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.

 

What if the "elite" were attempting to do what they believed was best for everyone?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


A very good post that is sadly going to get little attention, even many who reply in this thread will just be responding to the title and not the first post.

Personally I agree that the world needs a strong, benign, "ruling group". The idea of ultimate democracy doesn't work in my mind, human nature is what it is and many people are like children, they need direction as much as people here would like to think they don't.

Unfortunately the actuality of most of the worlds systems is that it takes a certain type of ruthlessness to rise to the top, meaning that those in power are not there for the good of the people (and by people I mean on a global scale).

I feel that a one world government is the best way to go, however I also agree that the apparent current implementation of that is still too I or ME orientated rather than US orientated (US as in us not USA) as it needs to be.




posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I don't want the elites rulling us . As it is were all in an invisible prison we have become enslaved using stealth the freedom we think we have is false .
Back in the day we were free , there was no tax , no mortgages, no insurance, the earth was ours food was free water was free we survived on hunting and using the earths resources .
Today we have to pay for poisoned water, water is becoming a precious commodity and is being bought up by private companies , we have to pay others for the privilege of owning a house, we use virtual cash that gets us in to debt, and then pay someone interest .
when you work a percentage of your cash is taken away automatically . we pay more and more tax so that people can protect us but the streets are LESS safe . we live in a world where we VOLUNTEER to be microchipped to prove we are not terrorists . we have allowed the earths resources and wealth to be taken by a group of elitists who send us to fight in foreign countries and die ALONE thousands of miles away from our loved ones we have allowed them to take our liberties to the point where we are in an invisible dictatorship .
an invisible dictatorship where your enemy is hidden and cannot be defeated with a single bullet because there will be another to take his place .

THEIR last step is martial law and if that happens its GAME OVER _ dont let them take your weapons. !!

edit on 28-1-2011 by TheGhostViking because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by TheGhostViking
 


Dear TheGhostViking,

When were we free? I can't find that in the history books. When were we not taxed? When were we not ruled? Before we had government we had people going to the bathroom next to where they got their water. People engaged in constant battle with each other to steal from each other. You recommend using guns and complain that we are controlled?

Just a thought but what if we all worked together and put people we trusted in charge rather than people we believe will get us more, what if we elected people based on their morality rather than those who pander to our wants and bigotry.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Did cavemen pay tax then ???? brontosarus tax ?
Do people not steal ftom each other today ? tell that to my neighbour who got robbed recently !

Just a thought but what if we all worked together and put people we trusted in charge rather than people we believe will get us more,


you mean what I just said to my girlfriend not more than 20 minutes ago ?
My freind were singing from the same hymn book are we not ?
You know as well as I do we dont have to be PAWNS anymore , we can be KINGS This is our earth not theirs , they gave up that right a LONG time ago !!!!
PEACE



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 





What if the "elite" were attempting to do what they believed was best for everyone?


i often think about that, however i came to the understanding that if the "elite" were truly doing what was best for every body then there would be no need to hide anything. people can work things out, if what is being done is best for them they would not be against it.

however the only reason i can think why somebody would not tell you something and keep secrets from you, is because they know you would be against it, because it is not best for you.

assuming of course the n.w.o. scenario is true.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TheGhostViking
 


Actually cavemen died at age 22 or so on average. They also went hungry a lot. It was organized society that allowed us to get away from such things. Let me be clear and I do hope you read my OP completely. I do not believe things are good and I do not trust the people currently in charge; however, it is vastly preferable to anarchy or putting the average person in charge.

Running a company or a nation requires training and learning. Not everybody is suited to run organizations.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 





I am not saying I believe this, I am asking the question. What happens when a society does not have a ruling elite?


You immediately follow this question with assumptions you presume are givens:




People tend to be even more selfish and harsh with one another. Anarchists did not create the education system, government, business or anything else.


Are you asking if people tend to be even more selfish and harsh with one another when a society does not have a ruing elite, or is this what you believe? Certainly the punctuation implies you believe this, but is it a given that people tend to be even more selfish and harsh with one another without a ruling elite?

Were the Iraqi's more co-operative and softer with each other when Saddam Hussein was the ruling elite? Were the colonists of America more co-operative and softer with each other prior to the Declaration of Independence? Is it a given that it was the ruling elite who created business? Certainly it is a fair presumption that it was the ruling elite who created certain systems, and among those systems were certain education institutions, and governments, but would education and business suffer if the people in the world were to reject closed systems run by a ruling elite?

The second law of thermodynamics states that all closed systems tend towards entropy, and this law is not limited to thermodynamics, and it is demonstrable in economics that closed systems tend towards entropy, and demonstrable in academia that closed systems tend towards entropy as well. Have the ruling elite done economics and education any favors or have they merely endeavored to do themselves favors at the expense of others?




In political science there is one iron clad rule, it is the iron clad rule of oligarchy. It means that all societies are eventually run by a small group of elite.


It is amusing to discover that when asking Google the question: "What is the one ironclad rule of political science, the first entry offered is a Google book result in PDF format which is Rules and Regulations Political Science 2009-2010, and the blurb reads:


This book presents no ironclad rules to follow when deciding how to organize ... ideas in a political science research paper is to select a point of view. ...


And the second entry is actually your post here, making the assertion you make without bothering to back that assertion up with any sound argument. If this assertion you made were as ironclad as you claim it is, wouldn't there be at least a few entries above your own, or at the very least below yours (of which none below support your argument), that make the same assertion?

When one Googles simply "rules of political science", the entries provided do not come any closer to supporting your contention than does Googling "what is the one ironclad rule of political science"? One of the entries, however, on the first page for "rules of political science" does offer a Wikipedia article titled Rule of law and it is worth noting what a political scientist has to say about the rule of law:


The ancient concept of rule of law can be distinguished from rule by law, according to political science professor Li Shuguang: "The difference....is that under the rule of law the law is preeminent and can serve as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule by law, the law can serve as a mere tool for a government that suppresses in a legalistic fashion."





Without leadership we would have no streets, no sewage facilities, no electricity and no mass distribution of food or water.


While I believe this statement is correct, there is a big difference between leadership and the ruling elite. Even in anarchy there will be leaders. Even among the ruling elite there is anarchy. All closes systems tend towards entropy. Another word for entropy is chaos. It is fairly presumed, when you speak of anarchy, that you mean chaos. However, anarchy could also be a state of individuals who govern themselves. While the ruling elite can, and often do, descend into anarchy as chaos, it is highly doubtful the ruling elite would ever advocate self government. The very nature of the term "ruling elite" seems to undermine the notion of self governed and freedom.




I expect this thread will anger many, good. The question is not whether or not our current form of government is good, it is a question of what should we replace it with. That is and has always been the most fundamental question in political science and we have struggled with the answer for thousands of years. The bible says that God appoints our leaders and we should be good slaves, even Christians hate that answer because we all want to be God for the wrong reasons. We want to be in charge so that we can have things our way, not for the benefit of all.


If our current form of government is good, then why would we endeavor to replace it? If it ain't broke then don't fix it. Not that our current form of government is good, as it seems to be - and by current form of government I can only speak to the United States with any modicum of intelligence - usurped by a "ruling elite". Constitutionally speaking, I am not so sure it is broke, just that this "ruling elite" are ignoring the Constitution, (or grossly misrepresenting its language), in order to push forth agenda's that very well may be in their view an aim towards the greater good. Aristotle said that the good is that which all things aim, but the problem with this is in the aim. If ones aim is something that needs work then the good being the target or mark will be missed. Combine bad or sloppy aim with Machiavellian principles and that aim becomes even more problematic.

Machiavelli claims that the end justifies the means. I claim the opposite and the means always justify the end. Thus, if the means are suspect, the end will be suspect as well. If the means are honest and true, then the end will be honest in true. The biggest problem with buying into the end justifying the means is that if the means produce a bad end, those who believe the good end they have aimed for has not yet been accomplished. In other words those who will act by any means possible regardless of the harm caused, justifying it by the "good end" it aims towards, will refuse to accept an end until their "good end" has been achieved, no matter how long that "good end" eludes them and no matter how many they harm in the meantime.

If we cannot learn to, as individuals, govern ourselves, then we will always have to deal with political scientists of some sort or another preaching why the ruling elite are really a bunch of good guys who only see as as children, and that the carrot and stick they rely upon is a necessary tool of parenting. Good parents, however, teach their children how to govern themselves. This is how they prepare them for the world they will inevitably be confronted with. Parents who do not do this fail their children in immeasurable ways. A good parent is not an elite ruler, but is a loving man or woman who endeavors to learn from their children as much as they teach them, and always endeavors to prepare their children for the trials and tribulations that life will invariably throw at them.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by lifeform11
reply to post by AQuestion
 





What if the "elite" were attempting to do what they believed was best for everyone?


i often think about that, however i came to the understanding that if the "elite" were truly doing what was best for every body then there would be no need to hide anything. people can work things out, if what is being done is best for them they would not be against it.

however the only reason i can think why somebody would not tell you something and keep secrets from you, is because they know you would be against it, because it is not best for you.

assuming of course the n.w.o. scenario is true.


I think they are looking out for themselves first, that is exactly how I think they look at things. I think their number one concern is themselves; but, they have to work together and share with us all to keep the game going. As for hiding things, you don't give hand grenades to children. Would you let your neighbor have access to an atomic bomb? Try getting a top secret clearance, it is hard for a reason. Not everybody is meant to run things.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


LOL, google is the answer to all questions. Google "Ironclad rule of oligarchy", try getting your searches right.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


LOL, google is the answer to all questions. Google "Ironclad rule of oligarchy", try getting your searches right.


Lol, what makes you think any question asked of Google is a wrong search? What makes you think pretending that my Google searches were all that was addressed of your original post in order to dismiss what you imply was a wrong search makes my post go away? Do you honestly think that people are so stupid that all they have to do after reading my post is read your sleight response, and by the tenor of your response decide what I argued has no merit? Certainly you decided it has no merit, otherwise you would have responded to more than just my searches.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


To be honest I dont appreciate your tone right now so il keep this brief .

or putting the average person in charge.

Please tell me where I said this ,
who said average ? ??? ??? Only you .
This is my opinion please read carefully as i'd rather not have to explain yet again .

There are many people who have woken up all around the world between us we are scientists teachers solders cops any profession you care to mention . Is it your opinion that truthers are dumb and average ?
It isn't mine and there are enough awake people to form a government if that was what was needed .
I suggest you research some well known truthers , and yes they could do betterthan this nwo sfum . you know why ?
BECAUSE WE DONT HAVE AN AGENDA THAT HOLDS HUMANITY BACK!
Dont underestimate humanity we are capable of anything .



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


nobody is meant to run things and those that do, do it for themselves, you are correct.
i am not talking about telling secrets as in the latest technology, but being honest about WHY you are doing what you are doing would be fine as long as it is 'best' for everybody.

but seeing as though that is hidden from people the only conclusion can be it is NOT best for everybody, maybe you or me or maybe them, but not everybody.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   


I am not saying I believe this, I am asking the question. What happens when a society does not have a ruling elite?

Then that society will make some up, it's in human nature as well as some natures in general to always have rungs and classifications in its orders, and systems. It's what make us sheeple to large degrees, the conditioning to always look for the sheep herder.



Anarchists did not create the education system, government, business or anything else. In political science there is one iron clad rule, it is the iron clad rule of oligarchy. It means that all societies are eventually run by a small group of elite.

Anarchists created more then the oligarchs thats for dam sure, infact is that not a little bit of what all those constitution nerds are whining about, you know all that, "the tree of freedom needs to be watered one in a while" thing they keep saying..... What do you think the elites of past ages liked there serfs to learn to read, and write, or have there own sense of worth? Sounds like rhetoric created for human herds, you do realize that creating anything is not easy or that much fun, especially concerning large groups of humans, because well you know how people are, they get moody when you tell them they have no clue what there doing.



Look at "Road Rules", "The Real World", "Survivor" and how people act on these shows. If you have ever been to a rave you see what people are like, want them to rule the world, unrestrained and high as a kite, only concerned with sex and drugs. What if the ruling elite was trying to keep things in order, would the masses do the same? My guess is not. Jesus called us sheep because we are.

That is human nature, like it's been said many times before. What do you expect, most people cant control themselves in this online impersonal arena of the internet chat-boards. So what do you expect they would do much better in a real face to face situation.

And you forgot one thing, there is little difference between the average person and the elites really. The biggest is monetary, but take any one of them and put them in the elite shoes and it would be same old same old. And yes Jesus called all of us sheep, because thats what we are. bahh remember follow the asshole in front of you.




Prior to the housing market collapse, millions of people bought houses they could not afford with the sole intent of selling them and getting free money.

WTF lol. They did as they thought best, a little bit of greed, as well as a little bit of wanting a nice house. The mistake they made was that, it's a cycle. It was meant to collapse, just like it's meant to rise up again. # even trump went bankrupt more time then the average joe, the only different is he has some higher friends, all the average joe has is the government. This game has not been created in america, by Americans or the elites, they just follow the blue print, and just so they don't forget, it's conveniently printed on the thing they handle and covet the most....money. It's as old as civilization. What do you think happens when people gather in large groups, in concentrated areas?




They were like kids in a candy shop and exhibited no restraint. As the economy continues to collapse we see people fighting over the last crumbs like wild wolverines. We see the corruption of the police, churches, all parts of industry and that should tell us why we need leadership that is better than us.

Um never mind you answered your own question.



I expect this thread will anger many, good. The question is not whether or not our current form of government is good, it is a question of what should we replace it with. That is and has always been the most fundamental question in political science and we have struggled with the answer for thousands of years.

Uh definitely need an update on this whole form of government thing, however is getting paid for doing such things, should get right on the job, or get fired, and replaced..... Or we could do like Caligula did in Rome when the government wasn't going to his liking, he made his horse a senator. We could replace all senators with horses, that might work, I think he even built a house for his horse as well. Anyways just joking, they need to do there job I guess. But then again, horses sounds like a better idea then the constant bickering and posturing going on now a days.



The bible says that God appoints our leaders and we should be good slaves, even Christians hate that answer because we all want to be God for the wrong reasons. We want to be in charge so that we can have things our way, not for the benefit of all.

Um I don't remember reading that, but then again it was a long time ago I read the bible so it could of slipped my mind, the only thing I remember was that god doesn't care who you make your leaders as long as they all remember he is a very jealous god, and has a habit of destroying stuff for mysterious reasons, when angry.



What if the "elite" were attempting to do what they believed was best for everyone?


The road to hell is paved on good intentions...... And I'm sure they would have all kinds of "good" intentions. But lets say your right. They are so out of touch with the reality of the daily person, that they actually think working 3 jobs to support yourself is what the poor want. If they think of the poor at all, which I think only happens as often as we see a red moon.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


jean paul you see thiis guys attitude ? not good . I feel like he hides something behind his words



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Star and flag for the OP. It takes maturity to realize that not all people in authority are sociopaths. The reality is that some people are elite, in other words superior to most others, and these people are best suited to rule. These people experience a great deal of frustration living in a mostly democratic society, witnessing the inanities of a government which does, in fact, represent the common man all too well. Imagine yourself as the only 15 year old in a classroom full of 10 year olds, and the rule is not by teacher, but by one person, one vote. Would you not seek to assume a leadership position to attempt to help the less experienced kids get along and learn something?

I managed to realize this when I became a grown-up. At about age 40. Before then I constantly railed against authority. I suppose my testosterone settling down allowed me to see what appears to me now to be obvious, that the masses are not capable of choosing what is best for themselves. Sorry, but we need rulers, they need the tools to maintain control, and all we can do is pray that they are decent people.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheGhostViking
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


jean paul you see thiis guys attitude ? not good . I feel like he hides something behind his words


In truth, I believe this member has been pretty overt from the get go. Sycophants of tyranny are always obsequious, but simultaneously snide and condescending. It is the nature of those who praise elitism by licking their boots that the bitter taste of such boot licking will present itself in snide and condescending ways.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grumble
Star and flag for the OP. It takes maturity to realize that not all people in authority are sociopaths. The reality is that some people are elite, in other words superior to most others,
galadofwarthethird disputes this and nails it .
And you forgot one thing, there is little difference between the average person and the elites really. The biggest is monetary, but take any one of them and put them in the elite shoes and it would be same old same old. And yes Jesus called all of us sheep, because thats what we are. bahh remember follow the asshole in front of you.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 

I merely stated some facts that occur whereby a society is sufficiently leavened and culled simultaneously.

Let's see where all of our tolerance for others has gotten us.

Consider our concepts of "sharing" to the extent that those who produce are now carrying what are in essence human parasites. Soon enough, those who produce are highly motivated to rid themselves of human parasites - who are by habit now - are the equivalent of moral paraplegics, completely unable to sustain themselves, even at a reduced level of existence.

Then you must consider the end game of some "humanitarian" efforts, such as artificially elevating a population beyond what the land and resources will sustain - as in Somalia/Ethiopia. Yeah. We really helped by shipping in lots of food. Enabled more children, more hunger, more suffering.

The elite? The elite are not a chosen group, but invariably those who have produced in excess of their own requirements, and become wearied of the human parasites enabled by "social evolution" concepts of equality and enabling behavior which left alone would be self destructive.

Basically, on occasion, society and thus humanity requires an enema.

Get rid of all the **** .

Then the strong, the enabled, the productive again can maintain principles of acceptable behavior that is conducive to that society before those who were weak pushed their agenda forward, which inevitably brings the whole thing down.

Consider great civilizations. They got permissive. They became "sharers." They cultivated large populations of human parasites. They abandoned the most basic principles of acceptable behavior that only contributed to the growth of the group, as opposed to the "ideals" that were destructive to the group.

We need the social enema.

Total anarchy just happens to be the quickest, most efficient method that nature provides.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   
The problem with any "ruling elite", aka oligarchy, is that they always look out for themselves and each other and their effort and respect towards the ruled is minimal passification. The ruled don't flourish; the rulers do flourish. See many Arab nations for this example. The US and Europe are "progressing" in this direction as they decide they are above or have "progressed" beyond the constitution which limits their power and protects our rights.

Communists are the worst because they travel on that road to hell paved with good intentions and conduct experimentation/change on their societies. They deprive, kill and oppress people to arrive at their Utopian vision which never comes. But they and their party pals do real well no matter how badly their ideas turn out for the ruled.

All ruler wannabes are filled with a false sense of superiority. They may look at themselves as parents and the people they lord over as children. Or they may look at the ruled as of inferior intellegence or character and themselves as highly superior beings. They have to have some inferior/superior beleif system to make them think it is okay to take over the lives of the people they rule without their consent. Racists are a good example of the glory of superior rulers versus the inferior masses. Kings and Queens are another example of rulers who serve themselves and their blood line very well at the expense of the ruled.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

A good post sir. I tip my hat to you. But the following was one of my favorite parts.




Machiavelli claims that the end justifies the means. I claim the opposite and the means always justify the end. Thus, if the means are suspect, the end will be suspect as well. If the means are honest and true, then the end will be honest in true. The biggest problem with buying into the end justifying the means is that if the means produce a bad end, those who believe the good end they have aimed for has not yet been accomplished. In other words those who will act by any means possible regardless of the harm caused, justifying it by the "good end" it aims towards, will refuse to accept an end until their "good end" has been achieved, no matter how long that "good end" eludes them and no matter how many they harm in the meantime.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join