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.

 

Socialist I Am Calling You Out!

page: 10
23
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Well, thank you at least for responding to it. The 9th Amendment is only vague in regard to those Rights that have not been listed, where the 9th Amendment is clear is in that those vague Rights are Rights belonging to the People and it can not be construed that just because other Rights were enumerated that only those Rights are what belong to the People.


As I said, I don't think much of the 9th amendment because its too vague. If you can't enumerate a right(spell it out), then it shouldn't exist in the first place.

Nothing tyrannical bout it! Otherwise people can make rights out of thin air and claim the 9th amendment gives them that right.



Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Further evidence of the Inalienable nature of Rights, at least regarding The Bill of Rights, is in the language. Take just the 1st Amendment for example; "Congress shall make no laws..." The sort of rights you are advocating are government granted rights, but what can be granted by government can be taken away by government, but the 1st Amendment makes clear that the 1st Amendment can not be repealed, nor suspended. It has prohibited Congress from trampling over those Rights, in any way shape or form.


I am not a constitutional expert but it seems EXECUTIVE ORDERS are the way to go when it comes to tyranny. Just ask the cia and nsa...




posted on May, 8 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


My friend, I do not mean to accuse you of being a tyrant yourself, only that you make the tyrants argument. A tyrant can find no legitimacy in Natural Law and Inalienable Rights.

As to your assertion that if a Right can't be spelled out, it shouldn't exist to begin with, is predicated on the notion that only governments can grant rights. The fear that People "will claim that People can make rights out of thin air and claim the 9th Amendment gave them that right" again is predicated on government granted rights. Rights granted by government are rights created of thin air, so there is truly a contradiction in your argument.

A right, not called maybes or wrongs, or even lefts, but Rights, are not created, they simply exist, and I make that argument in the secular vein of the argument, out of respect to those who feel offended at the notion of God granted Rights. Whether they be enumerated by Constitution, or statute, or not listed at all, they are Rights. The principle behind any Right, is that it does not abrogate or derogate any other persons Rights. Thus, what a person does that does not trample over the Rights of others, they do by Right.

I do completely agree with your assessment of Exectutive Orders, and they are a big problem for the People. However, those Executive Orders will never be discarded and reigned in, as long as the People are willing to believe the type of arguments you are making. Executive Orders, are precisely what you are advocating, yet ironically admitting they are anti-thetical to freedom.

People can and should govern themselves. That people don't is the only reason we have government, but if that government is not established to protect the Inalienable Rights of all, then it is not a government worth having.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
To end the argument, some animals are more equal than others. Paraphrased from Animal Farm.

Or to put it in my own words.

Leave me and my labor, the frell alone Slave Master!



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



Thank you JPZ for responding to all these circular arguments they keep making and saving me the trouble!

As you point out a rights do not have to be enumerated or illustrated on paper to exist. As an example the right to defend ones self is a natural right that any being on the planet understands whether written or not.

The circular argument that if it is not written on paper it doesn't exist is absurd. Yet is still proffered even though the constitution refers to other rights retained by the people not illustrated on the constitution as being unalienable also.

This thread is disheartening for me as it shows just how far gone many people are. Otherwise intelligent people cannot even understand simple logic and reason or stop running their media programming and repeat it like a mantra...



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Why cannot social libertarians equate the same values they have with that component of their ideology, with the save veracity or level of the economic?

To me it is almost as if they are a split personality.

They want ultimate freedom on the social, but the economic they believe the governments will be able to control themselves with their money.

It does not make any "common sense".

Earlier in the thread someone mentioned they were a libertarian but did not explain that they believed in the socialism of economics.

I am going to post a version I created based on the totalitarian scale here-



And the Nolan Scale here-



My version, a little more explanation to the Nolan graph-




posted on May, 8 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Do not loose heart my friend, you called out the socialist, it should be expected they would show up in force to answer. This is why I have hung in there with you. We can not loose heart. While typing this I am reminded of a line Robert the Bruce Sr. told his son Robert the Bruce Jr. in the movie Braveheart:

"All men betray. All men loose heart."

There is a truism to this statement. Yet, it is good to remember The Bruce Jr.'s response.

"I don't want to loose heart! I wan't to believe, as he (William Wallace) does."

Be brave my friend, and never loose heart, it is the worst betrayal there is.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I don't understand what the point of this thread has become. Is it just to get the socialist to fess up that taking something from someone (taxes) for the good of all is theft?

Well if you don't want to give it up it is. But if you have no problem with sharing then it isn't.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I don't understand what the point of this thread has become. Is it just to get the socialist to fess up that taking something from someone (taxes) for the good of all is theft?

Well if you don't want to give it up it is. But if you have no problem with sharing then it isn't.


Are you suggesting that I have somehow derailed this thread, simply because I have defended Inalienable Rights?

As far as taxation goes, I have made my case, taxation is the mechanism that allows government to operate. When taxation becomes a tool of plunder then no greater good is accomplished, and those who claim they operate in the name of that greater good through plunder fail to recongnize that plunder is theft. No possible good can come from giving an appearance that plunder is good.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


My friend, I do not mean to accuse you of being a tyrant yourself, only that you make the tyrants argument. A tyrant can find no legitimacy in Natural Law and Inalienable Rights.


No offense taken! I simply disagree with *natural law and inalienable rights* theory.


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
As to your assertion that if a Right can't be spelled out, it shouldn't exist to begin with, is predicated on the notion that only governments can grant rights. The fear that People "will claim that People can make rights out of thin air and claim the 9th Amendment gave them that right" again is predicated on government granted rights. Rights granted by government are rights created of thin air, so there is truly a contradiction in your argument.


The socialist mentality is *a government by the people and for the people* therefore their is inherent trust between government and the people in such a case.

It seems conservatives are overly-paranoid about "their" government for the wrong reasons. Yes the american government is tyrannical but so are many other governments across the world.

They have sacrificed the peoples' will for the elites' will and this could not be more evident than THE ACT OF 1871 when washington, dc became the nations corporate governemnt. Then in 1913 the Federal Reserve banking act came into existance, again pushing a "semi-private" central bank on all of us.


The year is now 1913, the year after Woodrow Wilson was elected president of the United States. Prior to his election he needed financial support to pay for his campaign, so he reluctantly agreed, that if elected, he would sign the Federal Reserve Act, in return for that financial support.

In December 1913 while many members of Congress were home for Christmas, the Federal Reserve Act was rammed through Congress and was later signed by President Wilson. At a later date, Wilson admitted with remorse, when referring to the Fed."I have unwittingly ruined my country".


The biggest Scam in history!


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
A right, not called maybes or wrongs, or even lefts, but Rights, are not created, they simply exist, and I make that argument in the secular vein of the argument, out of respect to those who feel offended at the notion of God granted Rights. Whether they be enumerated by Constitution, or statute, or not listed at all, they are Rights. The principle behind any Right, is that it does not abrogate or derogate any other persons Rights. Thus, what a person does that does not trample over the Rights of others, they do by Right.


I guess you can call anything a right if you want to, but since we live in an organised society only the constitution counts. Anything that isn't spelled out isn't a right!


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I do completely agree with your assessment of Exectutive Orders, and they are a big problem for the People. However, those Executive Orders will never be discarded and reigned in, as long as the People are willing to believe the type of arguments you are making. Executive Orders, are precisely what you are advocating, yet ironically admitting they are anti-thetical to freedom.


Yet few people seem overly-occupied with EOs and the national security state, where just about anything can be covered up. I don't mean they should give out critical secrets but some things just burn my ass. Eg:fema camps, the military conducting medical experiments, alleged under-ground alien bases, cia spying on ameican citizens/maybe killing american citizens/guantamo bay detainees, fbi calling people terrorists, etc.

All this is not a result of big government, it is a result of people snoozing away for decades not giving a damm about what is going on in DC. You give them an inch and they take a yard. Its human nature after all!



Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
People can and should govern themselves. That people don't is the only reason we have government, but if that government is not established to protect the Inalienable Rights of all, then it is not a government worth having.


People can't govern themselves. They are not a government.

Beaurocrats get paid healthy wages to look out for the best interest of everyone but in actuality they are looking out for themselves and their cronies.

Hell, I would do the same thing because ignorant people deserve tyranny.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Zerbst
 


I agree the solution is in the middle somewhere. I got blamed for not being a Libertarian because I have a community mind approach to basic necessities of life for all people. However, in no way do I do I think either a social approach or a individual approach is the answer. Neither way is sufficient. The middle ground is simply some of the following.

Low taxes.

Less government.

Return to common law doctrines.

The taxes that are collected are to improve the lives of all peoples basic needs or security and are available to all without qualifying. If you are rich and you need food you can line up to get food like anyone else. If you rich and you want the government health care you line up with the rest. Taxation should be dictated by the drain on government providing these basic services. If people want less tax they should encourage less drain on the government. This might get the rich to really help address social issues to their own benefit.

Research spending is left to corporations to innovate, not to be funded by the public.

Inventions become public property after a determined amount of time, for the betterment of all.

Untapped natural resources cannot be held by the rich simply to control supply and demand. Again the betterment of the whole should be controlling.

Local government should dictate land use not the federal government.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Socialism does not require government in order to exist and can simply be the communal efforts and cooperation of the people.

The only possible principle behind conservatism is the effort to conserve something. In the United States of America, if a so called conservative is not conserving the Constitution, then what the hell are they conserving?

When you suggest that conservative are paranoid for the wrong reasons, what good reasons are there for paranoia? Further, you concede that The United States federal government is tyrannical, but seem to justify it by pointing to other forms of tyranny also in existence, as if two wrongs make a right. Two wrongs do not make a right, and three wrongs certainly don't make it any righter.

You further undermine your own argument by insisting that only the Constitution counts, but as far as you are concerned, the 9th Amendment, and by logical extension, the 10th Amendment don't count, because they don't spell out the Rights they are referring to. Thus, you are dismissing the very Constitution you claim is all that matters.

You defend big government and in the same breath declare it something that can not be trusted. You are correct that government can not be trusted, but to think a big government is then the answer, seems non-sensical. If governments can not be trusted, and they can't, then we are better off with small governments.

Earlier you declared socialism a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then later declare that people can not govern themselves because they are not government. Again, you reveal all that is wrong with socialism.

You concede that bureaucrats fill their own pockets through plundering the people, but still advocate creating more of them. Further, while you declare that people can not govern themselves, you also recognize that those in government are people and if people can not govern themselves, then it is folly to have government at all.

While you declare that, if given the opportunity, you would gladly plunder the ignorant yourself, you have argued mightily in defense of ignorance.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Well the OP was about discussing the 2 economical systems. That would include the rights of the people who live within these systems so Inalienable Rights would be on topic.

The thing is the hang up on the system being voluntary or not. The fact is if you were born into either of the two it would not be by choice. In any case there would be taxes. As long as they don't become a tool of plunder they are fine, under either system, and when they are used to plunder it is theft, in either system.

No real example of either system on a large scale exists in the world today so there is no way to point and say this is good or that is bad in a real world situation.

A previous poster pointed out that those who blamed capitalism for that economic situation where not really bringing the correct culprit to the table. The same is true about any economy in the world. The culprit is greed and corruption. This culprit is rsponsible for turning anything that starts as free market or socialist regime into a cash cow for those who can and do find the way.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by daskakik]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


I couldn't agree with you more that corruption is the problem. Of course, corruption is facilitated by government, or by the use of force to impose a system on others.

I am unsure why you have such a problem with a voluntary system. Imposing beliefs on others invites corruption. Leaving people be to find their own way may lead certain individuals toward corruption, but that corruption is limited to the individual.

People are born into tyranny everday, this does not mean they have to accept tyranny as the only plausible solution to their problems. People are born into poverty, yet there are plenty of examples of people who rose up out of poverty, and not by plundering, but through their own ingenuity and hard work. We are not born into an unchangeable stasis, we are more than capable of deciding our own fates, and living accordingly. This thread is important in that if facilitates a discussion between us, in how we best achieve what all things aim towards, the greater good.

What is the greater good? The greatest good to the greatest amount. How do we achieve such a thing? Individually, and through ethics and law. When law is recognized for what it is, those principles of which we discover to be true, and provide an accurate description of nature, then we live in a just society. When we insist that law is merely that which is legislated, we presume to be above nature, and this is nothing more than arrogance.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Let me make it really simple for you,

The central bankers, called THE FED and created in 1913, issue all the money they want to bribe politicians and give you THE ILLUSION of representation while THEY are directly running the show BEHIND THE SCENES.

What difference does it make if we have capitalism, socialism, communism, a monarchy, stalin, hitler, churchill, bush, palin, obama, reagan...............or anyone else IF ITS ALL AN ILLUSION?? Get it?

The central bankers are the illuminati, and the illuminati are controlled by ETs from god knows where. Sooner or later the ETs will over-run earth and formalise TOTAL SLAVERY while governments use THE VERICHIP to control you.

Period! Now go ahead and call me a nut-job while continuing to discuss irrellevant topics such illegal immigration and welfare. And oh in the meantime pretend as though unbalanced trade is great for business while the chineese make us a 2nd tier nation by force.

You guys are total hypocrites. ATS used to be a great conspiracy site until the anarchists and right wing lunatics hijacked it for their propaganda purposes.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


There is not once that I have discussed immigration in this thread. Welfare, of course, is not irrelevant to this topic, it is one of the central issues of this topic.

Your pointing to the Federal Reserve only supports the contention that big government is the problem.

Banking is not at all a necessary industry to free market principles, and the only product banking can offer that has any real value is the protection of wealth, and the issuance of loans. However, debt is slavery, and Shakespeare said it best when he wrote:

"Neither a borrower nor a lender be..."

So, truly the only real value a bank can offer is the protection of wealth. Of course, most people do not need such protection as they don't have any real wealth to protect, and yet, because of the many corrupt legislative acts, people find themselves forced to do business with banks just to survive in the corrupt system of which they live.

Again, you continue to undermine your own arguments by pointing to all that that is wrong with government.



[edit on 8-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Well, being a self confessed Social and Constitutional Libertarian, Fiscal Conservative and all around right wing lunatic fringe type.


I have to thank you for saying we have taken over. Now we just have to take care of that pesky federal government.


The federal reserve institutes a collective mentality. Created by the very government you want to give more power to. Instead of taking away power, which they use to enslave us, you want to give them more power?

Hmmm, IMO giving the corrupt and criminal more power is a logical break from reality. Enforce true Natural Law and break the grip of the corrupt.

Did these banks, including the IMF and the federal reserve ( I no longer capitalize this entity) do harm to anyone? Are they doing harm?

Why have they not been arrested then? If the politicians actually have the power or the ability to enforce law, why aren't they? Bribery, corruption, threats, what exactly is stopping them?

Where is that District Attorney in any state in the Union or City for that matter, that should be placing arrest warrants for these individuals?

Are they all just a bunch of *********?

Maybe because they are all complicit in the problem? Maybe because no one in this country actually wants to change the status quo?

This is where I find all arguments come to a head.

If just one city, one county, one state actually had the frelling BALLS to do something. Just maybe the tide could turn.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Lord Acton said it best:

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

This is why Natural Law states that the power of government belongs to the people. It is to diminish the corruption of power by dilluting it. The more centralized power gets, the more corrupt it becomes. When spread evenly amongst the People, it is far less likely to be corrupt.

If individuals think waiting for a state is the answer to the dissolution of slavery, they are adopting a collectivist attitude, and diminshing their own power. There is no reason to grant your own power to some collective, transferring a small portion of it, becomes necessary in oder to have government, but that transfer is never a surrender of power, and merely a temporary lease of that power.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I don't have a hang up with a voluntary system but socialism is not voluntary (large implementations) so the point is moot. About the only thing left is the old cliche "love it or leave it".

Corruption is not limited to the individual. From what I have seen they hunt in packs. They form gangs and them start to strong arm the law abiding citizens. Sometimes they are within the government sometimes outside but most times they are both.

By being born into one of these systems I did not mean being born into poverty or tyranny but about having to live in either of these systems without having chosen for yourself. Nothing more nothing less. If both of them worked it probably wouldn't matter cause you would have all your needs covered in either system.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


A free market system is based upon voluntary participation. If you insist on removing socialism from that same sort of participation, the for the free person, clearly free market principles is best. I would suggest that you are mistaken, and socialism can indeed operate under voluntary participation.

Corruption is indeed limited to the individual who has chosen corruption. Artificial things can only be corrupted by power when too much power is placed in that artifice. A battery, for example, will corrupt if overcharged. Governments are indeed artifices, however they are instutions run and operated by individuals, and the only way governments can be corrupt is by the actions of the individuals acting on behalf of government.

I understood what you meant by being born into systems, what I am saying is that regardless of the circumstances one is born into, they always have the choice to change those circumstances.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Agree that socialism can operate under voluntary participation but on a national scale it probably would not be implemented that way.

For the free person free market principles are best and that is why it is pointless to ask supporters of socialism to address the "unvoluntary" aspect of that system as if there is someway to convince the OP. The free person is incompatible with socialism.

The detail is that a lot of people who believe themselves free people really are not. I asked if supporters of free markets thought that if a business owner should be allowed to hire illegals. Only got one answer and it was "no". There are always those that are ready to give up a bit of freedom for security. In this case it would be job security.

I think this is reflected in the pages of "rights are natural vs. the government gives us rights" discussion in this thread.

Agree that corruption is an individual choice but you can't deny that often times those individuals do come together and find strength in those increased numbers. Not just street criminals but also white collar mafias.




top topics



 
23
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join