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.

 

Modern Rants Against "Liberalism" are Grounded in Fraud and Ignorance; Real Republicans Used to be

page: 2
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by havok
 


I wish there were a new party, but the system is pretty well rigged to prevent it. So, instead, groups do what the Christian Right has done and they take over an existing party. Ron Paul and his libertarians never quite were able to do that and today they remain catcallers on the back bench, useful to the power elites in snippets only.

Things will have to get much worse and/or change fundamentally I think before any real change can occur. Our media has been a major part of the problem, placing premium on conflict and stirring the pot and of late, total, abject partisanship to the point of fabricating news for propaganda value (FOX).

Most sadly though, we are an extremely ignorant electorate, provably the dumbest in the western world and this works against us in the most grievous ways. Maybe its our diet as junk loving, HFCS-loving fat pig (I kingly say "we" because I nor my family is not), maybe it our media, maybe it is our predominate, er, "religion." Regardless of what it is, it's ruining us.




posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I stand duly and truly corrected. Your view is not utopian, as you've proven. May I say then that it is unattainably idyllic as it looks for something outside the potential of any collective group of humans. As I noted earlier, your vison might work on the lawless frontier when people barely needed to interact, but that's about it so you need to form a more realistic vison of what can be achieved. In other words, your vision is shares the same realistic potential as a socialist utopia. None.

Though is does make for great philosophical content.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by pajoly
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I stand duly and truly corrected. Your view is not utopian, as you've proven. May I say then that it is unattainably idyllic as it looks for something outside the potential of any collective group of humans. As I noted earlier, your vison might work on the lawless frontier when people barely needed to interact, but that's about it so you need to form a more realistic vison of what can be achieved. In other words, your vision is shares the same realistic potential as a socialist utopia. None.

Though is does make for great philosophical content.


So you are saying it is "unrealistic" that people should be free from violent looters.

I refuse to accept this as a valid argument against anarchism.


edit on 16-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by pajoly
It is astonishing the claims made by the Right Wing today against Liberalism, including some claims I read on ATS. There is an new thread today from which have pulled these bizarre, devoid of facts, and downright silly phrases about the supposed goals of Liberalism from just two posts:


w00t - you got it man!

This is awsome thinking I have only one thing to say for you:



Cheap and cowardly response and it clearly demonstrates you are not capable of rebutting, save for cutesy digs. Hey, not everyone can be smart like some of the other posters on the thread, the world needs balance, so thanks for balancing intelligence with inanity.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1


I refuse to accept this as a valid argument against anarchism.



You refuse to accept anything that does not coincide with your paradigm

Validity is subjective and you are heavily biased towards the dogma you exhale, no surprise here
edit on 16-2-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by pajoly
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I stand duly and truly corrected. Your view is not utopian, as you've proven. May I say then that it is unattainably idyllic as it looks for something outside the potential of any collective group of humans. As I noted earlier, your vison might work on the lawless frontier when people barely needed to interact, but that's about it so you need to form a more realistic vison of what can be achieved. In other words, your vision is shares the same realistic potential as a socialist utopia. None.

Though is does make for great philosophical content.


So you are saying it is "unrealistic" that people should be free from violent looters.

I refuse to accept this as a valid argument against anarchism.


I read it as saying that it is unrealistic that people will every be free from violent looters (the "state" for those who don't speak mnemeth) not that they shouldn't. And I think that it is probably the main argument against anarchism.
edit on 16-2-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by pajoly
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I stand duly and truly corrected. Your view is not utopian, as you've proven. May I say then that it is unattainably idyllic as it looks for something outside the potential of any collective group of humans. As I noted earlier, your vison might work on the lawless frontier when people barely needed to interact, but that's about it so you need to form a more realistic vison of what can be achieved. In other words, your vision is shares the same realistic potential as a socialist utopia. None.

Though is does make for great philosophical content.


So you are saying it is "unrealistic" that people should be free from violent looters.

I refuse to accept this as a valid argument against anarchism.


edit on 16-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


Now you are just being silly. For one to be so strident in your purported beliefs, you damned sure ought to be walking the walk or are you like the rest of us, living within the system you and I have created and continue to uspport, directly or indirectly.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by pajoly
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I stand duly and truly corrected. Your view is not utopian, as you've proven. May I say then that it is unattainably idyllic as it looks for something outside the potential of any collective group of humans. As I noted earlier, your vison might work on the lawless frontier when people barely needed to interact, but that's about it so you need to form a more realistic vison of what can be achieved. In other words, your vision is shares the same realistic potential as a socialist utopia. None.

Though is does make for great philosophical content.


And there it is, nail on the head

If you can control the basis of an argument you can argue for ever...

The secret to the utopian idealism is the propensity to see man in his ideal form, not in his physical manifestation of flesh and blood. I agree with you, this is exactly how this country is abused by corporations,
they thrive on this idealism because it applies to their ability to do anything in the name of "freedom" and business. What would be criminal by another name is sanctioned by this modern idealism and related dogma.

I ain't free to charge you 45% compounding interest - TYRANNY!!!

It is a self fulfilling prophecy where they get the commons to blame DEMOCRACY for their own oppression and the very actions of the private world around them. As opposed to balance and measure

They offer modern oligarchy as an alternative =

Money creating law is pure FREEDOM!!!

Star for you!
edit on 16-2-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
I read it as saying that it is unrealistic that people will every be free from violent looters (the "state" for those who don't speak mnemeth) not that they shouldn't. And I think that it is probably the main argument against anarchism.
edit on 16-2-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


That seems like an absurd view to have.

Is it equally ridiculous to say:

"I don't think the world will figure out how to end cancer"

"I don't think the world will figure out how to end war"

"I don't think the world will figure out how to end AIDS"

"I don't think the world will figure out how to end poverty"

By the way, the State is about to end itself rather quickly here. The dollar is going to go away soon, and with it, our federal government. Hopefully we will not replace it with anything when it finally does die.


edit on 16-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

That seems like an absurd view to have.



I think it is absurd to expect people to embrace the idea that wealth should dictate the rules of all of society.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by daskakik
I read it as saying that it is unrealistic that people will every be free from violent looters (the "state" for those who don't speak mnemeth) not that they shouldn't. And I think that it is probably the main argument against anarchism.
edit on 16-2-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


That seems like an absurd view to have.

Is it equally ridiculous to say:

"I don't think the world will figure out how to end cancer"

"I don't think the world will figure out how to end war"

"I don't think the world will figure out how to end AIDS"

"I don't think the world will figure out how to end poverty"


You once wrote that in your anarchistic world there would still be crime. So even if you had your way there are still be people being looted. Don't see how that is absurd since you said it yourself.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

You once wrote that in your anarchistic world there would still be crime. So even if you had your way there are still be people being looted. Don't see how that is absurd since you said it yourself.


Indeed there would still be crime.

There would just be a lot less of it.

Anarchy is not a utopia, I never said it was.

The vast majority of citizen on citizen crime is related to victimless laws, such as the prohibition of drugs and the regulation of industry. When those laws are removed, jobs become abundant and the criminal elements of society get replaced by peaceful business owners.

Private security guards and private detectives would be left to deal with the minimal amount of looting that remained.

edit on 16-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by daskakik
I read it as saying that it is unrealistic that people will every be free from violent looters (the "state" for those who don't speak mnemeth) not that they shouldn't. And I think that it is probably the main argument against anarchism.
edit on 16-2-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


That seems like an absurd view to have.

Is it equally ridiculous to say:

"I don't think the world will figure out how to end cancer"

"I don't think the world will figure out how to end war"

"I don't think the world will figure out how to end AIDS"

"I don't think the world will figure out how to end poverty"

By the way, the State is about to end itself rather quickly here. The dollar is going to go away soon, and with it, our federal government. Hopefully we will not replace it with anything when it finally does die.


edit on 16-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


That's where your logic falls off the rails. Ending AIDS or various forms of cancer are attainable scientic goals. Ending poverty and war are unattainable since they only exist in the human social construct. They can only be mitigated at best. They are human issues and so long as we are human, they will remain.

You also might want to edit your post to replace the word "world" with "mankind." The "world" will eventually fix itself of the plague of man, and in doing so will indeed figure out how to cure all mankind's ills in a manner of speaking.

Finally, if the current state does fall, another will form to replace it. Show me any society in the last 2000 years where one state's demise does not serve as the ashes fertilizing another that grows in its place.
edit on 16-2-2011 by pajoly because: more

edit on 16-2-2011 by pajoly because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-2-2011 by pajoly because: added a bit



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Indeed there would still be crime.

There would just be a lot less of it.

Anarchy is not a utopia, I never said it was.

The vast majority of citizen on citizen crime is related to victimless laws, such as the prohibition of drugs and the regulation of industry. When those laws are removed, jobs become abundant and the criminal elements of society get replaced by peaceful business owners.

Private security guards and private detectives would be left to deal with the minimal amount of looting that remained.


But there would still be people being looted or swindled or extorted so to say people will be free from it is untrue. Will it be better than the present system? What ever anyone says about it would just be speculation.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
But there would still be people being looted or swindled or extorted so to say people will be free from it is untrue. Will it be better than the present system? What ever anyone says about it would just be speculation.


Comparatively speaking, it would be free of looting and extortion.

40% of GDP spending is current conducted by a gang of criminal thieves.

Under a system of anarchy, that would drop to less than a fraction of a percent.

So sure, there will always be thieves - the goal is simply to eliminate as many as possible.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by pajoly
 


The GOP and TP have been taken over by lunatics, it's time the real conservatives and liberals stand up. They did pretty well at CPAC, with crazy Palin only getting 3% of the votes




posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by daskakik
But there would still be people being looted or swindled or extorted so to say people will be free from it is untrue. Will it be better than the present system? What ever anyone says about it would just be speculation.

So sure, there will always be thieves - the goal is simply to eliminate as many as possible.


The problem is that the real crooks up at the top are not going to quietly. If the wealthy are allowed to keep their wealth then they will just offer the free people of the new anarchy security (health, work, police) in exchange for a bit of their freedom and before you know it were back to square one.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by daskakik
But there would still be people being looted or swindled or extorted so to say people will be free from it is untrue. Will it be better than the present system? What ever anyone says about it would just be speculation.

So sure, there will always be thieves - the goal is simply to eliminate as many as possible.


The problem is that the real crooks up at the top are not going to quietly. If the wealthy are allowed to keep their wealth then they will just offer the free people of the new anarchy security (health, work, police) in exchange for a bit of their freedom and before you know it were back to square one.


They may not be going quietly, but they will go.

The market is about to ensure they get what is coming to them.

First, the dollar will implode.

Then, the government will implode shortly there after.

As for the private wealthy of the nation, most of those who are ultra-rich made their money by using government to restrict competition or provide them bailouts or provide them contracts.

With the government out of the way, they will have to once again compete in the open market for consumers. If they do not quickly adjust, their wealth will vaporize rapidly. The market ensures that only those who are good at managing business remain rich.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Then, the government will implode shortly there after.



and be replaced with a new government

Even tribes have government-

Man seeks social cohesion - the fact that government exists and keeps enduring in one form or another is proof of this.

Your idea puts the authority in money, or better put, people with money,


like it or not that WILL create governance too.

Your ideas use about 1/3 of the palate that is mankind - you miss key consideration as others have stated in this thread.
edit on 16-2-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
They may not be going quietly, but they will go.

The market is about to ensure they get what is coming to them.

First, the dollar will implode.

Then, the government will implode shortly there after.

As for the private wealthy of the nation, most of those who are ultra-rich made their money by using government to restrict competition or provide them bailouts or provide them contracts.

With the government out of the way, they will have to once again compete in the open market for consumers. If they do not quickly adjust, their wealth will vaporize rapidly. The market ensures that only those who are good at managing business remain rich.


The world is much bigger than the US and the wealthy have already moved their wealth into other nations. The US may or may not implode, personally I don't think so, but even if it did it won't really affect the real wealthy.

The government will never be out of the way because even if the federal government is out every other instance of government from the state on down will see how they can make the market work in their favor.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join