Self Goverment

[conway]

Ten Oz

 

For every positive you listed about centralized governments making "progress", I may show you a regression. As I have stated I do agree that they have the right to live the way they wish. So it is NOT akin to making an argument for slavery. It is exactly the same. I say a man has the right to believe in, and function as a slave owner. But I will not participate in his government or a union there-in. This is the same for polygamy or incest. Further history has shown us that slaves have always freed themselves. Abraham Lincoln did not free the slaves. If he did what the heck was Dr. King and Rosa Parks doing. No they freed themselves. It is the responsibility of the repressed, and the abused to stand against their abuser. It always has been. It will always will be. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong in helping these people. But it is wrong to conquer their conquerors, and force them to your standard (right or wrong).

 

Democracy is not moral. Do you feel Ten Oz that you have the right to legislative over the minority, just because you have more children then they do (that is your the majority) ?

[Ten oz]

Conway,

I am at work and will respond at length in several hours. For now I will simple ask you to consider the holocaust. Jewish people did not rise up to free themselves. It took a multi governmental effort to not only end the holocaust but to defeat the Nazis.

[conway]

Ten Oz

 

Ok, thanks. I have stated clearly that there is nothing wrong with helping the "repressed". I would have clearly helped the Jews in the holocaust. (at least I hope I would have). But I would not have conquered the Nazis and forced them to my government. Help all the Jews escape, you bet! If hitler gets mad at it and goes to war....so be it. But I will NOT tell hitler how to live his life or define his government. Only tyrants do that. And by the way......they love to do that very thing under the guise of "good". Sure the good is always actually good, but what it covers up is tyranny.

 

 

 

If the Jews had of stood up to the Nazi's it would not have taken a world war. Such that.....

 

If Abe Lincoln freed the slaves, there would not have been a "civil rights" movement latter....

 

 

 

On hindsight I can't make that claim....maybe it still would have taken a world war. Even if they had stood up to the them. Still....

 

It is the duty of the enslaved to free themselves.

Edited July 21, 2015 by conway

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz

 

1 - For every positive you listed about centralized governments making "progress", I may show you a regression.

2 - I say a man has the right to believe in, and function as a slave owner. But I will not participate in his government or a union there-in. This is the same for polygamy or incest.

3 - Further history has shown us that slaves have always freed themselves. Abraham Lincoln did not free the slaves. If he did what the heck was Dr. King and Rosa Parks doing. No they freed themselves.

4 - It is the responsibility of the repressed, and the abused to stand against their abuser. It always has been. It will always will be. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong in helping these people. But it is wrong to conquer their conquerors, and force them to your standard (right or wrong).

 

5 - Democracy is not moral. Do you feel Ten Oz that you have the right to legislative over the minority, just because you have more children then they do (that is your the majority) ?

1- I listed positives what are your examples of regression?

 

2- The North basically did not participate in slavery nor did the United States participate in killing Jewish people during the holocaust. Simply not participating, minding to ones own business, allows horrors to fester. To not participate or to do nothing is not a neutral at. If I saw a parent beating their child I would do something. Sure it is not my child and every parent has the "right" to raise their child as they see fit but as a society, the society I am part of, violence against children is not tolerated. A basic principle the majority agreed trumps an individual parents right.

 

3 - The various elements that brought about the civil war were in play for decades. As new states joined the Union slavery was prohibited. The South was segregated as the only areas in the unoin where slavery was allowed. Bringing in new slaves was prohibited. Had this not been done it is unclear how many more states may have been slave owning states or how much more powerful the confederacy may have been. More would have died and perhaps slavery would have continued another 50 years or longer.

 

4 - So it is the responsibility of small children phycially abused by the adults in their life to rise up against their abusers? Women being ganged raped by men to rise up? When can leave victims at the mercy of the "conquerors" but it is only a matter of time beig those conquerors come for everyone else. Only a matter of time before the damage and pain caused by those conqeurors negatively impacts the rest of society.

 

5 - Democracy is not moral it is cooperation and humans accomplish more when collaberating. It is also compromise. Having to consider the view points of others. Democracy can provide a vioce to the weak by allowing them to union together. More over in isnt the 1600's anymore. We live in an interconnected world. Cooperation is required to managed our interconnected infrastructure. We can use the internet to have this conversation thats to that cooperation.

Ten Oz

 

Ok, thanks. I have stated clearly that there is nothing wrong with helping the "repressed". I would have clearly helped the Jews in the holocaust. (at least I hope I would have). But I would not have conquered the Nazis and forced them to my government. Help all the Jews escape, you bet! If hitler gets mad at it and goes to war....so be it. But I will NOT tell hitler how to live his life or define his government. Only tyrants do that. And by the way......they love to do that very thing under the guise of "good". Sure the good is always actually good, but what it covers up is tyranny.

 

 

 

If the Jews had of stood up to the Nazi's it would not have taken a world war. Such that.....

 

If Abe Lincoln freed the slaves, there would not have been a "civil rights" movement latter....

 

 

 

On hindsight I can't make that claim....maybe it still would have taken a world war. Even if they had stood up to the them. Still....

 

It is the duty of the enslaved to free themselves.

You may have but all help would have been entirely volunteer so perhaps others wouldn't have. How many more months or years do you think the world could have afforded to stay out of it? Continued to allow Nazi's to advance? What if the United States minded its own business a while longer and let ignore the assualt on England while waitig for every individual group of people in the United States to idependently decide to act.

[conway]

I did not at any time advocate doing nothing. My points of regression are not needed... surely you wouldn't agree any ways. And it is the duty of children and women, and MEN to stand against there oppressors. This says nothing of their success. Those that are weak are not the majority, therefore democracy is another form of tyranny.

[Ten oz]

I did not at any time advocate doing nothing. My points of regression are not needed... surely you wouldn't agree any ways. And it is the duty of children and women, and MEN to stand against there oppressors. This says nothing of their success. Those that are weak are not the majority, therefore democracy is another form of tyranny.

Those that are weak are not the majority? Doesn't that depend on what we are talking about? Those who are poor are most certainly a majority over those who are wealthy for example.

[conway]

Ten Oz

 

 

Are you under the impression that the poor are weak? To me.....weak means not capable of resisting tyranny. The majority of people are capable of resisting tyranny, they just prefer bread and circus to self government.

Edited July 22, 2015 by conway

[Gees]

Conway;

 

Please consider my following thoughts regarding some of your points.

 

Gee

 

I have considered your idea of rights matching responsibility. However one does not always have the right to be responsible for a given thing.

 

My point exactly. Believing that you have rights over something does not give you any authority or power or ability to determine the course of it. So believing that you have the right to self govern does not give you the ability to self govern. What does?

 

There may be no land for me to be responsible for, (at least none of any worth), therefore I would not have the right of property. I may not have the ability to fight for my government, or take physical action to take part in that government. Therefore because I don't not have the responsibility of government, I do not have the right.

 

Exactly.

 

No Gee, it is my belief that right's are beliefs. The thing is, any thing you personally consider to be a "responsibility" is only a belief by you that it is so.

 

Well, you can believe anything that you want -- that is your right -- but it does not give you any rights. It may simply be delusion.

 

Responsibility is only a belief until we act on it, then it becomes responsibility. My son thought it was his responsibility to take out the garbage, and that was true. But he only had the right to his allowance if he actually did take out the garbage. If his sister took out the garbage, then she had the right to his allowance. Not taking responsibility can lose you your rights, taking responsibility can gain you rights.

 

Such as a man and his land. He may take care of it, therefore he owns it through right of responsibility, but in the end it is only his belief that he takes care of the land. It would exist with or with out his care, the state of it's existence being relative. This again is akin to government.

 

Yes. Government will exist whether or not you take responsibility for it -- it just won't be self government.

 

Ten Oz

 

Further history has shown us that slaves have always freed themselves. Abraham Lincoln did not free the slaves. If he did what the heck was Dr. King and Rosa Parks doing. No they freed themselves.

 

I don't think that history reflects this. Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks may have been grandchildren of slaves, or maybe great-grandchildren, but slavery was stopped before their time. The problem was that there were still a lot of white people who firmly believed that black people were beneath them; that they had rights above a black person's rights. What you are talking about is the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's. The only reason why Dr. King and Ms. Parks were able to speak out, is because they were already freed -- but Dr. King was still shot for doing so.

 

This may seem a little off-topic, but I think that it is relevant. My mother makes quilts -- she loves them and goes to many quilt shows. She showed me pictures of some antique quilts called Freedom Quilts. These were quilts made by slaves, but they were not ordinary quilts. They were filled with exquisite pictures of farms, woods, and landscapes that were so detailed, that a person could look at the quilt and recognize the house or area that it described. Many a slave found their way north to freedom by following the pictures on the quilt -- it was the freedom trail.

 

Slaves were not allowed to learn to read and write, but that did not stop their intelligence. The women picked up scraps of material that could be made into pictures, then sewed them into a blanket of hope. The pictures designated places where food and shelter would be provided by sympathetic people on the journey north. But for every person, who followed the trail and won their freedom, many more were captured and beaten or killed.

 

Luckily, it was many years before the significance of the quilts was revealed, since they showed pictures of the sympathizer's homes. So I agree that people can work to free themselves, but these people had help and still most of them did not make it. To free a mass of people, it would take a mass of people, and that means a government with the authority to fight for their rights -- it took a war. Then years later it took government action in the form of the Civil Rights movement.

 

Democracy is not moral. Do you feel Ten Oz that you have the right to legislative over the minority, just because you have more children then they do (that is your the majority) ?

 

Those that are weak are not the majority, therefore democracy is another form of tyranny.

 

Many of the States would not ratify the Constitution because of these same concerns. They stated that mob rule could be the result of a government of the people. This is why the Bill of Rights was incorporated into the Constitution. The Bill of Rights protects individual rights from government abuse -- that is its purpose. If you are going to study the American Constitution, then study it all.

 

Gee

[swansont]

Abraham Lincoln did not free the slaves. If he did what the heck was Dr. King and Rosa Parks doing.

 

You might want to check your history. Dr. King and Rosa Parks were fighting (grave) injustices in the system, but they were not slaves.

[conway]

swansont, gee, ten oz

 

 

Perhaps you folks should consider myself and my comments vile. This way you will "logically" NOT have to consider anything I say. Strange and John have found this method most effective when dealing with me.

[Ten oz]

swansont, gee, ten oz

 

 

Perhaps you folks should consider myself and my comments vile. This way you will "logically" NOT have to consider anything I say. Strange and John have found this method most effective when dealing with me.

Every point you have made has been addressed and responded to. A courtesy I do not feel you have entirely returned. You started this thread to dicuss this topic and we have all participated isn't that the goal when initiating a thread in this forum? The responses given have been on topic and direct toward the theories you have presented. We are all self governing our own opinions so in a way it is rather ironic that you seem put off by it.

[swansont]

swansont, gee, ten oz

 

 

Perhaps you folks should consider myself and my comments vile. This way you will "logically" NOT have to consider anything I say. Strange and John have found this method most effective when dealing with me.

 

I did consider what you said. I found it to be bollocks. "Consideration" is not the same as "agreement"

[conway]

Ten Oz

 

 

No you haven't considered anything I have said. You only restated your old points, that I addressed, and then proceeded to insult my level of history education. You have consistently "suggested" that I would allow Jews and Blacks to suffer under their tyranny, because I believe in self government. You your self point out that "usually" plp who spear head such charges are the one's actually against it. It appears that you Ten Oz.... have no issues telling another man how to govern themselves. As long as YOU think its "right". Why don't you study what form of binding documents this country had before the constitution Ten Oz. Then tell me what you think then.

 

 

Swansont

 

No swan you did not consider what I said at all.......I consider not being able to marry who I want as being a slave. I consider not being able to drink out of a water fountain as being a slave. I consider not being equal to another man in rights because of the color of my skin as being a slave. Clearly these issues were "gross injustices" , but Dr, King, and Rosa parks were still slaves.

 

 

Cultural slavery

Physical slavery

emotional slavery

fiscal slavery

 

 

many more than one swan......they were slaves......that WAS the cause of the civil right movement.

Edited July 24, 2015 by conway

[Phi for All]

Swansont

 

No swan you did not consider what I said at all.......I consider not being able to marry who I want as being a slave. I consider not being able to drink out of a water fountain as being a slave. I consider not being equal to another man in rights because of the color of my skin as being a slave. Clearly these issues were "gross injustices" , but Dr, King, and Rosa parks were still slaves.

 

Please observe that you have redefined what being a slave is, and are now chastising others for not knowing that you changed the definition. Perhaps swansont considered everything he was able to.

 

Please take responsibility if you're going to use alternative meanings for well-known words. That's fair, don't you think?

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz

 

 

No you haven't considered anything I have said. You only restated your old points, that I addressed, and then proceeded to insult my level of history education. You have consistently "suggested" that I would allow Jews and Blacks to suffer under their tyranny, because I believe in self government. You your self point out that "usually" plp who spear head such charges are the one's actually against it. It appears that you Ten Oz.... have no issues telling another man how to govern themselves. As long as YOU think its "right". Why don't you study what form of binding documents this country had before the constitution Ten Oz. Then tell me what you think then.

 

.

I said "every point you have made has been addressed and responded to", the fact that you disagree with the responses does not make my comment any less true. Also I never suggested you would allow for the Tyranny of others. Quite the oppisite actually. I pointed out that your ideas do not provide a means by which end things like slavery or the holocuast. It isn't that you would allow those things but rather you'd simply have no say one way or the other about them at all.

[conway]

Phi

 

Yes you are correct. It is fair. I did technically redefine the world slavery. But perhaps my definition is more accurate. I wonder what Dr, King would have said on this point. I know several African Americans who will tell you quite forcefully (and rightly so) that they freed themselves. It was not done by white men. Who coincidently went on to oppress, and kill them, and native American Indians,,,,, well after "slavery" was "abolished".

 

 

Ten Oz

 

I reply (again) likewise. I have addressed all your points, the fact that you disagree with the responses does not make my comment any less true.

 

 

What makes you think that "help" from others is the only way to end slavery? I disagree. Slavery is a losing mans "religion". It ends its self.....every time and all the time. Maybe not as quick as is liked. But it is destined to fail inherently, such as is communism.

[Ten oz]

Slavery ends itself every time and all time but at the cost of how many lives and after how many years?

 

Slavery is not the only issue example that has been brought up. I also mentioned things like child abuse, rape, incest, and the holocaust. Every time and all the time do child rise up against their abusers, do rape victims rise up against their rapist? Did Jewish people rise up and stop the Nazis?

 

Pure self governing by all individuals defies, in my opinion, human nature. Humans are a social animals. Humans evolved living in groups. Larger groups generally developed skill more quickly as there were more ideals and knowledge being spread than in smaller groups. All socail animals have some form of standards for behavior that governs them. It is not a collection of individuals that all independently do as they wish. Compromises to personal desire always get made to accomodate a group. Soon as an across the board standard is applied individuals are no longer purely self governing. Soon as it is collectively decided that killing people, raping people, or having sexual contact with children is against the standard individuals lose the right to do those things with repercussions.