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.

 

How the American Economic and Political System Rewards Sociopaths

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Lee Camp is once again right on the money with his comedic political metaphors. It's the age old argument of free market competition versus socialism. But is there another choice? Do we really have to choose between these ideologies, or are there other systems that might work better? Most don't see the U.S. as a democracy, and while technically it is a democratic republic, it may be more accurate to refer to it as a plutocracy.






posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Technically speaking we are a constitutional republic where the mob can not do what ever they please.

Democracy is mob rule.

Only one thing worse than communism and socialism.

'Capitalism' by mob rule.

The FREE market is the fundamental tenet of CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

it's basically where the individual gets to tell the mob to get lost.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I keep hearing that, but it always seemed a bit twisted to me.

Mob Rule

So no it's not true democracy it's what happens to democracy when a demagogue manipulates the lower classes against their own fears for his own political gain.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Yeah well it is mob rule.

The mob wanted to pass the Patriot Act and did so.

The mob wanted to pass the ACA and did so.

That is exactly what 'democracy' is.

The theory of people knowing what they want, and they get it good and hard.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

You're failing to accept that demagogues have corrupted democracy, and choosing to instead stick to your position with a circular stance.

I'm okay with that as long as others bother to see the distinction between the two as my prior post's link makes clear.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Technically speaking we are a constitutional republic where the mob can not do what ever they please.

Democracy is mob rule.

Only one thing worse than communism and socialism.

'Capitalism' by mob rule.

The FREE market is the fundamental tenet of CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

it's basically where the individual gets to tell the mob to get lost.


I believe our founding fathers believed we should be a pure democracy, where mob rule is kept in check by a Constitution.

The constitution protects the minority from the mob, but common law remains in the hands of the mob.

A government of the people, by the people, for the people. With a Constitution to protect the people from the people.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: neo96

You're failing to accept that demagogues have corrupted democracy, and choosing to instead stick to your position with a circular stance.



Sorry but Democracy is inherently a dangerous idea. If it wasn't, there would have never been any need for a "Bill of Rights".

But what you (and so many) fail to realize is that a Bill of Rights does not really offer that much protection to individuals from the mob.

Why? Because it requires the mob to assign more value to an abstract principle than they do to achieving whatever the collective goal of the day happens to be.

For example, the right to due process can seem like an infuriating concept when the accused is so obviously guilty. That's all it takes to open that supposedly locked door. It doesn't matter how the lock gets defeated. The fact remains that once the door is open, it'll be next to impossible to try to close it again.

This is the problem. When you try to make concrete rules, you end up making exceptions. And as soon as that happens, you've got a compromise. They even call it a compromise. But the interesting thing is the angry mob with the torches and the pitchforks don't spend much time thinking about what the word "compromise" actually means. This has been made out to be a "good" word in the murk created by the desire to force people to agree about everything. Compromise might be mutual but it still means you gave up. There is no room for compromise in principles but mobs don't have principles.

So the most dangerous sociopath the average person will ever come into contact with is groupthink. Adolf Hitler didn't kill 6 million Jews by himself. He did use manipulation but here's the thing. It really didn't take that much. And that's why you always have to watch for the mob mentality. Millions of people all putting their minds and resources together can do incredible things. But that is a LOT of power. It's like anything else that has a lot of power. It can do a lot of serious damage fast. It doesn't necessarily even take intent. All it takes is coincidence, really.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Damn right it should...SOCIOPATHS will take what they want even if its yours.

The rest of you....will just have nothing.......and MOAN...preach that BS peace, love and fellowship crap!!



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 02:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Yeah well it is mob rule.

The mob wanted to pass the Patriot Act and did so.

The mob wanted to pass the ACA and did so.


And it needs to be said that I have not spoken to a single ACA supporter who feels one bit of empathy with people who don't want to be forced to buy health insurance. They can't even find any crocodile tears for people they disagree with. They also have no moral qualms with the fact that Obama lied and manipulated the country into voting for him (He said there would be no individual mandate in his bill and it was a deliberate lie). They have not one bit of capacity to care if 50 million people are trampling all over the rights of 45 million people. As long as they win by enough votes to force their will on you, that's all they care about.

If anything, they'll taunt you about it and tell you it's your problem. In the name of the almighty greater good, of course.
edit on 3-10-2015 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-10-2015 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 06:11 AM
link   
What does this have to do with 9/11??

I am guessing you posted this in the wrong forum OP.

Also really dont find that guy funny.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

All human systems become warped over time. I get that you have a jaded view on democracy, so let me ask you I'd not democracy what system would you have in its place?



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   
When in doubt, model Nature.
If you look at Nature, what kind of system does it inspire? It would be Capitalism, in it's purest form.
And it works, and has worked for a lot longer than any of our attempts at a "system".
That's because Nature shows no preference as to how Sunlight, rain, and temperature are distributed.

How would Nature work if an oak tree could "lobby" Nature for an extra hour of sunlight, or more rain? Or a cold snap to kill the Gypsy Moths? It obviously would not work. Capitalism can work, but the "economic" environment we create and maintain must be indifferent to special requests. In Nature, there is no Tree or Animal so amazing that it is immune from extinction. Or "too big to fail". Just as there were periods of mass extinction or diminished life, so there are economic downturns that only the best remain afterward. Or disruptive technologies that "move your cheese", so you'd better adapt (evolve) to maintain your ability to exist.

While there can be no "too big to fail", there can be "too big to continue".
Humanity is probably the closest thing to a "monopoly" in Nature, and we may in fact be getting to be "too big to continue".
If we destroy ourselves, it will just be Nature's housekeeping. Monopolies will rise, but collapse under their own weight & mismanagement. Maybe not as soon as we'd like, but it's inevitable and part of progress. In our currently twisted system, who can say that the monopolies we have were not nurtured by lobbied advantage?

We'll probably never see such a system, since modelling Nature seems to run counter to Human nature.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Politics is a Ponzi Scheme. It takes from one to give to another, until there is nothing left to give.

Law is supposed to be based on customary behavior, which is evolved from what works over time. Laws by decree, whether form majorities or rulers, are wishful thinking and obfuscating complications.

Society should be based on letting individuals use their abilities.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 02:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: BrianFlanders

All human systems become warped over time. I get that you have a jaded view on democracy, so let me ask you I'd not democracy what system would you have in its place?


Ahhhh...the good old blame it on your opponent because they can't fix all the crap that people have purposely broken (while telling anyone who complained about it to be quiet because they didn't have a better idea than breaking individual rights).

Anyway, like I said, it's not really the system. It's the people who inhabit it. Rights on paper are only valid as long as the majority believes in them. As soon as the majority ceases to believe they're valid, they can be violated wholesale. It's all well and good to write your rights down on a sheet of paper and claim that because they make sense to any rational human being, they exist.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. If the majority of people can find a reason (that works for them) to be irrational about it and they decide your rights don't matter anymore, they will just ignore them and there's nothing you can do about it because the majority rules the day. They don't have to be manipulated. They just have to be emotional and see things differently. Ideas are not inherently bad things but when collectivism becomes a religion, whatever is embraced by enough people will spread to the whole group. It doesn't even have to start out as a majority opinion. It only has to appear to be "the next big thing"

That's why when there's some stupid new fad you see every other person walking around making a fool out of themselves. It's really obvious if you look at pictures from the past. You'll see everyone looked like a Sasquatch in the 60s because growing a scruffy beard and hair was a thing for men to do. If you wanted to fit in, you didn't question it. You just made yourself up to look like a Neanderthal.

And I mean, that's just it. Who would actually want to look like that unless they were homeless or something? It's something that would never occur to enough people simultaneously to ever become "a thing" unless people just didn't think for themselves.

And even when it was over, time moved on but people didn't get any more sophisticated. Even now people follow the trends. Using a phone for the internet is MUCH harder than using a laptop for the internet. And using a laptop for the internet is quite a bit more inconvenient than using a desktop. And why do you need the internet while you drink coffee anyway? None of it makes logical sense. It's just stuff people do because everyone is doing it.

Fortunately, it's not entirely stupid to browse the web while you have a cup of coffee at Starbucks. It makes you look like a borg drone but it won't hurt anything. It's just the most obvious sign that people will accept absolutely anything if it's the popular thing to do.

edit on 4-10-2015 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-10-2015 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 03:08 AM
link   
a reply to: SolRozenberg



Good post. It brings out a very obvious point. Human civilization has created all of it's own problems by trying to fight nature. And not only that. By being so arrogant as to assume we can routinely defeat nature without consequences.

It's a lot like antibiotics, really. They work, but only to a certain point. And when they work, they eliminate part of the natural order of things. They allow other organisms to grow unchecked. It creates new problems.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 04:24 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

I'm sorry but how could you possibly extrapolate any of that from my post? That's just weird man. I have no clue what you're going on about, but since you seem to be building assumptions on top of assumptions and going off on tangents without bothering to answer my question I guess there's no point in trying to get a reasonable answer from you.

It's as if you're guided by analysis devoid of intuition, so come up with poorly thought out "logic" to back up your positions. If you can't adapt properly that's your own deal, but at least own this for what it is and quit projecting your own insecurities onto society. The whole technology example... very poorly thought out.
edit on 4-10-2015 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 06:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: BrianFlanders

I'm sorry but how could you possibly extrapolate any of that from my post? That's just weird man. I have no clue what you're going on about, but since you seem to be building assumptions on top of assumptions and going off on tangents without bothering to answer my question I guess there's no point in trying to get a reasonable answer from you.

It's as if you're guided by analysis devoid of intuition, so come up with poorly thought out "logic" to back up your positions. If you can't adapt properly that's your own deal, but at least own this for what it is and quit projecting your own insecurities onto society. The whole technology example... very poorly thought out.


Your question has been answered repeatedly throughout history. Checks and balances were supposed to water democracy down enough to make it tolerable for the minority. Today, that is pretty much all gone.

And here is what I spent all those words trying to explain to you. The reason the checks and balances are basically gone is because a determined majority will simply not be deterred by a piece of paper that tries to tell them they can't do certain things to the minority. They will circumvent it any way they can. If they can't find a way around it right off the bat, they'll chip away at it for as long as it takes.

Do I have a better idea? The best idea is "Shall not be infringed" having no other interpretation than what it obviously means. "DO NOT ENTER" does not mean "Unless you need my food to feed homeless people". It means "DO NOT ENTER".

So if you think you're going to need to extort money from other people to feed the kids you're thinking about having (and have no other plan on how to feed them) just don't have them. And then you won't be standing in front of a door that says "DO NOT ENTER" and trying to figure out how you're going to explain it to this guy that you're entitled to 21% of his stuff to feed your family. He's not a sociopath because he believes he owns what he has. It's his stuff.

90% of this inequality crap people are complaining about could be solved if people simply were not given free stuff when they do stupid things. Like reproducing when they can't even afford underwear. So you're poor and the guy who owns the store is rich. OK. That's a sad story. I'm sorry you're poor. Maybe we can set up a charity fund for people to voluntarily donate to.

But what do people do instead? They start a family with no plan on how to support it. And then they blame the rich guy who owns the store because their kids are starving. Now that guy has an excuse to tell the government we need to raise taxes on people who make more money. Punish them for being successful. Well, I guess now we know why the poor guy didn't want to work. He doesn't want to be punished when he works for 20 years to get a decent income going and they start taking 20% out of everything he makes to feed the poor people who keep reproducing.

Yes. I realize this is another rant but I'm tired of hearing people call people sociopaths because they look out for their own interests. Everything that lives looks out for it's own interests. Because when it comes right down to it, democracy will not take care of you if the majority doesn't want to. That's what's wrong with democracy. It's as sociopathic as anything else

edit on 4-10-2015 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 06:51 AM
link   
ADDENDUM - But I also do agree with the other guy. The rel problem is the idea that a system is going to solve every problem for everyone. It's not going to happen. When you fight nature, you're going to lose eventually.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Well your position sounds like sociopathy to me, but we can settle on heartless, and ass-backwards.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Well your position sounds like sociopathy to me



I'm sure it does. It's a lot easier to try to win an argument by claiming your opponent is mentally ill than it is to actually dispute their arguments.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join