Who Here Will Accept A Real ID Card???

page: 10
5
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 01:20 AM
link   


The first and foremost, which has been discussed here (Though none too coherently that I've noticed) is the question, "Do you trust the Government to do what's best for you?


And thus you come onto the crux of my arguement. The chip isnt bad, its not the chips fault. Its the people who are too blame.



Before I address that, though, Let me address your claims that you know people trying to make an "UN-HACKABLE" system. So long as it is designed by human beings, there will always be flaws, workarounds, and unseen errors in how a thing is designed. All of which another human being might, and most likely will, figure out.


Of course, you need to remember that like not all programs are safe, not all hackers are that knowledgeable.

You say there is only one front door. I say there are multiple doors, one after the other. Each room seems exactly the same, with the same information flowing through it.

With constant update and maintenance im sure the system could stay secure.

But this isnt my domain, so i will leave it alone for now.




With a system such as a universally centralized database, as well as the argument of "More Convenience," Which is popularly espoused by some in this thread, it would necessitate a need for that front door. No government will eschew an opportunity to increase their power over the citizentry, even if it is an unexercised opportunity.


This isnt exactly true.

A government is the representative of the people, the people hold all of the power, so the government wields power when the people agree with it.

A government who does this by force will get results, but will also run the risk of being supplanted.

A government who does this with honour, respecting the system and the people will get the same results (hinging on the idea that a government cannot do something such as increase its own salary) as one which exerts control, just with no risk of serious opposition.



Now then, to address the matter of trust in the government. You may state that a people's responsibility is to trust and respect the powers that be as they represent yourself and others of your country, but this in itself is a psychological fallacy as presented in one of the oldest examinations of society and governance; Plato's, "Republic".


Ive read Res publica before, its very interesting, Plato was a very intelligent man.



While you may trust the government now in place, and feel that it is their job to make your life easier and more pleasant overall... you must remember that there is no real incentive for serving the public. Serving the public is a thankless position for the most part, ask a Fireman. A policeman. Someone who works in retail.


Well there is where it all falls down. Ive always been an advocate for a system which rewards the person for acts which help the greater good.

Its a thankless job simply because the model of society we have created has made it to be a thankless job.

(by the way, a person in the police, fire department or retail is thanked. Both by people who thank them in the real world [not as rare as you might think in the world] and by the pay they recieve)



So, with these two dualities, you have a rock and a hard place for any ethical politician. Neither group wants what is best for society, only what is best for themselves. Neither can be persuaded to forgo their own interests for the bettterment of their fellow man.

And both have extreme influence on any politicians future plans to be re-elected, or to be elected in the first place.


I personally like the sound of a just Emperor *winks* but we wont go into that





So then we must return to the question... SHOULD you trust government to do what is best for you? Not at all. In the grand scheme of things, you are nobody and do not matter to those that make the decisions. Ethical politicians are few and far between, and the majority of governance is composed of those who desire two things; Power and Influence over Others.


So again, i point out that the problem lies in many places, but ultimatly it is greed...greed in the people.



We are merely hands to do the work so that the Nobility reap the benefits.


If you look through history, youll notice that this isnt as true.

In the Early Modern period there was much art based on 'the body politic' that is a nation as one body.

The arms were the warriors and soldiers, those who protect.

The Lowest of the low, the peasants, were the stomach. Very disgusting, yet absolutly necessary.

Although my personal answers for todays problems sound very communist and power hungry, i assure you that when i think of them, i think of nothing more than the public good.

I am not one to serve greed. When i see a mansion i see a large amount of unused rooms.




posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Octavius Maximus
And thus you come onto the crux of my arguement. The chip isnt bad, its not the chips fault. Its the people who are too blame.


In that I will agree; The fault lies not in the stars, dear Brutus, but in ourselves. It is not the chip or the NID that people object to, both could have useful purposes. It is the perceived abuse that they feel would occur due to prior experience. The objects are merely tools, and in themselves harmless.



You say there is only one front door. I say there are multiple doors, one after the other. Each room seems exactly the same, with the same information flowing through it.


I did not say there was only one door, I said there was at least one door used for repair/update purposes. Even so, with each update or repair to the programming, you introduce a compounded likelihood of human error.



A government who does this with honour, respecting the system and the people will get the same results (hinging on the idea that a government cannot do something such as increase its own salary) as one which exerts control, just with no risk of serious opposition.


"That which governs best, governs least." - Thomas Jefferson

A government SHOULD represent the people, that it does is not tautologically true. As Plato himself put forward, the body politic as a whole desires control over society in order to preserve society. An honorable government utilizes the minimum control for the maximum valuation of that control. An honorable government runs efficiently, and does not seek to run the lives of the people as much as expedite and ease suffering and turmoil. It's purpose is to preserve the sanctity of the civilization.



Ive read Res publica before, its very interesting, Plato was a very intelligent man.


I like much of what Socrates says. Plato certainly has his moments. I also think Nietszche has a very valid point about human behavior, though most discount Nietszche's views as the symptom of a diseased mind.



Well there is where it all falls down. Ive always been an advocate for a system which rewards the person for acts which help the greater good.


As am I. Yet Society does not promote this. Why is that?



Its a thankless job simply because the model of society we have created has made it to be a thankless job.


And I must wonder why that is, as well?



(by the way, a person in the police, fire department or retail is thanked. Both by people who thank them in the real world [not as rare as you might think in the world] and by the pay they recieve)


Speaking as someone who has worked in one of those industries, and with family members in some others; they are not thanked or paid enough.



I personally like the sound of a just Emperor *winks* but we wont go into that



You could be a saintly emperor for all it's worth, but the problem of your heir still comes to mind. Kingdoms have become undesirable because of crazy, murderous, or abusive heirs.



So again, i point out that the problem lies in many places, but ultimatly it is greed...greed in the people.


Indeed it is. There is another thread discussing the problem between Greed and Abundance viewpoints that I am participating in. Is there a way you could propose a solution to the greed mentality that does not forsake inalienable rights?



The Lowest of the low, the peasants, were the stomach. Very disgusting, yet absolutly necessary.


*Laughs*, So true, then and today. We are consumers.



I am not one to serve greed. When i see a mansion i see a large amount of unused rooms.


Mm. I personally would like to have a mansion, but room a bunch of people I would like to spend time with. Sort of a community.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by norbin
I will refuse it. I enjoy my rights, and my privacy. I refuse to become part of this tracking, and tagging of humans.

I'm sure most Christians will be on board with me on this one, seeing how I doubt they want to see revelations become a reality. Unless I'm wrong, and they're eager to get a mark of the beast.

[edit on 6-8-2007 by norbin]
I believe in the future there will be a device that can be implanted on your hand ,some would say it would be more convient to have your information marked on your hand . I don't know how a single mark could carry this type of information ...but I'm sure in the future they will come up with something like this.It's as if the human race is being bought and purchased by an unknown source .I believe that the dragon that revelation talks about wich is satan his spirit is preparing things for the beast which is the antichrist who will rule the world .



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by TheColdDragon
 


Kudos, my friend. It just goes to show that some people do posess the ability to disagree, yet still be creative in attempts to openly and rationaly discuss these very serious, and very close new 'restrictions'/'advances'/'conviences'/infringements' in our current society (well, my American society, I should specify* OM-winks*)

And, I agree that philosophy is the best way to trace our current thinking rationalization and views on alot of what is happening in society. The Republic- Fabulous! Platos' stories about Socrates- (boy, how I wish I could have met him
)

Great Thread, and great posts guys. And its great to see new memebers posting their opinions! Convience or devil...who really knows?1



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by nowayreally
Kudos, my friend. It just goes to show that some people do posess the ability to disagree, yet still be creative in attempts to openly and rationaly discuss these very serious, and very close new 'restrictions'/'advances'/'conviences'/infringements' in our current society (well, my American society, I should specify* OM-winks*)


If you look carefully at many of these conversations, you will note that many approach it with an absolute certainty that what they view is self-obvious. How dare they not infer what I desire them to infer! Or, What is wrong with them, are they stupid because they can't see the obvious?

What many who discuss need to understand is that everyone comes from different places on topics. In many cases, it is the problem cited by "Plato's Allegory of the Cave". How does one explain sunshine to someone whose reality consists of a shadow play upon a cave wall and nothing else?

We, as responsible netizens, must explain ourselves and where we come from. Try and imagine or come up with scenarios that might challenge your fellow debater to new thoughts or new manners of thinking about subjects. Do not merely recite again and again, "You aren't considering; The Constitution says; Our rights are; Science dictates; That's Nonsense," Etcetera.



And, I agree that philosophy is the best way to trace our current thinking rationalization and views on alot of what is happening in society. The Republic- Fabulous! Platos' stories about Socrates- (boy, how I wish I could have met him
)


The Republic, in and of itself, is an example of the DIFFICULTIES in creating a cohesive society that engenders care towards its citizens. An exercise in building both a functional and effective society.

Socrates is someone whom I personally idolize, though it is surprising how frequently mistake socratic method with Sophistry; Which Socrates severely disliked.



Great Thread, and great posts guys. And its great to see new memebers posting their opinions! Convience or devil...who really knows?1


In my experience, the first occurrs followed closely by the second.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 09:22 AM
link   



In that I will agree; The fault lies not in the stars, dear Brutus, but in ourselves. It is not the chip or the NID that people object to, both could have useful purposes. It is the perceived abuse that they feel would occur due to prior experience. The objects are merely tools, and in themselves harmless.


Hmm, not all tools are harmless...People call guns tools, but something of such obvious power cannot be a tool..It is a weapon. Pure lethality. Something which not all people should have access too.




I did not say there was only one door, I said there was at least one door used for repair/update purposes. Even so, with each update or repair to the programming, you introduce a compounded likelihood of human error.


Of course, i know what your saying. But i still think that if society managed to evolve to the "point of respect" as i call it, the will to actually infiltrate your government will be practically nonexistant.


An honorable government utilizes the minimum control for the maximum valuation of that control.


Actually...i believe the complete opposite.

Basically, the plan ive had involves making the government hold complete control of the system, but making the system so large in its scale, so all encompassing, that freedom is found within the system.


An honorable government runs efficiently, and does not seek to run the lives of the people as much as expedite and ease suffering and turmoil. It's purpose is to preserve the sanctity of the civilization.


That i do agree with, though.




I like much of what Socrates says. Plato certainly has his moments. I also think Nietszche has a very valid point about human behavior, though most discount Nietszche's views as the symptom of a diseased mind.


you cannot discount any views, especially insane ones. It allows you to see life from a different perspective.




As am I. Yet Society does not promote this. Why is that?


Because the model for society that exists in western culture is built upon an entirely different sets of beliefs and morals. Humans want to keep laws and governance stable, but real government and laws should be constantly evolving with society.

Consider, why are people looking through the bible to find weight for the abortion debate?

More importantly, why have small sections of the bible been EDITED to help the anti-abortion belief?

No society should be looking through ancient texts to find weight on a debate based on modern ideas and modern ethics.



And I must wonder why that is, as well?


Because. as i said, the model for society in the western world was created at a time where beliefs were different.

The thanks a person recieved for their work was usually the idea that work had been completed.

A 15th century farmer worked so he could sell his wares and his family could survive. The Work was its own reward.

This still exists today, but the society hasnt moved with the times, things are different now, but government and the ideals of people have stayed behind, looking to precedent for answers.




Speaking as someone who has worked in one of those industries, and with family members in some others; they are not thanked or paid enough.


Well, it may be only an American issue.

In Australia, alot of our Fire department are volunteers.

But i dont think ive heard much complaint about pay rates for those areas.

I checked, while doing the 3 first years of training to become a police officer, they get a fairly large amount. More than my mother makes...and she supports 2 kids alone!




You could be a saintly emperor for all it's worth, but the problem of your heir still comes to mind. Kingdoms have become undesirable because of crazy, murderous, or abusive heirs.



Hmmm, again. Its the difference in time.

The time of Monarchs and Emperors has gone into a lull. People dont want the mistakes of the past to be redone. But remember that most of the children of monarchs were mistreated and inbred.

An heir who is brought into a healthy family, and who is taught from birth to rule for the people...and not to keep everything within the family, and all the other things he needs to rule well...im not saying its completly foolproof...but i dont think any country has tried an absolute monarch with the fear of the peoples reprisal.




Indeed it is. There is another thread discussing the problem between Greed and Abundance viewpoints that I am participating in. Is there a way you could propose a solution to the greed mentality that does not forsake inalienable rights?


Well, ive been pondering that greatly. Ive come upon a few things which would help.

try to keep your mind open...it sounds rather communist.

Firstly.

The society should close the difference between rich and poor. At the moment it is too great. People should all begin at the same level, the amount of pay given.

It increases as people gain achievements, ranks, professions, inventions, ideas, heroism, etc.

Just a person is given what they are worth.

All people need to realise that they are working for the community, not themselves. Once they realise that if they do things for the community, they make it better for themselves, they will learn.



*Laughs*, So true, then and today. We are consumers.


Yes, its very true i thought.




Mm. I personally would like to have a mansion, but room a bunch of people I would like to spend time with. Sort of a community.


hehehe, ive planned my mansion, but basically it is a place full of rooms for group enjoyment, libraries, Artifacts, gardens, and most important of all, statues. A place for the enjoyment of life and friends.

I will invite you once im in charge, Nowayreally may live there alreay if she plays her cards right



I don't know how a single mark could carry this type of information ...but I'm sure in the future they will come up with something like this.


Actually, its quite possible now. Just the chip doesnt contain the information...it just bounces the requests to the mainframe, and then recieves the information.

Basically an official SMS.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   



Kudos, my friend. It just goes to show that some people do posess the ability to disagree, yet still be creative in attempts to openly and rationaly discuss these very serious, and very close new 'restrictions'/'advances'/'conviences'/infringements' in our current society (well, my American society, I should specify* OM-winks*)


Im liking this thread now


And thank you, remember that not all societies and beliefs are the same.
*winks back, hugs* good to know you care
!



And, I agree that philosophy is the best way to trace our current thinking rationalization and views on alot of what is happening in society. The Republic- Fabulous! Platos' stories about Socrates- (boy, how I wish I could have met him


True! Lots of ancient men and women who i want to meet. Augustus Caesar is number one.



If you look carefully at many of these conversations, you will note that many approach it with an absolute certainty that what they view is self-obvious. How dare they not infer what I desire them to infer! Or, What is wrong with them, are they stupid because they can't see the obvious?


hehe, unfortunatly ive done this...simply because i get annoyed at people who fail to see both sides of an arguement. Or, more specifically, from my side of the arguement.




Great Thread, and great posts guys. And its great to see new memebers posting their opinions! Convience or devil...who really knows?1


Bah, Devil is a human created concept. A justification, a way to make sure that humanity doesnt fall prey to the "7 deadly sins" or... the things believed to make a man useless to society.






[edit on 6-9-2007 by Octavius Maximus]



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   



Speaking as someone who has worked in one of those industries, and with family members in some others; they are not thanked or paid enough.

Well, it may be only an American issue.

In Australia, alot of our Fire department are volunteers.



This is not entirely accurate....In terms of sheer numbers, yes the volunteers would number more men than the fieries...

However, when you look at it from the viewpoint of who does the work day in day out, the pros do much more work than the volunteers...Hands down

Imagine how many pro fieries there are in Sydney and Melbourne alone...



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 10:33 AM
link   
I never said there were more, i said that alot of them were.

This is just used as an example to show how for many people the idea that having a job well done and the gratitude of the people is enough thanks for them.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Octavius Maximus
Hmm, not all tools are harmless...People call guns tools, but something of such obvious power cannot be a tool..It is a weapon. Pure lethality. Something which not all people should have access too.


A sword, like a gun, lies inert and represents only battle... honor, history. A gun's only difference from a sword is that an untrained person can wield it to kill as effectively as a professional rifler. Neither are designed for defense, they are designed to kill. They are tools of killing. This does not render them NON-tools, it merely reveals their purpose.

Car's, which are also tools, are Just as effective as guns, while being designed explicitly for transportation.



Of course, i know what your saying. But i still think that if society managed to evolve to the "point of respect" as i call it, the will to actually infiltrate your government will be practically nonexistant.


That assumes conformity of individuals. Humans are anything but uniform, nor would I personally feel comfortable in a uniform world.



Actually...i believe the complete opposite.


Control is defined thusly. Which Particular definition do you intend to be beneficial in this discussion, as all appear to be some form of imposition against another person's control of self?

Speaking from experience, people hate Beaurocracy, which sounds like what you describe.



That i do agree with, though.


I'm not certain I can parse what you said previously with this though. You can't have a controlling government and a government that does not interfere. Control is direct interference.



Because the model for society that exists in western culture is built upon an entirely different sets of beliefs and morals. Humans want to keep laws and governance stable, but real government and laws should be constantly evolving with society.


This I would agree with, People are uncomfortable with change, but change is necessary.



Consider, why are people looking through the bible to find weight for the abortion debate?


Because it personally terrifies them and brings deep sorrow, as they view any growth from human intercourse to be life with a soul. Imagine if someone erased your personality with high technology; It is a similar response.



More importantly, why have small sections of the bible been EDITED to help the anti-abortion belief?


While this is not the religious section of ATS, I have to require that you cite sources when you make such statements.



No society should be looking through ancient texts to find weight on a debate based on modern ideas and modern ethics.


By that logic, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Coepernicus, Galileo, Nietszche, Hume, Locke, Adams and many other "Non-Modern" texts should not be considered either.

The age of a work bears no relevance to its substance. Judge a book as you would judge a man; by the content of its character, rather than its age.



...but i dont think any country has tried an absolute monarch with the fear of the peoples reprisal.


There are many people with power, friend, who will not gladly change the manner in which the world works. Just as with the common person, who has trouble accepting change in either how society works or what they expect from society, there are many wealthy who are caught up in the greed mentality.

There have been good monarchs in history, there is no form of government that is truly evil. I do not believe Monarchy, or an empire ruled by an emperor, is a permanent solution. Things have changed too much to allow it in the west, and it would be stepping back rather than forward.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 07:57 PM
link   



A sword, like a gun, lies inert and represents only battle... honor, history. A gun's only difference from a sword is that an untrained person can wield it to kill as effectively as a professional rifler. Neither are designed for defense, they are designed to kill. They are tools of killing. This does not render them NON-tools, it merely reveals their purpose.


The way i see it, is that a sword was designed to fight, it can be matched by another sword, or another weapon, and then the fight turns into a contest of strength and skill

A gun was designed to kill. It cannot be matched, the differences in the weapon make little difference in the response, the response is always to same, dont get hit.




That assumes conformity of individuals. Humans are anything but uniform, nor would I personally feel comfortable in a uniform world.


Actually, you are just considering my words in one light.

The point of Respect is where people stop working solely for the individual, and begin working for the community, so the individual works together with his fellows for the betterment of all, rather than an individual using the community for the betterment of themself.

It would not be uniform, it would be different, however.




Control is defined thusly. Which Particular definition do you intend to be beneficial in this discussion, as all appear to be some form of imposition against another person's control of self?

Speaking from experience, people hate Beaurocracy, which sounds like what you describe.


hmmm, what i am saying when i say 'control' Is that all works, all jobs, everything is part of an all encompassing government. All money goes through the work to the government, and the government pays the people with this large sum that it recieves every day.

The difference with this and now is that the government will be able to have greater control over buisness and the economy, meaning weak areas can be made better, while strong ones can be kept in check, to prevent a buisness monopoly.

Know what i mean when i said "Keep an open mind"? It has the potential for great good, or great loss.




I'm not certain I can parse what you said previously with this though. You can't have a controlling government and a government that does not interfere. Control is direct interference.


The government doesnt seek to 'rule' its people, it wants them to fulfil their complete potential for the betterment of the community and mankind as a whole.

All it needs is the knowledge, knowledge of what people do. So the government doesnt become out of touch with its people. It can provide what they want and need when they need it.




Because it personally terrifies them and brings deep sorrow, as they view any growth from human intercourse to be life with a soul. Imagine if someone erased your personality with high technology; It is a similar response.


But the bible is based upon an entirely different set of morals and beliefs, though. So looking through it for knowledge of todays ethics is strange.



While this is not the religious section of ATS, I have to require that you cite sources when you make such statements.


"Whoever sheds mans blood, by man his blood shall be shed." Genesis, the flood story.

There have been many who have moved the comma to make it this:

"Whoever sheds mans blood by man, his blood shall be shed."

What is the blood by man? The blood from man, the blood in the sense of lineage.

The embryo.

Whoever sheds the child of a mans blood (meaning the embryo), his blood shall be shed.

This isnt right, i think. Simply because when the text was created knowledge of the Embyro and the growth of the child wasnt as advanced as it is now, so editing it to follow the beliefs of today means nothing because saying the same thing to the writer of the text would mean nothing.




By that logic, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Coepernicus, Galileo, Nietszche, Hume, Locke, Adams and many other "Non-Modern" texts should not be considered either.

The age of a work bears no relevance to its substance. Judge a book as you would judge a man; by the content of its character, rather than its age.


Yes, but would you ask a 90 year old on how nanotechnology or fibre optics works?

Different age, different beliefs, different knowledge.

You can consider all of those philosophers as good sources, you just cannot use their own beliefs to facilitate your own, because many times they will be completly different.

If you want another example, The Great Cat Masacrre by Robert Darnton.

This is an old source from 1600 C France. It is an episode from a print shop where the workers decide to rebel against their master and mistress by rounding up all the cats around the area and killing them, Smashing their backs with iron bars, having mock trials and executions, putting them in bags and jumping on them, etc.

Now, this isnt the most horrifying thing. The worst part is that it is written in the form of a comedy, with jokes and a general festival atmosphere.

They say that for many months some of the workers staged their own reproductions, with huge laughter from the crowd as they remembered that great day when they killed all those cats.

Now, to us, this is revolting. Massacring cats to get back at their master is quite disgusting. But in the time that this was written, it wasnt. It was quite a normal practice and was quite hilarious for all people who were involved.

This was barely 400 years ago.




There are many people with power, friend, who will not gladly change the manner in which the world works.


Hence why people dont get rewarded for the work they do, but for the kind of worker they are.



There have been good monarchs in history, there is no form of government that is truly evil. I do not believe Monarchy, or an empire ruled by an emperor, is a permanent solution. Things have changed too much to allow it in the west, and it would be stepping back rather than forward.


I believe the opposite. But i guess we will never know until we try it.

Waiting for your responses.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Octavius Maximus
The way i see it, is that a sword was designed to fight, it can be matched by another sword, or another weapon, and then the fight turns into a contest of strength and skill


Swords, if we are talking about actual swords and not fencing foils, are designed to kill or maim. Their purpose is the same as any implement of war. They are designed for the purpose of ending a human life. No matter how you wield a sword, for good or for ill, it is an implement of war. This does not mean it is not a tool, but it's designed intent is to kill/hurt/maim. Ultimately, there is zero difference concerning the intention of a sword or a gun. Either can be used to defend ones self, but make no mistake they were designed to kill.



The point of Respect is where people stop working solely for the individual, and begin working for the community, so the individual works together with his fellows for the betterment of all, rather than an individual using the community for the betterment of themself.


"Stop working for the individual and work for the community," I assume you would require this from every human being? If so, that is definitionally uniform. Either way, it is a rash expectation due to the fundamental nature of human difference. Either you want uniformity, or your take on this matter is impractical when compared against those independant souls who refuse to abide by having their efforts benefitting useless members of society. And unless you propose systematic killing of the handicap, there are members of society who cannot contribute effectively to society and would rely entirely upon the compassion of the system without ever providing anything for it. The severely retarded, for example.



hmmm, what i am saying when i say 'control' Is that all works, all jobs, everything is part of an all encompassing government. All money goes through the work to the government, and the government pays the people with this large sum that it recieves every day.


Are you taking into account the helpless? The parasites? The people who LIKE to be selfish and self centered? Money doesn't work in such a system. Marx believed Communism to be something a society must evolve into, and that it was self-causing after a certain point of production saturation.




The government doesnt seek to 'rule' its people, it wants them to fulfil their complete potential for the betterment of the community and mankind as a whole.


I fear you have mistaken the purpose of government for the purpose of self. The government, ANY government, seeks to rule its people. Even your proposed strategy involves ruling people, as the independant man does not desire to be ruled or to cooperate with anything but his own intent. His own intent is to fulfill his own potential in a way that satisfies himself, not others.



This isnt right, i think. Simply because when the text was created knowledge of the Embyro and the growth of the child wasnt as advanced as it is now, so editing it to follow the beliefs of today means nothing because saying the same thing to the writer of the text would mean nothing.


The bible is secondary. I gave you why people dislike abortion, and why they use the bible as a reason. Their reasons are personal and unarguable. It is those that favor abortion that WANT to argue the inarguable... and convincing is rarely done.



Yes, but would you ask a 90 year old on how nanotechnology or fibre optics works?


Yes. If that 90 year old had a double doctorate in electronic engineering and nanotechnology. Again, the age of a thing has no bearing on its substance. There are some 90 year olds that can't use the internet. There are others that have the mad skillz. Judge on substance, not on appearance.

Running into a second post, apologies.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 05:39 AM
link   


This was barely 400 years ago.


And you are citing something which bears no relevance on the actual subject of the bible. The bible is part storybook, part philosophy, and part history. Whether you abstain from considering the first or the third part, that second part is just as relevant today as it was a thousand years ago. If for different reasons. All people are different, and some may not find the bible to be relevant or worthwhile as a philosophy. Others will. Neither would be a wrong position to take.



Hence why people dont get rewarded for the work they do, but for the kind of worker they are.


It would appear that you are proposing that people get payed for the work they do, and that who they are is a matter of no consequence so long as they contribute to society. While I am no friend of Greed, I recognize that psychologically, people are different.



I believe the opposite. But i guess we will never know until we try it.


Perhaps so. I have often entertained the "Benevolent Dictator" fantasy in my own mind. The crux of the matter in my imagination is that the "Benevolent" part gets you killed by the "Malevolent" self-interested types, either directly or indirectly.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 06:20 AM
link   
I would not accept a real ID card. Why does the United States think they have to track their citizens more then they already do!



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 07:37 AM
link   



Swords, if we are talking about actual swords and not fencing foils, are designed to kill or maim. Their purpose is the same as any implement of war. They are designed for the purpose of ending a human life. No matter how you wield a sword, for good or for ill, it is an implement of war. This does not mean it is not a tool, but it's designed intent is to kill/hurt/maim. Ultimately, there is zero difference concerning the intention of a sword or a gun. Either can be used to defend ones self, but make no mistake they were designed to kill.


Hmmm, our viewpoints are different, of course.

All i say is that i believe Close Combat weapons to be more honourable, simply because it is a contest of skill and strength, i dont see guns as having the same contest.




"Stop working for the individual and work for the community," I assume you would require this from every human being? If so, that is definitionally uniform.


Not true, consider it as a different form of thinking.

Now, a person who wants more personal wealth will do a myriad of different ideas and schemes, asking for a raise, getting a new job, buying a horde of lottery tickets, who knows.

What i prepose is that not that much changes, people can still use their pay to buy lottery tickets and ask for raises. The idea is that if a community can organise itself to work better and harder, the community (and thusly, all the people within a community) gets recognised for its skills, increasing its standing and wealth.

Right now, communities get nothing for working harder as a whole, most of the time a person moves away to a 'higher class' neighborhood.


Either you want uniformity, or your take on this matter is impractical when compared against those independant souls who refuse to abide by having their efforts benefitting useless members of society.


Well, if every person decided to work to his or her fullest potential, and used their knowledge for the betterment of mankind, can we not see possible help and/or cures for the 'useless' members of society?


And unless you propose systematic killing of the handicap, there are members of society who cannot contribute effectively to society and would rely entirely upon the compassion of the system without ever providing anything for it. The severely retarded, for example.


I would not prepose killing anyone, a human who kills another ceases to be human. It is a lack of respect for your own race. We are all here for each other, we have no one else.

I dont prepose an answer for you yet, i havnt thought about that aspect of society. I will though, when i get some time to think.




Are you taking into account the helpless? The parasites? The people who LIKE to be selfish and self centered?


Selfish and self centred? they are not people, by my definition. They serve themselves, so they help noone.

I dont take them into account because the model and ideas i have had for society doesnt 'punish' people for being selfish, but it does restrict their chances of improving.


Marx believed Communism to be something a society must evolve into, and that it was self-causing after a certain point of production saturation.


Yes, that is why you are telling me my system wont work, humans dont fit in it, yet.



I fear you have mistaken the purpose of government for the purpose of self. The government, ANY government, seeks to rule its people.


It depends if you mean rule in its literal sense, or rule with the negative connotations people give it on this site.

If it is the former, yes, the government rules its people. But it seeks to not work through absolutes, and the voices of the people will be heard and never left out.

If you mean rule with its negative connotations, then no. The government shouldnt attempt to rule its people, it should work with them, mutually aiding each other and keeping each others council and wisdom for the betterment of all.


Even your proposed strategy involves ruling people, as the independant man does not desire to be ruled or to cooperate with anything but his own intent.


Which is counter productive to any society. People need to know boundaries, they also need to realise when something needs to be done, seeing the rules from all points of view, not only their own.

If a person seeks to not cooperate with anyone else, then he should not be able to gain from society, it must be mutual.


His own intent is to fulfill his own potential in a way that satisfies himself, not others.


This, though, i want every human to become the best they can, to be the best they are, to not stop going forward until they are satisfied that they can go no further.

This doesnt mean that he cannot be good for his community, on the contrary, if all people worked to become learned and the best that they can be, then the ideas and combined knowledge of society would benefit everyone.




The bible is secondary. I gave you why people dislike abortion, and why they use the bible as a reason. Their reasons are personal and unarguable. It is those that favor abortion that WANT to argue the inarguable... and convincing is rarely done.


I am for Abortion, just so you know how i stand. A very good friend of mine was raped at an early age, and was found to be pregnant from it.

I would not stand by because some priest wrote that god tells her that she must have the baby. It would destroy her, she would not love or care for it.

This is my bias against religions trying to influence the ethics of the whole. Simply because she was forced to pregnancy by a sin, (im sure its a sin, right?) So why should she receive repercussions for sinning again (by aborting the child)

When i see places arguing why Abortion should exist and why it shouldnt i see it as silly, Abortion should be an option, one for people to choose.




Yes. If that 90 year old had a double doctorate in electronic engineering and nanotechnology. Again, the age of a thing has no bearing on its substance. There are some 90 year olds that can't use the internet. There are others that have the mad skillz. Judge on substance, not on appearance.


I am not trying to say you should not consider the viewpoints, im saying you must keep in mind the differences of the beliefs of the time. They may still be accurate, they may not.

|
|
\/

[edit on 7-9-2007 by Octavius Maximus]



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 07:50 AM
link   
...




And you are citing something which bears no relevance on the actual subject of the bible.


That wasnt my intention, i was pointing out that the differences in belief and ethics are different, and you must always take that into account, no matter the subject matter.


that second part is just as relevant today as it was a thousand years ago.


But you shouldnt base your ideas upon it unless you realise the difference between societies, that things said then need not necessarily apply now.


All people are different, and some may not find the bible to be relevant or worthwhile as a philosophy. Others will. Neither would be a wrong position to take.


Again, i dont say it is right or wrong, if i ever gave you that impression, i apologise. The bibles stories are adapted from stories which are from a totally different age. A person could live their life to its philosophy, but they shouldnt allow that to cloud their judgement on modern attitudes. They shouldnt cite the bible as reasons for not using things now.

Calling the Chip the 'mark of the beast' is silly to me, since revelations was written at a time where the whole concept of chips didnt exist.

Also, revelations needed to be translated, like the rest of the bible, and many things (such as the nature of the 'anti christ') cannot be interpreted in english correctly.



It would appear that you are proposing that people get payed for the work they do, and that who they are is a matter of no consequence so long as they contribute to society. While I am no friend of Greed, I recognize that psychologically, people are different.


People are different, im not saying they shouldnt be. A world where everyone wears white jumpsuits and refers to their friends by number isnt one i want.

Each person is different, they have something new to contribute, some new and different idea and experience. Just because a system has strict control over certain things, doesnt mean:

1. That that control will be exercised to the extent it can be (Australia has no freedom of speech in writing, yet we get it anyway)
and
2. That the control will force people into conformity. I believe the opposite, the strict system still allows for people to express themselves and their beliefs.



Perhaps so. I have often entertained the "Benevolent Dictator" fantasy in my own mind. The crux of the matter in my imagination is that the "Benevolent" part gets you killed by the "Malevolent" self-interested types, either directly or indirectly.


Have you ever read any of the Discworld books by terry Pratchet? Although not a complete strict guide, a major idea i get is from Lord Havelock Vetinari.

He is wonderfully smooth and smart, its well worth reading.

Basically, his motto is Si non confectus, non reficiat, meaning "If it isnt broken, dont fix it."

hehe

oh well, i await you replies, as always.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Octavius Maximus
 


Honor is a quaint concept bandied about frivolously. In war, Honor is usually not considered. Even in ancient times, Honor was a pretty word for peace-time behavior. Likewise, weapons do not have honor. People have honor. To give weapons honor is to anthropomorphize them. Weapons are weapons, tools and implements of destruction.

I, for one, would love to go back to a time when Swords existed. However, that barrier of skill effectively created the nobility class, as it was much easier to control distribution of swords; if a peasant wasn't as skilled, you simply took the sword away. Guns are skill-less weapons that ensure that any freedom loving individual is capable of killing someone trying to rob them of their defenses. Or do other harmful things to them.

To propose swords as superior, or more honorable (While at a time in my life I would have agreed) is essentially putting forward that some people don't deserve protection because they are not skilled enough.

As for communal work, what about people that don't want to be a part of a community? They should not have the same benefits, you say. Thusly, they are worth less than those who play along with the communal game. You have created a second class of citizens, disenfranchised and never represented in your system of governance. Punished for their individuality by denying them the fruits of societies labor. They did not participate, so forget them. Is this not essentially what you propose?
.
.
.
A human that kills another person in self defense ceases to be a human in your eyes? Any person that kills another person you do not consider human? While I am not a bloodthirsty sort, I recognize that passivity is one extreme on a spectrum... and extremes tend to be bad. Everyone should bear the responsibility of their actions, and if someone chooses to harm another individual, they should be held responsible for that decision.
.
.
.
It is not that your idea has a time when humans will miraculously fit into the plan, if at such a point all humanity would agree on such a thing, I would have to graciously bow out of it. While I believe in helping others, I feel it is my decision whom I am to help, not a communities. Mob Rule would dominate such communities, and mobs have the equivalent IQ of the highest IQ amongst the group divided by the number of people in the mob.
.
.
.
You speak about people needing boundaries, which is problematic to say. Do you define the boundaries? If you decide what boundaries people are allowed to have, are you not forcing your beliefs on individuals who do NOT want those boundaries? If there is a community of people living up in the hills who accept incest, for example, and all the surrounding communities want them burned alive for their atrocity... I imagine this would be perfectly acceptable? If they do not conform to the boundaries they "Need" as defined by, well, whoever governs... then what?
.
.
.
There is a place for those who serve themselves and those they care for, just as there is a place for the faithful helpers who assist others. Defining boundaries for people is part of the problem, not part of the solution. It is those boundaries that give rise to cliques, social pressures, and pre-conceived notions such as racism and bigotry.
.
.
.
I'm for abortion too. It's still wrong though, if you consider any fetus or cluster of cells humans and are emotionally in turmoil when the murder of that human comes to pass. Neither is a wrong stance to take, as both are formed from personal feelings on the matter.
.
.
.
Briefly, on the matter of control and it's use... Definitions of control, after being set in place, can be and most likely will be exploited by someone to their fullest abuse while never quite stepping out of the line of control, merely moving that line. Such as GWB.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Guns are skill-less weapons that ensure that any freedom loving individual is capable of killing someone trying to rob them of their defenses. Or do other harmful things to them.


or to use them to rob another person of their defences, and to do harmful things to them.

And uneven distribution of power is just that.



To propose swords as superior, or more honorable (While at a time in my life I would have agreed) is essentially putting forward that some people don't deserve protection because they are not skilled enough.


I never say that, i say every person deserves protection. The gun is too powerful on the scale, it unbalances things. 2 people with guns isnt equal. It then revolves to who draws first, the person who is the aggressor, solving nothing.




As for communal work, what about people that don't want to be a part of a community?


Well they do so for what reason?

If it is to escape law and rule and government, i have no choice but to leave them to their own devices.

What other reason would they have to not be part of a community?


Punished for their individuality by denying them the fruits of societies labor.


Such is the price of ignorance, no individuality is lost within the system. It is only lost if people wish it to be.


They did not participate, so forget them. Is this not essentially what you propose?


They dont want to participate because they do not want government in their lives, correct? So who am i to thrust it upon them?

They gain the benefits and downfalls of not being with a society. I will never wage war on them, though, and would openly welcome them if they wished to come to me.



A human that kills another person in self defense ceases to be a human in your eyes? Any person that kills another person you do not consider human?


Ive noticed whenever you look at any situation, you always look to the defender.

A person kills in self defence? There is a huge amount of interpretation over what 'self defence' actually means. When something ceases to be an act of murder and becomes an act of self defence.


I recognize that passivity is one extreme on a spectrum... and extremes tend to be bad.


Then why kill in self defence? It is an extreme, why not incapacitate? Or run?

In the martial arts i do, the one thing my teacher never stresses enough is that there is a time and place for fighting, and it is always the last resort.


Everyone should bear the responsibility of their actions, and if someone chooses to harm another individual, they should be held responsible for that decision.


But they should not pay with their life. That is too simple. they need to learn from their mistakes and pay for their action.



It is not that your idea has a time when humans will miraculously fit into the plan, if at such a point all humanity would agree on such a thing, I would have to graciously bow out of it. While I believe in helping others, I feel it is my decision whom I am to help, not a communities.


I will then ask you one simple question.

Do you want to help humanity as a whole?


Mob Rule would dominate such communities, and mobs have the equivalent IQ of the highest IQ amongst the group divided by the number of people in the mob.


You are sectionalising what i am saying. When i say 'communities' i dont mean blocks, or insulae, or whatever. A community is a communicative unity, hense its name.

It can be a family, a house, a city, a planet.

It is people talking, communicative unity.

It is the governments job to listen to all people, and to weigh each opinion justly.



You speak about people needing boundaries, which is problematic to say. Do you define the boundaries?


I create a society where the boundaries are large enough not needed to be defined, and those that do have a specific reason given to the people freely.

i have no reason to lie or keep secrets from the people.


If you decide what boundaries people are allowed to have, are you not forcing your beliefs on individuals who do NOT want those boundaries?


Then they have 2 choices, the first is to tell me their opinion on the matter, where i will weigh their arguements and consult my own friends and advisors to a course of action. I am not as stubborn as i may seem on here sometimes.

the second is that they may leave if they so wish, if enough people leave then that will be a warning to me, a note that peoples voices arent being heard and that changes must be made.

Those that leave are the ones i need to talk to most.


If there is a community of people living up in the hills who accept incest, for example, and all the surrounding communities want them burned alive for their atrocity... I imagine this would be perfectly acceptable?


Incest is a moral issue, one which is tough to enforce. I will seek to tell them downfalls of incest, the problems of children which come from incestual relationships. Then if they persist it may require something heavier handed.

I am not sure what i would do in that situation.


If they do not conform to the boundaries they "Need" as defined by, well, whoever governs... then what?


Then they have chosen to leave the government and lose all the benefits of it.

a measure of freedom is required in a healthy society, but a measure of conformity and morality must be observed aswell.

Freedom is just another word for Chaos, afterall.


Defining boundaries for people is part of the problem, not part of the solution.


so do you believe there should be no boundaries if you think they are part of the problem?


Neither is a wrong stance to take, as both are formed from personal feelings on the matter.


So why do we still have people with signs outside of clinics with signs saying "Abortion is murder"


Definitions of control, after being set in place, can be and most likely will be exploited by someone to their fullest abuse while never quite stepping out of the line of control


Which is why i prepose a system with strict boundaries and codes of conduct, so one cannot subvert the purpose of this government.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Octavius Maximus
 


Robbery happens with swords and knives too. The unprepared person finds themselves helpless. Be prepared, that's the motto of the troop.

Only, with Swords and Knives, the unskilled person is completely and totally at the mercy of the skilled person. Guns are equalizers of skill. In this one aspect, they are better than tools which require skill to operate effectively.

Regardless, they are designed to kill. Just as a sword or knife is.
.
.
.
And so, while you would not extend the governments graces to those who choose not to conform, you create a second class of citizens that live within the society. Impoverished and lacking the standard of living for those who "Play along" with the communal concept.
.
.
.
Self defense is killing someone who is attempting to kill you. Or injuring someone who is attemping to kill you. Or responding to violent force with enough force to dissuade the attacker. Everyone has the right to use whatever force to defend themselves or those they love that they deem necessary, whereby it does not go out of their way; such as pre-emptively assaulting someone who has threatened them with violence.
.
.
.
Killing in self defense is not an extreme, it is a reactionary response.
.
.
.
Nobody should pay with their lives. Ideally, people would be put on trial for their actions. I don't condone violence for violence sake, but I understand that situations are rarely ideal ones.
.
.
.
I do want to help humanity as a whole, but not if it means dictating to any portion of the world or any given society what is moral, what is immoral, what will be accepted and what won't. Communities should be allowed to make their own decisions, no matter how immoral or unjust other communities feel it is.
.
.
.
I feel that you at least have some rationality, considering you would consider if people were leaving your utopia, that it might not be as utopic as you would believe. That is very big of you.
.
.
.
Ahh, but see, that heavy handed issue is where I part ways. Just because much of society views something as amoral/immoral or barbaric does not give them the right to dictate to the world or other communities what they feel should be.
.
.
.
Chaos is a required element for balance. All things in moderation, for all things there is a season.

More later...



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   
I'm wondering if we will really have a choice in the matter. I'm assuming the gov't will require we carry these cards. Then it will come down to the implants that they will require, I think I will head for the hills, when this comes into effect. Has anyone seen the video of the family in Florida that voluntereed to have these implants? Its disgusting! I wish I saved the link to post on here but I didn't. I kept thinking if the implant happened I would just dig it out..
but then I saw the video and there is no way that it can be dug out of the body! I have heard rumors that these RFID chips are being implanted in prisoners, but I have seen no proof of this as of yet. Its all very scary





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join