Honesty and Trust are the Fabric of Our Communities

We rarely think about how much trust there is in our society. It is everywhere and makes us happy and proud to be good citizens. It inspires reciprocal trust which creates new opportunities that mightn't be considered in less trustworthy communities.

People unite and, without instigation or external affirmation, voluntarily chastise any untrustworthy behavior. We defend our neighbors and shop owners from theft and pick up litter on the street. It truly is amazing when you think about it how much our society depends upon each and every one of us being good people. You might even say that we, the people, have created and maintain that veracious society.

Herein lies the rub, with increased police and official oversight, criminal apologism and blamelessness, trust is eroded and people are discouraged from selfless acts and personal responsibility. When people are afraid to help each other, they exude an air of frightened apprehension which is off-putting to everyone around them. The resulting ignominy produced cascades throughout the community and ultimately, at a certain point, causes that community to dissolve and disintegrate.

We have a choice as to whether we will allow ourselves to become divided and weak. It is the act of obliging what should be voluntary activity that undermines the genuine nature of that act or service. In short, any mandatory 'socialization' constructs inevitably do more damage to our society than they could ever possibly repair.

Will we stand back and allow this to happen, for more and more ill-conceived government interference to diminish our comradery? Or will we step up and declare our communities in need of no such tampering? In the end, it is up to us to protect and defend our communities from any and all cooperative hindrances.


Honesty and Trust

Examples of honesty and trust abound, but imagine the cost and inconvenience if we couldn’t trust anyone. We would have to lug around measuring instruments to make sure that it was in fact 10 gallons of gas and 1 pound of steak that we purchased. Imagine the hassle of having to count out the number of pills in a bottle. If we couldn’t trust, we’d have to bear the costly burden of writing contracts instead of relying on a buyer’s or a seller’s word. We’d have to bear the monitoring costs to ensure compliance in the simplest of transactions. It’s safe to say that whatever undermines honesty and trust raises the costs of transactions, reduces the value of exchange and makes us poorer.

Corporations and churches want what's best for you. Stand up for yourself, grow a set and tell the government regulators and commies to go back to the cave they crawled out of. Trust the free markets to return the nation to the productive, noble condition that existed more than a generation ago.

Marx envied the U.S. and was impotent against the forces of freedom and democracy. Freedom is more important than life itself.

Consume, obey, God is real, God is watching.

InverseLookingGlass
Corporations and churches want what's best for you. Stand up for yourself, grow a set and tell the government regulators and commies to go back to the cave they crawled out of. Trust the free markets to return the nation to the productive, noble condition that existed more than a generation ago.

Marx envied the U.S. and was impotent against the forces of freedom and democracy. Freedom is more important than life itself.

Consume, obey, God is real, God is watching.

OK, a sarcastic vote from the haters, check!

Probably many more of those around, don't hold back!

Anyone who doesn't want to castigate honesty and trust, live in fear of their neighbors and celebrate the yoke of managed serfdom?

EDIT: I just checked the text above to see what infuriated the poster above and found an unrelated error, obliging should be obligating (gall derned spell checker!)

Here is an outtake from another thread that aptly describes a possible explanation for the attitude reflected above:

The mind of the anti-constitutionalist is a fascinating one. I used to be more 'tolerant' of their disturbing viewpoints because I assumed that they were based upon a temporary ignorance of the true nature of men.

Now that I have made a concerted effort to educate many of them, I realize that they are not interested in truth and they refuse to admit any illogical conclusions and therefore are, in fact, beyond any hope of growth for as long as they maintain their obstinate attitudes.

I believe that the underlying emotion in each and every one of them is pure hatred. It seems harsh, maybe even hyperbolic to attribute such a destructive attitude to such a broad swathe of our fellow human beings but, I think it is an accurate assessment. Because they feel this hatred themselves and toward themselves, they project it outward and cannot imagine that anyone else does not have this same hatred.

Having no confidence in themselves they have no confidence in others and in their last gasp at contributing to a society that they feel reflects their own attitude, they invent a benevolent overseer and imagine that it will 'rise above' and be trustworthy where they themselves are not. After all, how could they trust of group of people as morally offensive as themselves?

I think this explains why they are so exasperated by individual generosity and responsibility. They take it as a personal affront as if the genuine 'do-gooder' is pulling a fast one on everybody and has a secret agenda to be exposed at any cost.

Trust is a good thing as long as there is a moderating authority which can be trusted to lay down and enforce guidelines for businesses and consumers (I hate that term), because businesses will have a tendency to exploit customers if they can get away with it, yes, they will,.... it is about exploitation for profit but only to a certain point, a reasonable point was passed long ago by most businesses, by most everyone.....

I don't care how businesses justify themselves and their behaviors, so please don't waste our time trying to explain it to me. If it weren't a law that businesses had to pay their employees, many would not. If they could steal resources for resale to the people (that is what they do anyway) they would.

I could go on and on, but nearly everyone betrays the trust of everyone else, just write a law today, put it in the local legal notices of a local news publication for a time, and if nobody disputes your notice within a certain time period, it becomes a law allowing you to do what was not-so-lawful a short time before.

In a nutshell, the moderating authority has betrayed our trust for the sake of collecting transactional tax to waste on everything except the most necessary of protections for the majority, while enriching the minority beyond any reasonable level.

Our society long ago was replaced with the fabric of dishonesty and lies.

reply to post by StopThaZionistWorldOrder

Contracts which cannot be understood by the average person are the method, both written and interpreted by those who exploit the most. Why is it nearly everyone in government has a legal/lawyer/attorney background?.

Most who are exploited the most, trust the most, and the church influences many to accept this as not fixable and to forgive, my main reason for rejecting organized religion as it is today....

reply to post by MyHappyDogShiner

In a nutshell, the moderating authority has betrayed our trust for the sake of collecting transactional tax to waste on everything except the most necessary of protections for the majority, while enriching the minority beyond any reasonable level.

So, basically, you agree with me that official oversight can't be trusted and is destructive to society but, you still have doubts that individuals can be trusted to be honest?

Also, thanks for the straightforward comments, I appreciate any undisguised opinion on this topic as I believe it is central to addressing the flaws that exist in the current state of society.

I have never been a fan of organized anything, especially religion, which is why I am so put off by faith-based 'trust the government' arguments. How can the very same reasoning be used for awarding absolute authority to the state?

I do believe in private contracts but, they are not part of daily life as such which is what I was getting at with this thread.

reply to post by greencmp

Really, whether any one person or entity can be trusted is a non-issue, because in the end one has to trust someone or something to be able to get what one needs to even survive.

The golden rule always pops into my head when faced with this inevitability, and I hope I don't get taken advantage of for just being alive at such a minimal level, which usually is the case whether one wants to admit it to themselves or not, and it keeps getting harder to merely "survive" at a minimal level.

Some say freedom and liberty are based on property, but property has become the exact opposite of that when considering the amount of effort one must exert (debt, taxes...) to even keep that property, while depriving those who do not seek wealth and property the freedom to even walk across that property, or use it to even survive at a minimal level when that space or property is not being used by the "owner" for anything at all besides a display of personal wealth.

Many really do nothing but deprive everyone and everything of the use of space and resources, nature, animals, fellow humans even, and frequently pollute or destroy it beyond repair, then demand we all pay to clean up the mess after it is made by an entity who claims it as private property, exploits it, then claims no liability because only a "person" can be held liable.

The business and banking model the U.S. is based on is the exact model the U.S. was trying to get away from in the time of it's foundation.

I just don't participate any more than I have to beyond surviving, for now....By the time I learn enough to influence any change for the better I will be gone from here, and that is the plan by those who control everything and everyone I fear.

There is power in numbers, if people would stop arguing with one another about pointless issues and agree on certain essential needs by all.

Anyway....

reply to post by MyHappyDogShiner

I thought you were possibly open to individual responsibility but, it sounds like you think that the same system (or some other as yet undefined system) will work if only there could be better operators behind the wheel. I am suggesting the opposite, that no system can deliver what I think you want, mandatory egalitarianism, without becoming a totalitarianism.

Please note that I am not a defender of big government or corporations in case you hadn't caught that.

I think you expressed your position admirably, thanks again for participating.

Regarding The Declaration of Independence and Corporate Entities.

The Declaration’s famous assertion that “all men are created equal… [and] they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” simply doesn’t apply to entities with “perpetual life” that are created by articles of incorporation. As a creature that owes its existence, form, and structure to the state, no corporation has the inalienable rights that informed the Declaration of Independence’s framers’ notion of political community. Having no natural rights — but only positive regulations on creation, operation, and dissolution — corporations’ communications can be restricted differently than the speech of ordinary people - See more at: blog.oup.com...

An interesting article regarding how corporate entities became "persons":
reclaimdemocracy.org...

There is a lot of info out there, so much that one can find support for their ideas however mistaken or mis-informed they may be.

MyHappyDogShiner
Regarding The Declaration of Independence and Corporate Entities.

The Declaration’s famous assertion that “all men are created equal… [and] they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” simply doesn’t apply to entities with “perpetual life” that are created by articles of incorporation. As a creature that owes its existence, form, and structure to the state, no corporation has the inalienable rights that informed the Declaration of Independence’s framers’ notion of political community. Having no natural rights — but only positive regulations on creation, operation, and dissolution — corporations’ communications can be restricted differently than the speech of ordinary people - See more at: blog.oup.com...

An interesting article regarding how corporate entities became "persons":
reclaimdemocracy.org...

There is a lot of info out there, so much that one can find support for their ideas however mistaken or mis-informed they may be.

I agree, there is nothing in the constitution that could be construed to award citizenship to any corporation, national and certainly not multi-national.

reply to post by greencmp

The only thing mankind ever accomplished was to remove himself from the natural food chain, to exploit those who are weaker than themselves for profit, or just to feel good somehow and destroy what he cannot claim as his.

We are just animals that overthink everything.

MyHappyDogShiner
reply to post by greencmp

 

The only thing mankind ever accomplished was to remove himself from the natural food chain, to exploit those who are weaker than themselves for profit, or just to feel good somehow and destroy what he cannot claim as his.

We are just animals that overthink everything.

I would have to disagree with that, mankind has accomplished so many things, good things and bad things. In many cases the bad things were used for positive purposes and in some, unfortunately, the good things were used for bad purposes. In the end, it is what you do with your life that matters, not what you could have done.

Measure twice (or in these very important cases as many times as necessary), cut once. Over thinking is preferable to overdoing.

reply to post by MyHappyDogShiner


If everyone focused on their relationship with God these problems wouldn't exist. Focusing on fake Christians or empty religion doesn't excuse one from that very important relationship, or lack of. To do what is right is not about focusing on those who do wrong, it's about focusing on what is right which is in God's Holy Word.

Those who focus on apostates are still focusing on sin and death instead of LIFE and God's word.

The most common but foolish "strategy," I see people use in denying the one and true God who judges EVERYONE for every thought, word, and deed before eternal sentencing, uses the: "Let's point the finger at fake Christians as an excuse to not do what is commanded." Hahaha how weak and futile this common and temporary guilt lessening device is.

You can continue to push it to the back of your consciousness and live life on your own terms which is really on Satan's terms but he always turns on his subjects; sometimes in this life but usually not till he gets full authority over you (after physical death). You see he doesn't have full authority over you because of Christ you have free will. So by not acknowledging the atonement in Christ, your just stomping on Christ, which is what slaves of Satan do. If your not a slave for Christ your automatically a slave for Satan and he's got something so horrific prepared for you that human senses couldn't even imagine the excruciating level of eternal torment coming for those who are not saved in Christ... It's truly unfathomable and there are dozens of stories from people who got to see HELL (which is a REAL place in the 4th dimension where senses are heightened by 100s of times) and were commanded by God to write about it; you can read all types of real stories and some were from people who were muslim, buddhist, or pagan. www.spiritlessons.com is bringing thousands and thousands of souls to Jesus to participate in eternal LIFE. There is lots of room in the promised land.

I am very much open to being personally responsible, most people are fine with purchasing insurance to avoid accountability for their actions, as in many situations I am forced to purchase by law.

Religion is "soul insurance", and sold out of fear like anything else. Heaven?, Hell?, Ultimatum?. Free will does not involve ultimatums. The duality of God and Man is manufactured.

People just don't understand the concept of freedom, it doesn't mean one can do as one pleases without regard to the safety of others and the safety of the property of others. Some particularly weak minded individuals cannot understand the reasons for posted speed limits, which are posted only because they proved themselves to be too dumb to understand accountability for their own actions and the consequences of their own actions.

This whole mess is an act of faith, governments and corporate entities having faith that people will remain gullible and malleable and uninformed, and where faith and common sense fail come laws. People having faith in all manner of unreasonable silliness while they are basically "harvested" like live stock.

Dumb law example: Yield to pedestrians in crosswalk, like is everyone running each other over?.
Dumb person example: Stepping out into traffic without looking because they have the right of way as pedestrians.

Ramblings, yes.....



....

reply to post by greencmp

I am going to have to ask this of everyone here on ATS...

Does anyone here believe that ANYONE can be honest and trustworthy? Or do you all believe that people are scum and must be wiped of the planet like as much dog poo from the sole of your shoe?

If so, can they be so OUTSIDE of the the context of religion? Or do you all believe that anyone who doesn't adhere to some religious or spiritual practice cannot be a good person?

I am beginning to draw a most unpleasant conclusion regarding the answers to these questions.

If the answers are no to either of these questions then the old adage, "people get the government they deserve" appears to be altogether confirmed.

And boy am I glad that you folks are not my neighbors!

reply to post by greencmp

People are a product of their environment, the current state of affairs in a general sense does not instill trust or security or comfort unless one is living in denial. I have always wanted to trust and be trusted, but have learned over the years that there are always those around to take advantage of my trusting nature, and betray my trust.

One must trust to at least a minimum degree to be able to accomplish anything at all, and one must be trustworthy to at least a minimum degree for anyone else to be able to accomplish anything also.

Personally, it takes me about 5 years to trust someone, and 5 seconds to lose my trust. A lot of these things we have discussed in this thread have more to do with being vulnerable and accepting it, denying being vulnerable, or taking advantage of one who is vulnerable. I believe it was once referred to as Honor.

A complex issue these trust, vulnerability and honor thingies can be. Find out who holds the note on everything before you can determine who you must trust.

I just do not participate any more than I have to.

Does anyone here believe that ANYONE can be honest and trustworthy? Or do you all believe that people are scum and must be wiped of the planet like as much dog poo from the sole of your shoe?

reply to post by greencmp

I KNOW some people can be trusted, the answer is yes, but I am very, very careful.

MyHappyDogShiner

Does anyone here believe that ANYONE can be honest and trustworthy? Or do you all believe that people are scum and must be wiped of the planet like as much dog poo from the sole of your shoe?

reply to post by greencmp

 

I KNOW some people can be trusted, the answer is yes, but I am very, very careful.

Of course, matters of high importance are not the domain of thoughtless trust.

I certainly agree that one should not trust another person with any of the things that people currently trust the state with (though they would be more likely to be trustworthy).

I am saying that people do trust that the basic assumptions of self-interested civility is the basis of our communities and is under threat by the undermining of these confidences.