The Political Divide will be the Ruin of the United States of America

reply to post by gwydionblack

This of course is worse case scenario. This is IF war were to break out, and if you think it cannot that you are blinded by the media spin.

Media spin? You make too many assumptions based upon an ever so brief description of U.S. history clearly lacking any in-depth analysis. I merely offered this brief history lesson to illustrate that political divide has been with this country from the get go, and despite Washington's dire warnings against political parties, the people have clearly embraced the two party system. I do not need to be spoon-fed media tripe in order to recognize this, and frankly neither do you.

It is infinitely easier to offer up a history lesson than to offer lessons of future history. Predictions can be made, but the value of prediction lies solely in the ability to understand the past and present, and the ability to make quantifiable measurements of how past and present will affect that future.

This weakening state thing has been the case since the Civil War. Had the Southern States, had the temerity and moral fortitude to prohibit slavery themselves prior to succession, the outcome of that Civil War just might have been different. Certainly, it is the height of disingenuous behavior today, from those who asset that the Civil War was solely about states rights, when those who made that claim, then failed to reasonably predict that without prohibiting slavery themselves, their moral case for war was a dubious one at best. Of course, they merely succeeded, some would say, and that it was the Union that declared war, but such an act should have been easy to predict, and indeed it was predicted. What was not, was that the issue of slavery would become the defining moral factor of that war.

What difference does states rights make when that state is willing to disparage the rights of people residing in that state? This was the case then, and it is the case today. Every state comes with its own constitution, and for anyone who bothers to read those constitutions, it is clear that the law demands the peoples rights be respected. Yet, it should be clear to anyone who is "awake", that such a thing is not the case.

Party lines is a euphemism for battle lines, and as von Clauswitz has pointed out in his seminal work On War, war is merely an extension of politics. It is overly naive to believe that these ideological battle lines are a construct of the state or federal government. They exist because they reflect the ideas of the people.

We have both a federal and state governments today that have wholly embraced the notion of "civil rights" and indeed, many of the people who have advocated these so called "civil rights" declare themselves moral and just, while many who advocate this perspective will viciously and virulently demonize those who advocate Natural Rights. There is a very real and quantifiable difference between the two, and where the demand for "civil rights" is clearly an appeal to government to grant rights to people, the insistence that Natural Rights are inalienable makes clear governments have no authority to grant rights.

Those who advocate some form of communism or socialism are advocating a state enforcement of wealth redistribution and as such are advocating "legal plunder". Plunder is plunder and from a moral standpoint, plunder is wrong. It matters not who has done the plundering, whether it be the fabulously rich who became this way through plunder, or whether it is through more controlled methods of wealth redistribution, it still remains plunder. I see this as self evident, and yet, I assure you my friend, there are many who would vehemently disagree with my assessment, and therein lies just one of the great political divides between people.

While you seem to be advocating a harmony between the people where all would let go of their own political ideologies in favor of a united front, misses the point that on both sides of the political spectrum, this is fairly much the same argument. Communists and socialists see morality in their views because the want to bring a method of financial equality to all. Those who advocate a free market system see morality in their views because they want to bring unrestricted opportunity to all. Both seemingly want the same thing, which is prosperity for the many, but neither can agree on the best method to obtain this, both sides, in a large part, ignoring that prosperity is an individual choice, and even that assertion will be challenged by others.

There is much wisdom in the words "live and let live", in my humble opinion, but even so, there are so many who argue otherwise. There are those who argue that we over populated and some form of controls need to be placed on living and that our spectacular success at propagation is a hindrance rather than an indication to the ascendancy of humanity. There are those who argue that they have the right to not have others be drunks and drug addicts, there are those who argue that only citizens have rights, there are a myriad of arguments that fall on all sorts of gradients on the political spectrum, and in order to reach some sort of harmony between us, we must first learn how to ensure that a persons right to life, liberty, property and happiness is respected.

Yet Proudhon argues property is theft! Smith argues that an invisible hand will guide us all if the markets remain free and unfettered by regulation. Atheists and agnostics will deride the naivete of Smith and point to his belief in an invisible hand guiding good, and insist that only we can guide this good. I do not offer all these variances in the political spectrum to insist that one has no more value than the other, and indeed, I am, as I have been, and will continually remain a staunch free market advocate, and for that advocacy I will be branded a "corporate tool", I will be accused of being "ignorant", and sadly, even those who fundamentally agree with my ideas of Natural Rights and freedom will imply I am naive and a product of media propaganda. This is the reality we face. You have offered predictions, but have you solutions, and better yet, do you have answers?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I DO have solutions. Many people have solutions. It just so happens that the current divide prevents anyone from implementing such solutions.

The solution is simple and you put it best - LIVE AND LET LIVE!

Individuals should be able to choose what they feel is best for them, to experiment with the unknown, and to be able to find a way in which they prosper and live happily.

How hard is it for people to simply LET GO of divine providence over others? I have no problem with it. I do not tell socialists that their ideas are wrong, I do not tell Muslims that they are worshiping the wrong God, yet I look around me and that is ALL THAT I SEE.

Everyone, everywhere is too damn busy telling other people what to do to actually live their life how they feel would be best. This American government was not created to regulate and conform - it was created to protect the people from both physical harm and the leeching of their liberties - their inalienable rights that are guaranteed to them from birth - not only as American citizens but as HUMAN BEINGS OF THIS PLANET.

If I want to grow marijuana in my back yard for my own use, who is to say that I can't? Who am I hurting and how am I doing so?

When I create a business, who is to tell me how that business should be run? Aren't the people smart and observant enough to decide whether or not they want to do business with me, regardless of my methods or tactics in business?




This country has become the country of CAN'T. You CAN'T do this. You CAN'T do that. Before it was the country of CAN. People could do whatever they want as long as it didn't stop anyone else from doing the same.





Maybe I am unique in my sense. So far in life I am the only person I have ever known that understands the notion of individual liberties completely, without having some kind of convoluted enforced paradigm that infringes on individuality. So long as it doesn't hurt somebody, you shouldn't need permission to do ANYTHING. That is individuality. That is liberty. That is FREEDOM.

Let Proudhon, Smith, and the Atheists argue all they want over what they feel is good and bad or right and wrong. Let others make their choices accordingly. But when they make their choice - let them make it for themselves allowing everyone to make that same choice.


I refuse to be told what to believe, how to think, and how to live based upon the world outlooks and views of a particular group of people. I am a human being and I hold the same rights as they in choosing and following what to believe in. However, I am better because I, unlike them, will not try to enforce my will upon others.



Self-actualization is believed to be a driving for behind the will to live - yet people abandon the trek for self-actualization in exchange for group think and conformed rhetoric. The only way for humanity to thrive and survive is to reach self-actualization among ourselves and step away from the political and social division we have created. I am not saying that we all have to agree, in fact, I am saying that in theory we should all AGREE to DISAGREE and work under those terms for the betterment of our species, without relying on forced law to enact such tendencies.

reply to post by gwydionblack

Maybe I am unique in my sense. So far in life I am the only person I have ever known that understands the notion of individual liberties completely, without having some kind of convoluted enforced paradigm that infringes on individuality. So long as it doesn't hurt somebody, you shouldn't need permission to do ANYTHING. That is individuality. That is liberty. That is FREEDOM.

You call for some sort of unity yet declare yourself unique in your understanding of individual liberties, ignoring completely the tireless efforts I and others have made, not just in this site, but in our own personal lives, in defense of Natural and Inalienable Rights! You ignore these efforts in order to declare yourself unique in the understanding of this, seemingly unaware of the demagoguery it implies. Would you offer yourself up as being the sole defender of Natural Rights, and if so, how does this make you any different than the multitudes of others who have embraced demagoguery?

I have read many of your posts, and am fully aware of your stance. Either you have, until I entered this thread, ignored my tireless efforts to argue the same, or have decided to make some sort of distinction between your understanding of Natural Rights, and my own. If it is the former, this is an oversight on your part that only weakens your argument now, if it is the latter, then clearly you are willing to draw political lines.




[edit on 29-4-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by gwydionblack

So, OutKast Searcher... I beg the question - do you feel that the political divide on ATS is a healthy one even though it is quite clear that it is hindering progress and distracting from the real issues at hand?

The political divide on ATS or in the real world doesn't have to be healthy or unhealthy...it is necesary and will always be present.

We are currently going through some changes in this country...changes aren't easy...there will be growing pains. But it won't destroy the country...and in the end America will still be here. It may look different, it may not be what some individuals wanted...but it will still be here.

I find it interesting that you seem concerned about hindering progress...because I saw the health care reform bill as progress...but I don't think you did. You were part of the resistence to that progress...so you would think you would embrace that resistance and teh political divide in that case. Even thought it didn't turn out how you wanted...are you not glad you had the chance to put up some resistance?

Or maybe I am way off on what you are refering to...what are the "real issues" that you speak of? Because the "real issues" that I see are exactly what are being addressed, discussed, resisted, and then either progressed or gets defeated.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I said that "Maybe" I was unique because I still don't see your stance on the matter exactly. At one point you seem like you are agreeing with me but at the same time you also keep throwing out examples of how the division between people is a good thing - at least that is what I take from it.

You speak of advocating of certain things, yet I speak for advocating of NOTHING besides individual will. In my view things such as socialism and Communism should NEVER be enforced on a mass of people because surely there are some in such groups that would be against them. The enforcement of any type of system upon a mass, particular a mass in which people disagree with the enforcement and are given no choice to opt out - is a CLEAR ASSAULT on individual liberties and does not take into account free will of people at all.

You might think otherwise, or you might think the same - it doesn't matter. What I think is unique to me, and what you think is unique to you. The world should not have to exist upon the basis that we all think and act the same, while being forced to believe in the same things - even if deep down inside we didn't ACTUALLY believe in them.

I am not downplaying your activism on the subject at all. In fact I am simply trying to find exactly where you stand on the subject. For all I care you could be a Satanic worshiper who believes in Monarchy rule, and I am NOT saying that you are. So long as you get together with other people who worship Satan and believe in Monarchy rule, have fun doing what you will. However, the moment you decide to tell me to worship Satan and to praise a king or queen - then you have invaded and destroyed my freedom.

THAT is what I see happening in America, and the entire world today. I am not idolizing myself because of my uniqueness, because to me we all are unique. However, though each person is unique in their own ways, many share philosophies and beliefs that others do as well. I am simply stating that I have yet to find someone on these forums or in my life who has exhibited the same clear cut philosopher of individualism that I do. Perhaps you do, perhaps I am failing to see it. If so I apologize in advance and I want to let you know that I have read your posts and I find myself in agreement with much of what you say.




reply to post by OutKast Searcher

...and in the end America will still be here. It may look different, it may not be what some individuals wanted...but it will still be here.

That is a very anti-American way to look at things. To me, if the individual is not represented then this is no longer America. Maybe by name, but certainly not in ways and methods.

America was not made to be the land of the groups and home of the followers. The Constitution was not forged so that political parties could take their personal preferences and impose them upon the masses - even if some of them agreed. What about those that didn't?

I ask again... whatever happen to the individual?

...because I saw the health care reform bill as progress...but I don't think you did. You were part of the resistence to that progress...so you would think you would embrace that resistance and teh political divide in that case.

I didn't embrace the political divide and I never do. Just because Democrats and Republicans voted along party lines does not mean that all Democrats supported the health care bill, and it does not mean that all Republicans were against it. That is the tricky of part politics.

You see, the reason I look at the HCB as a bane to progress - is because progress is made through individual spirit and liberty. The HCB once again imposes regulations upon individuals and forces them to do things that they should normally have a choice to take part in. A funny thing about the HCB is that all the major pros that were supposed to start immediately somehow hit a snag... meanwhile all the cons get through without nary a whimper.

Or maybe I am way off on what you are refering to...what are the "real issues" that you speak of? Because the "real issues" that I see are exactly what are being addressed, discussed, resisted, and then either progressed or gets defeated.

Nothing is changing. Health care will stay the same, immigration reform will remain, and jobs are still missing. You ask what real issues are - these are the real issues. Yes, they are being addressed... they are being talked about... and the "progress" you speak of? Well when and if it does happen it will take the form of more regulations, more fines, and more control over individual lives.

We have all these problems already and guess what - they aren't caused by the individual. They are caused by government regulations. Failed government regulations that are patched up with more government regulations. The federal government should have never gotten involved in most of these issues, and if they hadn't - the individual would have worked for themselves, and would have answered for themselves - just as human beings have done throughout all of history.

So you can call the endless arguing and bickering on Washington, deciding how best to control out lives some more - "PROGRESS" but I call it useless and a further bane to the individualism this country was founded upon.

reply to post by gwydionblack

I said that "Maybe" I was unique because I still don't see your stance on the matter exactly. At one point you seem like you are agreeing with me but at the same time you also keep throwing out examples of how the division between people is a good thing - at least that is what I take from it.

You said maybe and yet you continue to argue that somehow you have a better understanding of Natural and Inalienable Rights than I do, if indeed you do make the distinction between Civil and Natural Rights. You have chosen to interpret my history lesson as an advocacy of division, ignoring my own assertions that...well allow me to quote myself:

What difference does states rights make when that state is willing to disparage the rights of people residing in that state? This was the case then, and it is the case today. Every state comes with its own constitution, and for anyone who bothers to read those constitutions, it is clear that the law demands the peoples rights be respected. Yet, it should be clear to anyone who is "awake", that such a thing is not the case.

And this:

Those who advocate some form of communism or socialism are advocating a state enforcement of wealth redistribution and as such are advocating "legal plunder". Plunder is plunder and from a moral standpoint, plunder is wrong. It matters not who has done the plundering, whether it be the fabulously rich who became this way through plunder, or whether it is through more controlled methods of wealth redistribution, it still remains plunder. I see this as self evident, and yet, I assure you my friend, there are many who would vehemently disagree with my assessment, and therein lies just one of the great political divides between people.

And yet you say:

You speak of advocating of certain things, yet I speak for advocating of NOTHING besides individual will. In my view things such as socialism and Communism should NEVER be enforced on a mass of people because surely there are some in such groups that would be against them. The enforcement of any type of system upon a mass, particular a mass in which people disagree with the enforcement and are given no choice to opt out - is a CLEAR ASSAULT on individual liberties and does not take into account free will of people at all.

However, where do we disagree on this, other than where you claim to advocate nothing other than free will, I use my free will to advocate free market systems, Natural Rights and respect for others. You have used your own free will to ignore my own rejection of communism and socialism and choose to castigate me merely because I am able to understand my opponents position. Further, many of my political opponents are respected friends. You may or may not know that, but I have made friends in this site, and in the real world out of fierce political opponents. I have done so due to a willingness to listen to their views and speak to them as intelligently as I am capable of doing. Yet, somehow my willingness to do this seems to confuse you on where I stand. It does not confuse my opponents, most of the time, but it confuse you.

What I think is unique to me, and what you think is unique to you.

Unique is unique, and it means that no other compares. If we can not agree on the definition of words, then how can you possibly hope to heal political divide?

THAT is what I see happening in America, and the entire world today. I am not idolizing myself because of my uniqueness, because to me we all are unique. However, though each person is unique in their own ways, many share philosophies and beliefs that others do as well. I am simply stating that I have yet to find someone on these forums or in my life who has exhibited the same clear cut philosopher of individualism that I do. Perhaps you do, perhaps I am failing to see it. If so I apologize in advance and I want to let you know that I have read your posts and I find myself in agreement with much of what you say.

No matter how clear cut your philosophy may be, and I have read enough to understand your views, and indeed, I have shared those views, I assure you, there will be others who will engage in sophistry and dialectical semantics in an attempt to dismiss your views. For this reason, it becomes imperative to understand your opponents views.

You need not apologize to me, my brother, for I have no quarrel with you. I chose, upon my own free will, to enter this thread merely to make clear that the political divide between people is as ancient as time immemorial and no amount of railing and raving against this divide will get us any closer to unity of thought. Indeed, in spite of the commonality between us, you seem willing to assume I am disagreeing with you simply because I felt compelled to point out the complexities of political divide. In rejecting our commonality, you are either demanding I temper my own words and deeds with the sameness of your own, or are ignoring what you have just admitted to being agreement with. Either way, you are choosing to draw political lines between one who agrees with you. Do you understand the folly in this?