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.

 

Authoritarians are the Enemy and can be Democrat or Republican

page: 1
11

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I know that I can seem somewhat inconsistent on which side I take on a particular issue and I think it comes down to who in the scenario is trying to affect or control me or others with their new 'great idea'. I would call myself a Pragmatic Libertarian which means I will generally choose the lesser of two evils and the least invasive policies when I vote or make decisions. I am pro-freedom, anti-war and most of the time simply want to be left alone. Unfortunately policies on both the left and the right sometimes make that difficult.

Abortion rights are necessary (even if I don't like the idea of abortions), marriage equality is simply being fair, gun rights are important, religious freedom is important and no matter what side you 'pick' you end up on the wrong side of some of these issues. I am always on the side of freedom regardless of the party. I don't want to fight liberals and I don't want to fight conservatives. I only want to fight against those that would be on the wrong side of individual liberty.

Does this mean I agree with the choices everyone makes? Hell, no, but I do support their right to make them.

Here on ATS we spend a lot of time posting OPs about which party is better or worse and the truth is they both have some good and some bad associated with them. The real enemy is the Government trying to take away our rights and freedoms. A Government that forces us to buy insurance or creates unnecessary laws simply to line the pockets of the richest 1% and control the masses.

Ultimately I appreciate all of you that post here and this includes some of you folks I rarely agree with (you know who you are, lol). I think each of us wants to make the world a better place. We need liberals to remind us of our humanity and we need conservatives to be pragmatic and remind us that everything has a cost. If we could magically have healthcare for everyone with no cost we would probably have everyone in agreement. The reality is how do we implement something so expensive? The devil is always in the details.

Anyway, thanks to all of you here because I have learned a lot and changed my mind on many topics since I have been a part of this community. I have grown more in the last few years than I had my entire life and even when I disagree with some of you when you post I do at least get a glimpse at an alternate perspective.

Now lets go have a beer and then go defeat those Authoritarians a-holes together!





posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 11:10 PM
link   
I've done a lot of thinking about the idea of "freedom".

What does "freedom" mean? Does it mean to do whatever you want? To gratify your own ego? To participate in the the general "will" of the community?

We never have fully defined the term "freedom" and had a general consensus made about it. Even our founding fathers probably had different ideas about what "freedom" meant.

Honestly, there isn't anything I want to do that I'm not "allowed" to do. Honestly. I've done a lot of thinking about it. Sure, I may have to fill some forms out, apply for a certification or pay some kind of tax...but I can still DO any of those things.

Who knows, maybe the more I think about it I'll run into something I want to do that I'm not allowed to, but for right now - I can't think of anything.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I think you're getting hung up on the minutia. It's a philosophical question but with very tangible political implications.

The dichotomy is between individual liberty and monopoly state power.



From Rollback: Repealing Big Government Before the Coming Fiscal Collapse by Thomas E. Wood..

In Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick recounts what he calls the Tale of the Slave, and invites the reader to consider himself as the slave in the story. The story moves through nine stages.

First: You are a slave at the mercy of a brutal master, who forces you to work for his purposes and beats you arbitrarily.

Second: The master decides to beat you only for breaking the rules, and even grants you some free time.

Third: You are part of a group of slaves subject to this master. He decides, on grounds acceptable to everyone, how goods should be allocated among you all.

Fourth: The master requires his slaves to work only three days per week, granting them the other four days off. They can do as they wish during their free time.

Fifth: The master now allows the slaves to work wherever they wish. His main caveat is that they must send him three-sevenths of their wages, corresponding to the three days' worth of work they once had to do on his land every week. In an emergency he can force them to do his bidding once again, and he retains the power to alter the fraction of their wages to which he lays claim.

Sixth: The master grants all 10,000 of his slaves, except you, the right to vote. They can decide among themselves how much of their (and your) earnings to take and what outlets to fund with the money. They can decide what you are and are not allowed to do. We can suppose for the sake of argument that the master irrevocably grants this right to the 10,000 slaves. You now have 10,000 masters, or a single 10,000-headed master.

Seventh: You are granted the freedom to try and persuade the 10,000 to exercise their vast powers in a particular way. You still do not have the right to vote, but you can try to influence those who do.

Eighth: The 10,000 grant you the right to vote, but only to break a tie. You write down your vote, and if a tie should occur, they open it and record it. No tie has ever occurred.

Ninth: You are granted the right to vote. But functionally, it simply means, as in the eighth stage, that in case of a tie, which has never occurred, your vote carries the issue.

Nozick's question is this: at what stage between 1 and 9 did this become something other than the tale of a slave?



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom




What does "freedom" mean? Does it mean to do whatever you want? To gratify your own ego? To participate in the the general "will" of the community?


What freedom boils down to is do you want to make your own choices or have them made for you.

The Left has their favorites meaning selective freedom.

The Right has their favorite meaning selective freedom.

Which basically makes right/left AUTHORITARIANS.

Freedom basically means SELF governance.

The basic rule of thumb is don't do anything to someone else you wouldn't like having done to you.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

So how does this work in reality? What if I believe I have a "right" to walk around nude, that to me being nude all the time is a freedom of mine?

So if the rule is not doing things to others you wouldn't like having done to you...

What if I don't mind being held to certain standards by law? If I impose those standards of law on others, I'm not doing anything to others I wouldn't mind having done to me...?



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Well, if you have to file a form or get a permit to do it, your're not free to do it. That's not "freedom" that's asking permission. And permission can be denied.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: caterpillage

I suppose, but unless I'm being denied based on race, sex, creed --there is probably a legitimate reason for it.

EDIT: For example, I can't build a nuclear reactor in my back yard. I can't own a tank. I can't conduct human sacrifices, even if my "religion" calls for it. None of those things I want to do, and all of those things could cause a lot of harm to others.
edit on 30-9-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom




So how does this work in reality? What if I believe I have a "right" to walk around nude, that to me being nude all the time is a freedom of mine?


They do that all the time in California. Then they turn around and ban guns,make mandatory waiting periods, and so on.

In reality it doesn't work very well because no one practices it.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 12:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: caterpillage

I suppose, but unless I'm being denied based on race, sex, creed --there is probably a legitimate reason for it.

EDIT: For example, I can't build a nuclear reactor in my back yard. I can't own a tank. I can't conduct human sacrifices, even if my "religion" calls for it. None of those things I want to do, and all of those things could cause a lot of harm to others.


You can own a tank in the U.S. My friend has one and it is awfully cool.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Oh my bad, you're right -- Arnold has one too, I forgot about him. Hm. I wouldn't know where to park it though...



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Amen Metallicus.
When you really get down to it,
it's not multimillionaires we have
to worry about . Have a $100 million?
Great, go have a blast !

I wanna talk to the 1800.

It's a measly 1800 billionaires that are
the Authoritarians the terrorists and the law makers,
on this planet.
For scale there are 7,500,000,000 of us.
I personally think we can take them.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Don't you mean ARE a democrat, republican, liberal, independent?



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

The thing is that you seem to boil it all down to government. But the government, at this point, is just a tool of the corporate elite. You are merely blaming the one (only) thing that both (kind of) serves the people and (mostly) serves the corporate elite. You're kinda stopping short of the "real enemy".

The tough thing is that, in simplest form, the government acts as a stabilizer. It protects TPTB from the citizens rising up against them. It also allows a way for the corporate powers to give us just enough to pacify us. Of course we can't have representation amongst TPTB (like some CEO is going to allow joe public and place him on a board that is making decisions about what they are going to offer us?), but we do have representation in government, which is how we strike a balance. But it's tough, because you have to know that government is bought and paid for… again, who is the real enemy?

There's always a lot of screaming that the government really doesn't care about what the people want, but the corporate PTB really don't care about people, only profit. I wish government didn't have to be powerful enough to stand up against the corporate elite, but greed knows no bounds, and since there is no actual free market (since TPTB control the market, as if they want competition), and there is no public purchasing power, elected government is all we have to keep them in check. And that only works when you get the money out of politics. But getting the money out of politics is not going to be an easy game. Those at the top really don't want that to happen, and they, the true authoritarians, will do anything to stop it. We are heavily bound to this system, and in no possible way, is it "free".
edit on 30-9-2015 by okrian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Also, thanks for your whole approach on this post. It's classy and smart, even to those who may not agree with you.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 03:09 AM
link   
The authoritarians are alive and well on ATS...

A couple of quotes I came across while reading about this:


It is scary for people to admit that those who are supposed to be their "leaders" protecting them may in fact be human beings with complicated motives who may not always have their best interests in mind. Indeed, long-term psychological studies show that approximately one-quarter of the American population has an "authoritarian personality", where they look for a "strong leader" to protect them.

Authoritarians not only don't want to hear that the most powerful people might be acting against their interest, they will aggressively defend against any such information. But it's not just the quarter of the population that can be said to clinically suffer from authoritarian personality disorder. All of us - to one degree or another - have invested tremendous hope in the idea that our leaders and institutions will protect us.

Why government shills & intellectual cowards LOVE the term "conspiracy theory"

But both the left and the right are still very timid about openly examining whether those in power in government and business are working to help us or to exploit us. By understanding that everyone - to varying degrees - has psychological resistance to such an examination, based upon the need to assume that the "big people in charge" will protect them and would never hurt them, we can begin to break through their defenses.

With the authoritarians, be prepared for passionate defense of their world-views. But for the other 75% of the population, you may break through by challenging their beliefs in benevolent parental figures and institutions. You might need to wake some people up by saying something like "Do you assume that Daddy will always protect you? Or do you think we may need to assume responsibility for helping to run things ourselves?"

But beware: you will be touching on very deep emotions, and may be met with a backlash. However, if done right, you might plant seeds for future reflection which will lead to real change.

You do understand that creator of the Authoritarian personality profile, Theodor Adorno, was a fascist?

Do also understand that as leader of the Frankfurt School he was instrumental in creating today's degenerate and dumb downed popular culture as well promoting the doctrine of political correctness?

I suggest that read Jeff Steinberg's paper entitled "The CCF: Making the Postwar World safe for a Fascist Kulturkampf".

Here is a book about the Authoritarian Personality written by Bob Altemeyer from the University of Manitoba. It's very interesting.

georgewashington2.blogspot.com...




top topics



 
11

log in

join