Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
That is possibly the smallest minded hogwash I have seen in a while.
If you feel the need to resort to insults, then I take that as a concession that you can't come up with any kind of argument against it.
By this tactic, you are attempting to undermine the social contract by deception. My views are based within the spirit of cooperation and compromise among humans, which is the basis of human civilization. Would you prefer a dog-eat-dog animalistic society as propagated by those very same corporations and other deceivers?
really? fine lets go, git it done.
My views are based in the law and its intended purpose.
Whose law and whose intended purpose? This thing you call "law" - where does it come from, and why should anyone have to follow it? Is it some kind of "magical incantation" or is it just some piece of paper?
quote:
First the so called social contract is not a social contract at all, it is organic law that lays out the terms and conditions the people of this nation agreed and or accepted to be governed by/under the corporation. Just because it can be depicted in a lessor and secondary 'generalized' philisophical sense outside its primary purpose is irellevant to its meaning in law.
It likely originated more naturally, among family members who already shared a bond of kinship and familial love. It didn't even have to be enumerated or even "agreed" to since it's just a natural thing - much like a parent loves his/her child. It doesn't derive from the "individual," since the "individual" starts off as just a helpless baby, totally reliant on the "group" for sustenance and support.
quote:
You dont see the hypocrisy in your defense of the collective which under the common law is the basis in this country which requires some variant of incorporation to form a quorum to so much as even speak to the borg?
I'm just talking about general principles and how they relate to human rights and our responsibilities to each other. I don't see any hypocrisy in that at all. To me, if someone goes against those principles and uses a bunch of legalese and other nonsensical jargon as a way of deceiving people, then that would be hypocritical. The collective will write its own laws, and if a law does not serve the needs of the collective, it must rejected and discarded.
The real question is on what basis the collective forms itself. Is it based only on white males, only on property owners, only on the wealthy? Or should it be based on all humans within a society? The basis of law in this country was originally founded on the notion that only white male property owners should be a part of the collective, whereas anyone outside that group was considered "the other," which is a fundamentally wrong, immoral, and most definitely hypocritical way of running things.
Strictly speaking, the only thing that unifies the people in this country is our geographical location. When our Founders revolted and form a new nation, they ceased being "Englishmen" and chose to call themselves "Americans," based on the given name of the geographical location and its boundaries. We could have called ourselves "Spaghetti Sauce" if we wanted to, but "American" seemed as good as anything else.
quote:
The collective was put together to protect the rights of individuals!
At first, it was only to protect a minority of individuals, not the collective whole, and that's where it was flawed from the very beginning. It eventually led to a serious rift between the States which eventually culminated in the Civil War, which led to the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.
If it was just about protecting rights of individuals, then that could have been accomplished by making each State its own independent, sovereign entity. Instead one nation, we could have had 13 individual nations. But then we'd be like Central America. It doesn't matter what's written on a piece of paper if you have no real power to defend it.
quote:
You think my rights are subject to some collective corporate crookocratic vote?
Only if everyone is equal and has the same vote and the same level of power as anyone else. Otherwise, it's not a legitimate government and must be overthrown by the collective will of the people. A rather messy business, I'll admit, but if there is no other choice, then that's how it shall be.
If those corporate crookocrats in the 1% want to stack the deck or use legalese to deceive the people into believe that they have the "right," then the people must see through that and say "no." But if the people are either too soft or too weak or too easily deceived that they are easily fooled, then that will reap its own consequences. That leads to an overall weaker society which can then be dominated, conquered, and/or consumed by more powerful states which have their shit together. The stronger collective wins out over weaker collectives. That's a fact of history which has been repeated over and over and over.
quote:
Your tactic is to undermine the reserved rights of individuals which the gubmint stipulated to keep their lying treacherous paws out of in the bill of rights.
I'm not undermining anyone's rights. I'm just saying that in order to have a strong, unified society, the needs of ALL the people must be given consideration over the needs of the very few at the top. You know, the same kind of people with those "lying treacherous paws." As long as people conduct themselves honorably, give consideration and respect to the rights of other members of the collective (aka "live and let live"), then there wouldn't be any problems at all.
Those who have "lying treacherous paws" are flawed individuals, and it's because of people like that, that we end up with problems. Any and every flaw within a collective is due to flawed individuals, the kind of people who believe they are superior and deserve more power or wealth than other members within the same collective. This creates unnecessary tension and leads to anger, hatred, and undermines the unity and strength of the collective.
That's what leads to your next point...
quote:
I am all for gubmint just short of anarchy.
And how are you going to prevent that? Do you believe that your "law" is some kind of magical incantation which will protect you when the shit hits the fan? Will your individually-owned handguns and rifles be enough to withstand an entire army? Unless you're Chuck Norris, how will you protect yourself and your "individual rights" without the power of the collective to back you up and support you in times of trouble?
You say that I'm undermining individual rights, but in my view, I'm advocating the protection of individual rights through the only practical methods allowable through the laws of physics and nature. Anything else is just "magical thinking." It works for a while, as long as people believe in it and their bellies are full and they're reasonably pacified. But it hangs on a very precarious perch - something that might be a bit too risky in the long run.
quote:
I am waiting for a single example of how individual rights personal or property can undermine "the union"
Well, I mentioned the Civil War. There's a single example.
But since then, we've been able to enjoy a good life of reasonable stability and freedom thanks mainly to liberals, progressives, and other "collectivists" who favor giving consideration to ALL members of society.
Unfortunately, over the past 30+ years, more and more people are forgetting that, getting spoiled by technology and other aspects of "modern" society that make them genuinely believe that the puny "individual" can go it alone. The "self-made," "self-actualized" types who read an Ayn Rand novel and think they are giants among pygmies - just because they're good at negotiating deals and conning people into thinking they're "worth it." They're the ones who go on and on about "economic rights" and how they have the right to shit on the "little people" and working stiffs who are also members of the collective but finding that obedience and submission is no longer working for them.
Even us lowly submissives need some consideration, otherwise puppies and "pay piggies" turn into angry wolves and wild boars who won't be pacified all that easily. That's what brings about the "anarchy" that you fear so much. If you truly fear anarchy, then it would be wise for you to not consider collectivist thinking as "small-minded hogwash." In the end, you need the collective more than it needs you. Food for thought.
|
Economic rights...is there such a right ? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread