I was never really the type of person who was interested in politics or political ideologies before I joined ATS. But after I started to learn about
the corruption in our governments and in our corporations I started to develop very strong political beliefs. Looking back now, I had many naive
beliefs spawned by my desire to immediately turn the world into a utopia overnight, without any regard for what anyone else wanted. As my beliefs have
developed, it has slowly become clear to me that most of us want the same thing, but we have very different and often conflicting view points when it
comes to how we should achieve those goals and what is the best political paradigm to use in achieving them.
One of the most critical differences that I have noted is those who think the solution is more government intervention and more regulations on the
mega corporations, and those who think the solution is less government interference and more of a "free market" with less regulations. Take the occupy
movement for example, they were constantly ranting about inequality, they were demanding things such as fairer pay and more regulations on the banks,
as well as forgiveness on their student loan debt. In some sense these people are acting like the system owes them something and because of this many
people labeled the occupy protesters as anti-capitalists and even communists.
Every day I see someone on this forum blaming the "liberals" for something. I've even heard people say it's the "liberal-mentality" pushing the
anti-gun agenda. Look up the definition of Liberalism and then ask what does liberty mean to you? Ron Paul is probably the best example of a true
liberal, preaching smaller government with less spending and less interventionist policies. He promotes the idea of a free market and "sound money"
over debt based fiat money and defends individual rights and freedoms. He originally ran for the presidency back in 1988 as a candidate in the
Libertarian Party but later realized he needed to join one of the two major parties if he wanted to stand a chance, and that plan still failed in the
Isn't it quite ironic how many people on this forum support Ron Paul, yet espouse beliefs which are in complete contradiction to those held by Ron
Paul? Consider the Venus Project (described in the zeitgeist films). It describes a some what utopian vision for the future where no one is poor and
we all share everything. Yet the way it claims we should achieve this is by disposing of our right to private property and by destroying the free
market by allowing highly centralized quasi-government manufactures to produce all the products we need, doing away with business competition and
product diversity. The reality of the matter is, humans will never give up money or private property.
To tell you the truth, even if it were possible to make everyone participate in such a money-less society I wouldn't want any part of it because I
don't think it's fair for some people to do all the work while others do nothing and get rewarded for it (and it will happen despite what you claim).
I also don't see anything wrong with people having a right to personal property, I think if we work for something then we have rightfully earned it.
My philosophy now is that money is merely a tool, used by society in one form or another since the dawn of time, it merely allows us to conduct trade
and barter much easier than it otherwise would be without money. The tool is not the problem, it's the people who abuse that tool.
If we want a better world then what we should be aiming for is a better money system. Not a money system with more regulations and higher fees, but a
better designed money system which can't be controlled and undermined by a central bank. A money system which is not based on debt would be a good
start. Likewise, the solution to inequality is not over-regulating the corporations or outright destroying them. We live in a world now where
lobbyists and power brokers are responsible for a great deal of the legislation which is passed into law. It is via such government-corporation
intermingling that the free market is undermined. The small business owner loses out whilst the government-approved conglomerates are given the upper
Shifting gears now, I want to look at the opposite side to this story and draw some very interesting juxtapositions. There is an interesting novel
called Atlas Shrugged where the "heroes" of the story are CEO's and Presidents of large corporations. It is set in another time where the government
has its tentacles into everything, all corporations are heavily taxed and monitored "for the good of the people", being reminiscent of something
closer to communism rather than capitalism.
The book explores a dystopian United States where many of society's most productive citizens refuse to be exploited by increasing taxation and
government regulations and disappear, shutting down their vital industries. The disappearances evoke the imagery of what would happen if the
mythological Atlas refused to continue to hold up the sky. They are led by John Galt. Galt describes the disappearances as "stopping the motor of the
world" by withdrawing the people that drive society's productivity.
The theme of Atlas Shrugged, as Rand described it, is "the role of man's mind in existence". The book explores a number of philosophical themes from
which Rand would subsequently develop Objectivism. In doing so, it expresses the advocacy of reason, individualism, capitalism, and the failures of
Again, this presents us with a rather ironic contradiction... most of us cannot decide which side of the fence we are on, yet we must pick a side
because this is a crucial subject which must be addressed. Will you choose individualism and free market philosophies or will you choose a
group-mentality and dependence on government? At some point we must face this question dead on and ask ourselves which is the right path to walk down.
The system as it exists now is heading towards total dependence on the government with less and less focus on individualism and liberty. Anyone who
opposes this trend is shunned and labeled an extremist; Ron Paul is a good example of that.
If I had a dollar for every time I heard someone say that Ron Paul's policies are "extreme" I would be a rich man. This is what you should expect
however if you choose to walk down the anti-establishment freedom fighting path. There seems to be a growing trend now where anyone who chooses to
support individualism and liberty is labeled as some sort of extremist with a questionable belief system. They are automatically judged as a
psychopath who's only method of getting what they want is to riot and hurt people. Take for example that new show called Continuum. The villains are
terrorist "freedom fighters" who travel back in time and commit acts of terror to fix a dystopian future, and the heroes are working to save the
It's actually a decent show if you can look past the subliminal brainwashing. It's also a perfect example of how easy it can be to merge a terrorist
and a freedom fighter and make them look like the same thing. I think I can safely say that most of us on this forum would never willingly hurt
another person unless defending ourselves, yet we all have a great distrust for the government and espouse many controversial beliefs which go against
the status quo. We must understand that the people seeking freedom and individual rights are not the terrorists. We can change this world but doing it
by brute force is not the answer. You cannot force everyone to give up money and you cannot force all corporations to abide by ridiculous
edit on 9/7/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)