It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Reproduced from www.thezeitgeistmovement.com...
We intend to restore the fundamental necessities and environmental awareness of the species through the advocation of the most current understandings of who and what we truly are, coupled with how science, nature and technology (rather than religion, politics and money) hold the keys to our personal growth, not only as individual human beings, but as a civilization, both structurally and spiritually. The central insights of this awareness is the recognition of the Emergent and Symbiotic elements of natural law and how aligning with these understandings as the bedrock of our personal and social institutions, life on earth can and will flourish into a system which will continuously grow in a positive way, where negative social consequences, such as social stratification, war, biases, elitism and criminal activity will be constantly reduced and, idealistically, eventually become nonexistent within the spectrum of human behavior itself.
- "your complete and total disregard for the rights of individuals"
- "If some one doesn't agree with you, then you will make cracks about their intellect"
- "This attitude is the same as all collectivists"
We're on ATS... a discussion board... should we really be delving into the minutiae of law when broad strokes will suffice to clarify a statement. I have indicated the necessity of developing laws that protect individuals in balance with the state, I hardly need to supply a volume of materials with margin notes indicating where it has to change.
this is why you will only speak to the law in general
Not correct. You believe these things to be wrong because society has taught you that belief and because you happen to have an internal moral barometer. There are plenty of people who perform the actions of killing, forcing sexual intercourse and taking other people's possessions all the time without necessarily thinking that they are doing something wrong. To protect society from this point of view, we need laws to clarify that these things are behaviourally unacceptable and accord them appropriate names: murder, rape and theft.
Law is self evident. No one needs explanation as to why murder, theft and rape are wrong
If you don't have any reference books, the internet is available to you... Look up Nazi Germany "The People's Court". Don't just rely on Wiki, read up on it properly...
You claim that "some of the worst atrocities in have been committed under the guise of self evident law" but typical refuse to cite any historical context for this claim
Your statement is overly idealistic. People 'want' the right but that doesn't mean that they 'have' the right. Also, when should these rights be compromised? If you have the right to liberty - an inalienable right, then are you suggesting that people should not be imprisoned for crimes defined within the law? Is the right to liberty simply an ideal?
Only an arrogant fool would presume that people do not inherently understand they have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness
Correct. The problem is that you assume (again) that just because I see the need for laws, I necessarily agree with every decision take to establish guilt. Spartacus was an outlaw but he was also a hero of the people for standing up against oppression. At no point have I stated that laws reflect what is 'correct', only, what is 'prohibited/permissible'. Society should defined these laws, but clearly, there are times when laws are passed purely to control society and against its best interests on the whim of a few people.
Spartacus was an outlaw
State, Entities, Individuals... 3 words, 6 word order combinations, I happened to use the combination that reflected an ascension of size... That doesn't mean that I believe individuals to be subordinate to the state hence my use of the word "balanced".
In your world the individual is subset to the state, and even "legal entities".
Incorrect, this is becoming a bad habit... Treason is defined within law... I know of no nation that defines treason as a crime against an individual per se - a crime against certain individuals (e.g. the Queen of England) can be construed as treason but this is because the Queen represents the state, ergo, a crime against her is a crime against the state. As for fraud... I was merely using an example. Do you expect a specific example for everything indicated? Fraud against 'companies' does not preclude fraud against individuals or even the state. Testimony is irrelevant in terms of the definition of what a crime is. Testimony is used in defence/proof of whether a crime has been committed, not to define the crime in the first place.
You hope to justify this by asserting that treason and fraud are crimes that can only happen to the state or companies, and by company, you mean "legal entities". You continue with your nonsense by asserting that testimony is irrelevant, which only contradicts your assertion that treason is a crime that must be prosecuted
We live in society, society is governed to maintain a sustainable infrastructure, that infrastructure is used to define laws, if you break those laws and commit a crime then your freedoms will be limited. Laws may define permissible activity, or prohibited activities, they define freedoms by inclusion or exclusion within the context of society. You "are" free unless you break laws defined by government which in an ideal world, reflects the common interpretation of 'natural law' within society, or at least the essence of that law. Unfortunately, since natural law is ambiguous at best, we're left with a 'common denominator' of opinion emanating from that collective known as society.
Laws are necessary to define freedoms - I have bolded what I have in the above quote of yours to re-iterate how adamant you are about freedom being merely a grant by government.
I just had to include this quote, fantastic. However, I have not espoused support for an ideology, I have merely indicated the status quo and the necessity to certain structures to uphold the rule of law.
Your demented ideology
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Originally posted by PsychoX42
Actually, right now its capitalism that is failing. Unless you haven't already noticed.
But, I am not a supporter of any of the isms. I support common sense, and, anything that is currency based lacks this essential feature.
Namaste and Love
Capitalism does not involve government being responsible for 40% of GDP spending.
Capitalism does not involve central banks setting interest rates.
Capitalism does not involve 23.7 trillion in banker bailouts.
Capitalism does not involve millions of pages of government regulation.
Do you know what does involve those things?
Claiming this economy is a failure of capitalism could only come from someone who was educated in a publicly run school.
Originally posted by MysterE
reply to post by PsychoX42
I don't think it is capitalism that is failing, I believe it is this psudo capitalist-socialist-fascist program we are currently running.
What is wrong with rewarding the people who work hardest?
Originally posted by buddhasystem
One can hardly argue that bleeding of American jobs to third world countries, shutdown of the American manufacturing sector and deregulation of financial services were diabolical handiwork of hardcore socialists in the US government.
On the contrary, these three components of the predicament we find ourselves in are a direct application of capitalism values -- deregulation and free trade. I'm going to translate this for you -- the country has been raped and left bleeding on the floor, by the purist capitalist types.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by spacekc929
On a personal note, I have had the profound privilege of making some wonderful friends in this site. A few months back I was chatting with another member on Skype, and she asked me how my new business was going. I wound up confessing that business had been bad and I was stressed out about paying the rent, of which I had fallen behind on. She and I have never met personally, only know each other from this site, but had become fast friends. She wound up sending money to pay my rent, and actually sent me enough to to eat as well. I did not ask for this help, she simply just did it. I am forever humbled by her kindness.
Business is still sketchy for me in this current economy, but I still have a business because people do help other people. They absolutely, unquestionably and irrefutably do.
[edit on 12-7-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]
Come along now, you're taking this a little bit too seriously. This is ATS and just because Martin Luther is revered it doesn't make the 'Rights of Man' valid outside of the scope of a society that accepts it.
Of course I was having a 'crack, it is simple gamesmanship, I'm having some fun on ATS not arguing for my life! I have not made cracks per se about your intellect, only about your posts and points that I disagree with (and agree with at times!)
I have indicated that the laws of society must be balance with the rights of individuals, I have not denigrated your intellect at any point, only your posts, I have stated regularly that I am not a 'collectivist'.
Gosh, you are feeling obtuse this evening...
Yup, definitely obtuse this afternoon...
We're on ATS... a discussion board... should we really be delving into the minutiae of law when broad strokes will suffice to clarify a statement.
I have indicated the necessity of developing laws that protect individuals in balance with the state, I hardly need to supply a volume of materials with margin notes indicating where it has to change.
Not correct. You believe these things to be wrong because society has taught you that belief and because you happen to have an internal moral barometer.
There are plenty of people who perform the actions of killing, forcing sexual intercourse and taking other people's possessions all the time without necessarily thinking that they are doing something wrong.
2. A large quantity or amount; an abundance:
Antisocial Personality Disorder is also known as psychopathy or sociopathy. Individuals with this disorder have little regard for the feeling and welfare of others. As a clinical diagnosis it is usually limited to those over age 18. It can be diagnosed in younger people if the they commit isolated antisocial acts and do not show signs of another mental disorder.
HOW COMMON ARE THEY?
Some researchers say only about one percent of the general population are sociopaths. Others put the figure at three or four percent. The reason the estimates vary is first of all, not everyone has been tested, of course, but also because sociopathy is a sliding scale. A person can be very sociopathic or only slightly, and anywhere in between. It is a continuum. So how sociopathic does someone have to be before you call them a sociopath? That's a tough question and it is why the estimates vary.
But clearly sociopaths are fairly common and not easy to detect.
Antisocial personality disorder in the general population is about 3% in males and 1% in females.
To protect society from this point of view, we need laws to clarify that these things are behaviourally unacceptable and accord them appropriate names: murder, rape and theft.
Yet again I find myself having to correct you... I didn't say that I don't take inalienable rights seriously, I simply stated that they require definition and even then, are not 'inalienable' per se but simply an idealistic acme that we may strive to implement. Simply have the 'right to life' doesn't stop somebody from shooting you.
I am well aware that you do not take inalienable rights seriously, and the more you insist on dismissing them as valid, the more you reveal yourself to be the petty tyrant you are
Again, an entirely invalid accusation. Society exists whether you choose to label it as a 'virtual classification' or not. Any notable grouping of people with a common purpose may be termed as a society, even if that common purpose is simply 'living peacefully side by side'. To ignore the 'elephant in the room' is absurd. I don't idolise society, I simply accept that it exists as an, admittedly amorphous, entity.
Your idolatry of society would be amusing if it weren't so dangerous
Where have I shown any ignorance of history? The war was based on the acceptance of the validity of the idealistic concepts within that society - the English didn't think so. How does that then make those rights inalienable? Does it require more than one person? Does it require all members of society? It is always subjective and in order to resolve that idealistic subjectivity it needs to be defined. I have never said anything else.
Your ignorance of history makes you blind to the fact that the Revolution for Independence in 1776 was a war fought by colonies of England
Just as I have agreed with specific points that you have made before, so I agree with this point, in the context that 'inalienable rights' have to be defined and then preserved.
Inalienable rights should be taken seriously, and those who do not take them seriously risk loosing them. I do not need your agreement in order to know I have rights. All games come with winners and losers, and when it comes to rights, losing is not an option.
That is not denigrating your intellect, that is commenting on your demeanour - two very different things. Since you have displayed a proclivity to be "Annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand" then it is valid to suggest that you have been obtuse. Where is the argument. I can cut & paste your comments to 'buddhasystem' and to me as evidence but the posts are there for all to see (e.g. accusing me of being a tyrant, ignorant of history etc.).
Where you claim you have not denigrated my intellect, here are your words: "Gosh, you are feeling obtuse this evening"
Back-pedalling would imply that I have recanted a previous statement or opinion. I have not done that. I continue to present and clarify my case in the face of your muddled understanding. I'm not trying to convert to, that should be clear, I am simply putting my opinion across.
Now you are backpedaling and it is not working, and all it is accomplishing is undermining your own credibility
Correct. Those 'inalienable rights' need to be defined as I have said many times and enacted such that they are in balance with society. If I have an 'inalienable' right to liberty then I can correctly do everything in my power to prevent imprisonment, regardless of the crime I have committed. I made this point. That is why we need to encapsulate the needs and rights of individuals in the context of society - how our individual freedoms may be compromised by the needs of other members of society and in terms of society itself.
you are differentiating between inalienable rights and the laws of society
Again, you are raging pointlessly. I have never said that society is more important than the individuals it is composed of. Society does not exist without individual members. I merely point out that at some point, there has to be a consensus and that consensus is espoused by an authority that represents 'society' rather than individual members.
As long as you continue to hold up society as being more important than individuals
'Deny Ignorance' is a collective ideal since it takes co-operation to achieve it. Clearly, as an individual you are free to ignore that motto as an example of your individual right. I have accepted the law for the reality that it presents, I recognise the status quo. If you wish to believe that laws are a manifestation of an ethereal karmic movement then go for it. You have that right.
This is a discussion board that claims as its motto; "deny ignorance". I have all ready shown where your "broad strokes" regarding law have most certainly obfuscated the reality of law. If you want to remain ignorant this is your choice, after all, in spite of its motto, this is just a discussion board.
Even when they may contrast with the rights of other individuals? That is where society comes in to represent the greater good. In terms of 'rights of the state', how about the right to maintain secret that information which may be deemed as harmful to society should an enemy become aware of that information? That would have been quite useful when the Inspector of Public Works in Jericho let slip that the foundations of the city wall were in complete disrepair and needed urgent attention... Yes, that was flippant.
I have done more than indicate, I have flat out stated, and supported my statements with actual laws, that the rights of the individual are what matters
Killing somebody is not illegal per se, however, we have defined a clear context that indicates when killing is 'unlawful' and it is accorded the label of 'Murder'. We may then consider an individual's guilt based on this definition. The acts themselves are not intrinsically 'wrong', only when considered in the context of society, ergo, society 'normalises' what is acceptable and what is not. Again, just because an individual feels that they have an 'inalienable right' to do something, it doesn't make it so. Society defines what is permissible or prohibited.
RE: Murder, Rape, Theft: Where you would insist that society is what deems normalization, when it tickles your fancy, you will insist that what I see as self evident is really just what "society" has taught me
You really want me to prove that there are people who kill others without thinking that it is wrong? Really? I mean, really? Such offenders may fear getting caught and recognise that they are unlawful, but that does not mean that they see their actions as 'wrong'. Do you think that every soldier who has killed a person in battle think that they were doing 'wrong'? I think that you'd be surprised at the number of soldiers who have no problem with killing the 'enemy'. Remorse is conditioned by society, not by the act itself. That conditioning manifests differently when contained within society but the actual act is no different.
Correct, but the laws/legislation are in place so that the defendant can be tried based on the definition of a 'crime'.
we need laws to clarify that these things are behaviourally unacceptable: This is just more nonsensical rhetoric that has no meaning, as no amount of legislation will prevent a sociopath from committing a crime
Originally posted by mnemeth1
The example was mentioned about a persons right to liberty entailing the right to fight back against any incarceration no matter what crime has been committed. - We can clarify this by stating if a person violates the inalienable rights of another, he is giving up his own claim to such rights.
For example, if I violate someone else's right to liberty by kidnapping them, I have forfeited up my own right to liberty in the process.
If I have damaged someone else's property by my actions, I have forfeited my own property in the process because I should be made to pay back the damages I have inflicted on another.
From the basic rights of property and liberty, we can define a very limited set of laws to govern a peaceful society that respects our inalienable rights.
Originally posted by Oneolddude
The one I remember the most is the the one that said the only way socialism could work is if all the people were of the same race and had the same beliefs and culture.
"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."