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.

 

The Simple Truth In Three Sentences

page: 3
33
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Ironhawke

Ha I get it!

All of your posts are in honor of April fools! Dude you almost had me for a second.




posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: muse7


In America, libertarian, means "extreme advocate of total tyranny." It means power ought to be given into the hands of private, unaccountable tyrannies - even worse than state tyrannies because in them the public has some kind of role.


This is just completely backwards, libertarians are on the opposite end of the political spectrum from that of authoritarians (fascists, communists--the actual tyrants).

The most tyrannical institutions human beings have ever endured have always been governments.

The Third Reich was the military for the National Socialist Party--a government.

The Soviet Union was a government.

The People's Republic of China under Mao was a government.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) is a government.

The Roman Catholic Church was a government.

The crazy-despotic emperors of ancient Rome ran a government.

The tyrannical senate of Rome was government

The Mongolian Empire was a government

The British Empire was a government

Every tyrannical Monarchy was a government.

Every authoritarian oligarchy comprised of nobility was a government.

The most depraved, sick, infuriating, violent, twisted, and inhuman acts against our fellow human beings have always been carried out under the law and with the full force of executive powers of governments.

Please name one business that has ever come close killing millions, imprisoning millions, torturing millions, censoring millions, or brainwashing millions with tools such as patriotism and nationalism.

For any evil carried out by a business, government has always done it better by 100 fold.

Show me one business that made being a specific race illegal. Show me one business that gassed 6 million human beings "for the greater good."

When you create an institution whose sole existence is the monopoly of power, what do you expect to happen?

Human beings are "too evil" for financial freedom, but they aren't "too evil" to direct militaries? To run police departments? To wield unheralded power under the concept of law?

There is a reason as to why Thomas Paine wrote that government is a necessary evil, because if an objective form of evil actually existed, it would be government. The older I get, the more I wonder at how "necessary" it actually is.

Government is power, business is commerce. Don't confuse the two.

I have agree here, how many times has Monsanto actually attempted genocide?

How many times has a gov?

I can't count the high.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: doompornjunkie
a reply to: Ironhawke

Ha I get it!

All of your posts are in honor of April fools! Dude you almost had me for a second.


Oh #, I fell for it too!!!



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

In that case, I've been celebrating April Fools' long before I joined ATS. These are serious concerns I have, both as a pacifist and a citizen of Earth.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ironhawke
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Serious question : if each state is to train it's citizens for combat, what happens when you run into folks like me, who categorically refuse to handle a firearm, never mind pointing one at another human being and squeezing the trigger, usually over something as ultimately pointless as mineral slime or squiggles on a map?


The authoritarian perspective would be to write a law forcing you into the service, which is morally wrong to do.

A libertarian would not right a law making service mandatory. If another country invaded us, you would have to deal with your angry peers for not helping to fight them off.

Let your neighbors decide what they'd do.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Libertarian lean to either the left or right; rarely nonpartisan. Bill O'Reilly swears he is a Libertarian. Believe him?



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ironhawke
a reply to: johnwick

Ah, so in a Libertarian society, only those who are not pacifistic get to vote? What other groups do you exclude? Who says that, as one committed to doing no violence, I cannot serve my country? And what of an obligation to serve humanity as a whole? Are you saying only my country is due service - which, by the standards you just set - means being prepared to do violence?


Obviously!!

If you will not fight for your own, what right do you have to decide who does?

It is always easy to send someone else or their kids to do the dirty work.

If you yourself will not help in that cause, you have no right to decide another should.

Point blank very simple.

Be a peaceful guy, get along enjoy life.

But if you won't fight, you have no business deciding who will or where or when or how.

Very simple yes?



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Ah, mob rule, then. Or another way to look at it : Rule by Strong, which is what this would inevitably fall to. One would only be free so long as others agreed with that freedom. I'm free to be nonviolent, as long as my neighbour approves. I am free to love who my community approves. I can have any business I wish, as long as my peers deem it ok. Somehow, I doubt this was what the Founding Fathers envisioned.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ironhawke
a reply to: johnwick

In that case, I've been celebrating April Fools' long before I joined ATS. These are serious concerns I have, both as a pacifist and a citizen of Earth.


Under libertarianism, at least my view, you nay never serve and always wander in peace and harmony.

But cannot make decisions that send me or my kids to fight.

It is not right that we risk suffer and sacrifice, but you get an equal say in the conflict you won't participate in.

You are free to be a peace nick, no harm no foul.

But at times fighting does need doing.

So abstain and don't don't decide.

You can't have it both ways.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

Ahh..who said I would be "sending others to fight for me"? That assumes I would be behind the idea of a fight. Perish forbid! There is diplomacy. There is peaceful service - red Cross, humanitarian aid. As a member of that society, I would have to have a vote. Equality for all, even if their beliefs do not involve simplistic violent answers. This is why Libertarianism appalls me - you speak of personal responsibility only insofar as you approve it.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: Metallicus

Libertarian lean to either the left or right; rarely nonpartisan. Bill O'Reilly swears he is a Libertarian. Believe him?


Lol he is as right wing as it gets. He is a hypocrite at least.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus

Libertarians believe in individual liberty, personal responsibility, no wars and don't care what you believe, what you do or how you live your life.



Sounds really great!

Well until you realize that about 250 million in America really do not care about any of this above... oh what a great world that would be...



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ironhawke
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Ah, mob rule, then. Or another way to look at it : Rule by Strong, which is what this would inevitably fall to. One would only be free so long as others agreed with that freedom. I'm free to be nonviolent, as long as my neighbour approves. I am free to love who my community approves. I can have any business I wish, as long as my peers deem it ok. Somehow, I doubt this was what the Founding Fathers envisioned.


That is what we have now.

The strong wouldn't decide.

The willing would.

Would you fight?

You answered no. At which point those who will get to decide the fight, the time the place the reason.

You get no say so, because you won't.

I don't know how this isn't sinking in here.

It is very easy to understand.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ironhawke
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Ah, mob rule, then. Or another way to look at it : Rule by Strong, which is what this would inevitably fall to. One would only be free so long as others agreed with that freedom. I'm free to be nonviolent, as long as my neighbour approves. I am free to love who my community approves. I can have any business I wish, as long as my peers deem it ok. Somehow, I doubt this was what the Founding Fathers envisioned.


Democracy is mob-rule, not helping your community fight an invasion is douchy.

Personally, I'd set your house on fire.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

First, I never said I wouldn't defend my country..just that i would not use violence. In time of crisis, there will always be a need for medics, for those helping evacuate others, those making sure things work. By saying you, one devoted to the idea of defending one's things, would set my house afire...denying me of my liberties, possessions and pursuit if happiness, have proved to me that not only are you as bad as these hypothetical invaders, but that I should not ever consider Libertarianism. Thank you. Good day, sir.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Political parties and religious organizations serve many of the same purposes, one of which makes itself known by the responses here on this page to each other. Politics and religion have always done this.
Fear, mistrust and judgement of your fellow man and appeals to our egos are what keep the corrupt in power with our misguided support.
War is murder and we are seriously mentally and spiritually amiss when we allow it to continue in our names.
We have been in thrall to psychopaths for so long, we are so controlled in our thoughts and our lives, we take this insanity in stride and debate the "political rightness" or correctness of our favorite psycho-pathological cabal.
Why is it murder when one person kills another in our streets, but it is just war when we go to another country and kill not just one person but many?
How is it possible that we continue to try to justify the theft of governments and others nations resources by the might of our military, or our bankers?
These "political parties" are stealing the future of this planet and laughing at us while they commit murder and claim we agreed to let them, begged them to keep us safe by murdering thousands of others. If and when they take the time to consider us at all.
It is staggering and overwhelming to think about what is happening in the world today.
Do you really think they care what you think?
That anything you think about them will actually change anything?
Whether you agree with their apparent motives or not is actually considered by anyone other than their advertisers?
They look at how they are able to keep us at each others throats, literally and figuratively and they are amused at our inability to see past our own egotistical and self centered natures. It is all a show, and we are merely beleaguered spectators.
Political parties, you gotta love 'em.
edit on 2-4-2015 by franknberry because: added "self centered"



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ironhawke
a reply to: johnwick

Ahh..who said I would be "sending others to fight for me"? That assumes I would be behind the idea of a fight. Perish forbid! There is diplomacy. There is peaceful service - red Cross, humanitarian aid. As a member of that society, I would have to have a vote. Equality for all, even if their beliefs do not involve simplistic violent answers. This is why Libertarianism appalls me - you speak of personal responsibility only insofar as you approve it.


If you didn't want to fight, but opted instead to help the wounded, feed the soldiers, or give other aid--then that's as good as fighting.

The way you worded your original question made it seem like you would just stand around watching your friends die, though, so I got a little emotional.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ironhawke
a reply to: johnwick

Ahh..who said I would be "sending others to fight for me"? That assumes I would be behind the idea of a fight. Perish forbid! There is diplomacy. There is peaceful service - red Cross, humanitarian aid. As a member of that society, I would have to have a vote. Equality for all, even if their beliefs do not involve simplistic violent answers. This is why Libertarianism appalls me - you speak of personal responsibility only insofar as you approve it.


Personal refpinsibilty bares responsibility.

If the nation is under attack, you have a responsibility to fight.

If you don't, you can't put the rezpibsibikty if your decisions in those that will.

So no if you won't fight to protect the nation you don't get to decide.

Personal responsibility, you decided to abstain, thus you also abstain from decision making on the conflict.

Personal responsibility, you can't ask another to do what you haven't or are unwilling to do yourself.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 12:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon

originally posted by: Ironhawke
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Ah, mob rule, then. Or another way to look at it : Rule by Strong, which is what this would inevitably fall to. One would only be free so long as others agreed with that freedom. I'm free to be nonviolent, as long as my neighbour approves. I am free to love who my community approves. I can have any business I wish, as long as my peers deem it ok. Somehow, I doubt this was what the Founding Fathers envisioned.


Democracy is mob-rule, not helping your community fight an invasion is douchy.

Personally, I'd set your house on fire.


I would also feel slighted if he didn't help the community fight.

Though there are many roles, some fight some farm some heal

Maybe the med ward is his fortey, that is still service.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

This is the wall Libertarianism keeps running into - it denies liberty. You simply cannot conceive that defense can also incorporate those who will not kill. Guess the only clergy in a Libertarian society have Scripture in on hand and a gun in the other. So much for turning the other cheek. This scenario also denies personal responsibility by giving only one choice : fight. You claim that you hate the binary Republican/Democrat paradigm, yet are blind to your own binary options. Thank God this is not the monstrous society you envision.

You claim I am shirking responsibility by not fighting, when I have quite plainly explained that one can defend in ways not violence-related. And by the by, my non-violence extends only to myself, not others. By your own words Christ, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks and all who have used non violence in their beliefs to change the world are shirkers and should have no say.

This is the monstrosity. This is the crisis. A world where you determine what is right for those who see different. I pity you. I truly do, for by your admission, Libertarianism is greed, division and love of self more than others.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join