Truth First, then........

[hoarder]

Philosophies and ideologies are real eye-closers. It seems people attach themselves to one early on in their studies because it seems to fit their inexperienced predispositions and from then on they seek truths that confirm their ideology/philosophy.

It makes sense to me that any philosophy should be based on a very good grasp of reality, That said, it's a matter of sequence that truth-seeking should come before philosphy-adopting. With most people it doesn't work that way. I feel like I'm in the minority because I can backtrack out of any ideology/philosophy I clung to in the past when new verifiable phenomena or logical reasoning undermined the validity of those systems.

Our rulers seem to be acutely aware of this because they're constantly selling ideologies/philosophies to us. The left vs. right vs. Libertarian distraction not only serves to keep us fighting among ourselves, but gives followers of each group a specific half-blindness which makes them more managable by the rulers.

I think studying philosophies/ideologies is a useful part of the learning process as long as students refrain from clinging to any of them.
IMO, the real truthseeker dismisses them in general or at least takes them all with a grain of salt.

No ideology can save us from a warped sense of reality.

[Gaillo]

Philosophy has been thrown on the "scrap-heap" of Western Civilization, instead of being given the exhaulted position it deserves. I consider Philosophy to be THE primary science, with metaphysics and ephistemology being the root of ALL sciences. Very unfortunate... to attack man's civilizations, it is first necessary to attack man's minds, and make them question if their understanding of reality is correct or not. The "New Age", hippy-dippy "you create your own reality" BS is the starting wedge of this process, IMHO. Kant and Hegel were the banner-bearers of that particular movement, also IMHO.

TRUE philosophy and metaphysics is based on Aristotle's proposition that reality IS what it IS, regardless of how we "think" and "feel" about it. Misleading and FALSE philosophy is based on Plato's allegory of "the cave" - where we only ever see the "shadows" of reality, never any real substance. I find it interesting that modern Western "philosophy" credits Plato as it's inspiration and source, and not Aristotle.

[Fortyone]

Philosophy has been thrown on the "scrap-heap" of Western Civilization, instead of being given the exhaulted position it deserves. I consider Philosophy to be THE primary science, with metaphysics and ephistemology being the root of ALL sciences. Very unfortunate... to attack man's civilizations, it is first necessary to attack man's minds, and make them question if their understanding of reality is correct or not. The "New Age", hippy-dippy "you create your own reality" BS is the starting wedge of this process, IMHO. Kant and Hegel were the banner-bearers of that particular movement, also IMHO.


Which is what the Jew does. Destroys your mind.

[Glass]

The truth is the truth and it cares not what you believe. It will exert itself regardless of what anyone thinks.

I've been reading the bible. I've just started. I read Genesis and what I came away with from that was: deceit, bait and switch and guilt trips are tools for advantage over others. I'm hoping the rest of it turns out better.

[k-os]

I think it is important to keep an open mind in all things, but go with your gut when something feels wrong. Of course, people who are easily swayed away from their core (and I mean inner core - right an wrong) beliefs are probably best to marry or befriend someone with an excellent moral foundation who can watch out for them.

What ideology and philosophy (and religion sometimes) do to many people is to close them off to possibilities. These things can hinder critical thought if someone chooses something to believe and never gives anything else a second thought.

About the "hippy-dippy 'you create your own reality' BS" - I believe it is possible to hope for (and even believe in) the best, but prepare for the worst. Balance.

[hoarder]

Philosophy has been thrown on the "scrap-heap" of Western Civilization, instead of being given the exhaulted position it deserves. I consider Philosophy to be THE primary science, with metaphysics and ephistemology being the root of ALL sciences. Epistemology is exactly what I am advocating....seeking the truth instead of clinging to ideologies.
The "New Age", hippy-dippy "you create your own reality" BS is the starting wedge of this process, IMHO.
TRUE philosophy and metaphysics is based on Aristotle's proposition that reality IS what it IS, regardless of how we "think" and "feel" about it. Agree 100% and we don't even need Aristotle to show us this. But you, Gaillo among others cling to Libertarian ideologies in spite of being constantly provided with logical reasoning and verifiable phenomena that would cause any truth-seeker to dismiss such Randroid nonsense. Sorry.

[hoarder]

About the "hippy-dippy 'you create your own reality' BS" - I believe it is possible to hope for (and even believe in) the best, but prepare for the worst. Balance.
What he was referring to as hippy-dippy is the notion that one can create reality by believing something, not that it was hippy-dippy to create your own outcomes with work, planning, attitude etc.

[hoarder]

The truth is the truth and it cares not what you believe. It will exert itself regardless of what anyone thinks.Yes, and it will exert itself regardless of which ideology you adhere to.

[Gaillo]

Philosophy has been thrown on the "scrap-heap" of Western Civilization, instead of being given the exhaulted position it deserves. I consider Philosophy to be THE primary science, with metaphysics and ephistemology being the root of ALL sciences. Epistemology is exactly what I am advocating....seeking the truth instead of clinging to ideologies.
The "New Age", hippy-dippy "you create your own reality" BS is the starting wedge of this process, IMHO.
TRUE philosophy and metaphysics is based on Aristotle's proposition that reality IS what it IS, regardless of how we "think" and "feel" about it. Agree 100% and we don't even need Aristotle to show us this. But you, Gaillo among others cling to Libertarian ideologies in spite of being constantly provided with logical reasoning and verifiable phenomena that would cause any truth-seeker to dismiss such Randroid nonsense. Sorry.


No need to be sorry, as I am NOT a "Libertarian" in the usual sense. While it is true that I believe "when individual rights are protected, ALL rights are protected" - I put the emphasis on "protected" - which requires government, laws, and enforcement of some kind. Most so-called "Libertarians" want the "rights" part, without the consequences or accountability.

[k-os]

Most so-called "Libertarians" want the "rights" part, without the consequences or accountability.


Agreed! If we could all just practice personal responsibility, what a wonderful world this would be!

[1970 silver art]

Most so-called "Libertarians" want the "rights" part, without the consequences or accountability.


Agreed! If we could all just practice personal responsibility, what a wonderful world this would be!


That makes sense and I agree with you on this but practicing personal responsibility is easier said than done when you have mommy gov't bailing people (and companies) out and trying to protect all of us from our bad decision making.

[dysgenic]

This is how the badguys gain the upperhand:

A movement/philsophy/idealogy is created or recreated by an honest person or group. If the movement is well designed and timely, people that identify with it's principles will flock to it (we'll call it 'movement x').
If 'movement x' stands to threaten TPTB, TPTB will quickly infiltrate it, exploit its weaknesses, and progressively distort its principles... all the while using the media that they control to create a negative public perception of movement x. Then, TPTB need not discredit the person. Instead, they simply apply the perjorative 'movement x' label to the person, and person is discredited.

A riff on this strategy is to preemptively create movements/idealogies of questionable principles and then assign individuals that threaten TPTB the label of the questionable movement after the fact. Done with repetition and propoganda, this is effective even if there is little to no correlation between the individual principles and those of the movement.

OR a long lost flawed movement recruits honest people to join it by using false dichotomies or false premises. 'Lesser of 2 evils'. 'This is the world we live in.' 'Necessary evil.' Get rid of the black people, they are th problem not the movement.

Sophisticated pigeon holing, in other words.


dys

[hoarder]

No need to be sorry, as I am NOT a "Libertarian" in the usual sense. While it is true that I believe "when individual rights are protected, ALL rights are protected" - I put the emphasis on "protected" - which requires government, laws, and enforcement of some kind. Most so-called "Libertarians" want the "rights" part, without the consequences or accountability.
But the emphasis on "individual" in individual rights is very Libertarian.
A world of individuals is world government. Groups, nations, races and religions have to be figured into the equation or there will be no liberty.

[Silver Shield]

The truth will set you free... But first it will make you sick. President James Garfield

Question everything. George Carlin

Listen to many
Follow none


Believe nothing , even if I have said it, unless it agrees with you own common sense. Buddha

[hoarder]

This is how the badguys gain the upperhand:

A movement/philsophy/idealogy is created or recreated by an honest person or group.


dys


It's much less work for TPTB to start their own movements using sincere sounding fronts. That way the infiltration is complete right from the start and no damage is done in the process of infiltration.

[ShortJohnSilver]

You should make it a practice to read Kipling's poem, "The Gods of the Copybook Headings" every couple of years...

http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_copybook.htm

[hoarder]

I think it is important to keep an open mind in all things, but go with your gut when something feels wrong.
Our guts are notorious liars. that's why the advertising industry is so huge. Use logic when you have the time, gut when you only have seconds to decide.

It reminds me of what I told one of those free sample whores at the supermarket years ago, when asked if the sample was good. " My taste buds are notorious liars, if I believed them I'd live off of beer and ice cream! What are the ingredients?"

[Book]

http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/MA-NoGodTruth.jpg

|--0--|

[hoarder]

You should make it a practice to read Kipling's poem, "The Gods of the Copybook Headings" every couple of years...

http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_copybook.htm
One would have to be more well-read than I to figure out what he's writing about. Our language has changed so much. :conf:

[hoarder]

One thing that gets me about other peoples truth-seeking attempts is that they seem to be trying to think in terms of certainties. Hardly anything is certain.

As they say in criminal law "beyond any shadow of a doubt". What besides gravity falls in that category?

The absolutist will never have a clue. Just as hardly anything is certain, nearly anything is possible.

What discussions should be focused on is what is PROBABLE.

Now we are a forum of investors... don't investors get paid for their ability to assess what is probable??
No we fight over shadows of doubt, as though it refutes the whole concept.

[RJB]

In defence of "libertarianism."

I started as a neocon and turned into a hard core libertarian for a while.

Since hanging out with you guys a few years ago, I have backed away from libertarianism a bit. What I do agree with libertarianism is the fundamental instinct we all have is: "Leave me be..."

I think it has been grossly polluted by corporatism where many mistakenly eat it up as freemarket... "It" has poluted many philosophies, not just libertarianism.

[ShortJohnSilver]

You should make it a practice to read Kipling's poem, "The Gods of the Copybook Headings" every couple of years...

http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_copybook.htm
One would have to be more well-read than I to figure out what he's writing about. Our language has changed so much. :conf:


What exactly do you mean?

[Joe King]

Most so-called "Libertarians" want the "rights" part, without the consequences or accountability.

Where do get that at?


From Libertarian Platform:

1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

If they advocate Criminal Law against those using force or fraud, that sounds to me like enforcing personal responsibility if you damage anothers person property or Rights.
Where's the problem with that?

Libertarianism to me basically means enforcing the Constitution as written and intended without all the BS interpretations they use to justify not doing so.

[Joe King]

One thing that gets me about other peoples truth-seeking attempts is that they seem to be trying to think in terms of certainties. Hardly anything is certain.

As they say in criminal law "beyond any shadow of a doubt". What besides gravity falls in that category?

The absolutist will never have a clue. Just as hardly anything is certain, nearly anything is possible.

What discussions should be focused on is what is PROBABLE.

Now we are a forum of investors... don't investors get paid for their ability to assess what is probable??
No we fight over shadows of doubt, as though it refutes the whole concept.
I thought it was, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Isn't it?

[dysgenic]

I'd say that based on history and human nature, it's nearly certain that the institution of government is vulnerable to corruption, ineffiency, and profligacy. For myself, I don't believe in moral relativism. Theft is theft, coercion is coercion. The notion of 'greater good' is Orwellian and immoral. I'm in favor of an opt out clause; in otherwords, no mandatory taxes.

dys



One thing that gets me about other peoples truth-seeking attempts is that they seem to be trying to think in terms of certainties. Hardly anything is certain.

As they say in criminal law "beyond any shadow of a doubt". What besides gravity falls in that category?

The absolutist will never have a clue. Just as hardly anything is certain, nearly anything is possible.

What discussions should be focused on is what is PROBABLE.

Now we are a forum of investors... don't investors get paid for their ability to assess what is probable??
No we fight over shadows of doubt, as though it refutes the whole concept.

[hoarder]

In defence of "libertarianism."

I started as a neocon and turned into a hard core libertarian for a while.

Since hanging out with you guys a few years ago, I have backed away from libertarianism a bit. What I do agree with libertarianism is the fundamental instinct we all have is: "Leave me be..."

I think it has been grossly polluted by corporatism where many mistakenly eat it up as freemarket... "It" has poluted many philosophies, not just libertarianism.
Good for you, RJB. I bash Libertarians a lot but admit that they have a higher intellect than the republocrats. The problem with rigid ideologies is that we are at war, a war of ideas mostly. When at war one must be flexible to avoid being cornered with our own ideas by a foe who has no rigid principles to hinder him.

When engaged in battle, if one party is hindered by rules and the other one isn't who wins?

There are times when rules and principles are an asset and times when they are not.

[hoarder]

What exactly do you mean?
That I didn't "get" the poem. Skull too thick maybe.

[hoarder]

I'd say that based on history and human nature, it's nearly certain that the institution of government is vulnerable to corruption, ineffiency, and profligacy. For myself, I don't believe in moral relativism. Theft is theft, coercion is coercion. The notion of 'greater good' is Orwellian and immoral.
Is war moral? Is moralty higher than survival? These are tough questions.

[hoarder]

I thought it was, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Isn't it?
You may be right. Goes to show how little I know about law.

[dysgenic]

You know, I'll be honest and say it's a good question and a good point. Do you think a nation can provide for its adequate defense without mandatory taxes? I would say yes, but truthfully I can't say for sure.

dys






I'd say that based on history and human nature, it's nearly certain that the institution of government is vulnerable to corruption, ineffiency, and profligacy. For myself, I don't believe in moral relativism. Theft is theft, coercion is coercion. The notion of 'greater good' is Orwellian and immoral.
Is war moral? Is moralty higher than survival? These are tough questions.

[hoarder]

You know, I'll be honest and say it's a good question and a good point. Do you think a nation can provide for its adequate defense without mandatory taxes? I would say yes, but truthfully I can't say for sure.

dys


The kind of war I'm referring to has nothing to do with the Defense Department. It has to do with the people vs. the governmedia. More taxes mean more power to governmedia and less power to the people.
But to answer your question it is cocievable that mandatory taxes could be justified for war in some cases.

[Gaillo]

Most so-called "Libertarians" want the "rights" part, without the consequences or accountability.

Where do get that at?


From Libertarian Platform:

1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

If they advocate Criminal Law against those using force or fraud, that sounds to me like enforcing personal responsibility if you damage anothers person property or Rights.
Where's the problem with that?

Libertarianism to me basically means enforcing the Constitution as written and intended without all the BS interpretations they use to justify not doing so.


First off, I happen to agree.

"where I got that" is that almost without exception, all the "Libertarians" I've met in real life have been more concerned with "fvck da police", "hemp power", and "government has no right to hassle me, let alone exist" than the fine sentiments expressed in your post. I suspect there are "Internet Libertarians" along with the "ta hell with gov't" real-world type... I just haven't (with one exception, and he was pretty sketchy!) met any of them yet in real life.

P.S. - I have nothing against "hemp power", even though I don't smoke or take up the industrial hemp cause. I just think it's NO basis for a political philosophy, or any way to win over the people who might end up making a real difference.

[Joe King]

Then you've only met fake Libertarians.

What you describe sounds more like anarchists who are unclear on the concept.

[FunnyMoney]

... The problem with rigid ideologies is that we are at war, a war of ideas mostly. When at war one must be flexible to avoid being cornered .....



If you are looking to see where or who to throw your hat behind, I must warn you that if anyone says they can "fix" your problem, you better run.

If there is somebody who without anything to gain tells you that they may be on to some solutions but it starts with personal responsibility then you can listen and see if you learn something.

Personal responsibility must replace the nanny state, but I am of the belief that if you get rid of the tax and spend society that the vacuum left behind will be filled by personal responsibility.

[Book]

http://www.urbanohio.com/UOThreads/2009/Misc/ColumbusGermanVillage.jpg

I suspect that some internet "Libertarians" want to destroy the White Goyim sense of community by preaching against any form of social unity. Divide then conquer.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2255/2128380832_cbf329bf5f.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ynz5TKLUyTQ/TID0JilPZBI/AAAAAAAACMM/Pu8eWwxaJ6E/s1600/65OTD00Z.jpg

http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/72386012.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=E41C9FE5C4AA0A14DBF7C2FE2F0BDCE7C62147D5DA43DF87 73381444661F9378B01E70F2B3269972

[Joe King]

Abbie was a Jewish Anarchist.

I figured a lot of people here would love him just for that fact alone. Which is why I posted him in that other thread.

BTW, that pic of him with the gun just cracks me up. :lol

[Joe King]

I suspect that some internet "Libertarians" want to destroy the White Goyim sense of community by preaching against any form of social unity. Divide then conquer.

What's wrong with all peace loving peoples being able to live anywhere they want, as long as they can afford to pay their own way?

[Joe King]

I think it is important to keep an open mind in all things, but go with your gut when something feels wrong.
Our guts are notorious liars. that's why the advertising industry is so huge. Use logic when you have the time, gut when you only have seconds to decide.

It reminds me of what I told one of those free sample whores at the supermarket years ago, when asked if the sample was good. " My taste buds are notorious liars, if I believed them I'd live off of beer and ice cream! What are the ingredients?"
I don't think so. More often than not, your "gut reaction" is typically the correct one.

Waiting and thinking it over oftentimes allows the introduction of bias into the equation so that you might start trying to rationalize your decision on something other than the straight-up facts.
However there may also be situations where a bit of deductive reasoning is called for, and that takes thinking things over. But most times your "gut" is telling you something for a reason.

http://relationshiplaboratory.com/trust-your-gut-instincts/

[Joe King]

In defence of "libertarianism."

I started as a neocon and turned into a hard core libertarian for a while.

Since hanging out with you guys a few years ago, I have backed away from libertarianism a bit. What I do agree with libertarianism is the fundamental instinct we all have is: "Leave me be..."

I think it has been grossly polluted by corporatism where many mistakenly eat it up as freemarket... "It" has poluted many philosophies, not just libertarianism.
Good for you, RJB. I bash Libertarians a lot but admit that they have a higher intellect than the republocrats. The problem with rigid ideologies is that we are at war, a war of ideas mostly. When at war one must be flexible to avoid being cornered with our own ideas by a foe who has no rigid principles to hinder him.

When engaged in battle, if one party is hindered by rules and the other one isn't who wins?

There are times when rules and principles are an asset and times when they are not.
You do realize that your argument against rigid ideologies is what's allowed the gov to have lots of "wiggle room" when it comes to staying within its Constitutional limitations?

If the rules can change like the wind direction, we'll never get anywhere. What we need is a solid, rigid framework that gov must remain within.

[Joe King]

As far as Libertarianism goes, can anyone look at their platform and honestly say there's not an overwhelming amount you can agree with, if not all of it?

http://www.lp.org/platform

[Horn]

Ideologies are as close as intellectuals owners can come to having muscle mass, and feed the ego.

If there were a single word to describe a proper way of living we'd all be kaput.

[Gaillo]

Ideologies are as close as intellectuals owners can come to having muscle mass, and feed the ego.

If there were a single word to describe a proper way of living we'd all be kaput.


We're all "kaput" then. The word is "Freedom"!!!!

[Saul Mine]

Some philosophy is mental masturbation, and some is true but only by accident. Aristotle was the high priest of philosophy, and the best advice he had for the real world was to put him or people just like him in charge of everything. We still call that "Aristotelian" logic, the idea that a guy must be right because he has such a high opinion of himself.

Nevertheless, you need to learn at least a little philosophy, if only so you can avoid it when some BS artist tries to baffle you with it. Modern philosophy consists entirely of giving obscure names to every possible interpretation of something so people can discuss them without having to think about them. Don't feel bad if you can't remember what all the names mean. It's not important to be right in philosophical discussions, it's only important to keep the discussion going and keep it nice. It's very important to be nice. You just don't tell an idiot he's an idiot, you let him figure it out by himself.

When you get into a discussion in the real world it's still not important to be right; it's important to be certain. You can be wrong and you will be forgiven, but there is no forgiveness for being uncertain. And the discussion is usually won by the biggest guy. Always be the biggest guy if possible. If you can't then get on the biggest guy's side.

[nunaem]

Philosophy doesn't blind people, people are born blind and most can never gain an inkling of understanding even under the best of conditions, and those that can are seldom held back for long by any corrupt philosophy, state or religion. The worst a philosophy can do is not prevent enlightenment, but prevent enlightened rule. This is what egalitarianism aimed to do by beheading mankind, disempowering its only guide, aristocracy, and putting unthinking mass in its place.

Understanding and discovering truths is easy enough for those capable of it. But truth by itself is impotent, it can't convince anyone or compel adherence. It needs upholders and enforcers who have real material power. What it doesn't need is salesmen who must taint it to make it palatable to the masses. The masses will never swallow truth whole willingly, they can only be subjected to it.

[hoarder]

You do realize that your argument against rigid ideologies is what's allowed the gov to have lots of "wiggle room" when it comes to staying within its Constitutional limitations?

If the rules can change like the wind direction, we'll never get anywhere. What we need is a solid, rigid framework that gov must remain within.
Our Founding Fathers understood that within any political system loopholes would be found which could allow foreigners, subversives and other enemies to dismantle or take control of the system and they made provisions to allow amendments to the Constitution to remedy them. Knowing even that was not enough, they suggested that a bloody revolution every couple decades was appropriate when the wrong people made their way to the top.

What they did not foresee is the electronic age and the bottlenecking of information and influence at the hands of those who owned the "free press", radio and television broadcasting.

When the loopholes in a "rigid framework" are found, The loopholes are used by enemies of the people to take control. The enemies live by their own rules, if any and we the people are limited by the "rigid framework" and unable to fight back.

In any case the United States Constitution was the best political system ever designed. Too bad it was destroyed.

[DMac]

You do realize that your argument against rigid ideologies is what's allowed the gov to have lots of "wiggle room" when it comes to staying within its Constitutional limitations?

If the rules can change like the wind direction, we'll never get anywhere. What we need is a solid, rigid framework that gov must remain within.
Our Founding Fathers understood that within any political system loopholes would be found which could allow foreigners, subversives and other enemies to dismantle or take control of the system and they made provisions to allow amendments to the Constitution to remedy them. Knowing even that was not enough, they suggested that a bloody revolution every couple decades was appropriate when the wrong people made their way to the top.

What they did not foresee is the electronic age and the bottlenecking of information and influence at the hands of those who owned the "free press", radio and television broadcasting.

When the loopholes in a "rigid framework" are found, The loopholes are used by enemies of the people to take control. The enemies live by their own rules, if any and we the people are limited by the "rigid framework" and unable to fight back.

In any case the United States Constitution was the best political system ever designed. Too bad it was destroyed.






Key point in this post hoarder - television. Print media stands no chance versus the brain molding power of the tv.

I've studied philosophy into graduate level so believe me I appreciate it as the highest of all sciences. My original career path was going to be PhD, then teach. I had a similar thought that you expressed in this thread that one must also search for truth by living and experiencing life (it is why I stopped working on the MA degree). Truth cannot be found in the library alone.

[Joe King]

You do realize that your argument against rigid ideologies is what's allowed the gov to have lots of "wiggle room" when it comes to staying within its Constitutional limitations?

If the rules can change like the wind direction, we'll never get anywhere. What we need is a solid, rigid framework that gov must remain within.
Our Founding Fathers understood that within any political system loopholes would be found which could allow foreigners, subversives and other enemies to dismantle or take control of the system and they made provisions to allow amendments to the Constitution to remedy them. Knowing even that was not enough, they suggested that a bloody revolution every couple decades was appropriate when the wrong people made their way to the top.

What they did not foresee is the electronic age and the bottlenecking of information and influence at the hands of those who owned the "free press", radio and television broadcasting.

When the loopholes in a "rigid framework" are found, The loopholes are used by enemies of the people to take control. The enemies live by their own rules, if any and we the people are limited by the "rigid framework" and unable to fight back.

In any case the United States Constitution was the best political system ever designed. Too bad it was destroyed.




It still is the best.

Those loop holes only exist due to its interpretation having been perverted by those looking to get around the limitations it imposes upon government.

The fact that tptb call it a living document is the problem.

If was used in the way the Founders intended, 99.9% of everything you see the gov doing, they wouldn't be doing.

We've got the best Constitution ever written. But many people seem to think that what we have in government is a result of having followed it. When in reality, what we have in government is a direct result of having not followed it.

TPTB would love to see the People ready to throw away our Constitution as having been a failure, and they've been working on that for 200 or so years now while the People have been thinking the gov is on auto pilot.

[hoarder]

I've studied philosophy into graduate level so believe me I appreciate it as the highest of all sciences. My OP was not directed against the study of philosophy nor the great philosophers of the past, it was directed against the practice of "having a philosophy" and an ideology.

Many people, when you take them by the hand and try to wake them up to the reality of what is happening, they say "well my philosophy is" as a way of saying reality doesn't matter.

[hoarder]

[quote=hoarder ]
It still is the best.

Those loop holes only exist due to its interpretation having been perverted by those looking to get around the limitations it imposes upon government.

The fact that tptb call it a living document is the problem.

If was used in the way the Founders intended, 99.9% of everything you see the gov doing, they wouldn't be doing.

We've got the best Constitution ever written. But many people seem to think that what we have in government is a result of having followed it. When in reality, what we have in government is a direct result of having not followed it.

TPTB would love to see the People ready to throw away our Constitution as having been a failure, and they've been working on that for 200 or so years now while the People have been thinking the gov is on auto pilot.
I agree.

[Joe King]

What needs to happen is an insistence by the People to return to a wholly Constitutional form of government so that tptb loses their wiggle room to do end-runs around the proper limitations of gov.


When the crash finally comes, that will be the time to do that "insisting".

It's kinda like the way an alcoholic has to hit rock-bottom before they can see the light.
We just need to make sure that the light people are seeing at that time is the correct light.
Because if it's not, prepare to wait another however many decades 'til our next chance comes along.

[hoarder]

What needs to happen is an insistence by the People to return to a wholly Constitutional form of government so that tptb loses their wiggle room to do end-runs around the proper limitations of gov.


When the crash finally comes, that will be the time to do that "insisting".

It's kinda like the way an alcoholic has to hit rock-bottom before they can see the light.
We just need to make sure that the light people are seeing at that time is the correct light.
Because if it's not, prepare to wait another however many decades 'til our next chance comes along.
The reason TPTB do as they please is because they own the media, a problem for which the Constitution does not have a remedy.
A chain breaks at it's weakst link. TPTB found that weak link and broke the chain...by commandeering all our mass media. Because of the mind numbing power of teevee, the drunk will never know he hit rock bottom.
He'll just keep on
f
a
l
l
i
n
g.

[nunaem]

Has anyone considered that common men naturally gravitate to rock bottom without the need of help? I don't doubt they are being helped, but I have a hard time believing the direction they are being led towards is inimical to their nature. These naturmensch, as Ortega called them, may have an instinctive desire to return to the barbarism they were once torn from. This raises the interesting question: what if Civilization was forced onto the greater part of mankind, even among white races, without its consent or desire? What if the greater part of mankind still yet has no desire for Civilization? If so, Democracy could be more than a temporary setback for the race.

[Joe King]

Democracy sux big time, is an inferior form of government and always ends badly.

So why would anyone want a Democracy when we can have a Republican form of gov instead? {and I don't mean as in the party}

[Joe King]

What needs to happen is an insistence by the People to return to a wholly Constitutional form of government so that tptb loses their wiggle room to do end-runs around the proper limitations of gov.


When the crash finally comes, that will be the time to do that "insisting".

It's kinda like the way an alcoholic has to hit rock-bottom before they can see the light.
We just need to make sure that the light people are seeing at that time is the correct light.
Because if it's not, prepare to wait another however many decades 'til our next chance comes along.
The reason TPTB do as they please is because they own the media, a problem for which the Constitution does not have a remedy.
A chain breaks at it's weakst link. TPTB found that weak link and broke the chain...by commandeering all our mass media. Because of the mind numbing power of teevee, the drunk will never know he hit rock bottom.
He'll just keep on
f
a
l
l
i
n
g.
Are you saying that you think the gov should control the media in order to protect our sometimes ignorant selves, from ourselves? :D

[hoarder]

Are you saying that you think the gov should control the media in order to protect our sometimes ignorant selves, from ourselves? :D
The reason I started this thread is because I see that people's philosophies and ideologies are preventing them from seeing the truth.
When presented with a problem, if there is no solution that fits their ideology, the problem doesn't exist. Is this where you're coming from?

I'm not advocating any solutions, just pointing out the problem....that's the proper sequence, BTW.

The problem exists whether any solution is acceptable to us or not.

[nunaem]

Democracy sux big time, is an inferior form of government and always ends badly.

So why would anyone want a Democracy when we can have a Republican form of gov instead? {and I don't mean as in the party}


Republicanism is only better than Democracy to the extent that it is undemocratic. It follows that the least democratic Republic would be the best, that is, the Republic with the most restricted franchise. You can't go below a franchise of 1 without anarchy, so Monarchy is the best form of government.

[Joe King]

Are you saying that you think the gov should control the media in order to protect our sometimes ignorant selves, from ourselves? :D
The reason I started this thread is because I see that people's philosophies and ideologies are preventing them from seeing the truth.
When presented with a problem, if there is no solution that fits their ideology, the problem doesn't exist. Is this where you're coming from?

I'm not advocating any solutions, just pointing out the problem....that's the proper sequence, BTW.

The problem exists whether any solution is acceptable to us or not.
I see the problem as the people mostly having been and still being willfully ignorant of what their governments actual purpose is supposed to be.

If people actually understood to begin with, perhaps the crap pumped on TV wouldn't fly as well as it does.

[Joe King]

Democracy sux big time, is an inferior form of government and always ends badly.

So why would anyone want a Democracy when we can have a Republican form of gov instead? {and I don't mean as in the party}


Republicanism is only better than Democracy to the extent that it is undemocratic. It follows that the least democratic Republic would be the best, that is, the Republic with the most restricted franchise. You can't go below a franchise of 1 without anarchy, so Monarchy is the best form of government.
Absolute power would merely corupt the Monarchy. Then you're right back to evil dictatorship.

[hoarder]

I see the problem as the people mostly having been and still being willfully ignorant of what their governments actual purpose is supposed to be.

If people actually understood to begin with, perhaps the crap pumped on TV wouldn't fly as well as it does.
You're putting the cart before the horse. Not until the media problem is solved will the ignorant do anything productive to regain their Constitutional government.

[Joe King]

I see the problem as the people mostly having been and still being willfully ignorant of what their governments actual purpose is supposed to be.

If people actually understood to begin with, perhaps the crap pumped on TV wouldn't fly as well as it does.
You're putting the cart before the horse. Not until the media problem is solved will the ignorant do anything productive to regain their Constitutional government.

So how do you do that without doing it Soviet-style?
i.e. gov takeover of all media.

If that happened, we'd be buried in propaganda even more than we already are.

Or are you saying shut it all off? ;D

Or do we just throw up our hands and say there's nothing that can be done about it, because it's too far gone? :(

[nunaem]

Democracy sux big time, is an inferior form of government and always ends badly.

So why would anyone want a Democracy when we can have a Republican form of gov instead? {and I don't mean as in the party}


Republicanism is only better than Democracy to the extent that it is undemocratic. It follows that the least democratic Republic would be the best, that is, the Republic with the most restricted franchise. You can't go below a franchise of 1 without anarchy, so Monarchy is the best form of government.
Absolute power would merely corupt the Monarchy. Then you're right back to evil dictatorship.


The beauty about Monarchs is they have only 1 head and 1 neck, so if they step out of line you know where to strike. How do you strike the executive apparatus of a republican State when it has millions of heads? You can strike the politicians, but they can easily be replaced like a head of a Hydra.

[hoarder]

So how do you do that without doing it Soviet-style?
i.e. gov takeover of all media.

If that happened, we'd be buried in propaganda even more than we already are.

Or are you saying shut it all off? ;D

Or do we just throw up our hands and say there's nothing that can be done about it, because it's too far gone? :(
You're missing some important points here.
1)Problem exists whether we like solution or not.
2) Problem exists whether it suits your ideological predisposition or not.


Recognizing the problem comes first. We can't go around only recognizing problems on the conditional basis that any potential solutions we can think of would suit our ideology, then ignoring those problems which don't.

Men have the instinctive inclination to solve problems. It's unfortunate they don't have the same inclination to diagnose them.

[nunaem]

I see the problem as the people mostly having been and still being willfully ignorant of what their governments actual purpose is supposed to be.

If people actually understood to begin with, perhaps the crap pumped on TV wouldn't fly as well as it does.
You're putting the cart before the horse. Not until the media problem is solved will the ignorant do anything productive to regain their Constitutional government.



What gives you hope that the very ignoramuses incapable of identifying and remedying the media problem will have better results with any other problem? It seems to me that whosoever is capable of solving the media problem is the best candidate for solving our other problems.

[hoarder]

What gives you hope that the very ignoramuses incapable of identifying and remedying the media problem will have better results with any other problem? It seems to me that whosoever is capable of solving the media problem is the best candidate for solving our other problems.
My experiences have taught me that there are ten times as many men capable of solving problems as those who are capable of diagnosing them correctly.

[Libertarian_Guard]

As far as Libertarianism goes, can anyone look at their platform and honestly say there's not an overwhelming amount you can agree with, if not all of it?

http://www.lp.org/platform


For one to remain truly free and independent in their mind, politics & philosophy, they refrain from hitching their horse to any post. Even if they may agree with almost everything than Libertarianism stands for, it still stands as an anchor in their mind, so they stand apart. Perhaps they do such on principle, but I’m not sure.

[FunnyMoney]

For one to remain truly free and independent in their mind, politics & philosophy, they refrain from hitching their horse to any post. Even if they may agree with almost everything than Libertarianism stands for, it still stands as an anchor in their mind, so they stand apart. Perhaps they do such on principle, but I’m not sure.


If somebody says taxes are going to fix things for the better, you should run. History is full of examples how things get messed up. If somebody has some great idea then they'll find plenty of funds to make it happen. Communities can fund their own schools and fire departments on their own. Churches have been getting along just fine on donations. People would have more than enough time and extra wealth to make great communities and peaceful regional societies if the central banks and govts weren't around to steal everything.

[Saul Mine]

There is no practical difference between one despot three thousand miles away and three thousand despots one mile away. The downfall of a society is assured the instant it turns authority over to a government. It does not matter what kind of government it is. They all have eventually collapsed, every one without exception. The only scenario that has never collapsed is no central government. That scenario has been tried several times and the society was always prosperous, peaceful, and invincible in war. Each case lasted about 250 years and then the people threw away their freedom and created a government to take care of their responsibilities. And then eventually collapsed, because mankind is unable to govern himself.

[FunnyMoney]

... no central government. That scenario has been tried several times and the society was always prosperous, peaceful, and invincible in war. Each case lasted about 250 years and then the people threw away their freedom and created a government to take care of their responsibilities. ....


That idea gets about as much attention in the media, the schools, places of worship and social gatherings as an upcoming space program to Pluto.

The 80% spectators are fully entertained by the master-slave relationships. Individual responsibility and logical, simple historical knowledge is too difficult and too boring for them. They stand ready to follow their leaders right over a cliff regardless the fact that only select leaders have the golden parachutes.

[Libertarian_Guard]

... no central government. That scenario has been tried several times and the society was always prosperous, peaceful, and invincible in war. Each case lasted about 250 years and then the people threw away their freedom and created a government to take care of their responsibilities. ....



The 80% spectators are fully entertained by the master-slave relationships. Individual responsibility and logical, simple historical knowledge is too difficult and too boring for them. They stand ready to follow their leaders right over a cliff regardless the fact that only select leaders have the golden parachutes.


Very true, except perhaps that 80% is a low ball number.

[Horn]

Ideologies are as close as intellectuals owners can come to having muscle mass, and feed the ego.

If there were a single word to describe a proper way of living we'd all be kaput.


We're all "kaput" then. The word is "Freedom"!!!!


Keep talkin like that & it could get you landed in prison.

But, I'll let you take the reigns for now...

[FunnyMoney]

Sorry to have to bring it up again, but I think we're long past the "kaput" stage. Currently things appear to be somewhere between brain-dead and the embalming fluid injections.