Originally posted by Kokatsi
Unless you are very rich, you WILL be involved by corporations and their rule.
You will breath in Monsanto's pollen, use chemicals developed by Big Pharma companies etc.
Scary world you live in. The pollen I can sort of see, since it can travel a few hundred miles, right? Not sure why I should be more scared of
breathing Monsanto pollen than common ragweed pollen, though. Not grasping the concept behind the allegation of Big Pharma chemicals, at all. Can you
give me a compelling reason for WHY I would use them whether I like it or not?
Well, one can be against democracy, but it is not a popular stance these days - the alternatives are dictatorship or royalty and popes.
I live in a Constitutional Republic. we've done fairly ok so far without the aid of dictators, kings, or popes. As far as the popularity of my stance
goes, it matters nary a bit. I've never really been in the popular crowd, and really haven't missed it.
From this point of view, I see little difference between the "constitutional monarchy" and "democracy" - although many tried to educate me on these
pages. Ultimately, it depends on this:
The Founding Fathers of America were at the forefront of a world movement which did not believe people were fallen, sinful slaves that should be ruled
with an iron fist by tyrants and so on. Now this was known later under many names: revolution, democracy (term borrowed from Plato but used in a
different way than in his works), republican ideas, equality before the law and so on. As opposed to tyranny, theocracy, royalty and rule by
aristocracy which believed man is ultimately NOT perfectable, people should be ruled etc.
A "monarchy", constitutional or not, involves a monarch. "democracy" involves mob rule. There is a world of difference between the two. I'm not sure
where you get the notion that the Founding Fathers of America called their system a "democracy". several warned specifically AGAINST democracy. It was
only in the early to mid 20th century that the term came into vogue to describe a system alien to it's definition.
As an aside, it's odd to me how the Marxists used to refer to a "dictatorship of the proletariat" that sounded suspiciously close to the concept of
"democracy", while at the same time their alleged opposition was trying to promote "democracy", which sounded suspiciously like the concept of a
"dictatorship of the proletariat".
If a rose by any other name still smells the same, then so does a skunk.
Yes, freedom is frightening to some. But it is a worthwhile vision.
Honestly, I believe that very few humans can handle freedom, which probably explains why so many seem to agitate for a crowd to tell them what to
do.
America that used to be at the forefront in terms of human freedom is not at the forefront any more. Its life has been overshadowed and very much
determined by the power of corporations and banks - precisely what some of the Founding Fathers were afraid of. (Not Hamilton, he welcomed it.)
America has not been at the "forefront of freedom" in a very long time. seems like everyone and his brother and/or sister is clamoring for someone
else to tell him what to do, which appears to be a motivating factor in the fear of corporations. For some odd reason, folks seem to think that
someone else HAS to tell them what to do, and the only choice they see is between having a collection of neighbors tell them what to do, OR a
corporation somewhere. I don't really know what has become of independent thought and decision making.
Personally, I don't see much difference between allowing a corporation to dictate every facet of your existence and allowing any other collection of
strangers to do so. Either way, you are forfeiting your self determination.
If the masses are consumer idiots and TV addicts today, you may ask who advertises those products and who broadcasts TV. The answer is the same:
corporations with money interests.
Could be. the "masses" don't concern me much. If they can't look after themselves and make their own decisions, it's not my job to do so for them. If
they allow a corporation to rule them, they have made their own choice. A poor one from my perspective, but it's their choice to make.
It is in their interest to atomize society, to degrade the average person and to make him or her dependent upon their power.
It seems to me that dependency on ANY external, be it governmental or corporate, can't be a good thing. I can't see a nickel's worth of difference in
them. Dependence is dependence, and directly opposed to INDEPENDENCE, which was part of the title in some old document or other that the US used to
place stock in... before they got all dependent on whatever came along.
Now how on earth do you resist advertisements and TV if you are a few years old, your parents ar working, society has been broken up and atomized by
the time they were adults, so there is nowhere to turn?
Sounds like a failure in parenting to me.
The African saying was that you need a whole village to raise a child.
A very good reason to avoid Africa altogether, then. Perhaps they didn't sign that Independence document I referred to a bit earlier.
Where are those villages?
In Africa, I presume.
Where are the communities of America?
I recommend taking a peek out the front door. Perhaps that will answer that question. I recommend NOT leaving your kids to be raised at the mercy of a
community, however. Mine contains several crack heads and gangsters and what not. Not the sort of folk I want raising my kids.
To allow your kids to be raised by a village is a dereliction of your duty as a parent, and simply cannot end well for your kids.
I know historically there is less and less as consumerism is pushed into people's lives with the brutality of a Stalinist dictatorship, but certainly
with more refinery.
There is a wonderful word in the English language which, if properly employed, can alleviate much of that problem. That word is "NO". Practice it. My
kids are very adept at it's use.
Can you raise a child without the Disney mind control?
So far, so good. Of course, I've raised them largely on my own. Early on, when their mother was around, there was some conflict of philosophy in the
matter of Disney and the like.
Not really if you have to work to support yourself.
Terribly sorry about that. I found the TV to be an unacceptable stand in for a baby sitter while working. I wouldn't recommend that for raising your
children any more than I would an African village.
edit on 2011/8/13 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)
Bill Clinton:
>>
So we should do more of the same?
