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.

 

If you're not doing anything wrong, there's nothing to fear...

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   
If you're not doing anything wrong, there's nothing to fear...



I am beginning to see a disturbing trend of thought among people, even those that frequent ATS.

If you're not doing anything wrong, then there's nothing to fear...

The REAL WORLD cases this has so far been applied to include:

Drug Testing - If you're not doing illegal drugs, or legal drugs in an illegal situation, then there's no reason to fear mandatory drug testing.

Warrantless Wiretapping - If you're not discussing illegal matters, or conversing with terrorists, there's no reason to fear having your conversations monitored.

24/7 Camera Surveillance of Citizens - If you're not committing any crimes, then there's no reason to fear being on camera all the time.

National border walls - If you're not an illegal immigrant or smuggler, then there's no reason to fear a wall at the border.

Warrantless Search and Seizure - If you're not keeping contraband in your home, or committing illegal acts there, then there's no reason not to let the authorities come search your home whenever they want.

Detention Without Charges or Representation - If you aren't a suspected terrorist, then there's no reason to be afraid of people being detained indefinitely, without legal representation, a trial, charges, or even familial contact to let them know what happened to you.

Torture of Detainees for Information - If you aren't witholding vital information from the government, then there's no reason to fear being tortured.

Regular, invasive searches at civilian checkpoints - If you're not carrying contraband on your person, there's no reason to fear having your naked flesh examined by security guards on a regular basis.

Warrantless financial record searches - If you aren't funding terrorists, there's no reason to worry about them checking your records.

Critics of the Government being deported - If you're not criticizing the government, there's no reason to worry about being deported.



Now, I will be the first to say that in terms of argument, I prefer reason and logic over emotional appeal. However, the entire premise of a dystopian society is based upon the idea that cold logic prevails over human emotion. While the simple cop-out is to just simply say "1984 is happening right now", that means nothing to people who have not read 1984, or read it and don't understand why we are encouraging such a regime to take place, or even why such a regime would be a Very Bad Thing(tm).

Let's get right to the meat of the matter: citizens of any government need to have the ability to revolt if the government in question becomes too oppressive.

Revolt is the method by which failed governments, or governments whom have angered their people past the point of no return, are replaced by new concepts. Without the ability to revolt, there would never be a United States of America. The Soviet Union would never have fallen (or even existed, actually). Britain would still be under full control of the monarchy. China would be ruled by an emperor, and Australia would still be some god-forsaken prison colony.

(edit: I should add that Government is absolutley not going to attempt to provide its citizens with the ability to revolt should it become neccessary. That is the duty and responsibility of the citizenry to maintain, and should that power ever fully be lost, it is the citizens whom have failed themselves, and not the government.)

To quote V, "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

Forget crimes, forget bad habits, forget anti-social behavior and things you like and don't like. Those are all things that people should be policing among themselves anyway, and local police are supposed to deal with crimes after, not before, they happen. What you must always remember is this:

With every extra bit of monitoring you permit into your everyday life, with every person you allow to be tagged and bagged by your government, with every removal of rights, privacy, weapons, and movement, you are implicitly giving your government permission to become more oppressive, more authoritarian, more controlling, and the less ability you will have to fight it in the future.

Government does not act kind for the sake of kindness. It does so out of fear of the populace becoming angry about its policies. The "humane" aspect to laws exist only because the people demand it. Governments and their military are well aware of how greatly outnumbered they are by the civilian populace. Without at least the perception that they are working in the best interests of the people, the people themselves will revolt. The success of that revolt will largely be determined by how much of the population rises up, and what materials are at their disposal.

When the grumblings and growlings about unfavorable policies cease, not because those policies have been corrected, but rather because people have become too complacent or fearful to speak up, then too much power has already been given, and it must be taken back. At the moment, an armed rebellion is neither needed, nor would it be favorable to anyone involved. The battle could just as easily be fought legally, within the courts, upon the streets in peaceful protest, with lobbyists paid to influence congress, and with letter-writing campaigns. These methods work, and they work very well, but one must first overcome the apathy, fear, and inaction that cripples civilian response to oppression.

However, there could easily come a day in the future where so many liberties have been forsaken, and so much security has been implemented, and the civilian populace so closely watched, tracked, and monitored, that the government decides it need no longer fear an uprising with any policy implemented. What Spin Doctors cannot correct in the public mind, surgical strikes upon dissenters can quickly remove from the public grandstand.

Actual violence on behalf of the government might not even be neccessary, in that a list of all yours and your family's activities, locations with timestamps, financial records, photographs, etc, can be subtly slid into an envelope and slipped under the door with a warning for any critic of government to back down. To whom would such a critic turn? The apathetic and scared common man?

Individually, on their own, for the express purpose that the above list of security measures has stated, they are not a threat. Collectively, they are a very solid and constraining net through which only government-approved activities and mindsets will prevail, and that is something to fear whether or not you are doing anything "wrong".



[edit on 9/19/2006 by thelibra]




posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Well, I think all of the above dystopian features you mentioned are a bad idea, except for one. I certainly believe,wholeheartedly, that we need much better border security. I would definitely support any kind of legislation that would sure up both our Canadian and Mexican borders. Yes, even NATIONAL BORDER WALLS

[edit on 19-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
I would definitely support any kind of legislation that would sure up both our Canadian and Mexican borders. Yes, even NATIONAL BORDER WALLS


The problem with walls is twofold:

1.) They also keep people in. - If you ever needed to revolt, you would have to do so from within the confines of your walls, because hopping a federally secure border wall such as the ones planned would be extremely difficult.

2.) It takes an agreement from both sides to allow passage either way. - Uprisings aside, if you are an American citizen, and you suddenly needed to flee Mexican or Canadian authorities for one reason or another, getting safely home is no longer a matter of just getting across the border, it is a matter of getting over that wall, or to one of the few approved checkpoints through which you would have to go right through the guards of the side you were trying to flee. You cannot leave your country, nor can you enter it, without the express permission of both your country and the one you are entering.







Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Your self righteous tone is a bit ridiculous... I am 100% certain that if I follow you for a week I will find you breaking laws...

Our forefathers would call what you have listed above the makings of a fascist police state... Ask your grandfather... or any WWII vet...

Your post reaks of fascist apologism.


Ummm... Slapnuts, did you read ANYTHING I wrote? I'm against the facist state. Please reread my post in its entirety, and not just the first few sentences. I posted that initial list as what OTHER PEOPLE are saying, not what I personally believe.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Very well put. I have been preaching this since 9/11 & I too have heard the sad response; 'If you aren't breaking the law, you have nothing to fear.' Keep up the vigilence for those who don't.

You have voted thelibra for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra

Ummm... Slapnuts, did you read ANYTHING I wrote? I'm against the facist state. Please reread my post in its entirety, and not just the first few sentences. I posted that initial list as what OTHER PEOPLE are saying, not what I personally believe.



Notice,that slapnuts changed his tune once he actually read your post...
Look at how he edited it.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by shadow watcher
Very well put. I have been preaching this since 9/11 & I too have heard the sad response; 'If you aren't breaking the law, you have nothing to fear.' Keep up the vigilence for those who don't.

You have voted thelibra for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


Thanks m8!!!

It occurred to me that I was hearing the "If you're not doing anything wrong..." used as an apologist excuse for every lost liberty for security, even from people that I would have otherwise respected and admired. It is a dangerous mentality to take, quite possibly the most dangerous, as it encourages a thought-police (thinkpol) state, where even crimes in one's mind are subject to punishment (crimethink).

To some degree, this has already begun to take place in Britain, as the Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) forbids certain citizens from taking actions that are otherwise considered legal, such as saying the word "grass", or entering through one's own front door. The combination of thought-conditioning from the above concerns, the social conditioning from ASBOs, removal of free speech and free movement, and the sacrifices of liberty for security, is a recipe for a populace that is little more than obediant, silent cattle, which makes totalitarian rule that much easier to achieve.

I expected as much from normal joe avs... Most people are sheep. They will tacitly follow whichever side is winning or has won. But when I began to see people on ATS parroting the same phrase to justify the removal of liberty for security, I really began to get worried, hence the post.



Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Notice,that slapnuts changed his tune once he actually read your post...
Look at how he edited it.


Heh...

Slap Nuts, no worries, m8. It was an honest mistake. We're still good. It just underscores the dangers of skimming...

[edit on 9/19/2006 by thelibra]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
People won't know how dumb they are till a "minority report" comes up on them and they are charged with "thought crimes".......Buy guns while you can and hide them well. Your neighbors might need some of your stock pile due to idiocy when the revolution finally comes.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I couldn't agree more. Boiling frogs, people. Anyone take the time to read the Declaration of Independence lately?

Excerpt-


That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


That's ok though. All is well. Just keep doing what you've been doing and we'll get what we've been getting.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright
I couldn't agree more. Boiling frogs, people. Anyone take the time to read the Declaration of Independence lately?


Ahh, but if you're not actively rebelling, then there's no reason to worry about the Declaration of Independence...

...err...

it's depressing how one can simply apply the logic of "If you aren't doing A, then there's no reason to worry about B".

Soooo... we all appear to be on the same page now. Whare do we do about it? I for one don't think we need to throw off the U.S. government, we just need to become a lot more vocal and active about what we're not going to put up with. What about the other governments though? How do y'all feel?



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   
God... If I had a dollar for everytime I have heard that I would be richer than bill gates.

My problem with this whole arguement.. is that when a govt. has the sole authority to make the laws without needing to cowtow to public demand; they can change what is in fact "wrong" as often as they want to. One day garlic is legal the next day it is illicit(kinda reminds me of the tale of Marijuana... but ill skip that one for now..
).

When the people are openly against the govt. that represents them; and policies continue to be enacted against the will of the masses; what percentage of said masses does it take before the govt. gets that "fear" to motivate them to change those policies? Because from where I am sitting; it sure does look like 60-80% doesnt seem to be making much of an impact on the beltway's policiy making process.

Would a peaceful revolt work?
First I am saddened to say that peaceful protesting on this magnitude is as about improbable as winning the lottery three times in a day. I have the sinking feeling that a modern day Ghandi would be ridiculed right off the world stage in todays American society. If he wasnt ridiculed off the spotlight; he would certainly be assassinated.

I always leave the glimmer of hope that our govt. will just live up to what it swears its duties are.. to be the defenders of liberty and justice.... which is in stark contradiction to thier practicing habits... ie... usurpers and hypocrits.

Personally I am ready to join/start a nonviolent/ passive revolution.. but I am afraid I will stand alone.(or with few others that would be silently removed in the middle of the night. Isnt fear great...



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
We have a non violent/passive revolution every two years. Yet we continually elect the same guys to congress. Of course, it's not our congressman that's the problem...it's the other guy's congressman.

One big step would be to eliminate gerrymandering. Problem is - how? Other than have sufficient numbers insist upon it. In the meantime, vote for someone other than a Republicrat or a Demican.

I'll wager that if you stopped 50 people on the street and asked them to name their representative in congress, less than 10 could tell you. But I'll bet more than 40 of them could sing the theme to Gilligan's Island. (By the way, stopping people on the street may be a bad idea altogether).



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
I am an ass.
[edit on 19-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]

[edit on 19-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]


LMAO! that's funny as hell..we all have our blonde moments..



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TONE23
Would a peaceful revolt work?


Well, the problem is, if a peaceful revolt worked, then the government never really needed to be changed, because it was open to change via peace, but then again...


Originally posted by yeahright
We have a non violent/passive revolution every two years. Yet we continually elect the same guys to congress. Of course, it's not our congressman that's the problem...it's the other guy's congressman.


Exactly... at least in a democratically elected government, there exists a peaceful transition of power from one party to the next, however, the system of government itself remains the same.


As YeahRight mentioned, Gerrymandering is a huge problem, but so is vote machine fraud (coughDIEBOLDcough), apathy, ignorance, and blind party/religious loyalty.

The problem is, the people who could make the most difference either don't care enough to vote, or are convinced their vote doesn't count.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra

Exactly... at least in a democratically elected government, there exists a peaceful transition of power from one party to the next, however, the system of government itself remains the same.


Which isn't a bad thing. The system would work, given adequate participation of an informed, motivated electorate.


Originally posted by thelibra
The problem is, the people who could make the most difference either don't care enough to vote, or are convinced their vote doesn't count.


Absolutely. Damn people. We get the government we deserve, in aggregate. And at this point, in aggregate we apparently don't deserve a good one. Now maybe if an elite group of benign, benevolent trusted intellectuals were to take over and establish some sort of new order.... (oops)



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright
The system would work, given adequate participation of an informed, motivated electorate.


Robert Heinlein had, I feel, a revolutionary idea about democracy. The vote should be earned. It should be possible for anyone to have the right of sufferage, regardless of race, creed, color, physical, or mental handicap, but must be earned, either through some form of civil or military work. You could push a gun, a pen, or a broom, so to speak, but you had to have taken an active part in the running of your country. There were any number of ways for one to serve their country, and each one was just as important in the overall picture, and society might still make great mistakes, but ultimately, the vote had become something of value because it had to be earned.

Something that is given freely has no value. Without earning the right to vote, anyone could, with but a whim, take an active roll in making the rules without having to take responsibility for them. The cost of having a vote meant you had to see what that vote was really like in action, how it truly affected both people and government. If you knew that as a result of voting a certain way, it would have consequences on one or the other, (edit: add) then you might think more carefully before pressing the button, and you might press that button more often. It was not a lifelong cost, I believe the term of service for civil duty was two years, and the military was, I believe, three or four. Additionally, military personel, while active, were not allowed to vote. I can't remember all the reasons for that, but they were very convincing at the time. I may have to reread that part.

Anyway, the point being, even though society as a whole would enjoy or suffer the same benefits or detriments of a vote, if the vote had to be earned, it would have value. And even though mistakes might still be made, perhaps they would be better thought out.



Originally posted by thelibra
Now maybe if an elite group of benign, benevolent trusted intellectuals were to take over and establish some sort of new order.... (oops)


See, and here's the thing. This next part isn't aimed against you or anyone else here specifically, but that just made me think of a rather funny irony. A good number of conspiracy theorists here don't trust a democratic government to eventually sort itself out because it is secretly controlled by someone else, right? I mean, come on, some group has historically always had some kind of hold on any government. They write an entire post just begging for someone intelligent overthrow it (not themselves of course), and institute a more ideal form of governance or lack thereof...

...and turn right back around and five minutes later write a post condemning an alleged group of intellectuals who are attempting to overthrow their government and institute a more ideal form of governance or lack thereof...

I mean seriously, people don't mind a government that serves their own personal interests as long as it continues to do so. When our interests are greedy, we elect a corporate government, when we need to attone we elect the religious, when we need to be more advanced, we hire a progressive, and so forth. It's usually a day late and a dollar short, but if it generally gets the job done, and our interests have, overall, been served, are we really going to rise up?

Of course not. Right now, let's admit it. We've got it pretty frickin' sweet right now. Very few people are dying of starvation within our country. Our homeless generally make more in a day than people in other countries make in a year! You can become a millionaire, overnight, for the most retarded of reasons. People have so much bloody money, they can't decide what to spend it on, which is how we get crap like people paying millions of dollars to PR firms just to make enough noise for one more percent of fat, rich customers to give them fifteen seconds worth of attention on one of hundreds of different channels... damn it's a sweet life.

And you know what? I really have no problem with that. I honestly don't. I don't think we got this way through greed and murder entirely, some of it was genuine hard work, ingenuity, dedication, love of each other, love of one's country, and bunny rabbits and cotton candy. I can't honestly give you a remotely accurage assessment of how much was bad stuff and how much was good. I reckon a lot of both goes into it each year.

The NWO? We bloody well ARE the NWO. If you don't believe me, reread two paragraphs up again and compare it against anyone else. If they enjoy the same priviledges then they're a fellow member. Yay! It's fun!

What? It's not? We need to fight the NWO? But look at all the stuff they give me... why should I fight? Who are these guys, really? I mean, can't I just keep the stuff and we get rid of the guys at the top? Let's do that. Let's figure out who the source of all our troubles is, and just get rid of them, and keep the stuff, is that cool?

Great! See you at the polls!



[edit on 9/19/2006 by thelibra]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   
I too made the mistake of "skimming"! I was actually going to reach down into my bag of "way aboves" and pull one out! Good thing I didn't waste one!

If you don't like a certain law there are ways to change it. It might take time, but it is still a "government of the people, for the people".



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   
We were given the right to bear arms for a reason. First, start with the lobbyists and special intrest groups. If the congress and senate fail to reform once we take all thier fun money, then they are next. People that are into being part of the goverment will think twice about taking bribes when they should be listening to us instead. Taking a bullet for screwing up might convince a few elected officials right fast to shape up or ship out.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
OH, REALLY?

Here's the problem as I see it. WHO decides what's wrong? If the prosecuter and the judge are the same, that's a dangerous combination. Colusion at it's worst AND there are voting people that will back this type of thing, I've seen it even here at ATS.

I may not have a problem with glueing Junior Mints to naughty bits to remain sociallogically chaste BUT, depending on the jurisdiction, that might be WRONG. Hell, I'm in deep # if I discussed it over the phone and it's been picked up by the PTB. Then the PTB begin a prosecusion. It's decided before it's even discussed. You can beat the prosecuter, you can beat the defending attorney, you CAN'T beat the judge. If the former and the latter have already decided that this type of candy placement is WRONG, you're screwed. Pending appeal = time+livelyhood+your good name = you're still screwed.

Apologies, I skimmed a little too. Good damn topic though.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
I too made the mistake of "skimming"! I was actually going to reach down into my bag of "way aboves" and pull one out! Good thing I didn't waste one!

If you don't like a certain law there are ways to change it. It might take time, but it is still a "government of the people, for the people".


I'm sorry for quoting your entire post, but I wanted to be certain which part of my post did you take issue with? The part where I said that people should take the time and effort to change the laws they don't like, or the part where I said government should be of and for the people? I'm a bit confused, but it appears like you just fired a rather nasty shot at someone you agree with.



Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
We were given the right to bear arms for a reason. First, start with the lobbyists and special intrest groups. If the congress and senate fail to reform once we take all thier fun money, then they are next.


Errrr, now are you saying we should shoot the lobbyists and special interest groups, or were these two seperate thoughts?


Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
People that are into being part of the goverment will think twice about taking bribes when they should be listening to us instead.


Ah, now therein lies the problem.

Why should they listen to us? We, the people, can't even agree on what we want? There's 350 voices all screaming for something different, for their own interests to be met. Some of them sound alike, some scream it in a very pleasant voice, and others scream it in a voice that grates upon the ears. Some of them drone on and on, never getting to the point, while others don't say enough. Who should be listened to? Why should they be listened to? What part of what they are saying should be listened to, and for how long before it's someone else's turn to talk?



Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
Taking a bullet for screwing up might convince a few elected officials right fast to shape up or ship out.


Or it might just make them better at not getting shot. Pick ANY politician, and there is someone, somewhere, gunning for him (or her). Chances are that there are a lot of people who can't stand the person, their policies, their ethics, or maybe even the way they look, but it's not enough to vote the person out of office, or not enough of the people vote.



Originally posted by intrepid
Here's the problem as I see it. WHO decides what's wrong? If the prosecuter and the judge are the same, that's a dangerous combination.


Absolutley. We recently had to have a very embarassing worldwide reminder that there is a reason for three branches of government and not just one. If you really want to get right down to it, people had to uncover torture and rabid violations of the Geneva convention before the nation realized that reason.


Originally posted by intrepid
Apologies, I skimmed a little too. Good damn topic though.


No problem, you seemed to have the gist of it, though I'm not entirely certain what the deal with the junior mints were, but grunties all the same.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Errrr, now are you saying we should shoot the lobbyists and special interest groups, or were these two seperate thoughts?


According to my constitional rights, yes that is what I'm saying....but only if needed, not because I belive they should be killed for no reason, but because 5% of the population(the rich folk) do not speak for, nor represent the rest of the population. Money should not be the driving factor in what ideologies become law. More cash does not denote more morals. I will not let some fatcat trample OUR bill of rights in the interst of his/her profit margin.


Ah, now therein lies the problem.

Why should they listen to us? We, the people, can't even agree on what we want? There's 350 voices all screaming for something different, for their own interests to be met. Some of them sound alike, some scream it in a very pleasant voice, and others scream it in a voice that grates upon the ears. Some of them drone on and on, never getting to the point, while others don't say enough. Who should be listened to? Why should they be listened to? What part of what they are saying should be listened to, and for how long before it's someone else's turn to talk?


I can't offhand think of anyone who dissagrees with the Bill of Rights, The Constitution, or Declaration of Independance......These are my laws, and my moral foundation in how I treat others. It should be very apparent that we are all different, and therfore have diffent views. If we follow what our original forefathers laid out, there would not be much of a problem. But, the federal goverment currently ignores us including our own state goverments. What is good for Alaska, may not ring true in Texas( or any other state in the Union). The federal goverment doesn't seem to care though and they lump us together. As americans, we have the right to migrate anywhere within the USA to find like minded people. But now, because of people with lots of money, they can afford to bribe and outright nullify the state goverment systems. I know no average person who supports the stance of big buisness and it's lobbyists buying out our elected officials when it's proven to happen.


Or it might just make them better at not getting shot. Pick ANY politician, and there is someone, somewhere, gunning for him (or her). Chances are that there are a lot of people who can't stand the person, their policies, their ethics, or maybe even the way they look, but it's not enough to vote the person out of office, or not enough of the people vote.


Politicians are not "Gods"....If someone actually was gunning for them, they would be dead. But most people are lazy, and do nothing. Again, i'm not saying we should slaughter our politicians, but they should at least have that fear, if they were to mess up bad enough in the running of our goverment, we will protest, we will revolt. If you aren't rich, you don't matter....there is only one way to change that opinion(fortunately, our fore fathers Knew how to do this, just as they answered the british monarchy). I'm just ranting now though. You bring up a subject that most people need to think alot more of, I support that stance fully so kudos to you, even it it falls on many deaf ears.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join