It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Dangerous Anti-government Revolutionaries!!!

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 08:01 PM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Ah yes, it is a universal characteristic of the arrogant to not only presume knowledge they lack, but it is their hubris to assume that those who disagree with them are ignorant.

And it is the crux of ignorance to repeat that which I have said as though you are saying something different.

Fools come in all shapes and sizes, and the pretentious are always the biggest fools.

So let us have an argument over whose foolishness is superior.

Rhetoric is problematic enough, empty rhetoric is entropic. Governments do not ensure free societies, quite the opposite they intrude upon them. Free societies are brought about by people who insist upon self government, and only come together to form governments to ensure the collective right to self defense.

Right here. You missed it.

Government is a mechanism developed, operated, and maintained by society. A free and responsible society will maintain a free government by its very nature. An irresponsible society will not remain free for very long.

From there your arguments pretty much decay exponentially away from this point of common ground that you missed, entirely.

Just as too many cooks spoil the broth, a boat load of back seat drivers guarantee a collision course. This is why your analogy is so putrid. It is the height of foolishness to view government as some sort of vehicle where the people collectively drive it. While government is indeed an artifice, so are nests, and within government there exists a nest of scorpions.

You missed my point. I most assure you. Because you would be in agreement with me if you did.

A car is a direct extension of the operator's will and intellect. There is a direct causal relationship between the actions of the vehicle and the actions of the person. There is even a system of feedback that allows the operator to monitor the vehicle's performance to keep the operator aware of changes that could indicate an underlying problem.

A nest of scorpions is something you avoid and something you cannot have any functional relationship with.

The very problems of this country's governmental system are -DIRECTLY- a result of having 'too many back-seat drivers' and a bunch of people shouting out orders but with only one person (IE - a small number of people) empowered to do anything to resolve those issues.

The other problems surround whether or not the people are paying attention to what is going on and taking responsibility.

A car is a practical - even necessary - tool of empowerment that comes with responsibility. Whether you are dealing with government at the national or local level - it requires awareness and vigilance to properly utilize. Just like whether you are driving to the store or driving across the country. When you don't - the predictable crashes and accidents happen.

You want to insist that the government is evil and somehow a separate entity from society.

The problem is that government is a direct evolutionary application of human social instincts - it is part of our very nature to have governments - hence why we have them. You can continue to try and blame the problem on imaginary friends and evil twins - but the reality is that all of the 'crimes of government' are 'crimes of people' coupled with ineffective applications of our social instincts (government).

Learn to manage them effectively and teach people to manage them effectively while accepting what they are - or be doomed to repeated failure. There's not a whole lot of other options.

If you apply a little reading comprehension, I believe you'll see that my analogy and explanation thereof is inclusive of yours (driving a car irresponsibly is like knowingly walking into a nest of scorpions - a generally hazardous and poor choice) and expands beyond it by including greater concepts and drawing further parallels without disassociation.

You were not understood because of your poor communication. Learn how to communicate, particularly because you insist on being so arrogant. As long as you think you can write as sloppy as you do and then get away with castigating others for not understanding your sloppy communication, you will continue to look foolish in your arrogance.

That would be the first time my communication has ever been described as "sloppy," or one of its pseudonyms. Of course, I am an abrasively arrogant personality on the internet. I consistently perform in the 99+ percentile - I'm not debating with you so much as I'm raping and pillaging every piece of information and experience I can possibly strip from you and add to my own collection of knowledge.

Unless I like/respect you - then it's a far more civil process reminiscent of master/apprentice relationships.

I'll, instead, insist is is merely your lack of lateral thought - which ultimately impairs your reading comprehension.

The reality is that it should have been clear to both Obama and Congress that "Obamacare" is not at all the direction the people want to go, but both Congress and Obama ignored this and insisted on pushing through their particular brand of competent incompetence.

And a lack of your depth of thought. That also contributes.

Just how deep do you think the rabbit hole goes? How far back did we start passing the buck?

The average person sees the election as a competition. If 51% of the people want a given representative in office, that representative has "won" and is therefor entitled to do what he/she will during that time frame. It is a concept that has been largely based around a two-party, bipolar electorate that will always have a simple majority so long as only two parties exist to have viable candidates for office.

This inherently defeats the purpose of the system. Had we a no-party, or even a three-party system, one single party could not claim "majority rule" without having another party (or enough individuals) aboard. This has also destroyed the representative process - I'm a conservative, when a crazy liberal democrat gets into office within my district, do I lose representation? That representative's job is not to represent his/her ideals or those of the party - but of the people of that district. Again - this is largely influenced by the two-party system, as a three (or more) party system would mean a representative takes office on, say, a 35% vote, but can still be ousted by the other 65% should they fail to represent.

What is not so clear is what the people are demanding. Why this is not so clear is because the people in this nation, as they always have been, are greatly divided.

40% voter turn-out rate, consenting to a two-party system and placing the party above the electorate, and turning every issue possible into a national affair also contribute to the problem.

The government is a means for the will of the people to be carried out. The primary reasons behind why it is not working the way it should revolve around our own complacency.

When I first entered this thread, I had made no assumptions what-so-ever about your politics. After reading your two replies since, I do not need to make any assumptions.

What you do not need to do, versus what you did, can be considered to be mutually exclusive.

Your insistence on framing government as being "the will of the people", while dismissing the notion that all governments exist by consent of the governed, makes it fairly presumed that you advocate democracy over democratic republics that seek to restrain democracy in favor of unalienable rights.

Government is a higher-order social function. Individuality is a product of self-awareness and higher order cognitive functions. Every government does what the people want it to do - if only in the broad sense. People that want a government that thinks and makes decisions for them will eventually be part of a dictatorship or oligarchy within a socialist or communist economy. That's the way the cookie crumbles. When you voluntarily exchange your rights for convenience, that is what happens. That is what we have been doing. Hence - our government has been providing.

We're mid-course, and a number of us are realizing that it's not the direction we want to go. Those of us with more foresight have been cautioning against the way things have been going for quite some time. It's getting more apparent, to many, that they value their individuality (your "inalienable rights") over a sense of security brought about by a nanny state.

This has little to do with what I do or don't believe in. Mechanics don't operate on opinion.

This is why you began with your laughable attempt at erudition in your last post. It is not that you are too stupid to understand the principle of individual rights preexisting government, you just have no respect for this, and instead have some other agenda.

Such as correcting you in that government is an inherent social function to people. Whether it be a meeting with your neighbors or a meeting of national diplomats - it's all an inherent social function developed out of the need for commonality. Irresponsible use of this has bad results. Responsible use has good results.

I consider large governments and needless regulation to be an irresponsible application of government. We agree on many conceptual points. I, however, do not regard the government as anything other than exactly what it is - an extension of the people's will. A king has power so long as people are there to honor his requests/demands. When the people see fit to take a different direction - they will. See the French Revolution for the historical proofs of concept.

Further, you are not too stupid too understand that out of democracy rises tyranny. Indeed, you fully understand this, and it appears even embrace it.

The only thing I can do is talk to the herd of cattle walking near me and pray that some of what I have to say will help change the tide of flesh in a less ominous direction. I am me. I walk my own path and am a survivalist by nature. I plan for the day when society destroys itself to the point of obsession. Whether people heed the advice and avoid a deposition that is obvious to me (and a number of others), or continue is of little real worry to me. I have already pretty much accepted that society will do stupid things and I will have to learn how best to protect my own interests from those actions.

In short, I will do whatever it is I find to be necessary at the moment, democracy or dictator be damned in the process.

However, the "will of the people" during the time of Galileo was that we lived in a geocentric universe, instead of a heliocentric universe, and any discovery to the contrary be damned. The "will of the people" prior to the invention of airplanes was that humanity was never intended to fly. This did not make those people stupid, just stubborn...much like yourself.

Let's compare ideological constructs to scientific and engineering discoveries/accomplishments.

"Hey, man, a government is an extension of the people."

"No it isn't. The Wright Brothers built a plane."

The rest is not really worth commenting on as it's pretty much going to devolve into a debate of how to pronounce "tomato" - or a battle of psychoanalysis.

You find me arrogant and annoying. Get used to it. I find you to be severely overconfident in your comprehension and analytical skills, as well as missing the point of government.

We are in agreement that the people need to be wary of the government process - and even in agreement with how we believe the government should be run (small and local as functionally possible).

We simply have a much different grounds for coming to that conclusion. Mine is based around function and logic, while yours is based more around ideals and values. It's unlikely we'll see eye-to-eye; but at least we are both on the same general side of the fence.

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 08:08 PM
reply to post by Aim64C

And it is the crux of ignorance to repeat that which I have said as though you are saying something different.

Reifying is a tool of fallacy, not of truth.

So let us have an argument over whose foolishness is superior.

When a wise man argues with a fool, it is next to impossible to sort out who is who, and with that said, it is pointless to continue arguing with you.

new topics
<< 1   >>

log in