On Revolt and Civil War

Originally posted by maniacRus
Thank you for your childish, and somewhat irrelevant, response.

Are you one of the local TROLLS?

STOP IT

Says the guy spamming threads in record speed, to what avail?

Originally posted by Komonazmuk

Originally posted by maniacRus
Thank you for your childish, and somewhat irrelevant, response.

Are you one of the local TROLLS?

STOP IT

Says the guy spamming threads in record speed, to what avail?

edit on 21-3-2013 by Komonazmuk because: (no reason given)

Hey bud!

That quote originally came from me because it looked like the guy was just trying to destroy and derail the discussion. I don't think he really was a troll and he gave a couple of thoughtful responses after that.

reply to post by akalepos

The federalist papers warn about people who are willing to say anything in order to obtain the suffrage (votes) of the people only to take a left turn as they pursue their own private interests once in office. They warned us to watch out for those people, and get rid of them, and we have not done a very good job at that.

The really edifying documents of that era were/are the ANTI- federalist papers. They are the ones who warned us.

www.anamericanvision.com...

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by akalepos

 

The federalist papers warn about people who are willing to say anything in order to obtain the suffrage (votes) of the people only to take a left turn as they pursue their own private interests once in office. They warned us to watch out for those people, and get rid of them, and we have not done a very good job at that.

The really edifying documents of that era were/are the ANTI- federalist papers. They are the ones who warned us.

www.anamericanvision.com...

You're right about that I think. They especially did not want a centralized government in control. I think that they sort of simply wanted to improve the confederation rather than begin a whole different thing. They also specifically did not want us to have a standing army. If not for the Anti-Federalists, there might not be any "enumerated" individual rights as well!

reply to post by akalepos

specifically avoided any mirroring of any european governmental entities on purpose and with good reasoning processes to back them up.

Just because something new is created it does not make it better or less prone to abuse... just look to the world around you and make your conclusions...

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by akalepos

 

specifically avoided any mirroring of any european governmental entities on purpose and with good reasoning processes to back them up.

Just because something new is created it does not make it better or less prone to abuse... just look to the world around you and make your conclusions...

The new creation IS better than anything else still going. But it has not been insulated from abuse although it was hoped that it was designed to be.

The problem simply is corrupt people as the problem has always been.

Human kind has never changed for the better.

It doesn't matter how sophisticated and how wonderful the external illusion makes us think about it. The appearance is that "times have changed" but the reality is that people have not.

So no matter how sophisticated we seem to be, these nasty people still try to dominate it all for the sake of themselves and the notion of "power". We would have done better to work on that over the last 2500 years along with the temporal changes that have occurred.

If we DO end up in a shooting match here, I hope at least those who are co located with those types wipe them out and get rid of them. Then be prepared to also take out those who aspire to take their place. Since these people absolutely refuse to regulate themselves, they might as well be simply taken off the playing board.

I attribute it to basic human selfishness combined to childishness. It is the non thinking animal homo sapiens doing this not a rational thinking genuine human.

No society can ever attain perfection, I don't think. The best any of them can do is eliminate evil by any means at their disposal.

People I talk to sometimes seem to agree and invoke the opinion that if all the "good people" set out to eliminate the "bad people" that about 1/2 our society would kill off the other half.

For the people who think that the good people would then become as bad as the "bad people", the answer seems to be "Not So". The main difference is that once the bad people start killing they would never stop, but the "good people" would know when enough is enough. I think I agree.

Good people can get a job done and utilize and be guided by their conscience. It is pretty much a medical/psychological established fact that what we call "bad people" have no conscience.

So you would be pretty much eliminating dead people anyway. (it being the notion that people with no conscience act like walking dead, anyway)

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by akalepos

 

specifically avoided any mirroring of any european governmental entities on purpose and with good reasoning processes to back them up.

Just because something new is created it does not make it better or less prone to abuse... just look to the world around you and make your conclusions...

Jefferson, Madison, and the others warned about the corruption and it's influences, and suggested remedies and things to watch out for. We simply have not taken proper heed.

The problem is manifold and one can't really point their finger at just one thing ans say that it is the problem.

The system that was set up for us IS the best the world has ever known. The problem is a lack of strict adherence to it's principles. The system is not the problem, lackadaisical people is.

reply to post by akalepos

The new creation IS better than anything else still going. But it has not been insulated from abuse although it was hoped that it was designed to be.

"still going" is the operative here.

The problem simply is corrupt people as the problem has always been.

That is why society is a sham, a con, it only benefits corrupt people and this is how it absorbed all other social system by corrupting them...

Human kind has never changed for the better.

And it will never change now that we are system dependent...

I attribute it to basic human selfishness combined to childishness. It is the non thinking animal homo sapiens doing this not a rational thinking genuine human.

I think it is something of an evolutionary Catch 22 as soon as we developed agriculture (having to deals with ownership and control of land) we started an genetic selection process that has pushed us into this corner. Even innovation and knowledge that at first was a byproduct of excess food production has been since relegated to the background in this absurd pursuit of establishing absolute power over others.

No society can ever attain perfection, I don't think. The best any of them can do is eliminate evil by any means at their disposal.

Agree with the first disagree with the second. It is utopian to think about a perfect society but a society in perfect equilibrium is possible, we had that as hunter-gatherers it had a price but if we look back to human experience people were happier, richer and safer and most important of all they could as a group plan for a better future...

I don't think that we can easily establish a distinction between "good people" vs "bad people", and I do not think that bad people are indeed bad (most of them), they are a product of society (I do believe in social rehabilitation).

I for instance support the concept of eugenics if done in a sane and humane way. It is possible to implement the concept without violating basic human rights, but even then it would be hard to define a proper selection the best way is only to attempt to reduce unnecessary suffering (for instance genetic exams should be part of family planning)

reply to post by akalepos

Jefferson, Madison, and the others warned about the corruption and it's influences, and suggested remedies and things to watch out for. We simply have not taken proper heed.

Since the system is designed by humans even Jefferson, Madison, and the others had a corrupting effect on it. I agree that the constitution had it been fallowed to the letter would have stood as a great advance, but as history proves at least since the US civil war it was the instrument that has moved the world toward a path of doom, even supplanting lost chance of the discontinued pursuit of the core ideals of the French revolution...

Note that we are talking on the ideals and the human actions done in name of those ideals...

reply to post by akalepos

Jefferson, Madison, and the others warned about the corruption and it's influences, and suggested remedies and things to watch out for. We simply have not taken proper heed.

The problem is manifold and one can't really point their finger at just one thing ans say that it is the problem.

Yes, the problem is manifold and if one was to point a finger at the culprit it would probably be that we, the people,have been so carefully groomed and educated to always look to the Madisons and Jeffersons of the country's beginnings rather than listening to the people who made things and did things and built things and who got very little credit for their efforts.

That's why anything that goes wrong today falls at the current administration's feet, its all we know how to do. It was the same back in Madison's day but the people weren't given much of an opportunity to write the "official" story, their stories are buried at the bottom of a deep pile of hooey.

Under all the hooey you'll find statements like "JOHN HUMBLE's," which was published in the Independent Gazetteer, October 29, 1787:

Now we the low born, that is, all the people of the United States, except 600 thereabouts, well born, do by this our humble address, declare and most solemnly engage, that we will allow and admit the said 600 well born, immediately to establish and confirm this most noble, most excellent and truly divine constitution. And we further declare that without any equivocation or mental reservation whatever we will support and maintain the same according to the best of our power, and after the manner and custom of all other slaves in foreign countries, namely by the sweat and toil of our body. Nor will we at any future period of time ever attempt to complain of this our royal government, let the consequences be what they may. www.rightsofthepeople.com...

And still today, when we talk about "us", the lowborn, we tend to frame our discussions around "them", the highborn. Why is that?

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by akalepos

 

Jefferson, Madison, and the others warned about the corruption and it's influences, and suggested remedies and things to watch out for. We simply have not taken proper heed.

The problem is manifold and one can't really point their finger at just one thing ans say that it is the problem.

Yes, the problem is manifold and if one was to point a finger at the culprit it would probably be that we, the people,have been so carefully groomed and educated to always look to the Madisons and Jeffersons of the country's beginnings rather than listening to the people who made things and did things and built things and who got very little credit for their efforts.

That's why anything that goes wrong today falls at the current administration's feet, its all we know how to do. It was the same back in Madison's day but the people weren't given much of an opportunity to write the "official" story, their stories are buried at the bottom of a deep pile of hooey.

Under all the hooey you'll find statements like "JOHN HUMBLE's," which was published in the Independent Gazetteer, October 29, 1787:

Now we the low born, that is, all the people of the United States, except 600 thereabouts, well born, do by this our humble address, declare and most solemnly engage, that we will allow and admit the said 600 well born, immediately to establish and confirm this most noble, most excellent and truly divine constitution. And we further declare that without any equivocation or mental reservation whatever we will support and maintain the same according to the best of our power, and after the manner and custom of all other slaves in foreign countries, namely by the sweat and toil of our body. Nor will we at any future period of time ever attempt to complain of this our royal government, let the consequences be what they may. www.rightsofthepeople.com...

And still today, when we talk about "us", the lowborn, we tend to frame our discussions around "them", the highborn. Why is that?

edit on 23-3-2013 by frazzle because: (no reason given)

It seems to me to be too easy to manipulate the masses. I would say also that they have been DIS educated to some extent.

The latest thing about the airport stuff really bothers me.

Whereas at first everyone was disturbed about the searches and such, NOW they seem to be fully mindwashed. People are ACTUALLY saying that the airlines should NOT slack off on the little things they are talking about now. (small pen knives, golf clubs, things of that nature.) Those things have always been trivial matters and were stupidly banned IMO but now the hypnotised chickens are scared of these things.

It only strengthens Socrates' suggestion that we should never consult public opinion (paraphased).

I am one of those people who think that any sort of Utopia would be impossible simply because of human "nature" itself.

ALL of the fault and blame does fall squarely on "US". Sure those guys are corrupt, but WE let them sneak by us.
To answer your last question, I think jealousy is the motivator. Who would NOT want to be wealthy enough to never have to worry about anything material?

As John Locke would ask though, how much is enough? Where is the line crossed where your compilation of wealth reaches the point where it is truly disproportionate?

He complains of unequal talents and the corruption of those that can basically snatch everything up just because they can.

He thought that the ability to scoop up the money DOES lead to inequity as people gather up more than is truly needed. This was NOT in a share the wealth sort of idea, but rather a more ethical one.

But under that he thought that an individuals first duty was to preserve himself first and then secondly, mankind in general. So he thought that one ought not gather up more than would be a proper share. He was thinking about harms against "mankind in general" I think he had a point. Just because YOU ARE ABLE to suck up all the money in the world, should you? He would say no.

I don't know... what can you buy with billions that you can't buy with millions, as still live within a rational/reasonable framework?

Don't give me that crap about "what is reasonable?" you full well know what that is. I don't think that I am playing word games and I don't think I'll respond well to them.

I think that there IS a distinction between good and bad people and it just is Prima Facie obvious. I think it is pure foolishness to pretend other wise.

Those types of discussions that try to fuzz out the distinction merely show how the truly evil only try to legitimize their own evil actions to make excuse for themselves.

reply to post by akalepos


Aristotle would help you understand the "Praise and Blame" loop as would the Early Modern (Continental folks) group of thinkers.

I don't take up the wealthy's side simply because I want to be like them. During the ACW, it has been thought that the reason secession passed was that way too many hopeful fantasizers convinced themselves that they too would become wealthy slave owners, which never panned out for them.

It would be the same today for little working slaves to object to heavy taxation of the wealthy, when Eisenhower's plan to tax the top tier at the rate of 90%enabled the interstate highway system and gave a powerful boost to what we once have called the middle class in this country.

BUT Oh NO... let's don't even discuss how this method, if applied for a limited term, like maybe five years might wipe out our debt. Oh heck no. cuz golly gee ... if dufus Billy Bob would accidentally stumble into that money, he would never want to be taxed at that rate. BUT Mr. Stupid never WILL stumble into it. He is not likely to become a 20M plus lottery winner. So the stupidity of the objection denies the country good assets. The rich will recover, I have no fear of that. So I don't buy their fearfully greedy platform.

I just DON'T want this envy or any other thing like Nanny Goat DHS or some fear/anger stricken Militia to plunge the rest of us into utter Chaos. Once that door opens... there are no rules.

The wealthy SHOULD be treated decently with heavy duty deductions for cranking manufacturing back up. I DO think they should offer prospective workers less, (20$ per hour instead of 75 in some cases) but substantially above min wage so that they can at least make rent and maybe buy a new car once in awhile. There must be something above the calculated "subsistence level" offered.

But I DO insist that we tax the CRAP out of them short term They DO have the ability to help us get straight.
They are just too self absorbed, mostly.

reply to post by akalepos

It seems to me to be too easy to manipulate the masses. I would say also that they have been DIS educated to some extent.

The latest thing about the airport stuff really bothers me.

Whereas at first everyone was disturbed about the searches and such, NOW they seem to be fully mindwashed. People are ACTUALLY saying that the airlines should NOT slack off on the little things they are talking about now. (small pen knives, golf clubs, things of that nature.) Those things have always been trivial matters and were stupidly banned IMO but now the hypnotised chickens are scared of these things.

It only strengthens Socrates' suggestion that we should never consult public opinion (paraphased).

I am one of those people who think that any sort of Utopia would be impossible simply because of human "nature" itself.

ALL of the fault and blame does fall squarely on "US". Sure those guys are corrupt, but WE let them sneak by us.
To answer your last question, I think jealousy is the motivator. Who would NOT want to be wealthy enough to never have to worry about anything material?

As John Locke would ask though, how much is enough? Where is the line crossed where your compilation of wealth reaches the point where it is truly disproportionate?

He complains of unequal talents and the corruption of those that can basically snatch everything up just because they can.

He thought that the ability to scoop up the money DOES lead to inequity as people gather up more than is truly needed. This was NOT in a share the wealth sort of idea, but rather a more ethical one.

But under that he thought that an individuals first duty was to preserve himself first and then secondly, mankind in general. So he thought that one ought not gather up more than would be a proper share. He was thinking about harms against "mankind in general" I think he had a point. Just because YOU ARE ABLE to suck up all the money in the world, should you? He would say no.

I don't know... what can you buy with billions that you can't buy with millions, as still live within a rational/reasonable framework?

Don't give me that crap about "what is reasonable?" you full well know what that is. I don't think that I am playing word games and I don't think I'll respond well to them.

I think that there IS a distinction between good and bad people and it just is Prima Facie obvious. I think it is pure foolishness to pretend other wise.

Those types of discussions that try to fuzz out the distinction merely show how the truly evil only try to legitimize their own evil actions to make excuse for themselves.

Yes, people are easy to manipulate simply because that's what the masses demand. Fool me, fool me, fool me! All of humanity has, all through history in every culture, wanted and needed someone to look up to, someone to provide the answers that they, themselves, are missing: people with badges on their shirts, people with letters behind their names, people who self describe as representatives of god on earth (who create and define the stories of who and what god is), great writers and thinkers, people and organizations that have accrued material wealth ~ who must be doing something right. Right?

The reason we do that, IMO, is basically because we, as individuals, don't trust ourselves with even a minimal amount of power and authority over our own lives. So we demand leadership even knowing how grossly misled we've been by past and current leaders. Most have fooled themselves into believing examples of gross mismanagement only signifies a need for "new" leaders and given a choice between bad and worse leadership, the majority will still "choose" one of the above. Its just too darned hard to say "NONE OF THE ABOVE".

Beneath all the chest pounding about independence, justice and good leadership, most "normal" people genuinely fear holding authority over their own lives much less anyone else's for fear of also holding the responsibility for a bad outcome. They need INSURANCE against anything and everything that could go wrong, even if its an illusion.

Being a people watcher, I have become convinced that most of us couldn't lead ourselves out of a paper sack and will do everything in our power to limit and undermine true independence and justice, even when we don't realize that's exactly what we're doing. That has always worked well for the sociopaths in our midst who write the rules and wear the badges and hide their corruption under white or black robes and who covet power and money above all else.

Therefore, jealousy is an utter waste of emotional space as long as WE CHOOSE to defer to sociopaths whether they gain authority by our own choice or by the choice of others. But bucking the sociopathic systems we allow to grow up around us comes with a high price tag that hardly anyone is willing to pay.

reply to post by frazzle


Frazzle!

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

I myself have always rejected "authority" and "leaders". I think I was born this way hehehe.

I like standing on my own and thinking for myself. I wish everyone else had that passion as well.

reply to post by akalepos


As have I and as do I. It must be something one is born with because its a trait that seems nearly impossible to teach.

Along that line, I do not need any "authority" figure thinking it's trigger time and plunging us all into total disarray.

I despise ALL people who think that they know what "is good for Me"....

Originally posted by akalepos
Along that line, I do not need any "authority" figure thinking it's trigger time and plunging us all into total disarray.

I despise ALL people who think that they know what "is good for Me"....

Having reached an advanced age when despising anything or anyone takes altogether too much energy to maintain or act upon, I have settled for having pity for those who "think" they deserve to HAVE any authority over anyone besides themselves, although I do understand your intolerance level.

The greatest teachers of all time merely offered true facts, whether they were politically correct for their time or even if they were killed for speaking the unvarnished truth, and allowed their students draw their own conclusions. They never said do this or don't do that, believe this and don't believe that. Unfortunately that breed of teacher is seldom acknowledged, at least in their lifetimes, and all too often their words are later twisted to mean things they never said.

All that said, eventually someone WILL pull the trigger and life for everyone will (again) be plunged into disarray. The status quo based on lies and cheating simply cannot hold for much longer and many who thought they "knew better" will discover that they were actually no smarter than whale s*it.