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 conspiracy of the necessity of government

page: 3
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6


Please, tell me how communism works. I have no idea.

You;re right, you'll never get it. You're either too immersed in the propaganda or fostering it.

So which Plato's Cave Denison are you, the chained citizen, chasing shadows or a shadow maker?




posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Insults aside, thats what "provide for the common defense" in the Constitution means. To prevent the " greedy assholes" from gaining too much control.

Thats what common defense is supposed to mean, from enemies "within and without". Not the twisted government we have today that calls invading other countries (the greedy assholes) and calling that defending American Interests.

Thats the Bloated Department of Defense and the Defense Plant Realm we were warned about.

For others, check up on President Eisenhower's speech about The Military Industrial Complex.


Hmmm...? I thought the conversation was the country sans government? You can't cite the Constitution since the Constitution establishes a government.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   
What's amazing to me is this belief some people have here that humanity, in and of itself, is incapable of violence, degradation or chaos, unless the govt is causing it..

Removing structure holistically doesn't improve anything it just makes it easier for criminals, of all flavors, to be criminals.

Don't get me wrong, I think the current political structure needs to be dismantled 100% and rebuilt but this belief that doing away with the laws and structure that govt provide would somehow make everyone care about each other is naive and leaves out the reality of how brutal mankind can be.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

No point to make? Better get personal so we have the last word!

Glad to see you're consistent.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 08:44 AM
link   
ya know, I'm sorry but all these safety net programs would not be around if people and communities were inclined to help one another. Sure, people will help their own family members, churches will help their own or use their charity to draw people into their congregation. But, well, as a general rule, I don't think that gov'ts act on anything until a problem becomes so out of control that they have to.... which means that the poverty was here and the people weren't helping each other before the safety nets came into being. And, well, I've already mention the families and churches helping their own...... can you guess which other group should be helping their own?? Businesses should also be helping their own!!!! Which means that before they'd let their employees go running to the welfare office asking for help, they should be doing what they can to help... instead of hoarding the bulk of the profits for their upper management, ceo's, and shareholders!!!

So, while history shows us in countless times and places that those that have aren't inclined to help those in need, I really don't see much of a charitable mood in most of the american people of today, and I dare say that I see it more in those who have very little to begin with than those who have more than they could ever spend! Could small communities take over those safety net programs? Maybe, but I would be more willing to bet that you would have a patchwork of charitable communities, all filled with the poverty stricken, and the less charitable more wealthy people.... in other words, a communities that look more like india and china, where the people went to work everyday to produce the needs, wants, and desires of the wealthy only to have them shipped to the richer communities who had the money to buy them, and then the workers would just go home to their humble shacks to eat their daily bowl of rice...

only thing I could say about it, it would bring the manufacturing back home, by making home look like the third world nations that they are in now!

if you want me to even start taking seriously the idea that charity is enough to take care of the lower income people, you need to convince me that the business sector is willing to take care of their employees instead of leaning on the federal safety net to feed, house, cloth, and take care of them when they are too sick to work! not to mention relying on those programs to provide the funds so their customers can buy their products! Because right now, there's a few industries that would go out of business rather quickly without those programs, healthcare being a big one!



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I have a few questions regarding your vision of a governmentless utopia.

If one state puts dams on it's rivers robbing downstream states of their water supply, who would those waterless state's appeal to?

If one state dumps industrial pollutants like coal ash or frack fluids in their rivers, who do the downstream states look to for justice?

If a criminal leaves the jurisdiction of the state where he/she committed the crime, who has the authority to apprehend them?

If a foreign nation threatens or attacks us, who defends us?

Where would border states get the necessary funding to secure the border and without govt. funding, what would happen if they just decided to open their border?

Who would patrol our coastal borders and/or perform at sea search & rescue missions for distressed ships and boaters?

Who would be responsible for inspecting and maintaining our interstate highway system including bridges and tunnels?

Who would be responsible for funding and operating our space programs?

Who would be responsible for dredging and maintaining our nation's seaports?

Who would be responsible for inspecting imported cargo for hidden nuclear and/or biological terrorist devices, pirated merchandise or illegal immigrants at our nation's seaports and airports?

I could go on & on but I get the feeling that none of that stuff is important to you or the rest of the anti-government crowd, so what's the use?
edit on 4-11-2015 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Hmm im not so sure. With a tens of millions now putting food on the table via government handouts only, where do those people go to eat when the food stamps dry up? To the grocery store and the neighbor's house with a gun or a knife. People would panic.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

a reply to: Urantia1111

Have we gone past the point where we couldn't rely on government now? Have we become so dependent on government that we can no longer govern ourselves?

If that is the case, then is the freedom we enjoy simply an illusion provided by government?



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus




Local communities can function just fine without the Fed's. In fact, lives would be saved if the Federal Government was completely eliminated. No local community is going to send their kids around the world to shoot at people in some desert in the Middle East. Only a corrupt and bloated Federal entity does stupid crap like that.


Holy crap one post you make I actually agree with! Star for you sir!



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   
... and some are worried about illegal immigrants now ...

Hoo boy!



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DBCowboy

Retracting government overreach isn't the same as eliminating government. I'd say that the reason the government is so bloated is because there are people tugging from all corners of the country looking for the things that make them happy. Conservatives, liberals, and independents all alike are guilty of this. Everyone has a specific idea of what government should be and they all petition to shape it in that image.



"Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter — by peaceful or revolutionary means — into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.

Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws! Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.

It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution — some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding."

-Frédéric Bastiat



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

when was the time that people weren't depending on a gov't of some sort?
can you name me one instance where a group of people didn't have a governing body over them? even in tribal cultures, they had a chief over them or tribal council of some sort.....
there's always been someone, or a group of someones there to come up with the laws that the group has to live by, and enforcement of those rules. you can't have everybody playing by their own rules, heck, watch little children play a board game when they don't understand the rules just how quickly it deteriorates into arguing and bickering.
I think most of us would agree that we need some changes made in our present gov't, changes which well, we should have the power to change within it's own framework....in other words we can vote for people who would work to change it the way we want..... if only there was someone like that!

And to be honest with ya, it's our local governments that affect our lives the most, and also it's where those big fishies in the federal gov't get their beginnings. I've noticed that in these local elections, those running seem to more and more listing themselves as independents than as republicans or democrats..... hopefully that is a good sign...
but, well, they are still governments, aren't they? if you done away with the federal gov't and laid it all on these local gov'ts well, my bet would be that all those big fishies would stay at the local level, along with the corruption that is so prevalent on the federal level.... it might make it more difficult for the lobbyists and such, but they would still be doing their jobs, buying the representatives....only now, they'd have even more power to screw with your lives, since we are talking about the local gov'ts who the constitution have given the bulk of the power to!

the best way to keep gov'ts out of areas you think they shouldn't be in is to remove the need for them to be in those areas.... I mean, if we were all law abiding citizens, we would probably be making due with just a country sharriff and deputies who spent most of their days in the office not harassing anyone...
and if businesses were paying their employees a decent wage and doing their part in keeping the cost of living down, and the people were truly as charitable as you seem to want to make them out to be.... we wouldn't need the gov't sponsored safety net, would we?
the epa would never have been formed if the businesses hadn't been so careless and profit driven as to dump their toxins where ever it was most convenient would it?
so much of what our gov't has become is the clearest sign of all that no, we cannot govern ourselves obviously!



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   


Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

Groucho Marx



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Flatfish

a reply to: Urantia1111

Have we gone past the point where we couldn't rely on government now? Have we become so dependent on government that we can no longer govern ourselves?

If that is the case, then is the freedom we enjoy simply an illusion provided by government?



We've always needed government and recognition of that fact is what guided our founding fathers to create it, so I guess the answer to your question would be; Yes.

Government is not a bad word or thing.

On the other hand, corruption and/or corrupted individuals are.

All I'm saying is don't throw out the baby along with the bath water.

Our goal should be to eliminate the corrupted within our government and remove the ability of special interest to corrupt their replacements.

I think most people realize the need for government and I don't think they want it eliminated. I'm not even convinced that a majority want "smaller" government.

I think most people realize that as the population grows, so shall the government. I mean how else could it meet the needs of a growing population.

I truly believe that what most people want is "better" government. They want a government that is responsive to the needs and will of the people over that of special interest, profit margins and campaign donations.

That's why the word "people" and/or "person(s)" appears 49 times in our constitution and the words "corporation," "company" and/or "shareholder" don't appear at all.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Shamrock6

Then, if we are talking about a 1st world country with established infrastructure that NEEDS to be maintained by the government that tons of people rely on suddenly stopping, things will get messy. Look at the inner cities NOW, WITH government, will that magically improve without government? Cities would devolve into warzones.



What about slowly Phased out instead and back down to state level governance for everything except for what the fed was designed for. defense alone and just passing laws. thats it. It was to be all ran by the states till lincoln wa s bought out.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

How does slowly phased out work? Who picks up the slack as you taper off the government assistance? Are you going to say charities like the OP? Like that is magically capable of covering the all these things.

Let's look at like this. If we taper off government assistance or just turn the tap off altogether, it is going to leave people with terrible paying jobs without the means of support. These companies that pay the terrible wages aren't going to magically change their ways and pay them more. So what's going to happen is that these people will turn around and revolt. Things will get messy really quick. And to top if off, IF there are still government services left (say at the state level), it will side with the businesses instead of the people revolting because they don't have a decent wage to live with.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

one of the reasons we moved out of NY and out of the snow was because well, we lived in a county that really didn't have that many job opportunities for my husband, and he was traveling through other counties to get to his job... strange thing happens on county roads early in the morning in snow country.... you can be going along just fine and hit that country line and suddenly find yourself faced with a 5 ft or higher snow bank blocking your path! where as if you are one a state road, well, more than likely you will find a clear path through the counties. and, I imagine that there is a better chance of finding the clear path on the federal highways than you would on the state highways passing from one state to another. and well, more than likely, it took the federal gov't to build our interstate highway system, since well, if left to the states to coordinate it, we would probably have had many more miles to travel to link up the major state highways.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


I thought the conversation was the country sans government? You can't cite the Constitution since the Constitution establishes a government.

Limited Government is my position. as ordained to provide for the common defense from "greedy assholes" and to fund that limited capacity with the tariffs from trade. Except and only during war when a ten percent tax is collected.

Common defense to defend the commoner (the people) and not "American Interests" (corporate greed) abroad.

To defend the continental US, not invade other countries.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66



Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

Groucho Marx

Gotta love Groucho, the George Carlin of his day. Same with Charlie Chaplin.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Well this topic was started to talk about no government, not libertarianism. If you wanted to change the topic of conversation, you should have mentioned that instead of making it appear like you are moving the goal posts all of a sudden.


edit on 4-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join