Is it the Law to which men are bound?

[PixieStix]

I am bound by my conscience. I am bound by that which is right, fair, and just, regardless of man made laws. Man made laws cannot become my conscience.

So the question is.. Would you seek to impose you're conscience on others becouse you feel it is " Right, Fair, and just"?

No, that was not the question, that is a diversion

 

[Jroc]

I am bound by my conscience. I am bound by that which is right, fair, and just, regardless of man made laws. Man made laws cannot become my conscience.

So the question is.. Would you seek to impose you're conscience on others becouse you feel it is " Right, Fair, and just"?

No, that was not the question, that is a diversion

Why is it a diversion? I was just curious as to were you were coming from thats all.

 

[PixieStix]

So the question is.. Would you seek to impose you're conscience on others becouse you feel it is " Right, Fair, and just"?

No, that was not the question, that is a diversion

Why is it a diversion? I was just curious as to were you were coming from thats all.

From deep thought and introspection of what I would do if the law tried to tell me to go against my own conscience. Going against that is like sanding against the grain of fine wood

 

[Jroc]

No, that was not the question, that is a diversion

Why is it a diversion? I was just curious as to were you were coming from thats all.

From deep thought and introspection of what I would do if the law tried to tell me to go against my own conscience. Going against that is like sanding against the grain of fine wood

The reason I asked is because too many people in this country try to force what they think is right onto other people through big government mandates and laws. I was just curious as to you're postion on that.

 

[PixieStix]

Why is it a diversion? I was just curious as to were you were coming from thats all.

From deep thought and introspection of what I would do if the law tried to tell me to go against my own conscience. Going against that is like sanding against the grain of fine wood

The reason I asked is because too many people in this country try to force what they think is right onto other people through big government mandates and laws. I was just curious as to you're postion on that.

Exactly.

I hate big government. That is my position

 

[JBeukema]

Even the tribes in the remote Amazon have been encroached upon by society

I feel the need to correct you on this one. They are a society. They've had other societies encroach upon theirs.


usually with the excuse that we know what is best for them.

Where did I say it provides me an out? I pointed out that it was written to protect me from government.

By letting you walk from it completely? That's a convenient interpretation for those who disagree with laws against- well, anything.

 

[JBeukema]

Why is it a diversion? I was just curious as to were you were coming from thats all.

From deep thought and introspection of what I would do if the law tried to tell me to go against my own conscience. Going against that is like sanding against the grain of fine wood

The reason I asked is because too many people in this country try to force what they think is right onto other people through big government mandates and laws. I was just curious as to you're postion on that.

Everyone does that. That's the entire purpose of government/society- to force your will and morals upon those who'd rape and murder you. You bind together and the social contract pretty much boils down to just that.

 

[editec]

If we truly were BOUND BY LAW, we would not need prisons.

 

[Ropey]

America is a bastion of personal choice. Hence the need for small governance when dealing with any issues that relate to personal choice.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I feel the need to correct you on this one. They are a society. They've had other societies encroach upon theirs.


usually with the excuse that we know what is best for them.

Point taken.

By letting you walk from it completely? That's a convenient interpretation for those who disagree with laws against- well, anything.

Like Rosa Parks when she refused to move to the back of the bus?

The thing that people that want to argue that we are a nation of laws, or those that argue we are bound to, or by, those laws miss is that we are really a nation of people, and that the laws we make are bound to us. That is what consent of the governed really means, if we, as a group, do not consent the government does not have the right to force us, even though it has the power.

We can even turn to current events to demonstrate this principle. The events in Tunisia aptly demonstrate that the power in a government, and its laws, comes from the people, and is bound to them, not the other way around.

I, as an individual, recognize that I am solely responsible for breaking a law if I choose to do so. What you have to recognize is that if I do break a law because I think it is wrong, and I get arrested as a result, I get to make the case that it is wrong. If I manage to prove my case the law gets changed.

We are not bound to the law, or by it.

 

[JBeukema]

s. That is what consent of the governed really means, if we, as a group, do not consent the government does not have the right to force us, even though it has the power.

Basically, you're arguing for rule of the majority over the rule of the minority.

Of course, this can involve the exploitation of the minority.

Then come the arguments over rights- but that falls apart is Whitey doesn't agree the slaves have rights.

So then we have to try to declare them to be so just because and say anyone who disagrees with our views is wrong because they are. Now we're up to classical liberalism and 'Natural Rights'.

But how to convince people to do as we say and not as others do and accept the rights and morals we profess? Well, the one thing that seems to have worked in history is brainwashing them from youth into believing that they'll suffer horrible fates for eternity if they don't do what we want them to.

And that's why every known culture has had some form of religion that involved thew concepts of not only right and wrong but of reward and punishment after death.

Hence my belief that some form of religion or religiously held ethics and social standards is inherently necessary for social order and the existence of any developed civilization.

Proof positive: the moral instinct, which appears to be present in other species as well, which has basically programmed a given set or moral compulsions deep into the lower brain of social primates (and possibly other phylas). It is from this moral instinct, along with the aforementioned sociological factors, that every society develops its religions and social contracts.

Even atheists who chalk it all up to evolution end up acting in accordance with these evolutionary advantageous morals and expecting others to be made to do likewise- and agree to punishing those who do not conform by putting them in prison when they rape and murder people.


But I digress and now I forget what we were actually talking about.

We can even turn to current events to demonstrate this principle. The events in Tunisia aptly demonstrate that the power in a government, and its laws, comes from the people, and is bound to them, not the other way around.

Look at American today. The people have a Social contract which involves accepting soft tyranny at the hands of the true ruling class. They'll bitch about it- but they won't so much as vote against their incumbents or demanding an investigation into Diebold, ES&S, and Sequoia.

Because they don't want real freedom. People don't want true liberty and self-determination. People need to given rules to follow. They need something or someone to obey that allows them to tell themselves that they're doing what they're supposed to instead of truly having to decide for themselves what is right and good. That is why they turn to priests to give them the gods' rules or to governments to set laws or to their peers and elders to teach them what is socially acceptable.

Nor can society function without its benevolent dictators. Pure democracy would never allow an interstate system or the development of one plan for the city sewer system. Even representative democracy must be guided by the true shapers and architects of the world. People don't want to vote between 20 candidates for mayor or 3000 presidential candidates or every person's fiscal plan. They need to be told who the authorities are- regardless of whether history shows their given school to be accurate or whether there might be better ideas forwarded from a more obscure thinker. They need to be have the choices narrowed down for them so that they can tend to their daily tasks and choose, in the limited time available to them, from the options presented. Just as a parent must decide what foods to offer a child to choose from based on what is best for both child and parent, the architects of the carnal world must act as parents, teachers, guides, guardians, and benevolent overseers to make human progress and society as we know it possible.

And who are these men and women who draft the constitutions of the world, shape the minds of generations, and design the modern world? They are not the men you see with guns, nor are they the politicians you see on stage. Rather they act behind the scenes, sometimes knowing of their own role and sometimes not. Sometimes knowing of eachother and sometimes acting alone. Sometimes they might form for themselves temples and lodges and work together for the best interest of Man, of themselves, or of both. But always they act outside the spotlight, behind the theater, to shape our language, to guide our discourse, and to craft tomorrow.

In the words of Edward Bernays:

Those who
manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute
an invisible government which is the true ruling
power of our country.
We are governed, our minds are molded, our
tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men
we have never heard of. This is a logical result of
the way in which our democratic society is organized.
Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in
this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly
functioning society.
Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware
of the identity of their fellow members in the
inner cabinet.
They govern us by their qualities of natural leadership,
their ability to supply needed ideas and by their
key position in the social structure. Whatever attitude
one chooses to take toward this condition, it
remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily
lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business,
in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are
9
Propaganda
dominated by the relatively small number of persons—
a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty
million—who understand the mental processes and
social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the
wires which control the public mind, who harness old
social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide
the world.
It is not usually realized how necessary these invisible
governors are to the orderly functioning of
our group life. In theory, every citizen may vote
for whom he pleases. Our Constitution does not
envisage political parties as part of the mechanism
of government, and its framers seem not to have
pictured to themselves the existence in our national
politics of anything like the modern political machine.
But the American voters soon found that
without organization and direction their individual
votes, cast, perhaps, for dozens or hundreds of candidates,
would produce nothing but confusion. Invisible
government, in the shape of rudimentary
political parties, arose almost overnight. Ever since
then we have agreed, for the sake of simplicity and
practicality, that party machines should narrow down
the field of choice to two candidates, or at most three
or four.
In theory, every citizen makes up his mind on
public questions and matters of private conduct. In
practice, if all men had to study for themselves the
abstruse economic, political, and ethical data involved
10
Organizing Chaos
in every question, they would find it impossible to
come to a conclusion about anything. We have
voluntarily agreed to let an invisible government
sift the data and high-spot the outstanding issues so
that our field of choice shall be narrowed to practical
proportions. From our leaders and the media they
use to reach the public, we accept the evidence and
the demarcation of issues bearing upon public questions;
from some ethical teacher, be it a minister, a
favorite essayist, or merely prevailing opinion, we
accept a standardized code of social conduct to which
we conform most of the time.
In theory, everybody buys the best and cheapest
commodities offered him on the market. In practice,
if every one went around pricing, and chemically
testing before purchasing, the dozens of soaps or
fabrics or brands of bread which are for sale, economic
life would become hopelessly jammed. To
avoid such confusion, society consents to have its
choice narrowed to ideas and objects brought to its
attention through propaganda of all kinds. There
is consequently a vast and continuous effort going on
to capture our minds in the interest of some policy or
commodity or idea.
It might be better to have, instead of propaganda
and special pleading, committees of wise men who
would choose our rulers, dictate our conduct, private
and public, and decide upon the best types of clothes
for us to wear and the best kinds of food for us to
11
Propaganda
eat. But we have chosen the opposite method, that
of open competition. We must find a way to make
free competition function with reasonable smoothness.
To achieve this society has consented to permit
free competition to be organized by leadership and
propaganda.
Some of the phenomena of this process are criticized—
the manipulation of news, the inflation of
personality, and the general ballyhoo by which politicians
and commercial products and social ideas are
brought to the consciousness of the masses. The instruments
by which public

Propaganda by Edward Bernays (1928)

 

[JBeukema]

I will ad the caveat that a few might act in the public light in trying to fill this role. See Noam Chomsky or Thomas E. Woods or Karl Marx. But even they owe their own thoughts in part to those who crafted the language of the discourse and debate which moulded their own theories. Also, they are less effective, because one reads or hears their words aware of the fact that they are trying to convince, persuade, or manipulate.

 

[Ropey]

Also, they are less effective, because one reads or hears their words aware of the fact that they are trying to convince, persuade, or manipulate.

And that they have their own personal political agendas to put forth with attempts to convince, persuade and/or manipulate.

When one seeks and actually finds the truth, it is irrespective of the above and often in the middle between their political agenda and the political agendas they are against.

There is no neutrality in political agendas by the very definition of the word.

 

[amrchaos]

I will turn them in AFTER I get caught with them!

Oh wait, that is not called turning them in, is it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Basically, you're arguing for rule of the majority over the rule of the minority.

Which is why I used Rosa Parks as an example, because that was the triumph of the majority blacks over the oppressive minority of the whites.

Of course, this can involve the exploitation of the minority.

Then come the arguments over rights- but that falls apart is Whitey doesn't agree the slaves have rights,

So then we have to try to declare them to be so just because and say anyone who disagrees with our views is wrong because they are. Now we're up to classical liberalism and 'Natural Rights'.

But how to convince people to do as we say and not as others do and accept the rights and morals we profess? Well, the one thing that seems to have worked in history is brainwashing them from youth into believing that they'll suffer horrible fates for eternity if they don't do what we want them to.

And that's why every known culture has had some form of religion that involved thew concepts of not only right and wrong but of reward and punishment after death.

Hence my belief that some form of religion or religiously held ethics and social standards is inherently necessary for social order and the existence of any developed civilization.

Proof positive: the moral instinct, which appears to be present in other species as well, which has basically programmed a given set or moral compulsions deep into the lower brain of social primates (and possibly other phylas). It is from this moral instinct, along with the aforementioned sociological factors, that every society develops its religions and social contracts.

Even atheists who chalk it all up to evolution end up acting in accordance with these evolutionary advantageous morals and expecting others to be made to do likewise- and agree to punishing those who do not conform by putting them in prison when they rape and murder people.


But I digress and now I forget what we were actually talking about.

Don't ask me, I wasn't paying attention.

Look at American today. The people have a Social contract which involves accepting soft tyranny at the hands of the true ruling class. They'll bitch about it- but they won't so much as vote against their incumbents or demanding an investigation into Diebold, ES&S, and Sequoia.

Because they don't want real freedom. People don't want true liberty and self-determination. People need to given rules to follow. They need something or someone to obey that allows them to tell themselves that they're doing what they're supposed to instead of truly having to decide for themselves what is right and good. That is why they turn to priests to give them the gods' rules or to governments to set laws or to their peers and elders to teach them what is socially acceptable.

Nor can society function without its benevolent dictators. Pure democracy would never allow an interstate system or the development of one plan for the city sewer system. Even representative democracy must be guided by the true shapers and architects of the world. People don't want to vote between 20 candidates for mayor or 3000 presidential candidates or every person's fiscal plan. They need to be told who the authorities are- regardless of whether history shows their given school to be accurate or whether there might be better ideas forwarded from a more obscure thinker. They need to be have the choices narrowed down for them so that they can tend to their daily tasks and choose, in the limited time available to them, from the options presented. Just as a parent must decide what foods to offer a child to choose from based on what is best for both child and parent, the architects of the carnal world must act as parents, teachers, guides, guardians, and benevolent overseers to make human progress and society as we know it possible.

And who are these men and women who draft the constitutions of the world, shape the minds of generations, and design the modern world? They are not the men you see with guns, nor are they the politicians you see on stage. Rather they act behind the scenes, sometimes knowing of their own role and sometimes not. Sometimes knowing of eachother and sometimes acting alone. Sometimes they might form for themselves temples and lodges and work together for the best interest of Man, of themselves, or of both. But always they act outside the spotlight, behind the theater, to shape our language, to guide our discourse, and to craft tomorrow.

Or I could point to the Tea Party, and point out that they are the first wave of the coming rebellion, but somebody would try to claim I am advocating violent insurrection.

 

[G.T.]

And I would point out that society refuses to let anyone go away, it imposes itself on everyone. I am under no obligation to follow a social contract that does not allow me to withdraw from it, which is why our Constitution was written to protect individual liberties from the encroachment of government, and society.

In the end, it (The Constitution) by proxy is protecting them, then, not God. N'or does "God" provably create them.

Do you think you have some kind of point there? The people who wrote the Constitution understood that rights do not come from government, and that, ultimately, government exists to take away the rights of individuals. That is why they wrote it to protect those rights, wherever they come from.

But thanks for showing you hate people who believe in something more than you do.

I haven't shown to hate anything, you're projecting.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I do not project hate because I do not hate. You, on the other hand, attacked a position simply because it implied the belief in God. You have a serious problem, and it comes off as hate. Call it what you will, but I suggest you seek counseling before you go off and shhot some random liberal in the hope that Sarah Palin will be blamed.