Browncoats... good guys or not?
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 12:07
VIEWED: 33379
PAGE 9 of 12
Quote:ROTFL!
Originally posted by Drakon:Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ Interesting. But my guess is that the Reavers are more reputation than actual culture. That is, I suspect they are a myth maintained by someone with an agenda. Assuming there's a good reason to make people afraid of going too deep into 'the Black'.
Possibly even the Reavers themselves. Think about it, you've seen the same scheme time and time again on Scooby Doo...
Poor Joss Wheden... just can't escape the 'Scooby subtext'. Hahahahaha... And I can read Firefly scripts where?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
This is a common mischaracterization of Acton's quote. What he was referring to was NOT how much a bastard the historical figure was. He was referring to the tendancy, at the time, of historians to excuse terrible deeds, and attempt to explain it in terms of the political/social/whathaveyou context of the time.
Besides which, think for a moment. That would make God the biggest meanest thing in the universe. Even if it were true, ya really think ya want to say it out loud?
There have always been those who try to excuse or rationalize the actions of governments, and men in government ... there still are! Centuries ago it was the Priest class, today it is so-called "intellectuals." Both have fastened themselves to the State, and have made their living trying to justify the actions of the State. For the most part, they have succeeded. For example, look at how successfully they have been able to turn a mass murdering megalomaniac like Abraham Lincoln into a national hero!
With all due respect DRAKON, you are mistaken. Lord Acton WAS referring to the crimes committed by men in power.
As far as "God" is concerned, I have described "Him" in proctological terms numerous times.
What would you think of a "God" that would send two she-bears to rend to bloody pieces a couple dozen children for the hideous crime of poking fun at an old man's bald head?
loadandmakeready
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TravelingTheBlack:
Without a government, you have Barons, thugs, tyrrants ruling. You have no healthcare, no streets, no nothing. I personally tolerate government because, well, without one worse people would be in charge than Bush or Paul Martin. What I realize, and some people might not realize, is that when you leave behind government, everything you have: freedoms, legal rights, etc. goes to. I accept that if i break the law, i goto jail. If I have no home, I cannot settle down. I see and accept. I just wonder if others see the same.
Barons and tyrants ARE government! Our word "thug" comes from the Hindu word thug which is pronounced as t-HUG ... the plural is thuggee. They were worshippers of a diminished avatar of Kali called Bhavani ... a goddess of destruction. They were swindlers, stranglers ... murderers. So to lump them in with Kings, Caesars, and Presidents is in my mind entirely appropriate.
You have no healthcare??? Are you trying to tell me that government invented Doctors? Don't tell me.... The next thing you will try to convince me of is that government invented roads.
Without government worse people would be in charge? Without government ... NO ONE WOULD BE "IN CHARGE!!"
Your assertion, that without government there is no freedom is, in my mind, truly warped. By that standard, the more government the better! Government should tax you one hundred percent! Government should tell you what job you can or cannot do, how to spend your leisure time, (if indeed they will allow you any leisure time) every thought word or action you have or make should come under the scrutiny of The State. Is that what you want?
Think for a moment, and ask yourself what would happen if say, the government had been in charge of the production and distribution of shoes, or bread. And some rabid anti-statist like myself dared to make the horrifying suggestion that individuals working singly, or in groups could do it ... maybe even do it better than the government! Would you be shocked?
The United States became the wealthiest, happiest, and most influential country in the history of this planet precisely because government was too weak to stop individuals from finding new ways to improve their lives!
When this country was founded, women were cooking over open fires ... as women had been cooking before history began. In two centuries, they went from cooking over an open hearth fireplace to wood stoves, to gas and electric ranges, to microwaves! Did government cause this?
When this country was founded, men walked, rode horses, and goaded oxen. Today they drive automobiles and fly in the utmost heights of air. Did government cause this?
When this country was founded people lighted their way to bed with pine knots and candles. In one and a half centuries, they went from candles, to whale oil lamps, to kerosene, to gas jets, to incandescent bulbs, to flourescent tubes. Did government cause this?
What about central heating and air conditioning? Did government invent air conditioning?
Government can hinder, restrict, or stop people from acting ... it can never control their actions. The opposite of government control is called freedom!
The Wright Brothers gave mankind wings ... it was government that put machine guns in -- and bombs under -- those wings. Government didn't even invent the machine gun.
Everything we see or have came to us, not BECAUSE of government, but IN SPITE OF GOVERNMENT!
loadandmakeready
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
^^^
Oh my god.
Lincoln is a mass murdering megalomaniac? Wow.
Dude (babe?) you are freaking hysterical.
On a heavier note...
The anarchy advocated by the -ahem- Libertarians and so-called Anarchists is, not to put too fine a point on it, complete rubbish.
It is the nature of ALL primates to live in hierarchical structures, usually pyramid formed, with a single alpha or alpha pair at the apex.
Even the democratic modification of this basic human trait results in an alpha ruling (male usually) over the rest.
It is the height of arrogance (or ignorance) to assume that humans would be exempt. We're primates. Super smart ones but apes nonetheless. We will always, always, always have hierarchical systems of government and those systems will always, always, always be corrupt. Get over it. Grow up.We're genetically hardwired for it. There's no escape until some new species of human emerges.
Representative government is the best you're going to get. Indeed, this is the best system any human society bigger than a five person family unit has ever produced. EVER. In human history.
You clearly enjoy the obvious benefits of participation in the American experiment but seem to ignore the invisible ones.
Like that there aren't armed bands of thieves rumaging through your house and your female relatives at will simply because they've got bigger guns.
Like the air you breathe isn't yet too contaminated to sustain you. Or that the food you buy at the market won't poison you.
Like the infrastucture whose upkeep you seem not to wish to pay for allows us to even have this silly debate.
Like guys with whips and guns aren't forcing you to work their land, offer up your wives and children to their whims, and your own body for torture at their discretion.
That is the history of the world, cheif. And it's the history of this country til about a century ago (give or take a score). It's ongoing in far too many places as we speak.
Anarchy and Libertarianism are the goals of children who believe the world either centers on them or that the people in it are inherently decent.
The facts, of course, are in direct opposition to such a veiw.
Absolute freedom is a pipe dream and, in fact, undesirable. Qualified freedom, freedom which is based upon mutual agreement, dependance and cooperation is not only desirable but is the best you'll ever get.
Nothing else works.
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Oh... the reason Corporations are so evil is that they are not bound by any law... at all! See all corporations have the rights of an individual under the law. The same rights as YOU!
I've got to disagree with you slightly. It would be more accurate to say that Corporations don't have rights, they have privileges. Individuals can incorporate, and by doing so, escape many of the taxes, and other hinderances placed on them by the government.
Here is the essence of a Corporation:
Let's say that you invent some marvelous gizmo, I have manufacturing skills, and someone else is a whiz at marketing. We three get together and each of us puts 10,000 dollars into a pool to start making your wonderful gizmo. It turns out to be a great success! It is highly profitable and we each take home a large salary. This goes on for a number of years, and we each become wealthy. Then something happens. An economic downturn, we have saturated the market, somebody invents a better gizmo ... whatever. The company loses money. 500,000 dollars it loses. We decide to close the company. We sell the company assets, which comes to 200,000 dollars, and we each chip in 100,000 dollars to pay off the rest of the debt. It hurts, because we each have to remortgage our homes to do it. But we can get jobs elsewhere, and life goes on.
That is what happens if we DO NOT incorporate!
If we DO incorporate, the Corporation becomes an entity seperate from us. In a sense it becomes a human being under the law -- which was created by government -- just as you said. When we dissolve the Corporation, the assets of the Corporation can be sold to pay the debts, but WE CANNOT BE TOUCHED!! So the Corporation declares bankruptcy, and 300,000 dollars are never paid to settle the Corporations debts.
The laws of Incorporation which the government created have have also created a contradiction. The law has created a situation where we are responsible and irresponsible for the same thing at the same time!
When the Corporation is making money, we are right there with our hands out, taking our share. When the Corporatiom loses money, we are not responsible for its debt.
What some people here don't seem to realize is that it is government which made the laws of incorporation. If Corporations are monsters -- and SOME of them are -- it was government that created them. Which is why you see the heirs of huge industries involved in politics -- the Rockefellers for example. The primary, if not sole difference we would see without Corporations is that business enterprises would be smaller and -- without the protection of government -- more responsible to their customers. And without political pull, these enterprises would not be able to get themselves "bailed out" of financial difficulties with other peoples tax dollars ... and they would not be able to get laws passed to stifle their competition.
Now, you may ask, "What is the advantage of Incorporation to an individual?" Simply this: TAXES!! Generally speaking, if you incorporate, you can deduct (don't have to pay taxes on) a lot of what are otherwise considered "personal" expenses. You still have get government permission, but now you don't have to pay taxes on the money you spend to say re-roof your house. You don't have to pay taxes on the money you spend to fuel, maintain, and repair your car, and so on. In some instances, even your taxes are tax deductable. You have the special privileges of incorporation. You still have to pay your debts, but you would have to do that anyway. It's just easier to save money if your taxes are lower.
loadandmakeready
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it. - Declaration of Independence
Yep, the Declaration of Independence is the most radical political document in history!!
It is the Statement of Principles behind the American political Revolution!!
Unfortunately, most people never really think about what it means.
Let's examine it.
"We hold these truths to be self evident..."
Or as my uncle Tommy used to say, "You can see with one eye that this is the truth."
"That: all men are created equal."
Pharaoh and the Mikado were living Gods, Louis the XIV ruled by "Divine Right," the Hapsburgs, the Hohenzollerns, and George the Third were of Royal blood ... superior human beings!! This simple statement meant that there was no such thing as Blue Blood, or Royal Blood ... there is no superior kind of human being. All human beings are humanly equal.
"That: they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights"
("Unalienable" seems to be a misprint, in fact, in the original draft, Jefferson wrote, "inherent and inalienable rights")
Although England was the fre'est country on earth at the time, whatever freedom an Englishman had was still a donation of his sovereign. So, when an Englishman spoke of his "Liberties," he meant the same thing you or I would mean if we asked, "May I take the liberty?" That is ... a permission to do a certain act. And a government that can grant a permission, can also withdraw the grant.
An "inalienable right" is one that cannot be bought, sold, traded, or given away. In short, this statement means that government can recognize your rights ... or not, that government can protect your rights ... or not, but that government cannot GIVE you rights!! Your rights are yours by virtue of the fact that you are a living, breathing, human being.
"That: among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
"Among these," means "to name a few." In short, no one has any business violating your right to life, liberty, and to pursue your happiness, as long as you do not interfere with the right of others to do the same thing. If you DO, they have the right to stop you -- self defense is also an inalienable human right.
"That: to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men ..."
To secure a thing means to make it permanent, to fix it in place and time ... to make it secure. In other words, the rights of the individual are SUPREME, and the sole purpose of the State, is to fill the purely passive role of merely protecting those rights.
"deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
The consent of the governed .... Throughout history this has always been true ... all governments have always derived their power from the consent of the governed. Normally however, governments only become aware of this when the governed DO NOT consent... then we have revolutions, and rebellions, and civil wars. Which is normally what happens when people try to "alter or to abolish it."
In short, this is recognition of the Right of Revolution ... or secession.
During the American Civil War, we heard political thimble riggers braying of "preserving our glorious Union," while "saving the National Honor" ... as though there could -- or should -- be a Union, glorious or otherwise that wasn't completely voluntary.
Quote:
I feel the need to point out to people that a government is simply an alternative to aristocrasy.
Actually, an Aristocracy is a government! The word comes from the Greek, Aristos which means "best," and Kratia, which means "rule." Aristocracy means government by the "best" citizens, a priveleged minority, or upper class.
Quote:
No one ever said it was better, just not the blue bloods. It is the creation of LAW that creates good government. The Magna Carta for example. And of course, the beloved Declaration of IndependenceNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:
^^^
Oh my god.
Lincoln is a mass murdering megalomaniac?
Dude (babe?) you are freaking hysterical.
Actually, I have been studying history for nearly fourty five years. I highly recommend it (studying history, that is.)
Quote:
On a heavier note...
The anarchy advocated by the -ahem- Libertarians and so-called Anarchists is, not to put too fine a point on it, complete rubbish.
An Anarchist is anyone who believes in less government than you do.
Actually, most Libertarians are MINARCHISTS ... minimum governmentalists! Kinda like the men who founded this country. In fact, EXACTLY like the men who founded this country.
Quote:
It is the nature of ALL primates to live in hierarchical structures, usually pyramid formed, with a single alpha or alpha pair at the apex.
Even the democratic modification of this basic human trait results in an alpha ruling (male usually) over the rest.
True!! However, many human beings have evolved beyond this. You obviously are not one of them.
Quote:
It is the height of arrogance (or ignorance) to assume that humans would be exempt.
There are greater differences between individual human beings than there are between entire species of other mammals.
Unfortunately, being of a lower order of primate, you wouldn't understand that.
Quote:
We're primates. Super smart ones but apes nonetheless. We will always, always, always have hierarchical systems of government and those systems will always, always, always be corrupt. Get over it. Grow up.We're genetically hardwired for it. There's no escape until some new species of human emerges.
I'm sure that when you say "super smart," you are naturally thinking of yourself.
If we were genetically hard wired for it, then people like me couldn't exist. Which makes your entire argument bovine excrement.
Quote:
Representative government is the best you're going to get. Indeed, this is the best system any human society bigger than a five person family unit has ever produced. EVER. In human history.
You obviously know less than nothing of human history.
Quote:
You clearly enjoy the obvious benefits of participation in the American experiment but seem to ignore the invisible ones.
Like that there aren't armed bands of thieves rumaging through your house and your female relatives at will simply because they've got bigger guns.
Is that something you would do if you thought you could get away with it?? No, of course not!! (I hope) These armed bands you speak of were the forerunners of what we today call government.
Quote:
Like the air you breathe isn't yet too contaminated to sustain you. Or that the food you buy at the market won't poison you.
It was government that created the pollution problem you complain of. The government decreed that pollution was OK as long as you weren't polluting "more" than any one else in what ever industry you happened to be in. Helping to destroy property rights in the process. (After 1875, an individual could no longer sue a "Corporation" for polluting his property.)
You really ought to learn at least a little bit about history.
Food?? Do you think that food producers really want to poison their customers?? Or is that just something you would do if you thought you could get away with it??
As for me, I make my living by giving my customers the best quality I can produce. Happy customers tell their friends, which brings me more customers. If I gave bad or shoddy service, my angry customers would not only never come back, they would tell all their friends to stay away. Even without government, this sort of thing tends to be self-correcting.
Quote:
Like the infrastucture whose upkeep you seem not to wish to pay for allows us to even have this silly debate.
I happily pay for what I use, or consume. I
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
I also grow tired of all of the infighting in our government as both sides jockey for power. The Democrats are now questioning Bush's National Guard service in an effort to discredit him during this election year. Keep in mind this is the same Democratic party that told the Republican party that Clinton fleeing the country to avoid that draft during Vietnam had nothing to do with his ability to be president.
Just a couple points. I see things that the present adminstration is doing that I don't like either. And I am a Republican. But I doubt very much that the things I want fixed, are the same things that each and every other person wants fixed, changed or what have you. So no government is ever going to work exactly like each and all of its constituents want.
For the infighting, when there is a debate, I find it fasinating. I see debate as part of an epistemological process, as well as a non-violent means of getting others to agree with me. That is politics, and if you have no debate, you ain't got a democracy.
But when they are so caught up in the infighting that they leave the rest of us alone, well, I can't be happier. Even if it is not working the way I want, I prefer a government that leaves it alone rather than changing it every two seconds.
But then, that is just me.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's been a lot of political talk here, most of which has been asserted as fact. So, here's my opinion:
The initiation of violence may be evil, but it is surely only the most basic form of evil. Every human is capable of it, and ingenious enough to apply it in far more subtle ways than brute force if need be. It is this same ingenious nature that drives invention.
This is part of evolution: surviving, getting stronger, looking after number one. If success means teamwork, that's what happens, if it means individualism, that's what will predominate.
I would love to believe that the majority of folk out there are decent and good-hearted, but that's just not wise, because invariably you don't know until it's too late - deception is a far greater tool for evil/exploitation than violence. (You can call this 'projection' if you want, but I'm willing to gamble that I'm not the only one here who has been screwed over for being honest and trusting).
Not that I'm a big fan of government, either. Those who run governmental systems are just as prone to the above as the rest of the human race. Unfortunately, there's far more than one in nine for whom, "The money was too good!"
When it comes down to it, it's all about survival, growth, and quality of life (everyone wants safety, happiness and 'success' for themselves and their progeny). There are those (more enlightened IMHO) who believe in doing this as a species, with co-operation, and those who are happy to stick to the "red in tooth and claw" method - "Take what you can, give nothing back" if you like, with the corollary of not giving a rat's arse who gets hurt along the way. Maybe the latter is more comparable to the hierarchical system, maybe not, but it seems to me there are two types of leaders: those who marshall people together to create something bigger than the sum of their parts, and those who thirst for power, respect (or some shallow imitation thereof), and privilege without effort.
In short, idealism is great, but realism is safer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
As far as "God" is concerned, I have described "Him" in proctological terms numerous times.
What would you think of a "God" that would send two she-bears to rend to bloody pieces a couple dozen children for the hideous crime of poking fun at an old man's bald head?
loadandmakeready
Well, that leaves you with a problem if you believe you are in the world God made.
If God is such a bastard, then the guys who think that virtue and success are always the result of cheating may be right. And if they are right, then a couple points come to mind.
1) You'd be an idiot to choose something as nebulous as virtue over your own life and happiness.
2) Its pointless to complain about the unfairness of someone else's success, as that is the only way to be successful.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME