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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

When Trump Loses

page: 19
61
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001


Is direct democracy not a form of government? Primitive communism? What about a system like you find in liberal democracies when the chosen "authorities" can be removed by impeachment or votes of confidence?


If someone can, with impunity, coerce you to obey, then you are being governed





posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001


Have you read Plato? Aristotle? Machiavelli? Hobbes? Rousseau? Mill? Adam Smith? Marx?


Yes.

I've been studying political science for 10 years. I am not the one who accused someone of being unresearched.



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
[post]a reply to: LordSatan


I've been studying political science for 10 years. I am not the one who accused someone of being unresearched.


You just implicitly did. Now, as fascinated as I am by 19th century Russian political philosophy, perhaps we can return to the actual topic of this thread: what do you think a Trump loss would mean?



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001


You just implicitly did.


Touché


Now, as fascinated as I am by 19th century Russian political philosophy, perhaps we can return to the actual topic of this thread: what do you think a Trump loss would mean?


That one side of the political spectrum was successful in placing their demagogue into a position of authority over countless human lives who never asked for it.

And the wrestling match between voters carries on...
edit on 20-9-2016 by LordSatan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   
If either Trump or Hillary loses I believe the arguing will continue just as aggressive as it is now. TV Media will enjoy encouraging it since it will keep their ratings up. People are just so divided on these 2 candidates, I can't see social media being unclogged after the election. In fact I think social media will be so full of the election talk it will be serve to be anything but social. More like combat media. You'll also see ATS light up with far too many election threads even after the election.

Election fatigue is setting in, am I right?
edit on 20-9-2016 by thepixelpusher because: typo



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: LordSatan

Fix your list, I've read works by most of them. You are ignorant though, so you project. You have an unrealistic view of how the world should work.

I govern myself and my property in the state you describe. If another breaks a rule concerning myself or my property they will face punishment in some form or another. They are compelled to follow my personal rules.

There is no such thing as true working anarchy, and there never will be.
edit on 20-9-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: LordSatan

You are unresearched...it's an observation not an accusation. You don't even understand what a government is and what capacities it can exist in.



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   
What most people forget is that In the days of the Founding Fathers, the "tyrannical Government" were the BRITISH, NOT the American Government.

The Founding Fathers wanted farmers to be able to rise up against the British in militia groups if they ever came back, the 2nd Amendment was written for this purpose, was never supposed to be against the Government of the United States.

I actually tend to believe a statement Donald Trump made a few months back - that if he loses you'll probably never hear from him again. I doubt there will be any sort of concession speech, he won't phone Hillary Clinton and congratulate her as is traditional, won't go on talk shows to disect the loss, and definitely won't do any press conferences. He'll just disappear into Trump Tower until his next con against the American public.



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: LordSatan

Fix your list, I've read works by most of them. You are ignorant though, so you project. You have an unrealistic view of how the world should work.

I govern myself and my property in the state you describe. If another breaks a rule concerning myself or my property they will face punishment in some form or another. They are compelled to follow my personal rules.

There is no such thing as true working anarchy, and there never will be.



You are correct. Even in an Anarchy, there is someone in charge, meaning that the very definition of Anarchy is completely unworkable.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko


Fix your list, I've read works by most of them. You are ignorant though, so you project.


Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, if I have been studying political science for 10 years, that would be the opposite of ignorance.

You have been attacking me instead of any of my arguments since I've posted in this thread. I am not projecting anything, you told me that I am "unresearched," I am not "unresearched."


You have an unrealistic view of how the world should work.




So the concentration of authority into the hands of a few, giving them the ability to behave abusively with impunity--and allowing them to extract obedience coercively--is the only form of human organization that is possible??


I govern myself and my property in the state you describe. If another breaks a rule concerning myself or my property they will face punishment in some form or another. They are compelled to follow my personal rules.


You can't govern an object. Ownership of a resource is not the same thing as holding authority over another human being.

Ownership is having the absolute sole right to make the rules regarding the use of a resource. The rules derived from the ownership of a resource are indirect in their application to other humans. This is in contrast to rules (law) set forth by government, which are direct in their application over those humans whom a ruler rules over.

In essence, defense of ones property is not equal to holding rulership over some number of other human beings.

Anarchy as a political philosophy is not "lack of reactions from other humans," it is "lack of some humans acting as rulers over other humans."

Anarchy is equal to NO RULERS

Anarchy is a circle; government is a triangle.

You are not a ruler, you hold authority over your property, not other human beings. IF you have ever actually read any of the books that I posted, you would already know this.



There is no such thing as true working anarchy, and there never will be.


So the only form of human organization that is possible, is that of some human beings ruling over other human beings?



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko


You are unresearched...it's an observation not an accusation. You don't even understand what a government is and what capacities it can exist in.


I understand what a government is extremely well, actually, and I do not appreciate you telling me that I do not.

You are more than welcome to enlighten me as to what a government is, as opposed to simply attacking my character.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: LordSatan

What character attacks have been perpetrated? Do you understand what a character attack is?



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: LordSatan

I know exactly what you mean, which is why I know you are lacking in knowledge of what can constitute a government. I disagree heavily with the authors you listed who I've read just as I disagree heavily with you.

In the state you describe someone else could make a claim to my property. How is this resolved? The answers from your authors are unrealistic. Physical confrontation is required if no rule of law or enforcement of that rule is available.

Anarchy cannot exist with the human condition. Those who are strong and wicked would exploit those who are weak and mild.

The rule of law, and government, should be to protect the individual right to life and liberty. You cannot live in the fairytale you have created in your mind.

Edit: Again, defense of ones property is exactly ruling over someone. You've told them that this is YOUR kingdom and when on it they must abide by YOUR rules.

You, as well as the authors you espouse, do not see the gaping holes in the logic of anarchy as it excludes the human condition.

Where do the depraved fall in your perfect world? Who holds them at bay? Each individual? That government by the people.

You said anarchy is no rulers which means, like the authors you love, you believe in utopian anarchy. You can't have a perfect thing in an imperfect place. It will get ruined.
edit on 21-9-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: LordSatan

What character attacks have been perpetrated? Do you understand what a character attack is?



You have a very skewed, unresearched view.



You are ignorant though, so you project.



You are unresearched...it's an observation not an accusation. You don't even understand what a government is and what capacities it can exist in.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: WilburnRoach
Republicans are typically less (hard to find a nice way to put it) umm...worldly, less expansive?...less open-minded to alternative possibilities.. Ok they are more thick-skulled.

People hang out with like minded people and only hear or listen to like-minded beliefs. The fact that there are "blue" and "red" states supports this. A republican in Tennessee would think it impossible to understand that Obamacare is a great movement bc they are more likely to be surrounded by others who think it's horrible. Out of site out of mind is thier mentality.

With that said, it is hard for a republican to admit they are wrong...everyone they know is just like them. That means all people in America are just like them, they cannot comprehend that America is made up of many different types of people, religions, thoughts, & beliefs. Bc they think all Americans are just like themselves and thier friends and cohorts (which is a much smaller percentage than what they think) then the system is rigged.

It is very rare to find a republican admit they or thier party is wrong...hence the rediculous candidate they gave us for president.

edit on 21-9-2016 by veracity because: Edits



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko


I know exactly what you mean, which is why I know you are lacking in knowledge of what can constitute a government. I disagree heavily with the authors you listed who I've read just as I disagree heavily with you.


So it is an issue of semantics, and not an issue of "this can't work"? Or is it both?


In the state you describe someone else could make a claim to my property. How is this resolved?


An objective third party who can look over the details of the dispute and help to make a decision, whose declarations carry no executive weight.

People have incentive to solve problems. It's called private arbitration.


The answers from your authors are unrealistic. Physical confrontation is required if no rule of law or enforcement of that rule is available.


Disputes are settled peacefully without laws or violence all the time.


Anarchy cannot exist with the human condition.


There is no "human condition."

When you say anarchy, do you mean a lack of triangles? So humans can only organize themselves according to triangles?


Those who are strong and wicked would exploit those who are weak and mild.


We already have that. That's what government does.


The rule of law, and government, should be to protect the individual right to life and liberty.


Scaling the government back to what it was in 1775 would be a wonderful idea, if not for the fact that in another 200 years, we'd be right back in the position we are in. It is the nature of government to expand it's powers. It is the nature of centralized authority to attract clinical sociopaths.


Again, defense of ones property is exactly ruling over someone. You've told them that this is YOUR kingdom and when on it they must abide by YOUR rules.


That is incorrect. Defense of one's property is not rulership over other humans. Defense is not a form of rulership.

Again, the rules you set over your property are indirect in their application to other humans.

I have a toothbrush. I am not your ruler simply because I wouldn't let you use my toothbrush. You usurping my right to make that decision regarding the use of my toothbrush, would be you attempting to take upon yourself the same authority as that of a government figure.

If I am eating a cheeseburger, and someone demands that I give it to them--and I tell them no and defend myself if they attack me--I am not acting as their ruler, I am behaving in a manner that suggests said person has no authority over either my cheeseburger or myself. Which implies that the person demanding my cheeseburger is attempting to act as a ruler over me.

You are confusing claiming authority over a resource with claiming authority over other humans. Claiming the authority over a resource, and defending said resource, is not the same thing as claiming the authority to tax all humans living in area X.

By your logic, if I defend myself from the IRS for attempting to take my money, then I am their ruler.



Where do the depraved fall in your perfect world? Who holds them at bay? Each individual?


Your security is your responsibility. Personally, I use the Peacekeeper app, but that is only one solution. Find one. Government doesn't protect us from "deplorable" people. The nature of law and enforcement is such that, a crime has to actually take place before law enforcement can act. So, you've already been murdered, now the Cops can do something.

This also doesn't take into account, the fact that centralized authority (government), acts like a magnet for clinical sociopaths.


You said anarchy is no rulers which means, like the authors you love, you believe in utopian anarchy. You can't have a perfect thing in an imperfect place. It will get ruined.


Abolishing centralized authority isn't a utopian ideal. Arranging human organization into a model resembling a circle as opposed to a triangle is very possible.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: LordSatan

None of those are character attacks. Ignorance is not stupidity. Ignorance can be rectified.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: LordSatan

None of those are character attacks. Ignorance is not stupidity. Ignorance can be rectified.


When did I say that ignorance is stupidity? I said that ignorance is a lack of knowledge, i.e., if I don't know anything about quantum mechanics, then I am ignorant of quantum mechanics.

Stupidity is lack of intelligence.

Calling someone ignorant is an attack on someone's character. It is a red herring.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Even if Hillary wins if she allows unrestrained refugee intake, it will in all likelihood only prove Trump right, and americans may regret allowing countless radical islamist in. It would be miracle if nothing happened.

The pc crowd will likely face the gropings and rapes of europe, perhaps then they wont be in denial of reality.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Regards ownership you cant truly own information, ideas, without Intellectual Property anything yours can be imitated, duplicated, replicated, copied... even your memories, personality your very self, from looks down to the most intimate detail.



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join