ATS and OWS: What the heck, ATS?

Originally posted by gentledissident

Insuring the well being of everyone has to be enforced, or we won't.

Governments do not insure well being of "everyone", nor is that their function. People look out for people, not governments.

Sure, some may think they are doing fine so others should do fine as well. I hope they still think that when they aren't doing fine. We need laws to protect us from the "every man for himself' syndrome. That encroaches on freedoms like laws against theft and murder do. You are not free to do those things either.

No we don't need any such laws. theft and murder encroach on the freedoms of others, and so are punished. Likewise, a law forcing someone to help when they don't want to ALSO encroaches on their freedom of choice. Pick your poison, I suppose. Why are MY rights to my own mind and my own labor less valid than YOUR "right" to be waited upon?

Not preventing an injury is in no way the same thing as creating one.

Originally posted by antonia

Except you are missing one of the central problems here-Most people are not ethical. That's why we have laws concerning the elderly and children. I don't see the problem with enforcing some kind of standard. (I think in some areas it has gone too far.)
www.ilr.cornell.edu...
There's a story about a grand ethical businessman for you-and what happened to this.... Entrepreneur? He paid 2000 dollars for killing over 100 women.

Saving the world in some grand collective is not my job. My job is affecting those with whom I interact. I can't do that effectively if all that I make is being taken to give away to others for whom I bear no responsibility. Lack of morals and ethics have their own built-in punishments. It will always bite you in the end. That's why socialism and communism, and indeed all forms of collectivism, have always failed - they are inherently immoral and unethical the instant they take away a mans right to look out for his own and determine his own future.

This has always been my main problem with libertarian viewpoint-It's just as unrealistic as the commies. It depends on human beings being moral or ethical (take your pick) when history shows most human beings have to be told how to behave. Infanticide used to be common in western society until the Church pronounced edicts against it. If humans are so capable of natural ethics then why do we actually need to tell them that killing your own child is wrong? Our society is replete with examples of this lack of ethics. You can't try to deal with how people should be, you have deal with how they are.

Libertarians are always bouncing around that point.

I'm truly sorry if you feel a need to be "told how to behave" based on someone else's notion of how that should be.

"Infanticide" has not been outlawed - it has been codified and enshrined, and is now called "abortion". Making it legal through collectivist effort has in no way changed the morality of it, or the occurrence of it, despite the laws. we don't tell them "killing your own child is wrong", we tell them "killing your own child is fine, as long as you give it a clinical term".

I agree, society IS replete with examples of unethical behavior. How is that still happening, in the full face of laws to legislate ethics? Why are those laws already on the books not effective in legislating morality?

The answer to that questions is as I have already stated - you can not legislate morality. You can pass laws to institute this group or that group's VIEW of morality, but even those laws seem not to work.

You can not deal with people as you would like them to be, you have to deal with them as they are.

Originally posted by nenothtutheft and murder encroach on the freedoms of others, and so are punished. Likewise, a law forcing someone to help when they don't want to ALSO encroaches on their freedom of choice. Pick your poison, I suppose.

Yes, like I mentioned, it depends on what side you're on.

reply to post by gentledissident


I'm on the side that stands against encroaching on the freedoms of the individuals when they are doing no harm. If they are active in doing harm to another, get 'em!

Originally posted by elfie
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

May I ask what measures you would find appropriate (that would have a realistic chance of success) if furthering an objective of accountability (both corporate & governmental) would be on the table? I'm really interested in seeing your take--to me, your insights are always quite philosophical. And also, what steps would you suggest to effect worthwhile and positive change?

May I ask what measures you would find appropriate (that would have a realistic chance of success) if furthering an objective of accountability (both corporate & governmental) would be on the table? I'm really interested in seeing your take--to me, your insights are always quite philosophical. And also, what steps would you suggest to effect worthwhile and positive change?

First, lets clarify your qualification of "realistic chance of success". This is a broad phrase that can mean anything. Take, for example, this odious "income tax". When it was first passed in 1913, it was sold as a tax the rich scheme. Today we have countless people complaining that the rich are not taxed enough. If this is true, then how realistic was this so called "income tax" that was sold as a tax the rich scheme?

As I have all ready pointed out, the ugly beastly head of credentialism rose with progressivism, but this didn't prevent many of the businesses on Wall Street that, presumably, this protest is, in a large part all about, from doing the very things licensing schemes were supposed to prevent. How realistic is the success of a heavily credentialed medical field when doctors are the third leading cause of death in America?

Frankly, I think we should drop the qualifications of "realistic chance of success" and just get down to the brass tacks of what we believe and how we think implementation of those beliefs will work. My reasons for this suggestion is this: In 2009 Chelsey Sullenberger (Sully) was a pilot flying a large commercial jet liner that hit a flock of birds as it was ascending, causing engine failure in both engines. The flight was over New York City at the time, crossing the Bronx, and over the George Washington Bridge, finally ditching the jet liner in the Hudson River.

Prior to this moment, as a 2006 issue of The Economist pointed out: "in the history of aviation the number of wide-bodied aircraft that have made successful landings on water is zero." Now, ditching the plane in the Hudson River was nothing special, even if in itself the action was heroic, what made Sullenberger's actions "miraculous" is that he didn't just "ditch" the plane, he landed it so that every single passenger, along with he and the crew survived! How realistic was his chance for success? According to The Economist in 2006 his realistic chance of successfully landing a wide bodied plane on a body of water was...well, zero chance of success. It is truly hard to imagine that "Sully" was spending too much time thinking about "realistic chances of success", and was more than likely just looking for that best chance of success.

This clarification, and suggestion, I suppose comes into that realm of what you might call "philosophical" but I assure my friend, anyone who thinks that philosophy is a luxury for geeky bookish types has no understanding how affected by their own philosophy, and tragically, since they would dismiss philosophy as some sort of hobby for the very few, their philosophy is an unthinking acceptance of a hodgepodge of axioms and aphorisms with no real foundation to understand how all these axiomatic thoughts apply in real life.

Too many people treat philosophy as some sort of luxury that they may, or may not develop in their life at some point, but in the meantime there's so much living to do. Philosophy is not a luxury that we engage in only when time permits in our lives, our lives begin with philosophy! Take the poster just below yours that I am responding to now, (antonia). Here we have some person, basing their arguments on their own philosophy, arguing that self regulation is untenable because based upon this persons world view so few people are ethical and worthy of self regulation. This perception of humanity may be true, or it may not be true, what is important is the argument made against humanity and the accusations thrown at humanity in order to dismiss free and unregulated markets. If antonia is correct and there are a scant amount of people even capable of self regulation, the obvious dilemma then becomes why on Earth would we put humans in charge of regulation given this bleak scenario. Surely, (and I would argue demonstrably so) those tasked with regulation will only be corrupt, fail miserable at what they are tasked to do, and the problems antonia described are now worse, because of all this corruption.

Continued...

reply to post by elfie


Antonia's arguments ask that we pretend that all this corruption and greed is not a problem with government, but is somehow a problem with "them". Such a fallacious reasoning only ensures that "they", whoever the hell "they" are, continue with their business as usual while all the clamoring for more regulation will only make "us" more of the very same slaves that "we" keep complaining about.

Further, and staying with antonia's argument, antonia may, or may not be, arguing that she/(he?) doesn't trust her own ethics and honor and needs to be regulated, but she/(he?) is most assuredly arguing that you and I need to be regulated because antonia doesn't see where you and I, on average, are worthy of anything more than mistrust and mild disgust at best.

Even more tellingly with antonia's post is that it begins by addressing my argument with Walking Fox regarding the Fox's implicit assertion that only progressive taxation can save a suffering dying man. What is so telling about this is that I had restrained myself with Fox in regards to the O.P.'s sloppy hypothetical. It was a sloppy hypothetical because the scenario demanded that the person suffering was also dying. No qualifications given to this, only that the person Fox believed I have such a callous attitude towards is dying. No suggestions that this dying person could be saved from dying if only we taxed the rich enough, only that I was callous towards dying suffering people because I don't want any income tax on anyone, rich or poor!

So many assumptions have to be made about Fox's sloppy, lazy hypothetical, that when antonia pipes in taking me to task for my "solution" to this imaginary suffering dying person, perspective and focus on the actual issue becomes so absurdly muddled that it is like unraveling years of discombobulated string. The hypothetical itself was nothing more than reification. Antonia follows up this reification with more reification and all of it has nothing at all to do with the nuts and bolts of taxation, how government actually operates, and how Constitutions mandate how government can, and cannot operate.

Wildly emotional rhetoric replaces critical thought and no one really seems to care about actually fixing problems, just griping about them. However, the problem runs far deeper than that, and yet another member (newcovenant) wishes to argue the efficacy of my own assertion that people have the right to earn a living. Of course, newcovenant is addressing what is clearly my belief that people have the right to go into business for themselves. Newcovenant argues that such a thing is not a fundamental basic right, but by what standard is newcovenant basing this argument and by what standard do I assert it is a right?

If we cannot even have a rational standard by which we understand what a right is, how the hell can we even expect to have rights? For this reason we must look at rights and determine what makes a right a right. If life is a right, what makes it a right? If speech is a right, what makes it a right? If publishing is a right, what makes it a right? Too many argue that what makes it a right is legislation, but this is demonstrably false. People were speaking long before any government declared such a thing a right, and publishing did not come into being because governments legislated so. What then makes speaking, and publishing a right? What makes life a right? Too many will argue nothing does and they are not rights, but this is demonstrably false as well. Not just people, but every species will act in self defense. This self defense is evidence of a protection of a right, and because it is, self defense itself becomes a right.

What makes life, speech, or publishing a right is that generally, any one of these actions does not cause malicious injury, and here is how we can better understand precisely what a right is, not by looking at that right in any positive light, but in a negative light in the absence of a right. We better understand the right to speech or publishing if we have been censored. Our natural reaction to this censorship is outrage at the injustice. Indeed, just like rights, we can better understand justice, not in any positive light, but in its negative light, and we generally do not perceive justice as readily as we perceive injustice.

It is in the injury caused that we can know what is not a right, and the only exceptions to this would be defense. Defense of self, property, or others in need of defense is a right in that they are defending a right, and outside of this we have no right to be injurious to others. Owning a business is not an injury upon others until it does cause injury, and if it never does cause injury, then this business operates by right.

Continued...

reply to post by elfie


This standard by which we determine what a right is is not something I have invented with my own philosophy, it is an understanding of law in a wholly natural sense, in the same way that Newton understood the law of gravity. Gravity did not come into existence because Newton legislated it so, nor did our unalienable rights to live freely and pursue happiness come into existence because of any legislation. It has always been so with gravity and it has always been so with human rights. Rights are not the purview of legislatures, they are the province of God, or the universe if you prefer, or of nature if even the universe is to spiritual for you. The point is that no legislature could effectively prohibit gravity, or the planetary bodies in motion than they can prohibit rights. They can try, and when it comes to rights legislatures often do attempt to prohibit rights, but it is as absurd as prohibiting comets and asteroids from hitting our planet. The legislation itself is nothing more than empty rhetoric at that point.

This leads to yet another fundamental problem permeating our cultures and societies and this is the proclivity towards irrationality. When I argue - of which I do often - that legislation is not law, at best, merely evidence of law, many people become apoplectic at this idea and will reject the thought with nary a thought behind that rejection, but why? Is is so difficult to understand that the map is not the territory and a word is not the thing defined and a smoking hot photograph of Angelina Jolie is not Angelina Jolie? You can no more have a meaningful relationship with a picture of Angelina Jolie, than you could drive the word automobile, or fly the world jet, nor could you grow a crop of corn on a map. You can no more legislate law than you can impregnate a picture of Angelina Jolie. The best legislation can do is acknowledge law, just as scientists do when acknowledging law, but the worst legislatures can do is write up legislation that is grossly unlawful.

Governments are not law, they are artifices created by humanity. Law is natural. All law is natural, simple, true, universal, and absolute. It is simple to understand that all people have the right to life. Arguing that this is not so requires far more complexity and the emergent behavior of that complexity - as it almost always is with unintended consequences - is disastrous. There is nothing disastrous about the right to life, unless, of course, you want to be very, very, very, afraid that there are 7 billion people on the planet and that this number is disastrous to humanity. There is, of course, no solid evidence to support contentions that 7 billion people on the planet will be disastrous for the survival of humanity, but there is plenty of evidence to support the fact that murder is disastrous to some persons right to life.

By embracing the standard of injury to determine what is a right, and what is not, we can rationally determine that what causes no injury, or threat of injury, is done by right. Now, many will want to argue that owning a business is a threat of injury because so many bad things can happen. Indeed, many will vehemently go into agreement with DMV's on their assertion that "driving is a privilege and not a right" for no other reason than because of the "threat" of injury. It matters not to these people that the licensing schemes put in place have done nothing at all to prevent or even diminish this "threat" of injury, all that matters is that the perceive a threat and want government to protect from this threat, with no regard for the fact that no such protection exists, or that a right was subjugated to "privilege" based solely upon a perceived threat.

This vicious cycle of demanding government invent "laws" to protect the People from perceive threats only to find that government is spectacularly competent in their incompetence has the effect of increasing disregard for law itself. Because People are so willing to accept legislation as law, the more ridiculous legislation becomes the more disaffected with law the People become. It is not law that is to blame, it is ignorance of the law that is to blame.

If People in general have little to no regard for the law, then what the hell is the point in having government to begin with? Just what is the point of government anyway? To make law? Do We the People establish and ordain government, and in many cases through Constitution we declare the Supreme Law of the Land, do this so that those of whom we transfer some of our inherent political power to can invent laws? Such a thing is just more of that same vicious cycle. No, I respectfully submit that we establish government because we recognize as self evident that we do have rights and that such rights need defense.

Continued....

reply to post by elfie


If I have the right to life, then so do you, and so does Walking Fox, and if that imaginary dying suffering person existed then that person has a right to life as well. It follows that if you have a right to life, and just as sure as that is for you, it is equally sure for all other People, then we also have a right to defend our lives. You have a right to self defense, as do all others. It then continues to follow that if we have this right to self defense, we also have the right to come together collectively to create an organization towards that same end, the defense of life. This is the just basis for any government, an organization instituted to protect and defend the rights of the People. It should be clear that the rights government has been instituted to defend do not come after this institution is created, the rights came first, and that there are so many that will deny and disparage these rights, governments followed.

Here I am on my fourth post in reply to a single brief paragraph you wrote, and you must be wondering at some point, just when the hell I am going to answer your question, but without this fundamental basic understanding of rights and governments responsibility towards them, what would be the point in answering your questions, truly? What was your question? You asked what I would suggest in furthering accountability - presumably after all regulation has been repealed and the market is allowed to operate free and unregulated - for both corporations and government. I would first, and foremost, argue that under a free and unregulated market governments would have less to corrupt. But, that is in regards to governments.

In terms of corporations, your question becomes much more complex, hence all the posts insisting that we have that philosophical foundation laid down before answering. Corporations, by the very nature of their existence, demand regulation. A thing that exists solely by permission of the state is a regulated thing. How can we have a free and unregulated market place when we are willing to create legal fictions that are regulated things to enter into that market place? Few want to see the end of corporations, even if many would like to see an end to corporatism. The corporation can be beneficial to markets, and to People, so do we want to just do away with corporations all together and go back to simply having just sole proprietorships, or partnerships?

I would argue that no, this is not necessary, and that corporations can exist side by side by wholly unregulated businesses. There are no sole proprietors, partners, or any other form of unincorporated organization that can be lawfully required to licensing schemes, so People who are unincorporated just shouldn't do it. When they do, they are only asking for trouble. Any regulations placed upon corporations must not be viewed as some sort of preventative measure regarding criminality and malfeasance, but instead are simply regulation of legal fictions incapable of understanding law. It should be understood that any legal fiction is by its very nature, ignorant of the law, and of course, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

What I am saying is this: Monsanto - a corporation of which I revile and would love to see its charter revoked - is infamous for using their wealth and a bevy of priest class lawyers to destroy the small farmer. One of their tactics is to sue a farmer whose crop was infected by windblown seeds patented by Monsanto for patent infringement. People hear of this and become understandably outraged by this unacceptable brutishness, but instead of understanding the root of the problem, People begin musing that it is "patent laws" that are the problem. Patent laws are not the problem, ignorance of the law is the problem.

Hapless farmers hire attorneys who are licensed by the state. Here we are right back to those pesky little licensing schemes, and when it comes to licensed attorneys the whole con job of it all becomes painfully evident. In order for an attorney to obtain a license they must first swear fealty to the courts of which they have agreed to be licensed under. This creates an instant and gross conflict of interest for any attorney who is expected to give a zealous defense of their client. I am hoping that by me taking the time to speak to all of this you are beginning to understand the enormity of the problem and how simply just showing up to the financial district nearest you and protesting will accomplish nothing. The insidiousness of it all is so pervasive it can certainly seem overwhelming and even give one a genuine sense of helplessness, but not all is lost, and we as individuals are far from helpless, and believe it or not, it is, in the end, the law that will set us free.

Continued....

reply to post by elfie


Returning to that problem of Monsanto, and their gleeful strategy to destroy small farmers, the greatest problem I see here is that farmers have become ignorant of the law, and so much so that if and when they are being led down useless legal strategies by their lawyer, they cannot even recognize this. What I have yet to see is any one of these small farmers with their lawyers use the law to their advantage.

First, and this gets argued quite a bit lately by the "OWS" supporters who are still disgusted with the Citizen's United ruling, corporations are not "people" in any practical sense. So, if "Monsanto" sues you the small farmer, as a matter of fact, and a point of law, that suit brings accusation against you, and you have the right to face your accuser. This point is important for many reasons, but up front, it becomes a legal argument for dismissal of the suit. If you as the small farmer cannot reasonably expect to confront your accuser "Monsanto" on the stand, then "Monsanto" has no standing, even in light of Congress' definitions granting corporations person hood. It is not enough to point to some employee of "Monsanto" and declare that they will stand in representation of "Monsanto" if someone wants to do this then let that real human person bring suit against you so that you have your right to due process of law.

However, before this even happens, farmers will be confronted by some human agent representing "Monsanto" and pointing to their crops ad claiming that because there are obviously fruits that have been reaped by the patented seeds of "Monsanto" that these farmers are in debt to "Monsanto". However, many of these farmers are claiming - and I believe truthfully - that the seeds were blown in from other nearby farms and they are not liable for any patent infringement because of this. This defense has been disastrous for the farmers as it is not being accepted as legally tenable. What is accepted as legally tenable is that if the seeds were not planted by the farmer with the sole intent of reaping the fruits of that labor, then "Monsanto's" seeds are guilty of trespass, and the human agent asserting patent infringement is the one that farmer should file a verified complaint against and have him arrested for trespass.

The government has no recourse but to act upon a verified complaint because the complaintant is swearing under penalty of perjury that their assertions of injury caused by the accused is true and correct. It takes little effort to put a no trespassing sign out on a farm - and most farmers do - nor does it take any real effort to document "Monsanto" employees trespassing on your property, or if they choose to use the U.S. mail to "inform" the farmer of their "patent infringements" this become an official document and evidence of "Monsanto's" trespass, and the person signing this letter becomes the one the farmer should target.

No Representatives and Senators have to be elected because we believe they will fulfill the promise of drafting legislation that would do what I just suggested, all it takes is farmers coming to understand the law. Of course, these poor farmers are inundated with a memeplex of arguments that law is too complex to be understood by the laity and only the ordained priest class lawyer sect can understand the law. This is a bald faced lie, but what is true for you is true, so if you accept as true that law is not simple, true, universal, and absolute, and instead accept that law is complex, deceitful, arbitrary, and capricious, then it becomes easy to understand why you wouldn't use the simple, true, universal, and absolute laws of rights, but instead accept your place at the sacrificial alter of the priest class lawyer sect.

The argument that "they" have too much power and wealth to go up against is only propaganda for "they", and as a point of law and a matter of fact, here in the United States, it is the People who hold the inherent political power which makes them "they" as in "TPTB". This means that you elfie are one of the powers that be, and individually, you have at your disposal a plethora of rights that "Monsanto" does not. "Monsanto's" lawyers may think differently but I have learned here on this site and others that when you fully understand the law there are very few lawyers that are willing to engage with you and argue your points, and those that do invariably come to understand that by arguing against what I and others who know the law argue, that they chose to put on their black hat to fight us who chose to wear white hats and they cannot help but feel compelled to - in the midst of their argument - point out that they like and admire what we argue, but that "legally" speaking it is just not true.

What is legal is not the same as what is lawful.

Continued...

reply to post by elfie


I have spent the time I have with the Monsanto scenario to take the issue of corporations, government, and accountability and to do my best to demonstrate what "measures" we take to ensure justice prevails. If we are not willing to do it on an individual basis, then it is beyond folly to think that all we have to do is elect some "leaders" to enact "measures" to do the job for us.

The nefarious and insidious perpetuation of sprawling memeplexes across the cultural milieu are legion. Words are purposely diluted and polluted so that what was once their meaning has no meaning now, and what these words mean now are designed to undermine the power of the individual. It is not accident that Hercules exploits are rarely discussed, but Hercules labors are ever present in any bit or factoid relating to this mythic hero. More importantly, it is no accident that the word myth itself has been deconstructed and its former meaning has no relevance in today's modern lexicons. So, today when we say "myth" we mean falsehood or lie, and that such usage of this word only undermines the power of the myth is lost on most of us.

It matters not whether Luke Skywalker, Neo, or Peter Parker are fictions. Their actual historical realities is not the point of mythology, what is the point are the life lessons they offer, and the truths they speak. It is, of course, absurd to think that if you were bit by a radioactive spider you would be blessed with superpowers. What is not so absurd is the axiomatic "With great power comes great responsibility". This is true! It matters not whether or not David was just a Biblical figure, or if he existed in our past history, nor does it matter how tall Goliath was in order to determine the factual nature of his being a giant. What matters is that Goliath is presented as a huge warrior representing the best of the best in war, and David was much smaller, but a priest king warrior poet none-the-less. The point of the mythology behind David and Goliath is to remind us as humans that we are more powerful than most would have us believe, and that our own ingenuity can propel us into heroic victory's.

We can, as individuals, stand against behemoths and live to tell the tale. If we do not want to be heroic we do not have to be, but by choosing not to be, why should our dismissal of genuine hero's matter at all? Who are we, those who refuse their call to adventure, to criticize the heroic?

Ah! But JPZ, you've been very critical of the "OWS' movement and they're heroic. Are they? Are they really? What has this "OWS" movement done that is so heroic? Not what have they claimed they done, but what have they really done? They do not want to end corporatism, they want to control corporatism, they do not want to protect and defend rights they want to diminish the authority of rights so they can use their mob rule mentality to usher in a brave new world, and they do this insisting all the while that regardless of what harm or injury they cause today, it is the end that justifies the means.

What truly ethical and good person would reasonably argue that the end justifies the means? The end is always a result of the means used to get there, so when those arguing the end justify the means, if what results is injury, then it is argued that the end has not yet been reached. The goal posts are continually moved in order to justify a philosophy of means being justified by ends. The means justify the end, always and without fail.

We do not need any new acts of legislation, nor do we need an Messianic saviors to "lead" us to freedom. All we have to do, one person at a time, individually, is begin to live free and to zealously and jealously guard and defend our absolute rights. How can we ever get to this point, when there are so many that would argue the points I've just made?

I suspect you are asking me to give you an answer that can be agreed upon by glittering fingers waving in the air consensus, but rights do not exist by consensus, and this so called democracy that many in the "OWS" are claiming they want to take back never existed to begin with so there is nothing to take back. A Constitutional republic was established to prevent the majority, or even well oiled minorities, from voting away the rights of individuals. If you, antonia, newcovenant, and Fox do not want to jealously and zealously guard and defend your rights, you don't have to, you just cannot lawfully deny and disparage ours, and it is us - regardless of how small our numbers may be - who will then have to extricate ourselves from this oppressive system and build our free and unregulated market places to show you better than explain, how open systems work much better than closed ones.


t

I though ATS had one or two that run it admins mods, that are in with TPTB.
and some of the members.

but after this. I think 90% of the admins mods are heir to dum us down.
and THEY portend to be member to help run us all down.

ATS can no longer be trusted to be on the peoples side.
this site is only for the Funny stories now.
I will just get shouted at for this. good!

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Great post i could not of said it better. I think there alot of Disinfo agents on here for sure. Those people are stepping up to the plate bless them all. We should all support them regardless of who you are. In Sydney they try to make out they are all uneducated how typical. What alot of BS? I rang up the mainstream talk back and ripped into them for picking on the OWS.

SOMEONE NEEDS TO STAND UP AND THE MORE OF US THAT DO THE MORE WILL CHANGE FOR THE GOOD.

Its not going to be easy but atleast they are doing.

And if you are an agent reading this, you guys should be ashamed what race are you. We are all one yes even you guys.

The awakening is coming and you can't stop it.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by elfie

 

Antonia's arguments ask that we pretend that all this corruption and greed is not a problem with government, but is somehow a problem with "them". Such a fallacious reasoning only ensures that "they", whoever the hell "they" are, continue with their business as usual while all the clamoring for more regulation will only make "us" more of the very same slaves that "we" keep complaining about.

i didn't say government isn't a problem. You are just reading it that way. I think human nature is the problem. It's a far more pessimistic argument than what you assigned to me.

Further, and staying with antonia's argument, antonia may, or may not be, arguing that she/(he?) doesn't trust her own ethics and honor and needs to be regulated, but she/(he?) is most assuredly arguing that you and I need to be regulated because antonia doesn't see where you and I, on average, are worthy of anything more than mistrust and mild disgust at best.

I don't trust myself sometimes and I should hope if I am doing something wrong someone would let me know. As for humanity in general, no I don't trust them and yes they do generally disgust me. As for you, I don't know you

Even more tellingly with antonia's post is that it begins by addressing my argument with Walking Fox regarding the Fox's implicit assertion that only progressive taxation can save a suffering dying man. What is so telling about this is that I had restrained myself with Fox in regards to the O.P.'s sloppy hypothetical. It was a sloppy hypothetical because the scenario demanded that the person suffering was also dying. No qualifications given to this, only that the person Fox believed I have such a callous attitude towards is dying. No suggestions that this dying person could be saved from dying if only we taxed the rich enough, only that I was callous towards dying suffering people because I don't want any income tax on anyone, rich or poor!

There was nothing telling about it. I just found the exchange interesting.

So many assumptions have to be made about Fox's sloppy, lazy hypothetical, that when antonia pipes in taking me to task for my "solution" to this imaginary suffering dying person, perspective and focus on the actual issue becomes so absurdly muddled that it is like unraveling years of discombobulated string. The hypothetical itself was nothing more than reification. Antonia follows up this reification with more reification and all of it has nothing at all to do with the nuts and bolts of taxation, how government actually operates, and how Constitutions mandate how government can, and cannot operate.

Perhaps you do not understand-Either solution leads to suffering. The point being, are you willing to accept that truth? There is no pure system as there is no pure human. Believe it or not I don't disagree with a lot of what you say. As I said, I'm an idiot though, that's why I am a nobody flunky working for minimum wage and I'll probably die that way.

reply to post by antonia

i didn't say government isn't a problem. You are just reading it that way. I think human nature is the problem. It's a far more pessimistic argument than what you assigned to me. And you could at least address me since I gave you the same, I know I am an idiot, but damn, where are your manners?

I spent several hours fashioning that post in between my own work and I have plenty of more work to do this day, which doesn't mean I had no intentions of addressing your post directly, but for Christ sakes! Several hours spent considering elfie's question and giving the best response I know how to give, and all you can do is give me grief because I haven't yet replied to your post? Where the hell are your manners?

I have much to do! I am busy! If you cannot be patient with me, this is your human problem, not mine.

Well there are 22 pages of posts so it'll take me quite a while to read through much of this thread, but I had to jump in just to add to the agreement with the opening Post. But my .02 isn't merely for the OWS bashing, its more or less much of what I see the problem with so many threads here. I love this forum for the information shared. Definitely good solid leads on several various interesting topics. However, there is a lack of monitoring on responses at times and sum of the bickering, arguing, and attempting debunking is flat out annoying at times.

If you check my membership status or whatever it'll show how I have only recently joined and was neither an active participant for years. I first began visiting this forum in 2008 before GW left office. Like most I wanted to know answers to questions I already had. Over time my knowledge and overall perception of every conspiracy from the New World Order and Illuminati through the Moon landing/JFK, Reptilian agenda etc. has increased to the point I feel I'm definitely "Awake" and more than aware of the falsified history, those of us who were conditioned by public education in America all believed to be true... When most of it has always been a complete fabrication of reality.

What I would enjoy seeing is more serious and valid posts doing what the internet is used for and sharing viable useable information on all of the alternative news topics and current events we get deprived of via mainstream media. Less of personal grievances over political/economic injustices and anti-everything-under-the-sun nonsense. On top of that instead of sharing useful information on alternative news I see attempted debunking of every story that has even a mild hint of uncertainty. Half the time members are busy scrutinizing and criticizing each other rather than engaging in a multitude of logic and reason to explain unexplainable events.

How bout more with real world news and interesting and intelligently analyzed issues and less with bitching about what OWS is or isn't doing? At least they're displaying signs of life for christ's sake... I thought the population of of ignorance in America was so damn high there was no hope for any type of rebellion or uprising. Whatever happens after its all over, I think the amount of those finally waking up is the most important thing gained here, and from this point on its up to individual communities and households to take action on a personal and social level through the breakdown of what we all know is absolutely on its way...

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Alright, I'm sorry I'm acting like i've been on the rag for the last decade. I'll edit it and give you the benefit of the doubt. I think i'll regret that however.

I think this video fits right in with the OP.

Look past all of the bullsh*t talk about OWS- the ACORN conspiracies, communist/anarchist scares, etc etc

This video shows exactly what the line is between citizen and government. It shows that, if you take things to far against government, they will stop playing cute and you'll realize how cold they really are.

There is a serious problem when a government claims to be democratic, but is willing to surround and shoot at its people on the street. This is especially evident when they target a guy with a camera, because they are trying to send a message to the people: back off and get back to work.

I am for neither side when it comes to OWS. People have the right to protest anything they want and I have the duty as a Constitution-believing citizen to defend their right to protest. I also have the duty to defend Michael Moore's right to free speech, even if I don't agree with what he says.

This weekend I went to visit friends in Canada. The 14 year-old son was asking me if it is true that the government monitors Facebook, and I said yes and he made the statement that he was going to be very careful about what he says about the US. This is a little boy in Canada, so afraid of our government that it changes his view about social networking. So we were talking about how Americans are in general and I explained to him that in the US, not all Americans are the same, there are many who recognize that we do live in a great country that has problems and are willing to work on those problems, while there are some Americans who do not see there are problems and do nothing. But this is in every country. There is no perfect government anywhere in the world, but the US has granted the citizens the right of free speech, the press and religious expression.

While the OWS protesters have the right to protest, I have a duty to defend their right, even if I don't agree with it. What I do not like is the lies the leaders have propagated to advance an agenda to fundamentally change the entire government from Democratic Republic to Communist Socialism. Many of the people who are protesting have not lived long enough to see how Communist Socialism destroys nations. The rights of the people are completely taken away in Communism.

I would love to see Michael Moore challenged more often to expose his agenda, but as long as he has the right to freedom of speech, he will continue and that is an abuse of the right. I would also love to see the young members of OWS given a history lesson from the very people who lived under Communist regimes.

They just do not understand that they are losing their rights by believing the propaganda. Right now they think they are using the right of free speech, but that right is being manipulated by the ones who will take it away if Socialism replaces the Democratic Republic.

Thank the Democratic Republic for your rights, the Democratic Republic is the only one that not only gives it, but insures you keep it. All I can say is this, while I defend your right to protest, do you really understand what you are throwing away in favor of Marxist Socialism? You are also throwing away my rights.

Originally posted by gentledissident

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by gentledissident

 

Why do you want a Socialist democracy?

I want both necessities and freedom guaranteed.

You do realize that that is a contradicting sentence, right?

reply to post by WarminIndy


I think it's funny how for years we faught against communism/socialism and now we are on our way there.
It seems that the only thing the media tells the nation about what these OWS protesters want is more government control, aid and help from the same state that really cares nothing about its people and is controlled
by banking, large corporations and the wealthiest of us!