Government Does Everything At Gunpoint

reply to post by EnlightenUp


The history of native america shows us the natural state of man does not necessarily devolve into an authoritarian state.

Such a natural state was normal for the Indians. They didn't contemplate aggregating State authority any more than they contemplated why people shouldn't kill each other.

Its just the society that arose out of their respect for natural law.

Once people have their freedoms back, they don't willingly give them up to a state so easily. Its only through conditioning that this occurs.

We see historically that authoritarian control over society generally comes about only when supply and creation of money is centralized and an external threat is imposed upon the society.




[edit on 17-2-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


Man evolved from the natural state to today and now we have authoritarian states. From where else did it start from the natural state? I think both OT Creationism and Darwinism put man in a "natural" state at one time. Perhaps one of the few points they truely agree on.

You might have had a particular people ahead of the curve able to do this but it certainly doesn't reflect humanity on a larger scale. I also don't wish to idealize something that was interrupted externally. Perhaps it could have degenerated if left alone if they themselves changed. Perhaps they were actually already beyond that possibility, having learned all the lessons themselves throught their own mistakes.

I would say it's beyond their respect for natural law, but moreso, their respect for life of all kinds. It's not something the invaders shared.

When the external threat was imposed, those natives didn't fair too well. The change into a respectful species has to be universal to us. Figuratively or literally, it has to get into our genes.

reply to post by EnlightenUp


Man did not evolve, man devolved.

You seem to think the natural state of man is to labor under a tyrannical State.

Taken from Zero Hedge, Zombie Nations.

Let’s look at this a little closer. How many times over the past 12 months have you been reading a book, newspaper, magazine, trolling the Internet, listening to a news program, whatever, when something leaps to the center of your attention and immediately prompts a “What the hell” response. Here’s a stray puzzle piece that for whatever reason has been thrust into view. It doesn’t fit anywhere in your personal puzzle but there it is, commanding your attention and demanding resolution. But this piece is “out there” and for some reason you may feel a little uncomfortable, fearful, angry even. While it’s just one little piece of the puzzle, it feels threatening to you. How dare this puzzle piece jump out in front of you and disturb your peaceful day. Or maybe not, maybe you have no feeling either way. But still it doesn’t fit. So what do you do? Do you spend the next 3 hours re-examining your belief system or this puzzle piece in an honest attempt to understand the outlier. Of course you don’t, because the piece doesn’t fit. Out it goes, usually never to be seen again.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by EnlightenUp

 

Man did not evolve, man devolved.

You seem to think the natural state of man is to labor under a tyrannical State.

Overall, I think they were just too silly and innocent to know better, so got themselves entangled this mess. They did initially enjoy a protective benefit from the combining of resources. Eventually this led to consolidation of power and then to desire to control. It could possibly have been averted earlier if it were made clear that inhumane acts and exploitation were intolerable. They certainly like pointing fingers at others to find someone to punish, banish and blame and use that state power as a proxy for taking personal vengence.

The natural state of man is whatever he gets himself into through his choices. When he honestly changes his mentality, his surroundings and circumstances will as well. Up to the present day, collectively, he's reaping what he sowed. No government has any power if there aren't enough individuals to be complicit in acting as its machinery. When AI does all the work at the oppressors' beck and call without human intervention, then I'll change my mind-- maybe.

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
They did initially enjoy a protective benefit from the combining of resources. Eventually this led to consolidation of power and then to desire to control. It could possibly have been averted earlier if it were made clear that inhumane acts and exploitation were intolerable.

See I think the opposite is true.

Humans naturally combine resources freely and voluntarily when left to their own devices.

If I'm a great hunter and I have spare rabbit pelts on me, I might trade them with a great seamstress for a new pair of pants I need more than my rabbit pelts.

If a pair of pants takes 10 rabbit pelts to make, but the seamstress says she wants 12, and I agree to this, we both profit.

To me, I value the pants more than 12 rabbit pelts, which I can easily acquire more of. While the seamstress values 12 rabbit pelts more than the pants she already has. Her labor was worth 2 additional rabbit pelts, which I gladly agreed to pay her.

The consolidation of power arises from the control and issuance of currency, because all currency is nothing more than a valuation of labor.

When a government controls currency, and the value there of, they control my labor. They are ultimately making the claim that they own my labor. That in order for me to buy or purchase things with my labor, I must use the valuation of that labor that they control.

They can devalue my labor by creating more currency than actual hours of labor call for. And they can consolidate power by using my own labor against me through that same mechanism.

Government achieves this today by creating more debt. Debt I am forced to repay through my labor. That debt is used against me to consolidate governments power.




[edit on 17-2-2010 by mnemeth1]

I was at the gun shop today. The owner was joking about how he had to spend the morning reading up on some new BATF policies that were started last year. The joke was that he didn't get the info until today.

Then we started talking about how ignorance of the law is no excuse for me or him and claiming ignorance would just get us thrown in prison or shot. For the gov however they can use any damn excuse they want. We didnt get the info in time? That's our problem not the govs.

Living under all of these absurd rules and regs wouldn't be half as bad as it is if the people in charge of these rules and regs weren't a bunch of holier than thou self righteous wholly incompetent sadists.

Every last one of us can have everything we've ever owned taken and our bodies killed or imprisoned at the whim of the gov. It never has to be right. It never has to apologize. It has absolutely no conceiveable reason to even pause to think about its actions. It's like some flesh eating beast up in a cave on some mountain top. Whenever it wants it will come down and destroy you. Trying to stop it will only get you killed.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Not only does the government not have to obey its own rules, it also claims it has more rights than we all do.

Only the government has the right to keep and bear arms.

Only the government has the right to use force against others that have caused harm to no one.

Only the government has a right to your land, forces you to pay rent on your own property, and tells you what you may or may not build on it.

Only the government has a right to your labor, and may tax it as it sees fit at the point of gun.

If you were to try that on someone else, you'd be branded a criminal.




[edit on 17-2-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by IceOwl
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

 

It's "called" the social contract. Well if you've read Orwell you know that anything TPTB "call" something, it is not. News is not news, free is not free, info-tainment is neither and this contract is certainly not a contract. The term "contract" implies mutual, informed, specific and conscious consent. The OP clearly has not given this, and neither have I.

How clever, though a bit obvious to use to word "contract" so your victims can fool themselves into believing that they somehow chose thier torture. Bullies always try to think of a way of telling themselves that victims "asked for it." And in some cases the victims buy it too.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by IceOwl]

Did you pay any attention in school? I did not make up the term Social Contract, it goes back to Plato in the western philosophical tradition. The idea as we know it today is a mixture of Classical-era Greek thought and Enlightenment-era European. This is basic civics; the reason we in the western world have governments!

You do actively give your consent to the social contract by participating in society! If you do not wish to be held to the social contract any more, then you leave society, that is how you do it. You leave your home, and all of the comforts therein, you find an unsettled part of the world, usually a jungle or desert somewhere, and you make your own society, independent of the rest of us.

As for the OP saying that I am trying to argue Hobbes here not him, yes, completely, this is true. the State Of Nature according to Hobbes is a state outside of government and society control. Read Hobbes, you will understand this. Seriously did any of you ever take a philosophy course? This stuff is fundamental to understanding why governments behave the way they do. Do not give me any "The Powers That Be" bull here, these ideas are far older than any government on earth! Read Plato's Republic, read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, please!

Freedom-loving patriots who respect natural rights can stay. Domestic fascists who believe life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are privileges have to leave, at the point of a gun if necessary.

en.wikipedia.org...

Legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature (or unenumerated but implied from enumerated rights), and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. In contrast, natural rights (also called moral rights or unalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.

en.wikipedia.org...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, 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.

If the domestic fascists don't like it, that's just too bad, move to China. This is the contract under which this country was formed.



[edit on 18-2-2010 by Crito]

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
This thread is awesome. After everything they do to screw you, there's a gun in your face on top of it all.
Flag.

Now now, lets not get carried away!

How are we supposed to save humanity with out guns in our face at all times!

I always find it amazing that most of the anti-gun zealots are socialists who have absolutely no problem with the use of guns against the citizenry by the government.

Guns make socialism possible.

Interesting sarcasm you have. Is that what most of the anti-gun zealots are like? I can see how that would be the case.
All of America's founding fathers , at least the majority of them were in support of the citizen owning guns. They all said that when nations take away the arms from the citizens that a truly authoritarian state will then be formed.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


Jimmy, you keep throwing this "social contract" around as if this is some kind of accepted fact and a contract to which I am automatically a party.

A little background on "social contract" is in order:

Social contract describes a broad class of theories that try to explain the ways in which people form states to maintain social order. The notion of the social contract implies that the people give up sovereignty to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law.
...
The Social Contract was used in the Declaration of Independence as a sign of enforcing Democracy.

As was alluded to, our Declaration of Independence makes it clear that the People must give CONSENT to be governed under a social contract.

The Declaration, which is US Law, also states that the People have a right to throw off such a government that violates its end of the contract.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, 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.

Our unhinged tyrannical fascist government has done, and is doing, exactly that - violating its end of the contract.

I do not give my consent. I reject the federal government and its tyrannical actions. It is wholly in violation of its constitutional mandate. It has usurped power from the states and from the People. It is acting entirely outside the law.

The federal government is lawless.


reply to post by dragonsmusic


Read my blog for more epic sarcasm hahaha.




[edit on 18-2-2010 by mnemeth1]

S+F ans amen OP! Yes they do! They are corporate and el;itist slave drivers, both Dems and Republicans nothing more! They are slave drivers and we are the slaves held at gun point! How our country has fallen!

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I do not give my consent. I reject the federal government and its tyrannical actions. It is wholly in violation of its constitutional mandate. It has usurped power from the states and from the People. It is acting entirely outside the law.

The federal government is lawless.

Alright, now what?

Are you going to stop paying taxes?
Are you going to actively work to overthrow the United States Federal Government?
Are you going to define yourself as independent from the United States?
Are you going to act as though you are not bound by the rule of federal laws any more?

If you are so convinced that you have a better understanding of social contract theory and how it is applied in the United States than the government because you read the Wikipedia page instead of the actual philosophy, act on it.

Don't be a hypocrite, I want to hear your plan now. I want to hear how you believe you can reject just the parts of government you don't like in a legal and lawful way.

Or are you just going to keep whining about it?

mnemeth, I liked your post. But, you forgot the critical average Joe. Gun in my face.

The plebian mythology's counter argument that play this way is: "I had to do, what I had to do". I am sure you have heard of that one.

I'm surounded now by 4 sets within households that subcribe to this philosophy, all within ear shot. And, when they see me outside, I ofter hear a 1st person shooter game, verbosed at me. I'm sure it's rather common.

Then, when confronted by hostility, they call the 'Authorized' gun in your face you speak of.

And, last but not least, don't forget Smiley Dan. Your local favorite spin doctor on the News channel, that will tell you gloriously that someone, shot someone in the face.