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.

 

I Once Dreamed of Liberty (Op/Ed)

page: 10
22
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover

While I agree with your last sentence Muaddib, the rest of it doesn't make sense. "The type of society that every person would want, would be a separate island from every other person"??? Is that what you want?
..............


Did i say this is what I want?...

I think i was clearly conveying that " an utopia is an impossibility" because people ahve different opinions an ideas about what "an utopia is". Which is the reason why I said that and ideal society for every individual wopuld be an individual utopia.

Some people would like to live in a society where all illegal drugs are legal, others would like for one religion to exist, others want no religion at all, etc, etc.

Hence i do not think about what "I want in a society", i think about what is necessary to make sure as many people are represented in that society. This is a more down to Earth approach since the world is full of people with different opinions, different ideals and different morals.

In such societies, there will always be people who will think they are not being represented. There will always be people who are not happy with such a societies.

[edit on 21-5-2006 by Muaddib]




posted on May, 21 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer70
grover one of the last things I would want would be to live in your ideal society. What you described, to me, is a Nanny state and I abhor the idea.


No not the nanny state...community, one we all thrive in.



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Muaddib,

It is nice that you recognize that other people have opinions--especially about politics. But it sounds to me that your version of what is "down to earth" is quite dystopian. After all, you support people not helping each other.

I agree that people need to work hard to achieve what they want out of life. But when you solely think of yourself, you tend to forget the bigger issues--like what freedom means for all, instead of a select few.



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
..........
After all, you support people not helping each other.
..........


What in the world are you talking about now?.....


Why is it that you want to keep twisting what people say?...



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Just like you said: the "Nanny state". You don't want people to be in a true community in which people aid one another.

You would rather have people live in their little gated communities closed off from the "rabble" of the world.

[edit on 21-5-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
Just like you said: the "Nanny state". You don't want people to be in a true community in which people aid one another.

You would rather have people live in their little gated communities closed off from the "rabble" of the world.

[edit on 21-5-2006 by ceci2006]


I guess the pretty little world of "One world community" (music please) is great for Alice, or even somewhere over a rainbow. The real world however dictates more independence and self reliance. That is what this country was founded on and if we don't get back to it, we are going to soon be to weak to face any challenge.

Strength is what this country has had, strength to stand up to the Hun and to Hitler. The power to withstand the onslaught of and ultimate defeat of Communism.

All of this "Community Help" smacks of is socialism and that is a failed experiment. We have programs in place to help those that can not help themselves and we all know that gets abused to an extreme.

Liberty? That is going to be different for each one of us, but the truth of liberty is the strength to hold on to it once you have attained it.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 06:06 AM
link   
And that, semper, is the hardest part of all. It's not only a matter of keeping it level, but it's also about making sure that no one comes along and ruins it for anyone else. Too bad people don't pay anymore attention to the idea that I posted several times about a Pure Democracy.

TheBorg



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 06:13 AM
link   
One large community is a quick failure. We have the technology to communicate, so why do we all bunch up in a huge city where its easy for so many people to be forgotten and discarded? If one community can communicate with the rest, why do we need to have so many in one community?



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 06:17 AM
link   
Because we haven't learned how to teleport yet. As soon as that becomes a reality, THEN we'll start moving further away. We like the closeness and the security that it brings. Sometimes though, there is such a thing as too close. And I think we're on the border of crossing that now. As soon as we do, we'll all scatter. Just wait. It'll happen one day.

TheBorg



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
Just like you said: the "Nanny state". You don't want people to be in a true community in which people aid one another.

You would rather have people live in their little gated communities closed off from the "rabble" of the world.



Where in the world did i say anything about a "nanny state"?....

You are confusing me with somebody else...

[edit on 22-5-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Sorry about that, Muaddib. I realized it was grover who said that.

But the question is the same. Do you want a world in which people do not help each other out? Do you want a society in which people spy on each other and rat their neighbors out to the police in the name of "national security"?



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   
ceci,

There has to be a middle ground. Nothing is an absolute in the world we live in. We have to learn to be self sufficient and live together. As long as some people know that no matter how much they lay around on their butts the government will send them a check, they will continue to lay around. If they suddenly realize they wont eat if they do not work, well then they will get up and get a job.

We have got to stop coddling to those that want nothing more than to survive on the government. Our nation was founded on independence not dependence.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
I agree. People who have the ability to work have an obligation to do so. However, what about those who are not able-bodied? What about those who suffer from mental health problems? What about the problems regarding on the work harassment?

These are issues that also have to do with democratic ideals and the pursuit of "life, liberty and happiness".

There are segments of the population that cannot fend for themselves. And there are groups of people who are effectively shut out of the system due to social bias or because they belong to a group that is much "despised" by mainstream society.

Are Americans--when employing their biases--really fair to the democratic ideals put forth by our Founding Fathers?



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   
OK, granted I agree with most of that. That is why there has to be middle ground.

I think you will find though that most of every social program and equal rights amendments have been presented and passed by republicans.

I think the catch 22 is who determines who is able and what extent do we allow disabilities to remain unemployed.

There will always be some that take advantage of any system and the "softer" the system, the more advantage can be taken.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   
I also agree that there must be a middle ground.

I also agree here too. There are people who do take advantage of the system. Then, they are surely breaking the law and hav to pay the penalty.

But the middle ground must also be considered when taking things as a case-by-case basis. You can't just penalize an entire group of people and deny them rights because of perceived fears. Because once you do, you are not practicing the democratic ideals which make this country great. You are then engaging in the "infringement" of the "inalienable rights of man".

Or, how would you feel if you were one member of a group denied rights because of a "perceived fear"?

That is why it is important that in the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers especially included the right to "petition for the right to redress grievences". Isn't that why dissent is important?


[edit on 22-5-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Yes, however the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments apply to citizens. That is why until recently convicted felons were denied some rights as it was the rule of law back then to lose citizenship on conviction of a felony. No vote, no ownership of land etc.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   
semperfortis,

There are some groups of people that experience bias in America because they aren't felons, but they are citizens. And there are other United States citizens that actively inhibit the rights of those outside their social circle. So, are the people practicing the "fear tactics" and "intimidation" true Americans? Are they more patriotic even though they are infringing on the rights of their fellow citizens?

That is why the Bill of Rights have to be taken under consideration--especially in the case of the NSA program of datamining and wiretapping. Are the people who are employed in this program more patriotic than the ones they spy upon?



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
...............................
There are segments of the population that cannot fend for themselves. And there are groups of people who are effectively shut out of the system due to social bias or because they belong to a group that is much "despised" by mainstream society.

Are Americans--when employing their biases--really fair to the democratic ideals put forth by our Founding Fathers?


But the government is not the one doing that, people are. For example, I live in Wyoming now, moved here from Florida.

I work for an international company and I know a lot of people from different backgrounds and ethnic groups. All of them worked hard and have engineering degrees, and they all have the same rights as "gringos" have in here.

I know people from Iran, Iraq, Zimbawe, Venezuela, Colombia, Nigeria, Peru, France, Canada, Russia, and other countries, as well as a lot of people from the United States too.

They all worked hard to get where they are. Two friends of mine from Nigeria are working in part to get their brothers and sisters through schools, after they graduate they want to bring them here, to the United States.

It is true that in some places there is racism, i have seen this racism because English is not my native language, nor the second language that I learnt. But this is because of people, there are people who are racists, all sorts of people, it is not just common among "gringos". i have seen latinos and even black people being racists.

I think you are trying too hard to make it look like it is the government of the United States who is at fault, when it is not. It is the fault of people who can't see past their own bias perceptions.


[edit on 22-5-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by ceci2006
...............................
There are segments of the population that cannot fend for themselves. And there are groups of people who are effectively shut out of the system due to social bias or because they belong to a group that is much "despised" by mainstream society.

Are Americans--when employing their biases--really fair to the democratic ideals put forth by our Founding Fathers?


But the government is not the one doing that, people are. For example, I live in Wyoming now, moved here from Florida.

I work for an international company and I know a lot of people from different backgrounds and ethnic groups. All of them worked hard and have engineering degrees, and they all have the same rights as "gringos" have in here.

I know people from Iran, Iraq, Zimbawe, Venezuela, Colombia, Nigeria, Peru, France, Canada, Russia, and other countries, as well as a lot of people from the United States too.

They all worked hard to get where they are. Two friends of mine from Nigeria are working in part to get their brothers and sisters through schools, after they graduate they want to bring them here, to the United States.

It is true that in some places there is racism, i have seen this racism because English is not my native language, nor the second language that I learnt. But this is because of people, there are people who are racists, all sorts of people, it is not just common among "gringos". i have seen latinos and even black people being racists.

I think you are trying too hard to make it look like it is the government of the United States who is at fault, when it is not. It is the fault of people who can't see past their own bias perceptions.


[edit on 22-5-2006 by Muaddib]
Yes' there is an all out racism in america why can't people be considered as 1?
And look at the how good peacefull the person is and not their race.

I am personally not a racist that means I have friends from all nationalities.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Muaddib, all I can say is that I floored by your answer. Usually people accuse me of mentioning race. But in my dialogue with semperfortis I did not mention one thing about the color of one's skin. This time, I kept race-relations out of the equation.

I only talked about how possible it is that groups infringe the rights of other socialized assemblies within the United States. And if these groups practicing prejudice are truly following the Democratic ideals outlined in the Constitution--most namely the Bill of Rights.

Although, I admit there are people who think that I might be lying, but this time that was not the point I was trying to get with my questions.

But yes, people are part and parcel of bias. And I still ask, does that still make them patriots? Or not?

[edit on 22-5-2006 by ceci2006]




top topics



 
22
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join