. That's not socialism; thats a community. uh oh, did I say community? Am I a communist now?edit on 20-8-2011 by whaaa because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by nightstalker46
Considering that all three philosophies, as forms of governance, are contrary to the basic intent of personal freedoms, liberties and sovereignty of the individual, as established by the Constitution: