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.

 

Man Cannot Rule Man!!!

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


Actually I am right but so are you some what. I get what you said and are saying but there is and was someone that was the leader or in charge of everything. Someone had to lead the hunting and or teach it to the young... etc etc etc. There will always be someone in the lead and or in charge of something...




posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Reign02
 


I get your point as well. From what I've read (fairly well informed, but no expert) the only permanent leadership in these societies are found where the local environment is rich enough to allow for the storing of food. That would be a minority of environments, as most groups are (and probably were) semi-nomadic.

But I think your main point begs the question; is there a difference between a "leader" and a "ruler" ? I think so. What is your take on that? Would you consider that a semantic difference or a functional difference?



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
First off I agree with the title "Man can not rule Man.."
Second I agree that we do need a NEW government.
Some ideas I have may or may not weigh in but here goes a shot:
First off and foremost,, anyone who holds a political position should not be allowed to hold title more any more than 4 years total.. even president.. the limit should be held at 2 year terms to be re-elected only once giving a total of 4 years to any one person.
reasoning behind this:
times are changing fast and while they are in office technology is advancing that fast that they are not abreadst of the newer technological advancements being taught. they collect a large salary while in office and some continue after their term.. but those who dont only hold their position because they become accustom to a certain lifestyle and do not want to let it go.. but do little to nothing to contribute to improving our current or future situation,, get rid of the freeloaders..
What concerns me here is who holds the power over the government? the Federal reserves holds power over the government they call the shots.. teh federal reserves is no longer under control of the Government and hasnt been since 1913. Our US currency holds no value at all.
At one point I heard the Federal reserve was run by 11 but I only pull up 10 at the present time, and actually it is reduced to 8 families..: here is the list:
1) The Rothschild Family - London
2) The Rothschild Family - Berlin
3) The Lazard Brothers - Paris
4) Israel Seiff - Italy
5) Kuhn-Loeb Company - Germany
6) The Warburgs - Amsterdam
7) The Warburgs - Hamburg
8) Lehman Brothers - New York
9) Goldman & Sachs - New York
10) The Rockefeller Family - New York
What do we have at stake knowing this?
Everything.. we have no longer any control.. think where the controling factors rest... London, Berlin, Paris, Italy, Germany , Amsterdam , Hamburg , and New York
I get as far as this and then i figure what is the point in going any further as if teh Government is controled by the federal reserve then we have no power to pull and no way to make a change.. unless we are all to stand up against the federal reserve , but then look who we are up against.. Not happening .. check mate..



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reign02
reply to post by AndrewJay
 


Well man has been ruling man since the beginning of time. There will always be someone in charge. Our world is way to messed up. We have to have some kind of order. Anarchy is all I smell from this thread. Yea lets not have a government or any kind of leaders.... That is real smart.


“Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners.”



Oh as for me i would like to see a pure communist type society which is quite close to anarchy in a lot of ways. Of course i can't see it happening anytime soon, it will take a huge shift in how humanity views the world both on the individual and collective level.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by Solomons]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Theyarelying
 




Hmm so Anarchy is your answer? What do you think would happen to the weakest of us in this situation? Only the strongest would make it and then they would turn on each other. We need laws and men and women to enforce them.



Anarchy is a teenagers dream. It has no future. Show me one society that thrived under it.






[edit on 30-8-2010 by Subjective Truth]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Subjective Truth
Anarchy is a teenagers dream. It has no future. Show me one society that thrived under it.

Early colonial America.

Anarchy works, but only under certain circumstances, among them being low population density.

In any case, the OP was not promoting anarchy but direct democracy.

Actually now that I read the post again it seems that part was removed (either that or I just interpreted the second paragraph wrong) and it sounds more like anarchy. Which would mean my first reply on this thread makes no sense.




[edit on 30-8-2010 by NewlyAwakened]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 11:55 PM
link   
This has gone bonkers since I posted it. Look I do NOT believe in anarchy but I would like a new world order that consists of people with good interest at least. I do however believe that we can survive without leadership... At least I know I could I'm not that dependant on society or leadership, in fact I'm a bit of a leader myself. I know how to survive in the worst of it, was homeless at 16... Might as well have been the end of government for me cause they don't care about my type. I didn't lose my life because I play it smart and learn the first time. Now, I'm in this corperate nightmarish system and I HATE IT... Who likes sitting around and waiting for the world to change? # THAT! I'm out here doin my thing and making a living like everybody else. Yet when I pass people on the street I know that not a single one of YOU are ever going to help me, end of the world or not.

We need something MORE stable, something that works... Even if its a dictatorship and we are lead by the decisions of one person. As long as my government is honest and gives me a REAL chance to make a difference along with the rest of our kind... I can't seem to understand why or how we put ourselves in this position and let someone take control of us.

THE DOLLOR MUST GO BOOM!!!!



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Theyarelying

We need something MORE stable, something that works... Even if its a dictatorship and we are lead by the decisions of one person.


The above statement wildly contradicts your original post. I don't think it necessary to point out how.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened

Originally posted by Subjective Truth
Anarchy is a teenagers dream. It has no future. Show me one society that thrived under it.

Early colonial America.

Anarchy works, but only under certain circumstances, among them being low population density.

In any case, the OP was not promoting anarchy but direct democracy.

Actually now that I read the post again it seems that part was removed (either that or I just interpreted the second paragraph wrong) and it sounds more like anarchy. Which would mean my first reply on this thread makes no sense.




[edit on 30-8-2010 by NewlyAwakened]






You are so wrong either you have no idea of what colonial life was like or you believed a liar. It was not anarchy by any stretch of the word. They had stricter codes then we do today.


And you said anarchy works under certain circumstances please enlighten me with some sources to back that up. Anything any time period. Anarchy leads to one thing and that is destruction.



Like I said before anarchy is a teenagers fantasy. It is base on nothing pure and utter fantasy.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by Subjective Truth]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 06:48 AM
link   
If you want to cure corrupt politics, you only have to do three things:

  1. Designate "Lobbying", and campaign contribution, of ANY kind, the treason it is. (add a minuscule campaign tax of around 30¢/year from every capable American meant to be utilized by only the THREE candidates who make it through self-financed, fully-televised debates)
  2. Demand "FULL" transparency on EVERY banking account EVERY politician EVER has, including personal accounts. (post their full account statements online for all to see)
  3. Create an organization full of True Patriots (Constitutionalists!) to oversee and "Watch-Dog" and report on the above. Of course, this would mean recycling "mainstream" media on a national scale...no great loss.

Truthfully, the ONLY problem we as Americans have ever had is Blatant Treasonous Bribery on Capital Hill (spelled as I meant).

Politicians should just "know" from the onset, and simply accept the fact, that their lives will be completely transparent to every American interested - even more so than actors or musicians.

Maybe then, government would be the size it was meant to be, and politicians and Americans would be forced to consider what and who they vote for.

It's truly not very difficult to ascertain that as soon as this is accomplished, we'll finally start to understand that those in control truly aren't politicians.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Subjective Truth
You are so wrong either you have no idea of what colonial life was like or you believed a liar. It was not anarchy by any stretch of the word. They had stricter codes then we do today.

I think we're operating on different definitions.

I'm guessing from this post you think of anarchy as a total willy-nilly no-order anything goes civilization or lack thereof.

Sure, that's a teenager's fantasy.

Anarchy in the sense that a serious anarchist means it is not a lack of order, but lack of a centralized government.

People are still governed by cultural codes and to some degree local government. But any "government" under anarchy is very much local and wholly part of the community, never politicians and bureaucrats thousands of miles away.

It wasn't until the population grew that colonial governments started to appear and become effective, and it wasn't until the colonies started producing economic value that the English came for their cut.

But no, humans are social animals. There is no such thing as anything-goes. That's your strawman, not mine.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by joechip

Originally posted by Theyarelying

We need something MORE stable, something that works... Even if its a dictatorship and we are lead by the decisions of one person.


The above statement wildly contradicts your original post. I don't think it necessary to point out how.



I do not care if I seem contradicting thats not my point... I'm not a communist, I'm not a democrat, I"M NOT ANYTHING. Except for me, eff all these labels and groups and committees. I am a HUMAN and so are YOU, that's all we need!!!! Not, Americans, Chinese, Japanese, Mexican, Native American, African American, Canadian etc etc... Among the sub groups of religion, race, ethnicity... WE ARE ONE RACE ON ONE PLANET! Let's start acting like one!

I don't care who you are, what you do, where you're from, what race you are... You're my fellow human being in a place WAY BIGGER then what we can only see. We need to begin coming together, because the physical force that keeps us all conciously connected is weakening due to the curroptivity of our world leaders(not just the american).



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Theyarelying
 


You don't just "seem" contradicting, you are contradicting your original post; the subject we're all discussing because you started this thread. Perhaps you should take the time to get your own political beliefs straight before you start a thread next time. I'm not talking about labels at all, by the way. I don't care if you consider yourself apolitical, and it disturbs you that the "anarchists" all happen to agree with the spirit of your original post, to follow "man cannot rule man" with 'perhaps we need a dictator' is confused thinking at best. Maybe you didn't mean what you said in the original post, I suppose you could have expressed your dissatisfaction with the current system with hyperbole. And then the nuts like me agreed with your exaggeration. The problem here is I shouldn't have to do these mental gymnastics to figure out what you actually mean.

The contradiction isn't a minor one. You've undermined your own basic point.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by AndrewJay
 


And the list goes on, and on, and on. Everyone will know as soon as the last I is dotted and T is crossed. Not long....already, this is not the America I grew up in.

Everyone cries Democracy! That's mob rule for anyone doesn't know the term. What we have going on is Order out of Caos. No big secret anymore.

They showed us what they were going to do when they came out with 'The Wizard of Oz'. The man behind the iron curtain, and a dumbed down society that has no brains, no heart, and no courage.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by joechip
reply to post by Theyarelying
 


You don't just "seem" contradicting, you are contradicting your original post; the subject we're all discussing because you started this thread. Perhaps you should take the time to get your own political beliefs straight before you start a thread next time. I'm not talking about labels at all, by the way. I don't care if you consider yourself apolitical, and it disturbs you that the "anarchists" all happen to agree with the spirit of your original post, to follow "man cannot rule man" with 'perhaps we need a dictator' is confused thinking at best. Maybe you didn't mean what you said in the original post, I suppose you could have expressed your dissatisfaction with the current system with hyperbole. And then the nuts like me agreed with your exaggeration. The problem here is I shouldn't have to do these mental gymnastics to figure out what you actually mean.

The contradiction isn't a minor one. You've undermined your own basic point.


The system doesn't work... That's all I wanted to express. The fact that I was brought into a society I don't agree with was the only reason of this post. Cool, awesome I contradicted myself woopdie effin doo dude. I hate how this works here... People spell something wrong or contradict themselves, they're confused or stupid. Show a bit of compassion for the confused state of a young mind. Excuse me for being 20 years old with nothing but a dislike for their surroundings. Doesn't make me whatever and it doesn't give you much a right to question it.

It was an expression of "i dont care, give me something that works." THATS IT.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
If you hate how things work here (ats), why start threads here? I'm pretty sure there was nothing insulting (or expressing an undue lack of compassion) about my response. My point was that you can't title a thread "man cannot rule man" and then act surprised (and dismayed) when a debate about anarchy breaks out, or indignant when your later call for dictatorship is called out as contradictory.

And to compare a major contradiction (directly undermining your own original point) and a misspelling is like complaining that your dinner hosts were unreasonable for kicking you out of their house for belching at the table and crapping on the floor...it probably was not the belching that did it.
The two things are of a different order altogether. I misspell constantly and nobody cares.

And if you only meant, "i don't care, give me something that works," try saying that. Of course no one is going to give you anything of the sort, but at least you will have expressed what you actually meant. And different forms of governance would be the appropriate conversation, not the merits (or lack thereof) of anarchy.

No hard feelings, I hope. Believe me, if my relatively gentle observations offended you, you're going to have to toughen up quite a bit to navigate these waters.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by joechip]

[edit on 2-9-2010 by joechip]

[edit on 2-9-2010 by joechip]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   
The only way to institute a society of intelligent and capable people is to eliminate those who do not contribute to that society. That is not acceptable to society of course so will not be instituted. We must carry on with all of the mental subs intact in order to be morally and politically correct.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reign02
I have been to Iraq, Iran, Saudi, Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Uganda just to name a few places. You think your quality of life is bad why don't you go to one of the many countries in the world and see how they are living. People are dying in Africa from starvation, people are dying in the middle east simply because they are of another branch of Islam, People in Africa are being slaughtered because they are from a different tribe.

And YOU sitting in your air conditioned house, browsing the internet, watching TV, driving a car, living in a house/apartment, and have the ability to have whatever you want
[edit on 28-8-2010 by Reign02]


People are dying from starvation and in slaughter because of the people in charge, not their individual actions so please spare us all the nonsense. I know damn well geopolitics is not a clean sport of control and oppression comes from the source you claim we must have.

You think a high quality of life is indicative of liberty and freedom? My life here in America is softly controlled by endless drug laws and an illusion of options, but one system that I must yield to. You make it sound as if true freedom can be bought with conveniences and luxury items...



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
The only way to institute a society of intelligent and capable people is to eliminate those who do not contribute to that society. That is not acceptable to society of course so will not be instituted. We must carry on with all of the mental subs intact in order to be morally and politically correct.



Who would judge these "mental subs"? If someone was terrible at math, but could produce great art, would they be killed? If someone was totally inept, but was kind, gentle and loving, would they make the list? It sounds like a real suicidally predisposed society where people work out of fear. I think necessity is a fine motivator.

In you're analysis you ignore the top of the pyramid...what makes you think wiping out the bottom would do any good in the long run?

[edit on 2-9-2010 by SmokeandShadow]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by joechip

If you hate how things work here (ats), why start threads here? I'm pretty sure there was nothing insulting (or expressing an undue lack of compassion) about my response. My point was that you can't title a thread "man cannot rule man" and then act surprised (and dismayed) when a debate about anarchy breaks out, or indignant when your later call for dictatorship is called out as contradictory.

And to compare a major contradiction (directly undermining your own original point) and a misspelling is like complaining that your dinner hosts were unreasonable for kicking you out of their house for belching at the table and crapping on the floor...it probably was not the belching that did it.
The two things are of a different order altogether. I misspell constantly and nobody cares.

And if you only meant, "i don't care, give me something that works," try saying that. Of course no one is going to give you anything of the sort, but at least you will have expressed what you actually meant. And different forms of governance would be the appropriate conversation, not the merits (or lack thereof) of anarchy.

No hard feelings, I hope. Believe me, if my relatively gentle observations offended you, you're going to have to toughen up quite a bit to navigate these waters.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by joechip]

[edit on 2-9-2010 by joechip]

[edit on 2-9-2010 by joechip]


No, no hard feelings... I understand that I can be off subject but I'm young and confused. What do you expect? And I am sorry for the misunderstanding and I wasn't talking about ATS, I was directing "here" as the internet. People are so eager to jump on the case of anybody who makes an action the way I did. But I have to understand your perspective and I agree with it. But, I do honestly think that people on the internet should lighten up to shifting minds like my own. I'm sorry for making a mistake but it shouldn't go this far... If you had taken a second to think that maybe I had purpose behind my behavior of contradicting myself you might have thought to yourself that I really don't care if man rules man I just want something to work for everyone... Where everybody can prosper and have a healthy mindful collective conciousness.

And a world with the control in the hands of all would be best. Cause learning from history and whats happening now this "democracy" doesn't work unless in the hands of all instead of few. But like I said my personal belief is that I do not care where I am as long as it works. And its not that I want it handed to me, I'd be willing to work for it. That's what I'm doing on ATS is being apart of this great transition into disclosure and world conciousness and peace.

Idk something my psychology has taught me was that all behavior has purpose. I think if more people had that in mind they would come to conclusions that are healthier for everybody, that makes sense. But again I'm sorry for the conflict and confusion. My fault.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by Theyarelying]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join