I ask you all to stop, look around, and ask a few questions.....

[Osborn F. Enready]

Hello everyone. By now, everyone in this forum knows me, and most likely either loves me, hates me, or somewhere in between. I respect your right to share feelings with all positions mentioned.

I want to ask you all to stop, look around at the members of this forum, of this country, of this world, and ask yourself a question.

Before the question though, a little pretext.

I think we can all agree that while we all may try not to "hate" people, we surely disagree to a very strong point with a great many people, usually if they differ from us to greatly in any respect dear to us. So, knowing this, I ask you to reflect on the age we live... the information age. Today it is more possible than ever to learn and educate yourself about peoples, places and things. We now have an ability to see, hear, smell and touch so much, for very little money with reasonable expectations, given the worlds divide by cultures, religions, values, politics, economics, etc. We are living through an age where children born today won't know a world before the internet, cell phones and satellite data transfer. They will have a harder time understanding the history of progress that has brought us to the point of almost instant communication, when only 20 or 30 years ago, much of this wasn't even thought to be "near".

As people of this world of information, we are bombarded with information on all fronts, solicited and unsolicited, around us constantly except when we take extra steps to shut it out. Cultures, lifestyles, ideas and values are meeting at every second of every day over cables of internet connections, wireless phones, etc, sometimes peacefully with respect, sometimes with violent and damaging repercussions when those who wield force take notice and a stance against it. (chinas abuse of you tube comes to mind)

I find it hard to believe that in this day and age, we can't individually step back to view this clash with a larger lens, objectively, outside our personal biases.

1)Where do these opposing cultures and opposing ideas meet, for you, what is the source of conflict, and where can it be reasoned with if at all?

2)Is it reasonable to expect the worlds people or government, to agree on any given issue, knowing the diversity of culture, individual intrests and driving motivations, goals, aspirations, etc?

3)What value is there on peace from YOUR perspective?

4)What is peace to you?

5)If the price of peace was to live among those you disagreed with on a variety of issues, to see their lifestyles with which you disagree on a daily basis, to listen to their voices of protest or praise to any given topic that may come up, all the while giving and receiving mutual respect for our rights to live and associate as we see fit with the only agreement being, we respect each others rights equally, would you respect this condition of peace?

6)How far out would the circle of disagreement have to be, to be "acceptable" to you? Your neighbor? Your neigboring community? Your neighboring state? Your neighboring nation? No compromise? (how far is far enough to be seperated from your ideological "enemies" to most reasonably assure peace with good intentions between you?)

7)I ask these questions only to see individuals answer honestly, from THEIR OWN perspective. I don't want to necessarily debate anything in particular, but I would like to see your individual answers in hopes participating and reading the answer of others may foster debate that affects everyone, that compels intrest in everyone, and shows a level of empathy for everyone, since we share the same world, the same plight for survival, but view from totally different perspectives on what is moral, what is reasonable, what is truly, objectively "fair" if such a "state" exists?

8)Is one persons loss of liberty any more or less valuable than anothers? Why or why not?

9)What do you value most in your life?
10)What do you value least?

11)Do you, would you, trust a jury of your peers with your life?
12)What type of person do you consider to be one of your peers?

13)What value do you assign to skepticism of power, regarding political power? (how powerful should government be, ideally, in your view?)


Again, I ask only for honest, volitional choice participation, and thank you in advance for doing so if you should decide to.


I will answer myself eventually also.... if anyone is wondering... I don't want to influence anyones answers by going first.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I changed my mind. I will answer first to show a better example of what exactly I am asking. (by reading the questions and my answers, I think you will be able to see better what I am asking)

1)Where do these opposing cultures and opposing ideas meet, for you, what is the source of conflict, and where can it be reasoned with if at all?

I see the source of conflict always arriving at individual sovereignty, and how some think government should over-ride it, while others admit that without individual sovereignty, life is meaningless. I think the only reasonable answer is to enumerate and observe individual rights as the sacred domain of the individual, until the individual violates, or conspires to violate the rights of others to a point where actions have been taken to facillitate the use of force or fraud against others.

2)Is it reasonable to expect the worlds people or government, to agree on any given issue, knowing the diversity of culture, individual intrests and driving motivations, goals, aspirations, etc?

No, I do not believe this is reasonable, or within mankinds power for at least the rest of my lifetime, and the forseeable future. Our individual divides are too great to rally around a central theme that doesn't include full respect to cultural, ideological and individual differences.

3)What value is there on peace from YOUR perspective?

The value of peace from my perspective is that peace is only "valuable" if it entails a right to live as you see fit, in a way you view as complete, with mutual respect to the equal rights of others. A "peace" built on concessions that are unjust, or unsustainable, is a prelude to rebellion or revolt, so I work against any such "proposals" of peace, and obviously see no value in such proposals.

4)What is peace to you?

Peace is the freedom to live your life within the domain of your individual rights and the entailed, logical respect to the equal rights of others, without the use of force against other born persons except in self-defense against unjust force.

5)If the price of peace was to live among those you disagreed with on a variety of issues, to see their lifestyles with which you disagree on a daily basis, to listen to their voices of protest or praise to any given topic that may come up, all the while giving and receiving mutual respect for our rights to live and associate as we see fit with the only agreement being, we respect each others rights equally, would you respect this condition of peace?

I would and easily could respect this peace. In many ways, that is the peace the U.S. was founded on along Liberatarian principle.

6)How far out would the circle of disagreement have to be, to be "acceptable" to you? Your neighbor? Your neigboring community? Your neighboring state? Your neighboring nation? No compromise? (how far is far enough to be seperated from your ideological "enemies" to most reasonably assure peace with good intentions between you?)

I believe that forced integration is as damaging as forced segregation. People have a right to find a place to live, study, work, pray, etc., where their ability to pursue happiness is greatest, from their perspective, whether it be among people who share the same intrests, ideals, hobbies, values, or any other man-made or natural barrier the seperates us.

7)I ask these questions only to see individuals answer honestly, from THEIR OWN perspective. I don't want to necessarily debate anything in particular, but I would like to see your individual answers in hopes participating and reading the answer of others may foster debate that affects everyone, that compels intrest in everyone, and shows a level of empathy for everyone, since we share the same world, the same plight for survival, but view from totally different perspectives on what is moral, what is reasonable, what is truly, objectively "fair" if such a "state" exists?

I think the most moral system is based on a system of clearly written and objective law, held to an objective standard of proof, where all are viewed equally under the eyes of the law based on individual rights. People with great personal differences can live side by side with no great source of unhapiness, as long as respect is mutual and the line of subjective influence over others is drawn at the line of property.

8)Is one persons loss of liberty any more or less valuable than anothers? Why or why not?

All peoples liberty is equally important, and for one man to lose liberty under the eyes of the law, is a blow to all men who hold liberty dear, and are expected to respect the law. The loss of liberty should be based on actions an individual has taken against the liberty of others, and its punishment should be reasonably equal to the violation which prompted such correction, and in the process seeking to restore the victim back to the point before violation as much as reasonably possible through economic reperations or public statement and apology for slanders of character or acts of character assasination.

9)What do you value most in your life?

I value my life, and the ones I love nearly equally. My life, and my loved ones lives are the most valuable things I can think of, assuming life means a right to liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness for born individuals.

10)What do you value least?

Those who seek to remove liberty for abuse of abject power, subjective bias and/or subjective reasoning.

11)Do you, would you, trust a jury of your peers with your life?

Yes, but only on the condition that I, or one of my legal representatives have equal control over "peer selection" processes as those working against me, and that my individual rights be recognized by such court as would try me.

12)What type of person do you consider to be one of your peers?

Those who place the Constitution and BOR in their original context, intent and interpretations.

13)What value do you assign to skepticism of power, regarding political power? (how powerful should government be, ideally, in your view?)

To me, government only has positive value if it is powerful enough to live up to its sworn obligations and auspices of authority, but weak enough to be destroyed by those it serves, should they demand its necessity. For example, the U.S. government is a government of conscent. The people RETAIN the right to remove government conscent, sanction, and dissolve it entirely by whatever means is reasonable to the situation, up to and including lethal force.

[potter]

I'm taking the easy way out...I like your answers....

[Easy90]

The people RETAIN the right to remove government conscent, sanction, and dissolve it entirely by whatever means is reasonable to the situation, up to and including lethal force.

All good and valuable words in the post, however the political process has been removed from the majority of people who care about it over time, by the politicians. The people of America have no power to dissolve and/or remove the government...particularly by force (IMO.)

[Elrathin]

The people of America have no power to dissolve and/or remove the government...particularly by force (IMO.)


Sure they do (Not by force though), the problem is the majority of America doesn't care. Just look at anyone who says they vote Republican because their parents did.

[Easy90]

They really don't... There was more democratic turnover of politicians in the old Soviet Politburo than there is in the U.S. Senate. Politicians here have voted themselves extraordinary tools to retain their seats in office once they get there...and there's little the voters can do in most cases. As for voters having a say...just look at the way the Democrats run their primaries...with "super delegates" to ensure they can over-rule voters when they want. The point was also advanced that "overthrow by force" should be within the capabilities of the citizens...It's not.

As for "who says they vote Republican because their parents did." I've never met anyone who says that. I doubt you have either.

[Elrathin]

Politicians here have voted themselves extraordinary tools to retain their seats in office once they get there...and there's little the voters can do in most cases.


If voters would quit just voting Republican and Democrat and actually look who is in office and then vote them out, there isn't a damn thing the politicians can do about it. What it takes is voters getting their heads out of their asses. I vote along Dem lines, however, when Reid comes up for election again, I am voting to kick him out. Others need to do the same to their respective "representatives" if they are acting out of line. The problem is most people are concerned with "getting their own label" in .


As for voters having a say...just look at the way the Democrats run their primaries...with "super delegates" to ensure they can over-rule voters when they want.

Have you taken a look how the RNC would run theirs in similar instances?


The point was also advanced that "overthrow by force" should be within the capabilities of the citizens...It's not.


So you want people to have the ability to overthrow the U.S. government by force? Isn't that what you conservatives call terrorism?

[Easy90]

Have you taken a look how the RNC would run theirs in similar instances?

Do I have to look up the logical fallacy that you employ here to make some kind of point? Or, do you already know what it is? The Republicans run their party differently with respect to how delegates are pledged... Does that justify the way Dems do it?

So you want people to have the ability to overthrow the U.S. government by force? Isn't that what you conservatives call terrorism?

No, it isn't. "...it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." I will let you find the source to those words. Obviously they're not familiar to you.

[4Reaganomics]

What I value most is liberty.

If I had the choice between living in a world full of conflict in which I can have freedom and capitalism vs. a country where I would have to live amongst socialism

then I would choose conflict in the world but capitalism and freedom in my country


I would fight for capitalism and put blood on my hands doing it, rather than be taken over by Marx and Engels supporters


As the left attempts to take away all personal choice from us along with the right to bear arms to defend ourselves against government, we must put things into prospective.

We must fight for the right to have arms to defend ourselves against communism, socialism, corruption, and the negation of liberty.
A negation of liberty that both party's candidates will surely bring if they are elected.

It is up to us to create a mass movement to restore the past. The past rights that were outline by Jefferson and company. The change may not be capable of being made instantaneously or radically. I don't think we can simply remove the welfare state tomorrow, but it is imperative that we right the ship.

Osborne is right in his answers. We must uphold the will of our forefathers.

Government's only obligation is to guarantee our safety and otherwise leave us free to do as we please.

[PatrickHenry]

A knowledge of history is an important component of political education.

How many of us have such an interest?

I read history constantly, both US and world commentaries.

I'm almost finished with Jared Diamond's recent book, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Jared_diamond.jpg/200px-Jared_diamond.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/13/Collapse_book.jpg/200px-Collapse_book.jpg
Politics and political power is only one component of living well. Without other advancements, personal freedom could be merely the freedom to starve!

Regarding question#1: I favor individual liberty, but there is the tragedy of the commons. And that is the nexus where we can find agreement. Let us seek common ground.

I have well-known oppositional views for which a number of members on this forum have expressed their distaste. I think we will always have conflict in the arena of public discourse. But there must be some areas where we can agree...

I think all of us support the idea that the innocent should be protected. The greatest volume of protest on this forum was when a pedophile registered and wanted to propound his views. Another universal scream of protest was heard over the killing of an innocent puppy distributed on YouTube.

Even those who fully support abortion-on-demand usually will admit that it would be better not to conceive the innocent child than to eliminate it in the womb.

See? Protection of the innocent is a fairly universal value.

The source of conflict is selfishness. Nearly every people group encounters this dilemma: That what is good for the individual is often bad for the group...

If I am a manufacturer, externalizing my costs by dumping my waste in the commons directly benefits me. Even while it degrades my environment a bit and everyone else's too, it is a net benefit to me to avoid disposal costs. For everyone else, it is a detriment. Even my workers who would side with me for their jobs, will find that their quality of life is reduced by having dirty air and water.

These commons type concerns are the reasons for implementing strong governments. The real trouble with governments is that they are often not wise, but rather corrupt.

So how do we deal with the issue of corruption in government? Through identification of the causes, education of citizens, legal remedies, political pressure, and other modern movements. Civil insurrection should be the last resort.

Maybe I will return to the other points you raised in later posts on this thread...

[potter]

I would fight for capitalism and put blood on my hands doing it, rather than be taken over by Marx and Engels supporters




Does this mean you would kill people for "stuff"?

[4Reaganomics]

no, it means that if a dramatic shift to the left is taken by the government and socialism is implemented then I will stand up for believe in

I will stand up and fight for liberty, the liberty guaranteed to me by my forefathers

you may want to sit back and let our constitution be trampled and our markets be ravaged, I will attempt to restore the glory days

It will always begin with rhetoric, but make no mistake.. if government takes away my private ownership of items and the right to defend myself with a gun, then I will have no choice but to stand up

I will not act out for "stuff" potter, I will act out on behalf of liberty and constitutionally protected rights

[PatrickHenry]

...
you may want to sit back and let our constitution be trampled and our markets be ravaged, I will attempt to restore the glory days...
You might want to hurry up...it's been underway for some time now....

[Scribbler1]

no, it means that if a dramatic shift to the left is taken by the government and socialism is implemented then I will stand up for believe inThat's good, but don't expect too much help from the Republicans in the government. Either they are okay with the "shift to the left" or they are a load of useless failures who haven't been able to stop jack, despite all the noise they have been making in the past TWENTY YEARS or more!
Either way, if the right wingers are behind the Republicans, they're betting on the WRONG horse.you may want to sit back and let our constitution be trampled and our markets be ravaged, I will attempt to restore the glory daysGood luck with that. That stuff sounds good on the Internet but with all the idiot sheep allowing the government to go the way it has, it's gonna be mighty lonely up on the front lines.It will always begin with rhetoric, but make no mistake.. if government takes away my private ownership of items and the right to defend myself with a gun, then I will have no choice but to stand upThe old phrase "you and what army" comes to mind.
Have you and the other right wingers ever considered the option of TALKING to the "other side" instead of constantly banging at them about being "unamerican" and "traitors"?
Maybe even get out of the "us vs. them" mentality and try to understand we are ALL Americans and what happens to this country affects ALL of us?

I understand your frustration, although I don't agree with your politics. But if your first and only reaction is to "stand up" to these unseen "enemies" you will most likely be like the kid in Tienanmen Square.

Except in this case, the tank isn't going to stop.

[Keith Hamburger]

What I value most is liberty.

All I can say to this is BULLSH1T.

I could point to dozens of posts where you oppose liberty and support the government over the individual.

Either you completely value liberty and the individual, or you oppose it. There is no middle ground.

Keith

[Keith Hamburger]

Does this mean you would kill people for "stuff"?

As for me, absolutely.

My "stuff" represents a portion of my life. As an example, after taxes, at my highest point of personal earnings, my truck represents an entire year of my life. For most of my life, the value of my truck (at the time I purchased it) is many years of my life at greater than 2080 hours per year (which is 52 weeks at 40 hours per week).

Would I kill someone if they tried to enslave me for 2080 hours, even if they guaranteed my release at the end of that period. You bet your ass I would.

Stealing my truck would be the exact same as stealing a year of my life.

I would kill someone to preserve a year of my life.

Keith

[Keith Hamburger]

So, more directly to the OP ...

I think a big problem is the desire of those in power, and those that desire power, to divide people against one another. All of the talk of "evil others" is the whole issue.

In my opinion, there is no such thing as someone who is evil. To me, for someone to be truly evil, they would have to work to destroy that which they value. With the possible exception of the most seriously phsychotic, no one destroys that which they value, everyone works to increase or improve that which they value.

Often the values of some violate the natural rights of others. In such a case a person is not evil but simply, in my opinion, misguided. My values are such that the natural rights of others are paramount. For me to value something that would require me to violate the natural rights of someone else would be inconceivable. Therefore, I cannot justify using violence against someone to advance my own self interest. The only justification for violence is to protect that which I already have, not to increase any value I desire.

Others see things differently. Their values may be such that they feel justified in using violence to advance their own agenda. In my opinion, they are not evil, simply misguided. However, it may be necessary for me to protect my own rights through violence, or the rights of others, against such people.

Anyone that casts someone in opposition to others, or promote differences between people rather than work to bring people together, is seriously misguided and must be opposed. We should work together to clearly define our mutual values and ensure that our values do not oppose one another. Anything else is destructive to society and mankind.

We MUST work together to promote ideals in which everyone's rights are protected. We MUST work to oppose those that would violate the rights of others. But, we MUST NOT work to divide people against on another to our individual gain.

Keith

[potter]

no, it means that if a dramatic shift to the left is taken by the government and socialism is implemented then I will stand up for believe in

I will stand up and fight for liberty, the liberty guaranteed to me by my forefathers

you may want to sit back and let our constitution be trampled and our markets be ravaged, I will attempt to restore the glory days

It will always begin with rhetoric, but make no mistake.. if government takes away my private ownership of items and the right to defend myself with a gun, then I will have no choice but to stand up

I will not act out for "stuff" potter, I will act out on behalf of liberty and constitutionally protected rights


That's good to know. You must be pretty pissed off at the way things are going huh?

[potter]

Does this mean you would kill people for "stuff"?

As for me, absolutely.

My "stuff" represents a portion of my life. As an example, after taxes, at my highest point of personal earnings, my truck represents an entire year of my life. For most of my life, the value of my truck (at the time I purchased it) is many years of my life at greater than 2080 hours per year (which is 52 weeks at 40 hours per week).

Would I kill someone if they tried to enslave me for 2080 hours, even if they guaranteed my release at the end of that period. You bet your ass I would.

Stealing my truck would be the exact same as stealing a year of my life.

I would kill someone to preserve a year of my life.

Keith


Well Keith, I was really intimating at killing people to preserve capitalism...you know, like killing someone so you can sell their oil and sell off their assets to the highest corporat bidder...that sort of thing.

Not protecting what is yours already.

[Elrathin]

no, it means that if a dramatic shift to the left is taken by the government and socialism is implemented then I will stand up for believe in

Oh but a dramatic shift to the right is ok correct?

[Keith Hamburger]

Well Keith, I was really intimating at killing people to preserve capitalism...you know, like killing someone so you can sell their oil and sell off their assets to the highest corporat bidder...that sort of thing.

Not protecting what is yours already.

My error. I still stand behind my contention but it apparently doesn't address your question.

Keith

[Osborn F. Enready]

Easy 90 said:
The people of America have no power to dissolve and/or remove the government...particularly by force (IMO.)

What is the 2nd Amendment?

Elrathin said:
Sure they do (Not by force though), the problem is the majority of America doesn't care. Just look at anyone who says they vote Republican because their parents did.

Again, what is the 2nd Amendment?
I notice you didn't say anything about those who vote democrat, because their parents did?

Patrick Henry said:
A knowledge of history is an important component of political education.

How many of us have such an interest?

I read history constantly, both US and world commentaries.

I'm almost finished with Jared Diamond's recent book, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.

I agree Patrick. I also am constantly reading about our, and world history, as well as modern times.

I have read both of Diamonds books, "Guns, Germs and Steel" as well as "Collapse". Both excellent reads in my opinion, as well as containing several points of valid intrest and argument.

I am currently about 3/4's through the first edition print of Carroll Quigley's "Tragedy and Hope", which is a fantastic read for those who want to know the details behind the governments motives for the acts committed in the history of our time. Quigley brings to light many aspects of the facts not known outside official circles, so much so, it was effectively suppressed until revised.

A link you may enjoy:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/405221/Carroll-Quigley-Tragedy-And-Hope?ga_related_doc=1

Keith said:
Often the values of some violate the natural rights of others. In such a case a person is not evil but simply, in my opinion, misguided. My values are such that the natural rights of others are paramount. For me to value something that would require me to violate the natural rights of someone else would be inconceivable. Therefore, I cannot justify using violence against someone to advance my own self interest. The only justification for violence is to protect that which I already have, not to increase any value I desire.

I can fully respect that Keith, and share much of the same outlook, thank you for participating.

[PatrickHenry]

A link you may enjoy:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/405221/Carroll-Quigley-Tragedy-And-Hope?ga_related_doc=1


Damn! Is that the whole book?

Because I can't afford the paper edition... It's nearly forty dollars.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I haven't proofread it or anything, but it appears to be the whole book.

I am always leery of online editions due to ease of editing without the readers knowledge, but it looks legit to me from what I can compare.

A friend of mine bought the first edition on e-bay, and luckily has let me borrow it for a read..... I think it cost him 40 or 50 dollars.

Local Library may have it also.... its always the last place I remember to look, but they often have what I am looking for when no place else does at a price I can afford, or am willing to pay.

[gpruitt54]

They really don't... There was more democratic turnover of politicians in the old Soviet Politburo than there is in the U.S. Senate. Politicians here have voted themselves extraordinary tools to retain their seats in office once they get there...and there's little the voters can do in most cases. As for voters having a say...just look at the way the Democrats run their primaries...with "super delegates" to ensure they can over-rule voters when they want. The point was also advanced that "overthrow by force" should be within the capabilities of the citizens...It's not.


We really do have a problem in this country. There really is a "Ruling" class and the rest of us have very little, if anything that we can do about it. The money that flows between corporations and out elected officials gives these groups access to lawmakers that we, the people, can never have.

In this country, we have the best politicians that money can buy. A political ideology that considers the individual subordinate to state and corporate interests, has a clear definition. It is not a favorable one either.

[Elrathin]

W
In this country, we have the best politicians that money can buy.

I'd add into that, "In this country, we have the best politicians FOR CORPORATIONS that money can buy".

[Elrathin]

I notice you didn't say anything about those who vote democrat, because their parents did?

I gave that just as an example. The same thing happens on both sides and it is just as bad.

[gpruitt54]

I'd add into that, "In this country, we have the best politicians FOR CORPORATIONS that money can buy".

I like the way you put that.