It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Terminal1
I think we need to define "submit" because I think that our definitions differ.
Personally I think there are times when you must yield to another person. This does not necessarily mean to give up control of thoughts and actions to another. I think this is where we differ or have a misunderstanding of sorts.
To read what you say that you have never submitted to anyone just doesn't make sense.
originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: Terminal1
I went on to say that submission is not in my nature and that I abhor being in a position of authority over others...Yet at the same time some persons for whatever reason need to be...led..............I don't require that.
Oh & someone earlier quoted Thomas Jefferson saying "the authority should be a natural aristocracy, not a coercive institutional one." But wasn't he a slave owner? So wasn't he forcing his authority onto other people (his slaves)? Or is that what he meant by "a natural aristiocracy"?
originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Semicollegiate
LOL Come on. Obviously I wasn't saying you were a slave owner. I was saying Thomas Jefferson was. And that his words weren't too meaningful in this context because his authority came from coercion on the 150+ slaves he had.
On top of that, he was an incredibly wealthy man who used his power, wealth & status to maintain his political power (at one point he was Virginia's wealthiest man). So how is that any different than today's wealthy & central bankers who use their wealth to maintain their power? It just seems like his idea of "natural aristocracy" in this case was closer to the people who believe in leaders by birth-right, as opposed to leaders by merit.