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 Statist Quo

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2017 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Nice summation of our current malaise. We have become so used to powerlessness that when given the chance to exercise it we continue as spectators, which is also the result of our digital interfacing with the outside world. See, but don't touch. We are disconnected as members of society and increasingly suffering from fractured personalities (some might call this progressivism). The state is given all our power and hopes and their failures become ours.




posted on Dec, 20 2017 @ 02:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobmurdoch
A lot of libbies whining is what it sounds like, if you hate America or Trump you need to leave my country


Or it's people using their democratic right to protest and free speech. Why do you have freedom so much ?????



posted on Dec, 20 2017 @ 05:14 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Excellent post nice to see something well thought out with many examples,but your right society today has been conditioned to the work ethic of"have someone else do it" my time is way too valuable,kids whine and cry because they have to have an 800 phone,new car all the new tech gadgets,when I was a kid and asked for something my parents would say"cool get a job and pay for it yourself if you want it so bad",in the old days most kids knew where they stood parents didn't owe you nothing but a lesson in life if that if you work hard and learn along the way you will always have a roof over your head,which kids don't realize was usually 1st thing you did as you became an adult,if I was about 20 and lived with my parents you would be teased,girls could get away with it,but your right society has been conditioned to focus on ones self centered thoughts,why don't they use common sense if animal in the wild decides he is going to not hunt and wait till someone brought him dinner ,wonder how long he would last?



posted on Dec, 20 2017 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Liberty dies to thunderous applause! Modern day americans are so conditioned to submit to authority, and so easily conditioned into various fantasies as truth, that the state is their friend, they think.



posted on Dec, 20 2017 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot




Could you direct me towards the statist party? Or politicians who describe themselves as statist? It maybe even a member of this site who calls themselves statist?

In fact where outside mises.org and other extreme libertarian sites does it even get used?

It's a snarl term used against any non absolute libertarian view.


I think the place I heard it was Ayn Rand.

Do you have a better word for someone who who advocates and believes that the state should have substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs? It sounds pretty accurate to me.

"Snarl word". You guys say that a lot, as if you all read the same rationalwiki page.


Ayn Rand, that would explain a lot.

How about actually trying to deal with the reality of what people actually want and believe rather than trying to paint everyone as in thrall to the government.

The example in your OP had nothing to do with statism, yet try and use a tragic situation paint all forms of regulation as evil or counter productive.

Out of interest how would Rand have advocated people dealing that situation. Should people have been negotiating for the contract to rescue him? Assuming he had the funds to pay otherwise society would be better of letting him drown.

Your last comment is quite funny coming from you, maybe you could say sophist for old times sake or have you moved on?


The sophist at least knew when he was deceiving others. I suspect you have no clue.

Statism was also found in Bakunin if he is more to your liking. Either way, protesting against the words isn’t going to help you. It means what it means.

We know what happened. The people watched as he drowned. The police didn’t help him citing health and safety. The public didn’t help him for the same reasons.



posted on Dec, 20 2017 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot




Could you direct me towards the statist party? Or politicians who describe themselves as statist? It maybe even a member of this site who calls themselves statist?

In fact where outside mises.org and other extreme libertarian sites does it even get used?

It's a snarl term used against any non absolute libertarian view.


I think the place I heard it was Ayn Rand.

Do you have a better word for someone who who advocates and believes that the state should have substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs? It sounds pretty accurate to me.

"Snarl word". You guys say that a lot, as if you all read the same rationalwiki page.


Ayn Rand, that would explain a lot.

How about actually trying to deal with the reality of what people actually want and believe rather than trying to paint everyone as in thrall to the government.

The example in your OP had nothing to do with statism, yet try and use a tragic situation paint all forms of regulation as evil or counter productive.

Out of interest how would Rand have advocated people dealing that situation. Should people have been negotiating for the contract to rescue him? Assuming he had the funds to pay otherwise society would be better of letting him drown.

Your last comment is quite funny coming from you, maybe you could say sophist for old times sake or have you moved on?


The sophist at least knew when he was deceiving others. I suspect you have no clue.

Statism was also found in Bakunin if he is more to your liking. Either way, protesting against the words isn’t going to help you. It means what it means.

We know what happened. The people watched as he drowned. The police didn’t help him citing health and safety. The public didn’t help him for the same reasons.



Only the police did try and help him. They threw him ropes which he refused to take.

After he went under the water a police officer did go in who then needed rescued himself.

If less caution about the risk had been shown more lives might have been lost.

You seem somewhat confused about what happened. Perhaps you are imaging crystal clear water with a swimming pool like surface.

How do you imagine a non statist scenario would have planned out? Would the drugs he took have been banned (not very libertarian)? Would he have got better mental healthcare (extremely unlikely)? Would police in your state free utopia even have responded to a non criminal act of someone getting into the water of their own volition? Do enlighten us on how this tragedy would have been prevented?




edit on 20-12-2017 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: VictorVonDoom




I may have to change my preconceived notions about British men. I would have bet that at least 3 in 10 would have taken his shoes off and said, "Arrest me when I get out of the water, ya wanker."

Only with better vocabulary and a British accent.

I guess there were no rugby players in the crowd.


There was such a thing as a British man. I'm not so certain about that anymore.


I wouldn't go that far. I personally know a few Brits that would have beat me to the water, but only because they are in better shape than I am.



posted on Dec, 20 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot




Only the police did try and help him. They threw him ropes which he refused to take.

After he went under the water a police officer did go in who then needed rescued himself.

If less caution about the risk had been shown more lives might have been lost.

You seem somewhat confused about what happened. Perhaps you are imaging crystal clear water with a swimming pool like surface.

How do you imagine a non statist scenario would have planned out? Would the drugs he took have been banned (not very libertarian)? Would he have got better mental healthcare (extremely unlikely)? Would police in your state free utopia even have responded to a non criminal act of someone getting into the water of their own volition? Do enlighten us on how this tragedy would have been prevented?


The analogy was to illustrate the diminishing of human capital in a statist society, not an argument against regulation. I barely mentioned regulation in the OP. The point is, a people who for so long rely on the state for morality, guidance and leadership, will become enfeebled.

I compared these people to the Eloi in HG Wells' the Time Traveller, written in the late 19th century. When the time traveller travels into the distant future, he has to rescue an Eloi woman who was drowning in shallow water because her companions were too aloof, too apathetic, too comfortable in their self-satisfaction, to even notice her drowning. The Eloi had solved all their problems, and thus no longer had any use for strength, courage, intelligence, and so on.

No one jumped in to save the struggling man as he drowned. They only found their balls long after he had taken his last breath. That's the fact of the matter.



posted on Dec, 20 2017 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot




Only the police did try and help him. They threw him ropes which he refused to take.

After he went under the water a police officer did go in who then needed rescued himself.

If less caution about the risk had been shown more lives might have been lost.

You seem somewhat confused about what happened. Perhaps you are imaging crystal clear water with a swimming pool like surface.

How do you imagine a non statist scenario would have planned out? Would the drugs he took have been banned (not very libertarian)? Would he have got better mental healthcare (extremely unlikely)? Would police in your state free utopia even have responded to a non criminal act of someone getting into the water of their own volition? Do enlighten us on how this tragedy would have been prevented?


The analogy was to illustrate the diminishing of human capital in a statist society, not an argument against regulation. I barely mentioned regulation in the OP. The point is, a people who for so long rely on the state for morality, guidance and leadership, will become enfeebled.

I compared these people to the Eloi in HG Wells' the Time Traveller, written in the late 19th century. When the time traveller travels into the distant future, he has to rescue an Eloi woman who was drowning in shallow water because her companions were too aloof, too apathetic, too comfortable in their self-satisfaction, to even notice her drowning. The Eloi had solved all their problems, and thus no longer had any use for strength, courage, intelligence, and so on.

No one jumped in to save the struggling man as he drowned. They only found their balls long after he had taken his last breath. That's the fact of the matter.


You haven't offered any evidence that people didn't jump into because of 'Statuism' it's just unfounded and frankly bad taste use of a tragedy to make a poor political point.

As it happens as when someone did go in in they needed rescued themselves. Individuals are very very bad at assessing risk. If the police did stop people jumping in then they clearly did the right thing.
edit on 20-12-2017 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot




You haven't offered any evidence that people didn't jump into because of 'Statuism' it's just unfounded and frankly bad taste use of a tragedy to make a poor political point.

As it happens as when someone did go in in they needed rescued themselves. Individuals are very very bad at assessing risk. If the police did stop people jumping in then they clearly did the right thing.


I didn't say the didn't jump in because of statism. I said that "having delegated their duties as citizens and community members to the state, there was nothing, not even gasps of a drowning man, that would compel them into action". This is true by their own admission. So you're quibble is not only a straw man, but it's poor taste in trying to make an emotional appeal out of it.

As it happens, he jumped in after the boy had died. No one jumped in while the boy was struggling. Jumping in after someone has died of drowning is not even the wrong thing to do, but the stupidest thing to do.



posted on Dec, 20 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot




You haven't offered any evidence that people didn't jump into because of 'Statuism' it's just unfounded and frankly bad taste use of a tragedy to make a poor political point.

As it happens as when someone did go in in they needed rescued themselves. Individuals are very very bad at assessing risk. If the police did stop people jumping in then they clearly did the right thing.


I didn't say the didn't jump in because of statism. I said that "having delegated their duties as citizens and community members to the state, there was nothing, not even gasps of a drowning man, that would compel them into action". This is true by their own admission. So you're quibble is not only a straw man, but it's poor taste in trying to make an emotional appeal out of it.

As it happens, he jumped in after the boy had died. No one jumped in while the boy was struggling. Jumping in after someone has died of drowning is not even the wrong thing to do, but the stupidest thing to do.


'Gasps of a drowning man' a tad poetic licence that doesn't seem to reflect the reality of the situation.

You powers of twenty twenty hindsight are amazing. A pity there weren't some Galtian superman on hand to jump in and save him.

Only as already pointed out not going in without proper equipment and support was the correct thing to do.



posted on Dec, 20 2017 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot




You haven't offered any evidence that people didn't jump into because of 'Statuism' it's just unfounded and frankly bad taste use of a tragedy to make a poor political point.

As it happens as when someone did go in in they needed rescued themselves. Individuals are very very bad at assessing risk. If the police did stop people jumping in then they clearly did the right thing.


I didn't say the didn't jump in because of statism. I said that "having delegated their duties as citizens and community members to the state, there was nothing, not even gasps of a drowning man, that would compel them into action". This is true by their own admission. So you're quibble is not only a straw man, but it's poor taste in trying to make an emotional appeal out of it.

As it happens, he jumped in after the boy had died. No one jumped in while the boy was struggling. Jumping in after someone has died of drowning is not even the wrong thing to do, but the stupidest thing to do.


'Gasps of a drowning man' a tad poetic licence that doesn't seem to reflect the reality of the situation.

You powers of twenty twenty hindsight are amazing. A pity there weren't some Galtian superman on hand to jump in and save him.

Only as already pointed out not going in without proper equipment and support was the correct thing to do.


Poetic licence? I read all I could on the subject. What's your excuse besides, you know it already, sophistry?


Fiona Okonkwo, 42, was walking her dog near the canal when the bleeding and “terrified” teenager ran past her pursued by up to nine police officers shouting for him to stop, before he jumped into the canal.

She told the Standard: “It looked like he couldn’t swim, he was bobbing up and down gasping for air for about 10 minutes. He was kicking his legs but was coughing and spluttering. He was gurgling as if he couldn’t get his words out.


Like I said, a man of the 19th century would have sufficed. Here's the Eloi in action.



I'd ask what you would do in that situation, but I think I already know the answer.
edit on 20-12-2017 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2017 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Rand and Wells, do you base all your world view on works of fiction?

Again what do you think should have been done different? The first rescuer to go into the water needed rescued themselves.



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot




Rand and Wells, do you base all your world view on works of fiction?

Again what do you think should have been done different? The first rescuer to go into the water needed rescued themselves.


Again, it was an analogy.

Jump in and save him. That's what the officers and public should have done differently.



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot




Rand and Wells, do you base all your world view on works of fiction?

Again what do you think should have been done different? The first rescuer to go into the water needed rescued themselves.


Again, it was an analogy.

Jump in and save him. That's what the officers and public should have done differently.


The officer who jumped needed rescued by a boat. How many people do you want to see drowned?



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot




Rand and Wells, do you base all your world view on works of fiction?

Again what do you think should have been done different? The first rescuer to go into the water needed rescued themselves.


Again, it was an analogy.

Jump in and save him. That's what the officers and public should have done differently.


The officer who jumped needed rescued by a boat. How many people do you want to see drowned?


A lot less than you’d like to see apparently.



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot




Rand and Wells, do you base all your world view on works of fiction?

Again what do you think should have been done different? The first rescuer to go into the water needed rescued themselves.


Again, it was an analogy.

Jump in and save him. That's what the officers and public should have done differently.


The officer who jumped needed rescued by a boat. How many people do you want to see drowned?


A lot less than you’d like to see apparently.


Which bit of the officer needed rescued is giving you difficulty?

Passerby's jumping in would have just meant more people needing rescued and potentially more lives lost.



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot




Which bit of the officer needed rescued is giving you difficulty?

Passerby's jumping in would have just meant more people needing rescued and potentially more lives lost.


Which bit of a young man drowning while people watched are you having difficulty with?

Tell yourself what you need to help yourself sleep at night. But your little hypotheticals mean little in the face of the reality.



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot




Which bit of the officer needed rescued is giving you difficulty?

Passerby's jumping in would have just meant more people needing rescued and potentially more lives lost.


Which bit of a young man drowning while people watched are you having difficulty with?

Tell yourself what you need to help yourself sleep at night. But your little hypotheticals mean little in the face of the reality.


Again you misrepresent (lie?) about what actually happened. The police did try and help him.

Not a hypothetical, we know exactly what happened when people without the proper equipment got in the water. One died and one needed rescued by a boat. Do you think more passersby going in would have improved those figures?



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot




Again you misrepresent (lie?) about what actually happened. The police did try and help him.

Not a hypothetical, we know exactly what happened when people without the proper equipment got in the water. One died and one needed rescued by a boat. Do you think more passersby going in would have improved those figures?


I haven't misrepresented anything. First you accuse me of poetic licence (a lie), and then misrepresent my argument.

It is a hypothetical. We do know what happened when a man went into the water: people helped him out. They would have done the exact same had he a teenager in his arms. Or, having taking your advice, they would have done nothing and let two men drown because it wasn't safe.




top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join