I was interested in them very much until I gained more knowledge in economics and philosophy.
Zeitgeist, just nonsense? Please explain.
by cyberjesus 40 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
notverylikely
So is it then from the consent of the governed? I never signed off on that.
They're bullies, no more legitimate than the mob, but "legitimate" in exactly the same manner as the mob: they'll rob/imprison/kill you if you don't do as you're told.
Nonsense. They are legitimate because of the charter adopted by the duly elected representatives of the people (specifically speaking about countried like the US, Canada, Germany, France, etc). You don't like it? Find some land where there aren't other people that have already established the laws of the land and move there. Or buy a boat and live in the middle of the ocean. The fact that people generally elect the represenatives to make the laws and government is what gives it legitimacy. You not liking it doesn't make it any less valid.
-
A.Fenderson
Nonsense. They are legitimate because of the charter adopted by the duly elected representatives of the people.... The fact that people generally elect the represenatives to make the laws and government is what gives it legitimacy. You not liking it doesn't make it any less valid.
And your liking it (or whatever) doesn't make it any more valid, nor do all the mere trappings of legitimacy that you mentioned. You're trying to argue that it's legitimate from within it's own framework of value and legitimacy--you could use parallel arguments to legitimize any form of government: dictatorship or whatever. Your argument, restated, is this: it's legitimate because it's democracy. So what? To examine its true legitimacy, you have to examine it from an external framework and set of values. "Duly elected representatives" does not a legitimate government make. Just because it's a democracy (or some perversion thereof, i.e. the U.S.) doesn't make it fundamentally different than an absolute dictatorship, because when it comes down to it, someone else still has the power of life and death over you, and you never willingly signed over those rights to them. What if Congress passed a bill calling for your execution? 'Tis the will of the people via the elected officials, so be it?
-
cyberjesus
Well I watch the documentary and the links debunking it. The first section makes alot of unsourced statement and is not accurate. The second part is the theory that 9/11 was an inside job and quite frankly I think it was an excuse to attack iraq. The third section really there was no debunking and so far everything seems very credible.
I think the most important is that the video makes you think. to get out of the group conformism and the group thinking, stop accepting the general consensus.
Bottom line, I enjoyed it, and you take what you can from it. I would recommend it. but thats just me.
-
notverylikely
And your liking it (or whatever) doesn't make it any more valid, nor do all the mere trappings of legitimacy that you mentioned. You're trying to argue that it's legitimate from within it's own framework of value and legitimacy--you could use parallel arguments to legitimize any form of government: dictatorship or whatever.
Again, nonsense. I made the argument that the legitimacy SPECIFICALLY derived from the people BECAUSE the government was formed by representative that the people had elected specifically to perform that task. Dictatorships in no way fit that bill.
Your argument, restated, is this: it's legitimate because it's democracy. So what?
It's a representative republic. So it's not a democracy.
Just because it's a democracy (or some perversion thereof, i.e. the U.S.) doesn't make it fundamentally different than an absolute dictatorship, because when it comes down to it, someone else still has the power of life and death over you, and you never willingly signed over those rights to them.
Exfept that in a dictatorship, the government doesn't have to follow the law, can arbitrarily change the laws, citizens have no rights, they can prevent you from leaving, etc. You're free to leave if you choose. You have rights. I am, of course, not saying it works perfectly, but the very fact that we have a Tea Party speaking out and calling our president names and unfit proves that something is working (free speech).
To examine its true legitimacy, you have to examine it from an external framework and set of values. "Duly elected representatives" does not a legitimate government make.
The people are the external source, unlike a dictatorship.
What if Congress passed a bill calling for your execution? 'Tis the will of the people via the elected officials, so be it?
Then it would be struck down by the supreme court as unconstitutional because the constitution only provides for conviction of treason as the only federally authorized death penalty.
-
beksbks
Does Lyndon LaRuche have anything to do with this??
-
A.Fenderson
@notverylikely:
First, just so we're on the same page (though I admit you never implied you believed this to be the case), I'm not arguing for anarchy--my original post was actually questioning the idea of getting rid of all government, and implicitly calling for a limited libertarian government in place of no government, in that a vacuum of governmental power inevitably leads to the establishment of a government of some kind, whether it calls itself that or not. Since such is the case, we might as well try to establish one that respects basic human rights and is very strictly defined and limited.
Second, when I say that (for instance) the U.S. government holds no legitimate authority over me in particular, I'm arguing that from an existentialist and individualist viewpoint. I'll try to re-frame my argument completely within the terms and concepts of the U.S. government--and apply it only to my specific circumstances--so as to make my stance more available to those who prefer to think purely in these terms:
Premise 1: I have certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Source: U.S. Declaration of Independence)
Premise 2: In your own words, "the government was formed by representative that the people had elected specifically to perform that task." For the sake of argument, I'll even concede the following (arguably false) sub-premise: when the U.S. Federal government was formed, 100% of the governed gave explicit written and/or verbal consent to abide by any and all laws, decrees, writs, etc of the newly-formed government.
Premise 3: A contract exclusively between party A and party B is non-binding on party C, even where party C is a human being and the biological offspring of either party. (I'm not a contract lawyer so don't know the proper legal term for this concept, but it's "common knowledge" for anyone who has even very limited experience with contracts.)
Premise 4: I have at no time entered into and am therefore not a party to any contract, written or verbal, which establishes me as subject to the rule of the U.S. Federal government.
Premise 5: The U.S. Federal government, via standard operating procedure for such, routinely and deliberately in the course of enforcing its own laws, restricts and curtails the freedoms of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of what it defines as its citizens.
Presmise 6: I fall under the definition of a citizen of the United States of America, more exactly a natural-born citizen, who did not immigrate to this country.
Conclusion: The U.S. Federal government routinely restricts and curtails what it itself claims are my inalienable human rights, and without any contractual basis to do so.
I believe the logic is sound and the argument is therefore valid, but if you have issues with one or more premises, let's rumble. ;-)
-
notverylikely
A contract exclusively between party A and party B is non-binding on party C
Of course not. You are 100% free to leave the US and find some ungoverned piece of land and start your own government. However, within the confines of the US, if you choose to stay, you IMPLICITLY agreeing to the law of the land.
I have at no time entered into and am therefore not a party to any contract, written or verbal, which establishes me as subject to the rule of the U.S. Federal government.
See above. Simply by being here you are implicitly agreeing and obligated to follow the law of the land.
Premise 5: The U.S. Federal government, via standard operating procedure for such, routinely and deliberately in the course of enforcing its own laws, restricts and curtails the freedoms of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of what it defines as its citizens.
How does it restrict life? Liberty is not absolute. What kind of happiness are you not free to pursue?
Presmise 6: I fall under the definition of a citizen of the United States of America, more exactly a natural-born citizen, who did not immigrate to this country.
Conclusion: The U.S. Federal government routinely restricts and curtails what it itself claims are my inalienable human rights, and without any contractual basis to do so.
I believe the logic is sound and the argument is therefore valid, but if you have issues with one or more premises, let's rumble. ;-)
Perhaps you misunderstand that the declaration of independnce meant. In any case, it was declaring to britain the intentions of the new nation. Your rights are enumerated in the first 10 amendments to the constitution. Regardless, no one is keeping you here or preventing you from attempting to change the laws of the land via the established process.
The logic of each step is sound in a microcosm, but where it breaks down is that there is no contractual basis for you to stay and nothing preventing you from trying to change the laws should you wish to do so.
-
A.Fenderson
However, within the confines of the US, if you choose to stay, you IMPLICITLY agreeing to the law of the land.
I'll take that as a concession to the point that I have at no time explicitly agreed etc etc, thank you.
How does it restrict life? Liberty is not absolute. What kind of happiness are you not free to pursue?
There is one I action I can think of whose illegality is a violation of the freedom of all three: selling marijuana. Suppose I really like marijuana--it makes me happy--so much so that I wish not only to use it myself, but to increase my happiness by bringing this happiness to as many others as possible. Laws against its simple small-scale cultivation and/or possession interfere with my pursuit of happiness that is in no way detrimental to (nor even involving) any second or higher-order parties; of course liberty is not absolute, but one would think that the law would rightfully confine itself only to restricting the freedom of actions which actually have a direct and negative impact on others. If I'm thrown in jail/prison for smoking pot, obviously my freedom is gone. If I choose to bring my happiness to a number of people beyond a certain threshold, I may have my life ended under federal law (18 U.S.C. 3591(b)).
Perhaps you misunderstand that the declaration of independnce meant. In any case, it was declaring to britain the intentions of the new nation. Your rights are enumerated in the first 10 amendments to the constitution.
Do you really hold to the view that the Declaration of Independence was merely some sort of "Dear John" letter from the colonies to Britain, and has no meaning otherwise? It's revered as one of the most important of the founding documents of this country--just because it's not part of the Constitution or otherwise a set of laws or specifics about the way our government is to be structured doesn't mean it's not vitally important in determining the ideals upon which this nation was founded. And the first sentence of the second paragraph reads thus: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." To ignore the importance of this seems to me equivalent to those certain Christians who have their favorite scriptures they will quote, but when confronted with one they can't explain or make fit into their view of Christianity, they argue to the effect that "Well, Paul intended that for the Ephesians specifically--it doesn't have direct bearing on us today..." or similar.
Your arguments consistently cast aside the principles I'm trying to aim at and circularly point out that the letter of the law makes no such provisions--there's no need to do that, as I'll completely concede the point right now if I haven't already done so.
Does your profession/area of study fall under the category of law somehow? I ask because I've noticed a tendency of people whose profession does involve legal matters to fight tooth and nail to keep the argument completely within the framework of existing law, rather than the principles behind the law or principles completely beyond the law.
The logic of each step is sound in a microcosm, but where it breaks down is that there is no contractual basis for you to stay and nothing preventing you from trying to change the laws should you wish to do so.
This is equivalent to arguing that party C is in fact subject to the terms of the contract between parties A and B by default because the body of the contract has a clause (implicit or otherwise) that makes party C a party to the contract without his or her actually having entered into the agreement, but conceding the oh-so-magnanimous allowance for party C to quit the agreement if and only if party C will agree to have no further dealings of any nature whatsoever with parties A and B.
-
chapstick
Notverylikely is most likely correct. There is more information in existence than anyone person can absorb. I have found that I must take one subject at a time, investigate it, talk to people that I trust, pray (think) about it and make a decision. I try to never do anything rash with any conclusions because they will inevitably change or be modified. There actually is a general world/universal Big Picture. No one can see the whole thing. There is no one man or small group of men running the world. There are very powerfull men who can and do make drastic changes in the world. Some are good, some are bad.
I have been known to play a few silly games on this board as anyone can see. I began following the ex-JW movement in the middle 90's when the Hourglass site started.. I've never tried to mislead anyone and never will. I've just been involved in a lot of things including JW's and I enjoy sharing what I know with others. I despise ignorance. Ignorance is not a product of not having a formal education. You can have a 3'rd grade education and still not be ignorant. On the other hand there are many Phd's who are ignorant as hell. Some of my conclusions about Zeitgeist and other "conspiracies" are:
A bunch of religious nuts comandeered several airplanes and intentionally crashed them into American landmarks. There was no "conspiracy" within our government. The trade centers fell the way they did strictly because of physics; nothing more, nothing less. I have worked with explosives, construction, maintenance, physics, metal and steel all my life, so I'm no dummy. I still don't know everything and never will. There are tons of historical facts about Jesus Christ as well as other "godmen". There were several who fit the same pattern as Jesus. It's just a fact. One thing about Jesus is that He was a pivot point in history that none of the others can claim. I know that Jesus existed around two thousand years ago and was tortured and nailed to a piece of wood until He died. The Roman government along with quite a few Jews were resposnsible. He said and did things they didn't like. I think He was a great guy. I think He was right. I think history and religion have done a grave injustice to Jesus. Jesus was the Son (or Sun) if you prefer of GOD. I also think that anyone else reading this is also a Son or Daughter of GOD. Virgin birth? Come on, use your brain.
GOD is everything other than myself, but I am included. I'm here, you're here. If there's no GOD or DOG or POWER or any other term anyone prefers then where the hell did you come from? Evolution? Why not? No problem for me. GOD did it however He did it. I have no problem with it. If evolution is a problem for someone then it's their problem, not the ones who know better. People spend there entire lives arguing over things like evolution. Discussing it is great. Arguing is a big waste of time. There's a hell of a lot more to this universe than some silly argument about how God did it. The Bible is full of information. Read it in the right context or some smart ass will con you with it and make everything a conspiracy and take your time and money at the same time.
I've spouted off enough for now.
Peace,
chappy (chapstick)7♥ (now you've got my number)
Anderson, South Carolina