Obama's Deception.
I was commenting on the seemingly contradictory statements:
And then:
As it seemed you said in one place that you preferred a gov't that fears you, but in another that you didn't think a gov't that fears you should be the/a gov't. You have spun that to make it seem like you were saying all along that there should be no gov't. That is reaching as other comments of yours have been, but, and maybe only because of our gov't and it's actions, I can buy that. I guess. Oh the irony? I dunno. I suppose if I cared more, or you were a politician I did not like, I would simply state that you contradicted yourself and leave it at that. But it doesn't really matter in this case, does it?
Since you asked though, hmmm - good question! I try to answer but I cannot do so with confidence, sadly. I "want to" say yes but every part of me feels it's no.... It is a distinct possibility that I am not qualified to answer the question.
As it seemed you said in one place that you preferred a gov't that fears you, but in another that you didn't think a gov't that fears you should be the/a gov't. You have spun that to make it seem like you were saying all along that there should be no gov't. That is reaching as other comments of yours have been, but, and maybe only because of our gov't and it's actions, I can buy that. I guess. Oh the irony? I dunno. I suppose if I cared more, or you were a politician I did not like, I would simply state that you contradicted yourself and leave it at that. But it doesn't really matter in this case, does it?
Since you asked though, hmmm - good question! I try to answer but I cannot do so with confidence, sadly. I "want to" say yes but every part of me feels it's no.... It is a distinct possibility that I am not qualified to answer the question.
BTW: I have given your question more thought, and while this is not an answer, I feel that the major needs for gov't are a supplicant for one doing things themselves. Anything I think about that the gov't provides is for the most part, taking the responsibility off of myself. It is an "easy" choice or path to say "yes we need gov't" but it is a brave and daunting path to say no. To say no goes against our upbringing and what we know as to what is supposed to be, but in reality - no. We only need gov't to provide and protect.
Having lived as a child on our family's property where we provided nearly everything for ourselves and sustained this for the 9 years we were living there, the answer is clearly no. However, if a personal army showed up with more firepower than we owned, a gov't would probably seem useful but the reality would be the same minus money for taxes and plus regulation that doesn't fit our exact needs.
Again, good question. Hard to answer and provokes thought. I like it.
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
LOL!
BTW: I have given your question more thought, and while this is not an answer, I feel that the major needs for gov't are a supplicant for one doing things themselves. Anything I think about that the gov't provides is for the most part, taking the responsibility off of myself. It is an "easy" choice or path to say "yes we need gov't" but it is a brave and daunting path to say no. To say no goes against our upbringing and what we know as to what is supposed to be, but in reality - no. We only need gov't to provide and protect.
Having lived as a child on our family's property where we provided nearly everything for ourselves and sustained this for the 9 years we were living there, the answer is clearly no. However, if a personal army showed up with more firepower than we owned, a gov't would probably seem useful but the reality would be the same minus money for taxes and plus regulation that doesn't fit our exact needs.
Again, good question. Hard to answer and provokes thought. I like it.
BTW: I have given your question more thought, and while this is not an answer, I feel that the major needs for gov't are a supplicant for one doing things themselves. Anything I think about that the gov't provides is for the most part, taking the responsibility off of myself. It is an "easy" choice or path to say "yes we need gov't" but it is a brave and daunting path to say no. To say no goes against our upbringing and what we know as to what is supposed to be, but in reality - no. We only need gov't to provide and protect.
Having lived as a child on our family's property where we provided nearly everything for ourselves and sustained this for the 9 years we were living there, the answer is clearly no. However, if a personal army showed up with more firepower than we owned, a gov't would probably seem useful but the reality would be the same minus money for taxes and plus regulation that doesn't fit our exact needs.
Again, good question. Hard to answer and provokes thought. I like it.
1/3 of a a gov't's mandate is to protect the country/people.
I contend that most people really don't "need" gov't in it's present form.
And those that do, would quickly die off if a more traditional/classic gov't that was once America re appeared.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 380
From: Nor Cal-- For Now
Car Info: 05 PSM WRX
I was commenting on the seemingly contradictory statements:
And then:
As it seemed you said in one place that you preferred a gov't that fears you, but in another that you didn't think a gov't that fears you should be the/a gov't. You have spun that to make it seem like you were saying all along that there should be no gov't.
And then:
As it seemed you said in one place that you preferred a gov't that fears you, but in another that you didn't think a gov't that fears you should be the/a gov't. You have spun that to make it seem like you were saying all along that there should be no gov't.
A government that tries to disarm it's people (thus taking away their ability to 1. Defend themselves. And 2. Hold the representatives accountable for their actions); should be dissolved.
Representatives of the people should fear (just as a worker fears his boss) the people he was elected to represent..
When people fear the government.. Something is wrong.
Makes sense to me and I completely agree with your last bit there.
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,686
From: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,686
From: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
I think what Paul meant to say was that... A government that fears the general population will work for the people..
A government that tries to disarm it's people (thus taking away their ability to 1. Defend themselves. And 2. Hold the representatives accountable for their actions); should be dissolved.
Representatives of the people should fear (just as a worker fears his boss) the people he was elected to represent..
When people fear the government.. Something is wrong.
A government that tries to disarm it's people (thus taking away their ability to 1. Defend themselves. And 2. Hold the representatives accountable for their actions); should be dissolved.
Representatives of the people should fear (just as a worker fears his boss) the people he was elected to represent..
When people fear the government.. Something is wrong.
Is that good or bad, depends on whether you're comfortable or fearful. The fearful people can't stand the complacent ones and the complacent can't stand the fearful ones. All the meanwhile, everything is business as usual.
It's really not difficult to begin a revolution if you want to. More power to you if you pull it off. I'm rootin for ya.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
I missed this response from earlier, but the only thing that I'm really interested in responding to is this part:
How would someone become a king without the support of a hierarchical government behind them? How would they create one in a society that specifically shuns such an institution?
How would someone become a king without the support of a hierarchical government behind them? How would they create one in a society that specifically shuns such an institution?
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,686
From: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
I missed this response from earlier, but the only thing that I'm really interested in responding to is this part:
How would someone become a king without the support of a hierarchical government behind them? How would they create one in a society that specifically shuns such an institution?
How would someone become a king without the support of a hierarchical government behind them? How would they create one in a society that specifically shuns such an institution?
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Of course it could always devolve to the point of physically attacking people to get your way, but not only is that indicative of a badly broken society, but that also applies to any society and relies heavily on people not pushing back. As always, the onus falls upon the informed populace to keep tyrants from taking power.
Look, no system is fool-proof, they all have an Achilles' Heel. The only thing we can really do is make sure that there are checks and balances, and an informed, active populace.
It's been a while since I've read Plato's dialogues, specifically The Republic, but if memory serves he posits that a functioning democracy requires the involvement of every citizen -- literally, every adult citizen. He also argues that the wisdom of a populace is best represented by their choice of a wise ruler.
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,686
From: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
You're theorizing methods that take advantage of a preexisting hierarchy; for the purposes of this thought experiment you should assume there is no such structure in place, and as such there is literally no real power to be had by an individual -- only a revolution and complete restructuring of this theoretical society would allow for what you describe, and that is something that would be mandated by the people, and therefore legitimate (at least ideally).
Of course it could always devolve to the point of physically attacking people to get your way, but not only is that indicative of a badly broken society, but that also applies to any society and relies heavily on people not pushing back. As always, the onus falls upon the informed populace to keep tyrants from taking power.
Look, no system is fool-proof, they all have an Achilles' Heel. The only thing we can really do is make sure that there are checks and balances, and an informed, active populace.
It's been a while since I've read Plato's dialogues, specifically The Republic, but if memory serves he posits that a functioning democracy requires the involvement of every citizen -- literally, every adult citizen. He also argues that the wisdom of a populace is best represented by their choice of a wise ruler.
Of course it could always devolve to the point of physically attacking people to get your way, but not only is that indicative of a badly broken society, but that also applies to any society and relies heavily on people not pushing back. As always, the onus falls upon the informed populace to keep tyrants from taking power.
Look, no system is fool-proof, they all have an Achilles' Heel. The only thing we can really do is make sure that there are checks and balances, and an informed, active populace.
It's been a while since I've read Plato's dialogues, specifically The Republic, but if memory serves he posits that a functioning democracy requires the involvement of every citizen -- literally, every adult citizen. He also argues that the wisdom of a populace is best represented by their choice of a wise ruler.
One can only guess as to how a structureless society could exist in sovereignty for any amount of time and how someone could gain control of that society.