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.

 

Freedom Is Not My Enemy

page: 1
18
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+2 more 
posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I want you to repeat after me:

“Freedom is not my enemy”

“Freedom is not my enemy”

“Freedom is not my enemy”

Now take a deep breath, sit back, and think about what the word freedom means.

Freedom means free action. To engage freely in trade, to act freely, to work freely, to buy freely, to do all things without coercion or constraint is the definition of freedom.

Freedom (within the bounds of our property rights) is what has given us prosperity. Freedom means being responsible for yourself and your own actions. Freedom means not being told what you can and can not do as long as whatever it is you are doing is not harming someone else or damaging their property. Freedom means not having your life run for you.

When freedom is allowed to flourish, society prospers enormously. Freedom gave us the production line, the automobile, the computer, and the cell phone. It forces people to innovate and compete. It makes people creative and studious. It causes people to get up off their butts and do something productive for society as a whole.

I’m writing this because I find so many people today are deathly afraid of freedom. They are scared they will fall through the cracks, that they are too dumb to make it on their own, that they need other peoples resources handed to them because they aren’t resourceful enough to make it in a free society.

People, its time to stop believing the lies you have been taught about freedom since you were old enough to walk upright. The media, the educational system, and the politicians that run it all have a vested interest in keeping you scared and dependent. They don’t want you to learn history. They don’t want you to learn what happens when people are allowed to act freely. They don’t want you to be independent. It doesn't matter if they are Republican or Democrat; they all have the same basic desire to keep you tied to the system. Without dependency, they loose the entire purpose for their own existence.

The lessons of freedom are available to everyone that wants to take the time to educate themselves.

I have put together an extensive list of videos on the economics of freedom and its impacts on society.

fascistsoup.com...

Take the time to learn.


If you want further advice on where to start, I suggest starting in this order:

Mises Institute: Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve
A Lesson In Moral Hazard – Blaming Capitalism Is Wrong
Fiat Empire – The Federal Reserve
Tom Woods: Where Do Rights Come From?
Tom Woods: Who Killed The Constitution Full Video
Tom Woods: Why You’ve Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920
Tom Woods: “Lectures on Liberty”
Milton Friedman on Greed
Milton Friedman on Self-Interest and Profit Motive
Dan Mitchell: Why Keynesian Economics Is Wrong
Dan Mitchell: The Laffer Curve
Dan Mitchell: The Failure of Anti-Money Laundering laws
All the John Stossel videos
No Guns for Negroes


By the time you get done with that, you'll know more about rights, freedom, and economics than 99.9% of college professors today.

Then work your way through the rest of the videos listed on economics.




posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
This stuff is worth learning folks.

When the US dollar implodes, these men will tell you why.

They predicted the .dot com bubble.

They predicted the housing bubble.

And they predicted the failure of the looting stimulus package.

Learn why.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

“Freedom is not my enemy”

I have put together an extensive list of videos on the economics of freedom and its impacts on society.

fascistsoup.com...


Mnemeth this one from your website is pretty good.



Fall of the Republic





[edit on 24-3-2010 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Another excellent thread OP.

I am beginning to have very little to no respect for governmental authority of any kind.

The Federal government is a laughably corrupt institution that has just bitten off way more than they could ever hope to chew.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
If people find the time to look at these resources they'll understand where I'm coming from. This is unfiltered, unaltered truth.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Well said OP and some nice links to boot.

However you can explain or preach about "freedom" as much as you want but there will still be some clown that comes in and says "freedom is vague" or "explain what you mean by freedom".

I can't really count the number of times where I have tried to explain that I "fight for freedom" and some people just don't seem to think I fight for something tangible. Nevertheless, the could learn a thing or two in this thread.

S&F



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


It's not so much that I disagree with you, more that I think a lot of people misunderstand the concept of the nomenclature "freedom" within a society as opposed to the literal definition of freedom.

Consider the following premise:


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. It can also be thought of as an agreement by the governed on a set of rules by which they are governed.

Social contract theory formed a central pillar in the historically important notion that legitimate state authority must be derived from the consent of the governed. The starting point for most of these theories is a heuristic examination of the human condition absent from any structured social order, usually termed the “state of nature”. In this condition, an individual’s actions are bound only by his or her personal power, constrained by conscience. From this common starting point, the various proponents of social contract theory attempt to explain, in different ways, why it is in an individual’s rational self-interest to voluntarily give up the freedom one has in the state of nature in order to obtain the benefits of political order. en.wikipedia.org...
(em)

In essence, every form of social construct, be it the constitution, capitalism, communism, etc, is by definition a tradeoff/surrender of freedoms by the populace in order to escape the human fears associated with an anarchic state or "state of nature."

To enter into such a social contract either willfully or by being born into it, benefiting from the protections it delivers whilst bemoaning the lack of freedoms is often missing the mark.

That is not to say that the state will not attempt to requisition more power and take away more freedoms that were agreed under the original social contract. In this sense the constitution reigns and should always be referred to in the case of the US.

It's certainly complicated, and made even more so by some less than precise language within the constitution, bill of rights, and subsequent amendments.

Nevertheless, it is an important point not often noted or taken into account when some cry "freedom" into the night without a precise understanding and acknowledgment of what it is they are saying and in what context those freedoms may exist. By no means am I suggesting that you are doing that, I am merely adding the thought to the conversation.



[edit on 24 Mar 2010 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   
more "social contract" nonsense.

Its an excuse to use force against others.

That's all it is.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
more "social contract" nonsense.

Its an excuse to use force against others.

That's all it is.




What on earth are you talking about?

There are only two applicable approaches ... a social contract of some form or complete anarchy.

Even if you advocate the latter it doesn't make the former nonsense.

What do you think the constitution is, a suggestion?
Where do you think the construct of "property" comes from?

[edit on 24 Mar 2010 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Nicely said.

Everyone (especially Gwydion), should read this post over and over and over...until they can say it by memory.


Star for you my friend.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
to do all things without coercion or constraint is the definition of freedom.

Freedom (within the bounds of our property rights) is what has given us prosperity.


...your concepts / definitions are contradictory - but - thats normal enough...

...there are very few people on the planet who know what freedom really is... thats because theres very few who have ever experienced it or even known anyone who has... freedom is a multi-faceted concept that means all kinds of things to all kinds of people... make out of it whatever you want but, uh, if you wanna be perceived as someone who has a clue, you might wanna fine-tune your definitions a bit...

..."freedom is just another word for nothin' left to lose"...



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by mnemeth1
more "social contract" nonsense.

Its an excuse to use force against others.

That's all it is.




What on earth are you talking about?

There are only two applicable approaches ... a social contract of some form or complete anarchy.

Even if you advocate the latter it doesn't make the former nonsense.

What do you think the constitution is, a suggestion?
Where do you think the construct of "property" comes from?

[edit on 24 Mar 2010 by schrodingers dog]



Social contract = force and violence.

Explain how you can have a "social contract" - which is a contract that is involuntary - that does not involve enslaving people through the use of force and violence.

"Social Contract" is slang for legalized looting, theft, and violence.





[edit on 24-3-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
 


There is nothing contradictory about that statement.

What part do you feel is contradictory?



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Social contract = force and violence.


To paraphrase a quote from one of my favorite movies ...

You keep using that word ... I do not think it means what you think it means.

And yes by all means yeah freedom ... except of course for those who want to take your "property" from you, we must have rules for those guys. Maybe we should write those rules down on a piece of paper somewhere so we don't forget them ... perhaps even sign it just in case.

I'm out!


[edit on 24 Mar 2010 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


police in a free society
mises.org...

a private law society
www.youtube.com...

no "social contract" necessary.

original appropriation arises naturally from the world we live in.

this is more advanced theory, but its often the first thing people can not accept about a truly free society. I suggest starting from the list I provided. These articles will make more sense after you see how it all works.




[edit on 25-3-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


The notion of a social contract is an oxymoron and especially by those who would insist that a "social contract" demands one party surrender authority to the other or others. A contract in the strictest legal definition is an agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to perform something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration. Surrendering freedom was not the consideration agreed upon by The Constitution for the United States, and while there may be some form of social contract in other countries where the people have willingly surrendered their sovereignty and freedom in order to be governed, such was not the contract of the Constitution for the United States of America.

If a so called "social contract" is to have any weight under proper law, then the law of contracts would have to apply. Under the law of contracts there are several elements that must be in place to show an existence of contract:

I.) An offer must have taken place.

II.) An acceptance of that offer resulting in agreement.

III.) A promise to perform.

IV.) A valuable consideration, i.e., promise or payment of some form.

V.) A time or event when performance must be made.

VI.) Terms and conditions for performance.

VII.) Finally...performance.


If The Constitution for the United States of America is to be taken seriously as a contract under the law of contracts then it could be argued that the offer made was the government to be run by elected and appointed officials. The acceptance of such an offer can be construed to be We the People, the promise to perform is affirmed by oath by those elected and appointed officials, a valuable consideration and promise of payment is agreed upon in the form of taxation, and financial compensation to those elected and appointed to government, the time and event of when certain functions of government happen has been established by the Constitution as contract, and the terms and conditions for that performance in no way demand the surrender of the peoples inherent political power.

Indeed, the right to alter or abolish the Constitution, for the purposes of your plea of consideration of a social contract, is held and still to this day, maintained by We the People.




posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You guys speak of "freedom" like it is the most important thing one can attain.

I disagree...I will admit I do not have total "freedom"...and it is by choice. It is because I have chosen "responsibility" over total "freedom". I have a responsibility to my family to provide for them, protect them, and to ensure their future prosperity. I can't have total "freedom" if I have chosen this responsibility...I must make sacrafices in order to fulfill my responsibilities. And I make those sacrafices with pride.

I would fulfill these responsibilities with or without the freedom we enjoy in this country, and whatever your opinion...you must agree we do enjoy more freedom than most in this world...the differences comes from to what degree we believe that freedom is. The fact that I live in a place where I have to make less sacrafices to fulfill my responsibilities doesn't affect my choice to take on those responsibilities...but I am grateful that I do live in a country where my sacrafices are minimal compared to what they could be.


There are some things more important than freedom...there are some things that bind as all together as humans regardless of our level of freedom we enjoy...the responsibilities people commit to and sacrafices people make to provide and protect their families is one of those...In my personal opinion.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Argh, so hard to step away from these threads.


I don't believe anything I stated contradicts anything you said ...

Though this aspect of it is somewhat fallacious from a definitive point of view, for the word "contract" just like the word "freedom" isn't restricted to a solitary definition.

I'm sure you know this better than I but the "contract" term in "social contract" is meant as metaphorical/analogical and not as a literal equivalent to its use in contract law. To morph the two is to confuse the issue.

Thus:


If a so called "social contract" is to have any weight under proper law, then the law of contracts would have to apply. Under the law of contracts there are several elements that must be in place to show an existence of contract:


A social contract is a philosophical abstraction, an observed concept if you will, it mostly refers to the point in time when man in his "natural state" met scarcity.
At some point in time 4 peeps walked into a room in which there were three apples ... after the first few groups killed each other over the apples, someone said "hey, wait a minute, let's think this through cause there must be a way to eat and live at the same time."

Thus were borne the first social contracts, definitions such as property, religions, political/social ideologies, which all are basically scarcity distribution mechanisms. And with that also came power structures and hierarchies for it was not lost on the clever folk that those who control the means to disburse the apples can keep the most apples.

Even the US constitution is in this context a secondary social contract, based on the original SC which was simply and as stated, a historical threshold when an implicit understanding was reached between humans that they we 'safer' and less 'fearful' working a society rather than in their natural state.

Phiew ...



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


You've got some good fight in you mate, well done!

Sadly the debate here is not what I would generally call very collegiate some of the time. Many of the anti-government activists on here tend to pick and choose the bits of western philosophy they like and discard the rest with a simple comment.

The basis for their understanding of "freedom" it seems to me is that any time a government requests anything of you, it's totally optional for you to give it or not. This is an absolutely incredible individualistic world view and this is exactly the kind of thing that the majority of western philosophy in general has shuddered at and seen as the darkest oblivion.

If you ask OP if I fear your "freedom" yes, I think it would bring about the end of civilization. I will stand on the side of the social contract. I will continue the western ideal of the unity and the greatest good for the greatest number.

Citizens of government: United We Stand!



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 



The metaphorical nature behind the idea of a social contract is fine as long as this surrendering of freedom remains metaphorical as well. Metaphorically speaking we have surrendered our freedom to gravity, and if this so called social contract can work under those parameters then the secondary contract you label the Constitution for the United States of America to be, then becomes less metaphorical and much more literal in terms of contract law. It was a wise move by the Framers of that Constitution to make clear that We the People at all times hold the inherent political power, and we transfer some of that power to government as limited power for a limited time, only.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join