It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Anti-government sentiment is not cause for fear, a sign of insanity, or a precursor of tragedy. Quite the contrary. Anti-government sentiment signifies attentiveness, understanding, and a love of liberty. If you truly value freedom, then you absolutely must distrust and despise government with every fiber of your being.
Originally posted by SKinLaB
Now the question is, how do we get the people to believe that? We the people have more power than our Government but we are afraid to exercise it.
Originally posted by Asktheanimals
It's the Pro-government types that are truly dangerous and have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghans, or do they not count as people?
When only left with the choice of 2 crime families to vote for (democrat and republican) one can safely say we have lost our ability to restrain our own government or to make it conform to the wishes of the governed.
Don;t blame me or the other voters for this mess.
We haven't been bought off by lobbyists, banks and corporate interests.
It;s those in power who have not only robbed America economically but who have sent so many of our jobs overseas to satisfy the greed of a few elite shareholders.
Those who profit at the expense of the American people and their freedoms are the real traitors to this country,edit on 20-1-2011 by Asktheanimals because: corrections
Anti-government sentiment is not cause for fear, a sign of insanity, or a precursor of tragedy
Originally posted by SKinLaB
We are on a downward spiral. The people are afraid to stand up against our Government in fear of what the repercussions would be. Exactly what our Government wants.
Power by numbers would be the only way. The populous is too cowardly to stand up though.
We need to remind "ourselves" that we have control, that we are the masters of our own destiny. Speak, write, post, shout, pray, . . . . . . LEAD!
I would offer a different comparison, and in the form of a fable. The fable is of the frog and the scorpion:
The government is not a car that We the People drive, it is a scorpion whose nature it is to sting. Even if we do not allow the government on our backs that government will still act in ways to reign in freedoms. However, allowing that government to ride upon our backs is a sure invitation to have our freedoms reigned in.
Again, this is a completely inaccurate comparison. You're separating the people and government into two separate conscious entities. This is accurate for, say, dictatorships and non-representative forms of government - but completely inadequate to describe our form of government.
A car's nature is to turn in the direction its wheels are pointed.
Our government cannot make any substantial changes without the support of the people - or complete ignorance. An example of this would be the current attempt to repeal "Obamacare" - while mostly symbolic at this point - it is similar to your car hitting the rumble-strip on the side of the highway; the people, as the drivers, wake up and turn the wheel to make the car correct itself.
The government has no express purpose to "sting" anymore than a car has the express purpose to crash. A car with incompetent, ignorant, or unconscious drivers will, ultimately, veer onto a course that is not desirable for those in the car. It is not, however, the car's nature to venture off course or to crash. It is merely a result of a lack of positive control being employed by the drivers.
This government has been behaving exactly the way the wheel has been turned and the bumps have sent it. The people have been ignorant and complacent - content with policy so long as they can pay the bills and eat hamburgers. None of the idiot-lights are lit up on the dashboard to indicate a problem, and we're free to eat, text, etc inside the car and ignore what lie beyond the transparency of the windshield.
Some people think we should turn the wheel right. Others think we should turn it left. Some thing we should slam on the brakes - and others think we should just hit the gas and fly (despite the lack of wings). Some go into catatonic shock while others want to over-correct and roll the car in trying to avoid disaster. Some blame the car, others blame space aliens.
What you're doing by separating the two into separate conscious entities is disassociating the actions and behavior of the people (including yourself) and the consequences that has within the government. It's a sort of desire to believe we have alien hand syndrome (Dr. Strangelove syndrome, as it is also known) because our government is doing some undesirable things at the time.
The canard that a democratic government and the ability of people to elect their representatives is the foundation of freedom is a lie that has cost the people of the United States much for believing this lie.
All governments exist by the consent of the governed, whether that be a Monarchy, dictatorship, republic or some form of a democratic government. The government in China exists by the consent of the governed, and Saddam Hussein existed by the consent of the governed, as did Hitler.
A car doesn't have a nature. Scorpions have a nature, but a car is an artifice that's purpose is to transport its passengers and drivers.
It is unclear, using this example, if you are suggesting that "Obamacare" is legislation that exists by will of the people, and that the effort to have it repealed is not, this handily demonstrates the problem with your argument. You are the one who has insisted that separating government from the people under our Constitutional form of government is wholly inappropriate, but if we are to understand the purpose of that Constitution, which guarantees the states in the Union a republican form of government, then we understand that the will of the people is checked by the unalienable rights of the people.
A good example of the "will of the people" being used to impose upon the people legislation that was clearly not the will of the people would be the 18th Amendment. Congress was heavily influenced by the temperance movement when they passed the 18th Amendment. Now, you can, if you wish, declare that the temperance movement represented the will of the people, but the reality was that just 13 years later Congress was forced to repeal the 18th Amendment because the will of the people demanded it. Congress passed legislation that the Supreme Court upheld as Constitutional but the people told the federal government, as well as the states, to piss off, and of course, some 130 years before prohibition there was the Whiskey rebellion, which was a rebellion simply because a tax was imposed upon whiskey.
and yet governments will and do deny and disparage the rights of individuals in spite of the Constitutional restraints that have been placed upon them.
Scorpions do not tend to show such reverence.
All governments tend towards an aggregation of power, and the United States has been no different. Both the federal and states of the United States have steadily moved towards expanding government, and the plethora of administrative "alphabet agencies" that have been imposed upon the people were not even in existences at the time the United States was founded. It has often been the invention of some new technology that has been used as an excuse to expand government, and the argument being that the technology has to be regulated, but what happens in effect is that rights are regulated. The Federal Communications Commission is just one example. The argument was that the FCC was necessary to regulate the airwaves, but what has in effect been regulated is speech.
The government heads in the direction it does because, as Jefferson aptly put it, "whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct." That rottenness is a desire to aggregate power.
Here is precisely what is wrong with your wholly inappropriate car analogy. When government officials are acting lawfully, it matters not what some people think the in terms of which direction the government should go. If that direction is a denial or disparagement of rights then regardless of how many people want the government to go in that direction, the answer is, lawfully speaking, no. Politicians, however, are prone towards making promises to appease voters, and will gladly sting whomever is the closest to sting without any regard for the consequences of such an action.
This is what I am doing. I am making the argument that the Constitution for the United States of America is a profound indictment upon government, recognizing that governments cannot and should not be trusted.
The ignorant always feel cheated. It's not anyone's fault but your own that you lack the will and/or capacity to comprehend.
None of those governments included the people in the decision-making process beyond compliance with the decisions of another person.
Freedom and responsibility go hand-in-hand. A government existing where people are simply not responsible enough to represent their own needs will never continue to be (or lead to) a government of a free society.
That's... what I already said. It's rather crucial to the point I was attempting to make. I see, now, it flew right over your head.
To use the cliche line: "What we have here, is a failure to communicate." You just need to check your argumentative nature and read what I have said. Stop trying to think for me, and let what I have to say process.
"Obamacare" is a result of the short-sighted and complacent climate that has been developing in our country since the late 50s. People were willing to shirk responsibility for convenience. However, recent events have caused people to realize we are both in and heading further in a direction we do not want to go. Thus - the repeal of "Obamacare" is, also, exactly what the people are demanding.
Both are entirely the will of the people. And one of the interesting things you will find about people is that they are often smart, but unwilling to commit their thoughts to the future. This is exacerbated by the "microwave mentality" and MTV generations that hinge on an attention span of a humming bird and cannot tolerate any kind of discussion that doesn't consist of Stewart or Colbert. This leads to people making a lot of stupid decisions and thinking things are going to be a great idea right up until the point it bites them in the ass.
The fact of the mater is that "the government" didn't come up with either idea. Some people did, and put it through the process of government. Because the majority of people were not paying attention - the government put legislation into effect that later found itself in great opposition to the will of the people.
In cases like the Whiskey Rebellion - certain concentrations of the population believe it will be a good idea to enforce their ideals upon other groups - until those other groups decide to not play a game of Russian Roulette and it becomes obvious there's no recourse but to repeal.
The government doesn't. People do, and other people sit there and let it happen, despite the government being specifically designed to enable the people to prevent interest groups (large and small) from causing problems like that.
By separating the people and the government, you are ignoring the real problem - which is an overall ignorance and unwillingness to use the process of our government to prevent people from taking advantage of each other.
Again - the government did none of this. The people elected to office by people did. Those election regions then failed to be responsible and ensure their needs and concerns were being represented by their representatives.
You can attempt to demonize the government all you want. The fact is that the people generally lack the self-respect and worth necessary to maintain a free society. This is why I have a rather cynical view of people and find them to be worthless and undeserving until proven otherwise on an individual basis.
It's blaming the car for crashing when the person was drunk, asleep at the wheel, fornicating, or otherwise distracted from the responsibilities of the driver's seat.
Which is exactly why we have to endure those annoying campaign ads and vote in the guy who has been there so that we can shut them up for a few years.
What other purpose could the election cycle POSSIBLY serve?
You're talking about politicians as if they are some kind of extra-terrestrial flesh-eating species of demonic hatred. You've obviously not interfaced much with people if you believe that is anything other than what people are/can be if you simply focus on the negative aspects.
Such a simple and incomplete reading.
It's meant to keep people from taking advantage of each other through the process of government. So long as you separate people and government you will always be doomed to a fool's game. The government has no ambitions - it is a process for people to make practical decisions. It is a process for, say, building a bridge the community requires. It is a process for deciding how education is to be run within the jurisdiction of that body as determined by the Constitution.
It is a processed staffed by representatives of the people and monitored/maintained by the population as a whole. Those people can have goals and ambitions - correct, incorrect - crazy and sane. It must be by the will of the people that these individuals serve in the office - and it must be by their complacence that undesirable legislation be passed or continue to exist past the next election cycle.
People are the problem. Always have been. Always will be. It will be a long time before any human population is truly living as a free, self-aware society capable of sustaining its freedom. People are just dumb and will ultimately doom their own creation regardless of its construction. It doesn't matter if you try and take people out of the equation through the use of computers or some other fanciful machinations. People are involved, even if just as subjects, and will mess the whole thing up.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.-Thomas Jefferson