It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


I care not who makes these laws...

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 02:29 PM
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

I'm not too big on philosophy but from what little I do know utilitarianism and Hobbes "keep them in awe" deals are all essentially "how to keep the sheep happy" tools for the state to wield and excuse its actions. They've never sounded like good concepts to me. Always patronizing and insulting.

Maybe when America was still with unincorporated territories this would fly because the mass minded could have their place and the liberty minded could have their place but the mass have overtaken all of the globe. There is no wilderness to go to anymore. It's become against the law to go live the "solo, hard, short" life even if you wanted to. Not that it would be all that hard or short necessarily.

Western philosophy seems more about finding reasons why people should accept their chains more than anything else. At least the works that statist types like to cite.

I'd take schizoid seclusion any day over urban civilization. Trouble is I cant knock down any logs for a shack or dig up an dirt to cultivate or kill any animal to eat and clothe myself without breaking any number of federal laws thereby making myself a criminal. All without causing any harm or distress or inconvenience to another living soul.

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 02:29 PM
reply to post by Goethe

I don't care.

Teach your children to break the law.

I don't care.

Teach them to do drugs.

I don't care about your personal life. I really don't. If everything was stripped from you I wouldn't bat an eye. That is why I told you to do whatever it is you wanted to do, even if it was illegal.

I don't care if you go to jail, honestly I don't. You can throw four little kids into this mix if you want, but I don't care.

As long as you don't hurt anybody you can break whatever law you want, I don't care.

You are a fictional character to me and every time I get done with a post it is like finishing a book. I put it on the shelf and not ever think about you again.

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 03:03 PM
Then why even bother to post?

I find you and your thinking to be just ignorant and without any merit.

Go elsewhere troll, cause by your last post, you admit you have nothing to say so be gone!

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 03:13 PM
reply to post by Goethe

You are right.

I stated what I wanted to say to you in my first post and then spent the remainder defending another post that wasn't even directed to you.

I even back up a post I made after you accused me of not reading your post. Even when I showed you that you were wrong you wasn't even man enough to admit it. You just pretended you never happened.

And you call me the troll all because you don't like my opinion.

If you feel that way then report it and let the mods sort it out.

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 03:17 PM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

We need a world three or four times larger nowadays, but that would only delay our problems. They're there regardless, and now, the wilderness is in our souls to explore instead of before our eyes. "They've" put us in that position, and it looks like they're going to keep on pushing the wilderness back until we can't remember it any more. Sort of like the third Highlander, with the anti-rad dome over the earth, or one big cement factory covering its face. Yet, in heroic literature, the barbaric hero was always the one who tamed the frontier for society, yet was at war with the society they created. Corporations, with their scientific lawlessness, are our new barbarians, full of might and power. Their frontier is our wilderness and freedoms, and the law they leave behind is that which they hate.

You are a fictional character to me and every time I get done with a post it is like finishing a book. I put it on the shelf and not ever think about you again.

Your disassociation with reality is what will be labelled as insanity in the future. Goethe is real, I am real, and you are real. "Interdependance is of higher value than independance" it has been said, and compassion and empathy separated from law will bring the law itself into judgement. We're not your councillors, but I will say, you have to give respect in order to deserve respect. It's a two-way street or a two-edged sword, whichever way you prefer.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by Northwarden]

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 03:20 PM
reply to post by Northwarden

You maybe real, but not where I am sitting.

I do not look for or need respect on a internet web site. I come here to give my opinion and what you do with it does not concern me.

Sorry you don't like it.

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 03:38 PM
Report it for what, nonesense?

You amaze simple minded people everywhere Im sure.

You come to the net to give your opinion and thats it?

You are a troll and fit the description to a T.

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 03:40 PM
Liberty trumps majority rule, every time. No one has any right to impose on others and that includes laws, made only to suppress the minority. If you disagree, lets have a dual, I'm game. If you are not willing to die for your own liberty and freedom don't be surprised when the sheep get taken to the butcher.

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 03:43 PM
reply to post by Goethe

If you say so.

I really don't care if you keep insulting me. If that makes you feel smarter then go for it. I understand that those who cannot stand up for themselves in the real world need an outlet for the abuse they may occur in their everyday lives and the internet is great for that.

They should make a shirt that says "The Internet, helping people be tough since 1996".

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 03:51 PM
Lol, yep a troll. Away from your bridge, and stop terrorizing the passer-by for your tolls of fear and insensitivity! No, I don't like it Miracle man, and on with the discussion of the real-life events that happen beyond the trolls living room
Nothing personal man, and feel free to join in whenever you decide to rejoin the human race.

Edit - I should clarify, fear for me is being sucked back into the comfy delusions of a sheeple society as pronounced by our almighty rulers and government.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by Northwarden]

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 03:57 PM
reply to post by Northwarden

I follow the law and my life hasn't suffered one time for it.

If my respect for the law deems me a "sheeple" then so be it.

Bah bah.

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 04:21 PM
reply to post by Miracle Man

Why would you suffer, the slave doesn't get whipped when he does as he is told? No?

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 04:24 PM
reply to post by LordBaskettIV





Keep the names coming folks. Attack the one who doesn't share your view point. I'm sure you guys got more names in those massive brains of yours.

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 05:23 PM
reply to post by Miracle Man

Maybe you are confused, my first post was a statement, not directed at anyone in particular. However, I did respond to you in my second post. All I asked was a simple question. Do slaves suffer when they do as they're told? Just because one person follows a set of laws does not mean they are right or just. At what point does a slave question his bindings, or even the reason for such bindings in the first place?

I can tell you, when someone is comfortable, they never ask or question. If they did, they KNOW, deep down, their masters own horrible gaze may be upon them instead of others who are more or less worse off. When the master beats a field hand, the house slaves keep quiet for fear of losing their own limited privileges. You are not property, or a commodity, so how can another rule over you? Just because they have some majority? I think not, and would hope you do too.

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 05:27 PM
You say you only come here to give an opinion, yet mock others for doing the very same thing?

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 05:45 PM
Lord, I agree whole heartedly.

I may disagree with what you say, but I will die defending your right to say it.

You miracle man say kill anyone holding drugs....

Im sorry, but you sir make me sick with this type of thinking.

Your opinion matters not to anyone with a thought pattern above that of chocolate pudding.

You disagree with something and you say kill them.

Thats more than sad, thats pathetic. And maybe even a tad bit racist!

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:22 PM
So far as slaves go, I've watched Much from time to time and three quarters of the videos I saw were artists appealing to the PTB for a place in their ranks, resisting them, apologizing to them, adoring them, or just flaunting it because they are already "made". All the masonic imagery, colour codes, symbology on clothes, pyramids, and so on were unmistakable. They know it, because they're heavily involved in the mainstream media and money waterfalls.

We may not "know it" yet, on a personal basis, because we've avoided most of their garbage. It's not hit yet, but we are angry now for the sake of the future we see coming. It's slavery to their corruption without a contract to say so.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by Northwarden]

posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 01:13 AM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

I think the idea you're trying to explain here is that of "the noble lie" where the state can basically do for the "good" of the subject and lie to them about it. This comes from Plato, not Mill or Hobbes. I think that Mill for one would be positively opposed to the idea actually.

Remember that western philosophy is where the very ideas of what we think of freedom and liberty were established. In fact it was Mill who's work "On Liberty" is the basis for much of the thinking in the United States and United Kingdom on the subject.

No ideas are formed without input of some kind and just about everything we debate on this board has to do with something in philosophy.

As for unclaimed wilderness, there is actually still a surprising amount of it on the earth, especially surprising when our numbers are reaching 7 billion. Some of the locations are breathtakingly beautiful as well. Much of the Amazon basin is still wilderness, some of which is still completely unexplored.

As for completely unclaimed territory, find a good sea chart. There are still islands, with fresh water springs that are unclaimed.

All it takes is some dedication but you can still cast off the social contract, escape society so to speak. It's possible to still live as a wild man, as only our most ancient ancestors did. That's quite an adventure.

posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 06:46 AM

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
As for completely unclaimed territory, find a good sea chart. There are still islands, with fresh water springs that are unclaimed.

Problem 1: No undiscovered islands

● Since existing islands are claimed, some conclude that they should just build new ones.

● However, it is quite difficult to find suitable places that do not fall under some kind of national jurisdiction. If you are making your own land, it has to be outside countries’ territorial waters (generally 12 miles offshore) and exclusive economic zones (generally 200 miles from land)—and there is little or no shallow water outside of such zones. For instance, the would-be Principality of New Utopia is planned for the Misteriosa Bank in the Caribbean—but it seems to be in the Exclusive Economic Zones of both Honduras and the Cayman Islands (UK). Both countries have signed the Law of the Sea Treaty, which gives them power to regulate new island creation.

● The partial exception to the dearth of unclaimed territory is Antarctica, which is essentially international, with nations’ territorial claims effectively suspended. But the continent is supervised by all the most powerful countries on the planet, and they would not let a startup country grab some of it.

● (There is a cheat to the land problem, in the eyes of the island purist: build a floating island city—there are several schemes kicking around. But these would be mere ships, in truth. And there is the oil rig solution, notably represented by “Sealand”, a surplus-gun-platform “country” off the coast of England.)

Problem 2: Existing countries want their islands

● You can buy islands in many countries, but that means that you are a landowner, not a separate country.

● While most countries will not surrender sovereignty over a piece of land, it might be possible to find one so poor or corrupt that it would do so. Some right-wing Americans thought Haiti fit the bill a couple of decades ago, and attempted to buy the Île de la Tortue (Tortuga Island) off the northern coast. They were going to form the usual libertarian paradise, but even Haiti proved insufficiently abject to fall for the scheme. (The fate of thousands of Haitians already living on the island was unclear.)

● You can try to take an island by force, but fortunately for the small states of the Pacific and the Caribbean there are powerful countries that prevent that sort of thing.

Problem 3: No process for forming new countries

● The best solution is to become a leader in an island that might like to break away from its country: Nevis, of St. Kitts-Nevis, for instance. The separate islands of the Comoros have each achieved substantial autonomy under their own leaders in recent years. And East Timor has made the transition to sovereign nation.

● You still need recognition from the international community. And that requires sympathy, triggered by oppression of your little island, or at least popular support for its breaking away.

● Barring that, you can try to seize an island nation whole. This has been attempted by mercenaries in the Comoros (with some success), Vanuatu, and the Maldives. Once again, it runs into the problem of great power protectors.

Problem 4: Need for citizens

● The breakaway inhabited island solves this problem, but otherwise you have to convince people to come live on your island.

● Build-your-own-island schemes typically dangle libertarian freedom as their lure.

● Forming your own cult is promising. A breakaway Mormon sect in the mid-19th century took this route, briefly declaring Beaver Island in Lake Michigan to be their kingdom. But cults tend to be unstable and draw the attention of authorities quickly.

If I were some amazingly wealthy person I may be able to purchase an island but I have no drive for wealth and only pennies to my name.

What of the Amazon that Brazil doesnt claim dominion over is controlled by aboriginal tribes.

Either way somebody is going to want to tax anything that's done.

posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 11:18 AM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

What you are talking about are very large land areas, capable of sustaining a city or bigger. With regards to those areas, you are right, there are none that are unclaimed. What I was referring to in my previous post were small land-areas, capable of sustaining a family or other small number of people. Homesteading instead of nation-building.

Now if you are looking to build a nation, I would suggest trying to convince a number of like-minded Libertarians to move to a low-population, high-industrialization nation and try to take over the political process. It may end up bloody though, the locals might not go along with it. Barbados is a possible candidate, however their protection from the United Kingdom would become a major issue if your takeover went violent.

If you want the most Libertarian places in existence right now though, Estonia seems to get very high marks for economic freedom, and small government, but it is part of the European Union and one of the most atheistic countries on the planet, both things that put off American Libertarians.

Dubai is an interesting one, insane capitalism, money I believe has effectively replaced Allah there. Too bad you're not highly profit motivated though, you might end up one of their construction slaves because of that, or worse in debtor's prison.

So a better question to ask regarding this is with all of the nations in the world, and the massive number of people, why are there not truly Libertarian nations? In reality the ideas are not that popular, even in the United States. Some nations have experimented with laissez-faire capitalism in the past, most notably France where the term comes from, and to a lesser extent Great Britain and China have given this a try in the past.

The problem becomes that the closer a country gets to full economic freedom, the more the citizens begin to clamor for increased regulation and larger government, particularly in the form of safety-nets and controls on corporations. No one can commit, without the population rebelling, to a fully Libertarian system.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in