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.

 

The Story of Our Unenslavement

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   
You know, I really love the discussions that mnemeth brings to the table.

I still think my younger brothers the anarchists would like the older brother the libertarians to stay out of it, but we bring to the table the ideas of joining together as entities like the use of militias to protect each other.

I think the anarchists, the libertarians and those on the left that only want freedom from government and corporate control need to come together and make a pact, let us first stop those with the power, the government. We then will make the corporate goons irrelevant by economic freedom.

We all know no corporation can compete in a truly free market system.




posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The anarchists would have to defend their flock from the EPA, ATF, FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, IRS, etc.. etc.. etc..


This is a large planet, with many acres of land available for your use, outside the reach of these groups. Wouldn't it be much easier to begin anew, rather than attempt to fundamentally alter an existing society?


If a bunch of anarchists decided to move to a town and operate as free people, they would get bombed into the stone age by the federal government.


Unfortunately, they are not the only threat you would face. Homo homini lupus



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


Oh, we have a bunch of lupus where I am at.

The reintroduction has been going well, I guess.

Okay, I assumed you meant wolf, but the homini did not fit. Glad I googled.

You are right WTFover, that is why I believe the Libertarians have the best platform. I would enjoy a truly anarchist society, but until we can control the tyrannus tempero, a civil society with a small contingent of repurcussive ability is necessary.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


My preference would be solitude, but my wife isn't so keen on that. As long as groups of people combine resources, for the good of the group, some form of "government" is absolutely necessary. And, without a governing body, tasked with making some decisions on behalf of the group, what is left but absolute democracy?

Of course, that is unacceptable to libertarians or anarchists, as true democracy is, often, defined as "mob rule", by both.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


Well, libertarians believe in a set code. At least I do.

The rule of the republic I call it.

A constitutional set of limits upon the populace.

The anarchists have the same code, just much more free. Mine of course might just as well be an anarchist rule.

Do no harm to another, do not infringe upon another's right to Life, Liberty or Property




posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 
I am also a Libertarian. My preferred form of government would be the Articles of Confederation, though I would settle for a return to strict Constitutional(and bill of rights) governance.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I have been a libertarian, and a strong supporter of restoring the republic. What really shifted my thinking was the idea that the constitution is a form of control. The argument going that the revolution was going badly, and the people demanded a changing of the articles of confederation. Instead, the founders threw out the articles and started anew. In doing so they created a system which institutionalized the right of a state to rule the people. In theory, the bill of rights is supposed to guarantee liberty. In reality, from the alien sedition act to the patriot act these rights have always been trampled upon. The constitution in practice provides cover for some, the federal government, to have power over the many. It is paper that creates a system where an aristocracy can justify their rule. It was difficult to let go of my love for the bill of rights, and they are sound rights, but they exist regardless of a piece of paper. I consider it similar to breathing. Only you signed a contract that you must pay taxes to a few people so you can breath. You breath either way, but you signed a contract committing to the right of a few(state) to control your free exercise of breathing. I don't think that is a very good example, but I am being very general. What my main point is that constitutional rule may not be the freedom, security, and prosperity we all wish it to be,



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by stephinrazin
 


That's right.

The constitution grants the federal government the power to use violence to thieve from the public.

When an institution is given a monopoly privilege on the use of violence to steal, it is ridiculous to think that such an institution will restrain itself to the simple roll of protection services.

Dr. Tom Woods explains why limited government is impossible.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Double post



edit on 26-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
I will try to make better sense

OK- starting now - You often apply a common justification and/or solution to ideas and concepts that are ACTUALLY mutually exclusive in physical manifestation. For example - some-how you believe your economic principles have aspects that magically inoculate and insulate the ideas you put forth - from potential abuse, misuse and tyranny. There is a common theme which you apply to the abolishment of DUI laws or private security for example, in these cases there are horrible implication built into your solutions that you refuse to examine. You have mastered the art of black and white and you have a marketable idea, neither of which makes you categorically correct... You cannot even concede that some people do not drive drunk because they fear the legal ramifications, I mean what kind of cowardly debate is that??? You fail to recognize that your ideas have implications, it is this part that inspires me to respond to you endlessly.

It is a kin to lawyer like posturing, papal supremacy or something questionable in merit.

Just because a man claims to have no fault, does not make it so, same goes for ideas; religious or political alike.






edit on 26-12-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower

We all know no corporation can compete in a truly free market system.


I am not sure I buy this my friend - this is a bold proclamation that is based largely upon what you guys WANT.
It is this link between what you DESIRE and what you propose as the ultimate solution that is very dubious to me Foam. That sounds like PERFECTION embodied doesn't it??? It gets frustrating as all hell to point out the same things over and over only to have these valid points discharged with each new thread.


You yourself have agreed that regulating the massive binary driven elite meta economy makes sense. This admission of yours took many attempt to determine and now it seems as if this realization is gone. However, I reckon you still think that letting people distribute binary money with no rule is $#@$@$% akin to legalizing economic genocide.

Mnemeth pretends that elite thievery is acceptable because it is risk = tough tits, it's risk... there is an extremely empowering aspect to this rhetoric - I recall many righties here on ATS bemoan the fact that some
politicians wanted the BONUSES obtained by bailout companies to be pursued as fraud in the courts. Many
here claimed that it was interfering with "contracts" and "punishing" bailoutees for their success -"BAD precedent and even socialism". For christ sake some of this stuff blows my hair back -It is exactly in these matters where you guys NEED to make a stand politically because it COMPLETELY undermines the principles you espouse. But you don't, why???? I respect many of your ideas
and your principles, but for the thousandth time this is where the venom pumps into your ideas and poisons
the prospects of a successful future.

You guys will never be able to fight the power OR get free markets because you idolize wealth (easy to do) because your concept of freedom is based largely upon wealth; so how do you address anything if you cannot address the sources of the problems which are economic in nature to begin with? If you cannot interfere, you step aside - Genesis of problems pegged -

It is unfortunate because you will NEVER be - able to fix anything, because the solution is beyond that which you protect the most... thats a pickle -



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Good evening,
The idea that free market economic thought and non-interventionism are always tied to one another is flawed. I recognize that the state, economic systems, and ideas of wealth are ALL restrictive. I do not want the state to exist. Non-interventionism is not enough. The state must come down, and the hierarchical economic systems as well. They all are many facets of systems we do not need.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The anarchists would have to defend their flock from the EPA, ATF, FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, IRS, etc.. etc.. etc..


This is a large planet, with many acres of land available for your use, outside the reach of these groups. Wouldn't it be much easier to begin anew, rather than attempt to fundamentally alter an existing society?


I got to ask.........just where are all these acres far from government control........I will hope on my Harley and be there tomorrow.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by stephinrazin
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Good evening,
The idea that free market economic thought and non-interventionism are always tied to one another is flawed. I recognize that the state, economic systems, and ideas of wealth are ALL restrictive. I do not want the state to exist. Non-interventionism is not enough. The state must come down, and the hierarchical economic systems as well. They all are many facets of systems we do not need.


I do not see how one can intervene, if to intervene is to interject a human variable to a "natural/self regulating"
system. This very act is allegedly what creates such poor outcomes (I disagree), but this is the common
rhetorical stance against intervention or regulation. In fact I think the only natural thing about economic systems
is that they always produce -" hierarchical economic systems "- Even the work the founding fathers produced was eventually corrupted creating a new hierarchy. No more royal "titles" per say, but condensed and viable power, new lords and peasants to boot all based upon the mighty dollar. Our freedom and our oppression is born
of this commonality - I argue that a sea of individuals cannot redress economic chicanery effectively because
survival is paramount and system design is a part of success in capitalism. How can one individual address complex oppression if the individual is living hand to mouth? Then try to apply this to a whole society that is
expected to survive while organizing against corruption, oppression or tyranny. Not gonna happen,,, those
who possess the most money have an advantage that works in exponents at a certain point. TIME and 100% FREEDOM to determine how that time is spent is one example in citing benefit.

Investing 10% and getting a 10% dividend on $100,000 is not, in practicality akin to the same equation applied to $100,000,000 - this is the factor that determines a WHOLE LOT IMO. Imagine if I could buy all the water in your region - could I control you to some degree? Large degree? Now imagine if I designed a system that required you to do business as I saw fit... Imagine if I colluded with your employer to boost his tactical potency
as well...

edit on 26-12-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Janky, all of the free market folks have one basic ideal IMO.

When anyone owns property, it is theirs. The state is NOT ALLOWED to make them continually pay for it.

This to me is the cusp of the problem.

How does a STATE continue to grow? By forcing it's citizens to continually pay for the privilege of being a part of the society. How do they do this? By enforcing the serfdom clause of all tyrants, they remove property rights. Does one have the right to property in the US? NO is the answer in most cases. There are states yet that do not forcibly remove the rights of property. They are few and far between.

I would not complain about almost any taxation, as long as NONE of it was property related. Once any individual owns property, that property should be sacrosanct. Hell, look at this-

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time
of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.


ANY property taxation of an individual is ILLEGAL and UNLAWFUL.

Since a corporation is NOT an individual, property taxation of THEM is not illegal or unlawful.

That is why in a Constitutional Republic, a corporation could never defeat a private sole proprietorship in hand to hand competition. Yes, they could win in a free market if they are allowed to regulate the sole proprietor out of business, which is the culmination of where we are today.

In a truly free market society, a corporation cannot without government regulation, put an individual out of business. Unless of course the product of the individual is suspect.

It all comes down to the argument that unless the truly complete system is installed, it would not work. Just a little regulation is the problem. There is no such thing as a little regulation.

edit to add- REMEMBER a corporation is NOT a private individual, they are a PUBLICLY LICENSED and INCORPORATED entity. Private does NOT apply to them.
edit on 27-12-2010 by saltheart foamfollower because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


You pretty much describe why most of third world is politically repressed. The thought that democracy is only a word when your hungry comes to mind. This being the case it becomes a necessity for citizens of first world nations to stand up and rein in their states. Otherwise money, and the ease at which it is printed, accounts for a great deal of chicanery. It comes down to the love of money, and the recognition that it has value beyond paper that matters. As long as the tentacles of money and credit control your habits. Your state of mind; the farther lost you are. I am afraid the time for small measures has past. Radical ideas are required for radical problems. If our society is amidst of a grand decline we should start talking about how to save it. Removing the states, decentralizing banking, nuclear disarmament, and equally important steps must happen.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by lastrebel
\I got to ask.........just where are all these acres far from government control........I will hope on my Harley and be there tomorrow.
I would also like to know. Sounds like just the place to found Galt's Gulch.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Janky, all of the free market folks have one basic ideal IMO.

When anyone owns property, it is theirs. The state is NOT ALLOWED to make them continually pay for it.

This to me is the cusp of the problem.

How does a STATE continue to grow? By forcing it's citizens to continually pay for the privilege of being a part of the society. How do they do this? By enforcing the serfdom clause of all tyrants, they remove property rights. Does one have the right to property in the US? NO is the answer in most cases. There are states yet that do not forcibly remove the rights of property. They are few and far between.

I would not complain about almost any taxation, as long as NONE of it was property related. Once any individual owns property, that property should be sacrosanct. Hell, look at this-

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time
of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.


ANY property taxation of an individual is ILLEGAL and UNLAWFUL.

Since a corporation is NOT an individual, property taxation of THEM is not illegal or unlawful.

That is why in a Constitutional Republic, a corporation could never defeat a private sole proprietorship in hand to hand competition. Yes, they could win in a free market if they are allowed to regulate the sole proprietor out of business, which is the culmination of where we are today.

In a truly free market society, a corporation cannot without government regulation, put an individual out of business. Unless of course the product of the individual is suspect.

It all comes down to the argument that unless the truly complete system is installed, it would not work. Just a little regulation is the problem. There is no such thing as a little regulation.

edit to add- REMEMBER a corporation is NOT a private individual, they are a PUBLICLY LICENSED and INCORPORATED entity. Private does NOT apply to them.
edit on 27-12-2010 by saltheart foamfollower because: (no reason given)


I agree about property - I think people should be free to use it to povide for themselves and not have to worry about yearly taxes or having their homes taken for failure to pay these taxes...That is not right IMO -

However I do not agree that a larger company cannot dominate and terrorize markets or competitors.
There is a point where financial advantage, buying power and potential influence becomes nearly impossible
to resist or combat.

I agree that even a little regulation infects the "purity" of freemarketism, what I do not understand is why you or anyone else would like to kick out a leg of a functioning regulation if you understand your own concept?
Considering that the market is NOT free is it not just creating holes to take advantage of consumers or even the government itself???

I argue that in this modern age of binary money and marketplace you can never have a free market, EVER.
Do you understand that Foam? I would like to read a serious attempt to stare that problem in the eye and address it -



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Another thing about the corporate situation - is they pursued their modern status under the guise that they should be offered more freedom, For 30 + years following the civil war this was the pursuit of lawyers serving their
corporate buds - Corporations are legal people basically

They have no soul to save and no body to incarcerate

This concept below is what is so crooked about corporations and WHY I question free markets - IF we weren't in this binary age or course

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 29-12-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Capitalism as we know it - free markets - do not exist! Those who believe had been fed with the blue pills since their formative years.

There are no free markets in this world. Nothing is ever free in this world, not even humans.

Capitalism believes that without regulations, entreprenuers would be free to bloom and create compettition amongst themselves, destroying monopolies, offering the best benefits in terms of price and service to the consumers.

BUT this is a fallacy as well as a fantasy. Wake up and look around you. Had Capitalism as we had been taught survived?

None. Every entreprenuer that start his business even freely without govt intervention saved for a level playing field had been either forced out by monopolies economy of scale or simply absorbed into them as subsidiaries. Check out the big companies and you see similar directors from monopolies existing in their boards. Google, Yahoo, etc exists only in name but are CONTROLLED by monopolies, they themselves fighting for overall monopoly and CONTROL of human endevours and resources, or at worsts, a memorandum of oligarchy understanding.

Where monopolies exists, there lays only enslavement to the masses, for monopolies dictates how much a product should costs, how much the wage levels, and as they grow in wealth, they control the govt and dictate both economic and political policies, similar always to the ways of Communism aka USSR/China kind and the various dictatorships we still see surving around the world today, in the open as well as hidden..

Time to wean yourself off the blue pills, if not for your own sake, at least for the next generations.....



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join