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 Man.

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
The man


Regardless of how I try to perceive the governing body, whether it be subjectively or objectively, I always end up at the same conclusion.
There are ethics and skills to be learned in a community. For example, a retailer isn't going to make money by being rude to their customers, so they are courteous and polite. A good retailer will also know to be just a little bit cheeky too. I live and work within a system. This system has ethics we follow to ensure a happy healthy relationship with our community. These ethics are governed, and called laws. Now here comes the question- Why are these ethics governed? More specifically, why are we governed?

There are a variety of blatantly obvious reasons for this, but every single reason to be presented to this cause is short sighted and leads to illogical justification and violates any rights I may have as a human being with free will.


When we think of the mafia we can imagine a cliched laundromat scenario. The laundromat proprietors are required to pay the mafia a protection fee. To the laundromat it ensures safety from other gangs. However, the laundromat will learn through missing a payment that this is not actually the case. Upon refusal to pay, their business is destroyed, and they are put into danger. Not from rival gangs, but from the Mafia. The protection fee's real purpose was nothing more than a source of passive income for the mafia. This act has been labeled as extortion, and consider it wrong and criminal.
This is not unlike taxation. I am forced to pay money for services (whether I agree with those services or not is out of the question). This is not only theft, but extortion too, as a refusal to pay this money results in the threat of unwarranted problems in life. Slander occurs against your name- deemed unreliable to perform business with, and you are told to pay even more money. And that's only if you're lucky. Failure to succumb results in your kidnapping, that is- to be jailed.

Now at this point in discussions with people that I am always blissfully reminded that the services that the governing bodies provide to us are required. Without it society will fall apart. We would become a state run by intimidation, power and fear. This is how we are being run now, only we have been conditioned with 'order' and thus we cannot see it. Likewise, it's at this point in discussions that people tend to step into a deeply defensive mode, deny this without question and refuse to openly listen to anything else I may have to say on the topic. So keep up with me here. The services offered by the governing body does not become void without the governing body. Obviously that would be a ridiculous notion. Think of some of services the governing body offers. Healthcare, humanitarian aid, welfare, electricity, telecommunications, education, protection, etc. Did you notice anything about the ones that I had listed? They have been and can be privatized and subsidized.
I, with free will and a strong sense of belonging in my community do not feel the need, nor do I understand the obligation to pool my money with others into a large account to be divided up into services that are not actually personally required. Likewise, these services are available to me should I choose otherwise.

That aside, a lot of this taxation money goes into the pockets of politicians to decide on my best interests. I'm pretty sure that I understand my own best interests better than someone else. I normally act upon my best interests, as this is how I live. This is how you live. This is how politicians live. My money, and your money get's invested, but we never get a cent of the returns. It pays to wage wars that not all off us want to be involved in. It pays to support wars we don't even know about. It goes into projects, studies and developments that you may not care for. Space, for example. It's vast and unknown. we all pour money into it. I've heard countless people in my lifetime say in response to a space related discovery "that's great, but what's the point when we still have things to fix/discover down here?" Some may scoff at them and deem them ignorant, but matter of the fact is that it's not in their best interests- so should it be forced upon them, and they should be allowed to allocate their own money to something else that is in their own best interests.

Enough about the idea that taxation is ridiculous.

Argument for the government providing police and enforcement of laws. Policing is no different from a private security company. You call and they come. If that's not good enough, we have all been told not to be a hero. Value your life, then call the police. This is music to the ears for someone who wants something for nothing, and keeps police in employment. If everyone was encouraged to be a vigilante people would be less inclined to step into a situation to provoke such a response (Obviously, this is speculative on my behalf, but seems like common sense in my opinion).

As for actual laws, I could talk to you about the tired old 'drug use is a personal choice' or how 'same-sex marriage should be legal'. Several days ago I read a post here on ATS that pointed out how stupid the fact is that not wearing a seat-belt is an offense was ridiculous. None of these laws should even be active, as they only concern those parties whom are actually involved. The only reason for these laws are for social engineering, but that's blatant. What about normal laws? Well here's an example- Several weeks ago I was informed about a man who was imprisoned for scamming an multinational bank. He wasn't in the wrong, it was the governing body's laws dictated it that way. He was on welfare with his partner, who were struggling with their two toddlers. The welfare wasn't enough so he did what he could to survive. Now instead of paying for his welfare, we have a broken home, we paid for his trial and are now paying for his imprisonment. We can all draw lines, talk about shades of gray and point fingers etc. The matter of the fact is that laws should not have ever even been part of the equation. He scammed a multinational bank. This shows that there was a problem with the banking system, not him. The bank should have employed him to help patch up problems he can see that others could, and forseeably are using to scam them further. The bank, the family, and your pockets would have been better off. Every problem has a solution and does not need scribes who call themselves lawyers to decipher books and notes to determine innocence or who get's punished.



I've had people who are indifferent to their freedom of choice tell me that if I don't like it, I can leave. This is not true. A bird that may fly over imaginary borders at will, but unlike the bird, you were registered at birth- given a name, a number, and a certificate. To cross the imaginary border, you must first pretend to acknowledge this imaginary border's existence, then prove that you are who you say you are with papers and numbers. You need to justify why you want to be there, and pay for it with notes of imaginary value, paid for by exchanging your skills and time. Even once you would get to the other side, you would have abandoned my family and friends, only to have the same issue. The best you could hope for is to move into seclusion with a handful of like-minded people. There's a problem with that too. The current system's law will still not recognize you as living outside of it, but only breaking it. If found, you will be brought back to society, charged with trespassing, squatting, tax evasion, building and development without proper regulations or a permit, etc. Then of course you will be relentlessly questioned. After all- who would want to escape to such remoteness unless running from something.

What I am generally getting at it that politics is largely obsolete and is more problematic than helpful.




posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Gear
 



Originally posted by Gear
What I am generally getting at it that politics is largely obsolete and is more problematic than helpful.


Politics can NEVER become obsolete. That is an impossibility.

Moreover, I'm adequately convinced politics is a natural extension of our biology. Suggesting you can get rid of politics is like suggesting you can do without a torso.

Water will always be wet.


edit on 1-3-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Politics can NEVER become obsolete. That is an impossibility.

All well and good to say, but Why? We have only been conditioned into an idea of what we need, and when we look at the core, we don't actually require politics to attain it.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Gear
 


You don't need feet to eat either, but I'm willing to bet they are still an important and natural part of who you are.
edit on 1-3-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gear
I, with free will and a strong sense of belonging in my community do not feel the need, nor do I understand the obligation to pool my money with others into a large account to be divided up into services that are not actually personally required. Likewise, these services are available to me should I choose otherwise.


Guess what, I do feel the need and obligation to pool money together. I like the idea. The average person probably likes the idea too.

I also think it's ethical to "force" people to respect others. Using your robbery example, if someone steals property, whether it's a little old lady on the street or a large bank, it's unethical.

It fits within my morality. Maybe it's not based on logic but ethics.

But I understand that people should have to follow certain core values but also have freedom over most of their life.

I don't like what happened to politics but the base theory is fine with me.

As for you not being able to leave, sure you can! Sure you may not like leaving but there are plenty of small islands or developing countries you could go to. Funny, you think it's just fine to have the type of society which would let a child die if the parents can't afford care, but you whine about it being unfair to leave your friends?



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Do keep in mind that I'm not apposed to people pooling their money together. I just feel that people should have the right to choose whether to do so or not, and to what it is getting spent on rather than being obligated with threat against them if they do not. Naturally, services will not be available to those who choose it's not for them. For example, I cannot claim insurance if I haven't applied or paid for it.

As for leaving family and friends, I was merely demonstrating that there is no option available, and the closest thing to an option- which is already infeasible due to the inescapablility of a governing body- comes at a great personal cost. As for letting a child die- how did you get that out of this? How do you think the single mother with two children is coping on welfare, when she did not have enough even with a partner? The laws of the governing body fueled a problem rather than rationally solving it. I don't agree with letting a child die due to parent's inability to afford care. Again, there are private groups and charities that are available already. There is nothing to say that people cannot pool their money toward welfare, and without a designation of funds toward things needless to the individual, the welfare system would be much healthier.

Developing countries still have governing bodies, sometimes several which cause civil conflicts, and islands are still owned by a governing body. 'Escape' to one would result in persecution.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Your idea would just be like a return to Feudalism. Feudalism didn't expand freedom - it consolidated power into the hands of a few.

Just like major corporations merge to become powerful - so will groups of people. The end result would be a handful of people becoming so powerful, things would end up worse than now.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gear


Developing countries still have governing bodies, sometimes several which cause civil conflicts, and islands are still owned by a governing body. 'Escape' to one would result in persecution.


If you really believe in free-will and the no-law mentality, why not get your own military together and over take a small country? What's stopping you? Don't have enough money? Not enough power? That's your own fault. There have been plenty of examples of take-overs. Stop with the poor-me, I can't take over a country, and put that energy into raising your own military.

Though this logic might seem silly to you, your ability to over-take a developing country is as impossible as a poor person being able to afford their own police, fire and health care.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Sure, that seems to be the logical conclusion of the scenario. But as it stands, if a company becomes large, corrupt and abusive- people will not have brand loyalty. Simple as that. They will lose their customers, and employees would follow. There will always be alternatives and availability for competition for a free market based society.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daughter2

Originally posted by Gear
I, with free will and a strong sense of belonging in my community do not feel the need, nor do I understand the obligation to pool my money with others into a large account to be divided up into services that are not actually personally required. Likewise, these services are available to me should I choose otherwise.


Guess what, I do feel the need and obligation to pool money together. I like the idea. The average person probably likes the idea too.

I also think it's ethical to "force" people to respect others. Using your robbery example, if someone steals property, whether it's a little old lady on the street or a large bank, it's unethical.

It fits within my morality. Maybe it's not based on logic but ethics.

But I understand that people should have to follow certain core values but also have freedom over most of their life.

I don't like what happened to politics but the base theory is fine with me.

As for you not being able to leave, sure you can! Sure you may not like leaving but there are plenty of small islands or developing countries you could go to. Funny, you think it's just fine to have the type of society which would let a child die if the parents can't afford care, but you whine about it being unfair to leave your friends?


I agree. There is a difference between license and freedom. Being a libertarian I believe people should be able to run and live their lives in the way they want. I however don't believe you can encroach on my human/civil rights and my property without my permission. That is rape and tyranny.

Grow your weed.Have 30 houses. Drink your beer. Just don't steal mine.(I don't smoke weed or do drugs its an example)

If you choose not to live by the community's standards you can leave(aka be exiled) to another community where violence and stealing is ok and be right at home. Just not in our backyard costing us money. There are no(or a few) tiers of influence in libertarian communities and thats what makes them special. They are difficult(but not impossible) to corrupt and keep corrupted.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
The only reason socialism has never been allowed to work,is because capitalists won't allow it to.

There is a place somewhere between the two extremes so many argue over that would work a bit better for nearly all.

There are a lot of things going on in america that many of you cannot even see,or comprehend.

RIGHT NOW!!!.

Lose a little,or lose it all,it's up to you,but you can't just sit there and let others decide for you.

Those who decide for you,pay themselves way more than they are worth,and produce NOTHING of true substance,like you are so slavishly forced to throughout you entire life,with little or no true reward for your labor.

That's why they isolate themselves from the masses in a place above,protected from you when you people start to realize the truth.

It's the banks and corporations and insurance companies,along with the government which is in their pockets,trying to drag you back into "The Old World order".

Nothing new about any of it,same old #......

Refer to the "Triangle Shirtwaist Factory,New York",nothing new at all.






edit on 2-3-2011 by chiponbothshoulders because: yada



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Gear
 




Politics can NEVER become obsolete. That is an impossibility.


edit on 1-3-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)


Jacque Fresco disagrees with you. He claims that indeed, politics has been obsolete for awhile and we can build a better world without it.



Pay close attention to 1:12:00 and onward.. The Venus Project:




edit on 1-4-2011 by Topato because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join