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.

 

Would you rather have no rights and be protected or...

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I'd have to say both and neither, and pick total freedom as the means to that end. Gives people the ability to group up and self govern to provide mutual protection and order, bu ton their mutually consensual terms.




posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib

I have to disagree with this statement. The purpose of a Governement is to Govern. It is up to the people to protect their own rights.


A government which protects its citizens rights, all of them and not just a select few, Is protecting its peoples right to protect themselves

U realize the government of a FREE country is of the people, by the people, for the people, thank you for proving my point


[edit on 3-7-2008 by wvwooten13]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by wvwooten13
 


Can you point to a Government in history that has taken on the role of protecting the rights of it's citizens? It just doesn't happen. Governments always become an entity of their own as we have seen with our Governemnt. After all isn't ours supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. Do you believe this to be the case?

edit to add: A Government would serve no purpose in a free society as it wouldn't have any jurisdiction.

[edit on 3-7-2008 by harvib]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 



We are talking about the purpose of Government and how Government is supposed to conduct itself by the will and approval of The People, We are not talking about the status quo, Because the status quo goes completely against that which for example the American government was never intended to be, The United states Constitution embodies in the most simple way the rights of man, Not just the rights of Americans but all men, Our Declaration of Independence is a preamble to all of this, In a free society the Governments only purpose is to protect its citizens rights, Because when a citizen is completely free he has the right to protect himself, In a restricted society he has the right to wait until the police show up....

Again regarding the United States, The Constitution isn't a list of rights that are given to us, But a list of the most basic rights that no Man, no Majority, and no Government can take, Rights aren't Given, Because Government cant give you something you were born with, Your life is your own and you have the right to protect it, You have a right to express yourself, You have a right to your opinions and beliefs, Government is by the people it exists at our discretion, And in a free society the discretion of those free men is freedom and nothing else.


"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Giving up rights....ANY rights....then your a fool and will be herded to the nearest camp so you and your family can be controlled ...er I mean protected.


Liberty or death



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by wvwooten13
 


I see your point. Understanding that both choices are purely hypothetical in a totaly free society what purpose would a Government serve? Could there even be a Governement. If so how would it be able to function with no jursidiction? I guess it was my assumption that in a society with no laws of any kind a Governement would be obsolete.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 02:55 AM
link   
A better way to ask this question would be: Would you rather live as an anarchist or a slave? Neither.

There is a better way. Freedom under our present constitution which was originally meant to allow maximum freedom short of anarchy and by limiting the power of the government to prevent them from making slaves out of everyone.

It was a fine line and the people were supposed to keep an eye on government when they exceeded the limits of their authority. Not only didn't the people do this, but as time went by they actually asked the govt. to do so by asking for aid of one sort or the other.

In return for this aid a certain freedom was given up and the people slipped more and more toward the slave end of the spectrum. And of course, because of cause and effect, the more of a slave people became the easier it became for those the people gave power to gain even more power through usurpation.

This is where we stand today. We are closer to the slave end of the spectrum than the free end. And the irony of it all is that eventually when the chains that bind tighten to the extent people can't take it anymore they revolt, and anarchy will prevail until some kind of order is reestablished.

Whereas the first American revolution produced the Constitution, don't count on it the next time. Next time it'll be the decleration of complete martial law that reestablishes order to keep the slaves in line. The King of England didn't have the power and means to pull that off in 1776 but the modern day U.S. govt. and its world government allies certainly do.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Since this is mostly a thread of hypothetical questions, allow me to ask one. Suppose religion was deemed to be a source of conflict and violence, and the right to practice religion, any religion, was taken away, how would you feel then? I noticed a few instances were people asked if such or such right was taken away, what would their response be, well what if this was the next right that you lost?




top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join