CDZ There is strength in numbers

Gdjjr

Platinum Member
Oct 25, 2019
11,072
6,114
965
Texas
There is also a level of comfort in the weakness of deferring decisions to another.

Ben Franklin is credited with saying; to give up Liberty for a little security you deserve neither-

Liberty acknowledges an almost infinite number of choices for an Individual. Numbers want to make those choices hard finite. Is deferring that decision to another not a weakness in the decision making process?
So, how is it that there is strength in numbers when weakness is relied on to achieve the numbers?
 
When Mr. Franklin stated, "to give up Liberty for a little security you deserve neither", was not uttered in the 21st Century.

Liberty, as defined in the Declaration of Independence:

"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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

We can infer with both statements that the right to defend their life and liberty applies equally to the right to own and possess a gun, and the right to go about their lives with the security some nut will not murder their children or themselves.

"whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, 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"

Further inferences can be applied to the 9th and 10th Amendments which would, is seems, provide the power to regulate guns within their state as the people of State so desire.

Given the carnage of gun violence in today's world, it seems each state has the duty to protect its citizens as the citizens see fit.
 
There is also a level of comfort in the weakness of deferring decisions to another.

Ben Franklin is credited with saying; to give up Liberty for a little security you deserve neither-

Liberty acknowledges an almost infinite number of choices for an Individual. Numbers want to make those choices hard finite. Is deferring that decision to another not a weakness in the decision making process?
So, how is it that there is strength in numbers when weakness is relied on to achieve the numbers?


It is not weakness to work together, or even to defer to someone who you have real reason to believe will be better suited to make the decisions than you are.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #6
It is not weakness to work together, or even to defer to someone who you have real reason to believe will be better suited to make the decisions than you are.
What happens to the numbers when the Individual decides he'd rather not defer to a particular decision invoked- real reasons are often non-existent though there are many selling point excuses.
No one is better suited to make a decision for another. Period. They have no skin in that game no matter what they believe unless the person shows a proclivity for irrational and harmful to himself decisions- in that case the numbers are usually quite small and not all that strong- the story, the memory, history, etc. will be about the Individual, not the numbers.
IF the procurer of help is a victim of intentional misdirection the numbers are responsible for the erosion of the victims Liberty to resist tyranny- that is immoral, so, who is then stronger?
 
It is not weakness to work together, or even to defer to someone who you have real reason to believe will be better suited to make the decisions than you are.
What happens to the numbers when the Individual decides he'd rather not defer to a particular decision invoked- real reasons are often non-existent though there are many selling point excuses.
No one is better suited to make a decision for another. Period. They have no skin in that game no matter what they believe unless the person shows a proclivity for irrational and harmful to himself decisions- in that case the numbers are usually quite small and not all that strong- the story, the memory, history, etc. will be about the Individual, not the numbers.
IF the procurer of help is a victim of intentional misdirection the numbers are responsible for the erosion of the victims Liberty to resist tyranny- that is immoral, so, who is then stronger?


scenario one: individual is young and too busy enjoying life, to worry about policy, so ignores the news and issues, and when elections come along, just hopes that the more adult citizens who are paying attention, come to the right conclusion regarding policy.


In this scenario, the other people making the call, do have skin in the game, and are making the decisions on issues, based on what they perceive as their interest.

The individual who is ceding input, has judged them to be more responsible than himself, and he might very well be right.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #9
The individual who is ceding input, has judged them to be more responsible than himself,
Not necessarily- it could be he's just not paying attention, which is much more likely, since most kids believe they have all the answers before the question is even asked.
 
The individual who is ceding input, has judged them to be more responsible than himself,
Not necessarily- it could be he's just not paying attention, which is much more likely, since most kids believe they have all the answers before the question is even asked.


If he knows that policy and issues will be decided by voting, and he chooses to not vote, while others are voting,


he is deciding to trust his fate to the decisions made by the voters.


If he is so stupid, that on no level he is aware of the ramifications of his inaction, then, yes, he is an sub human, not in control of his own fate and barely aware of his existence.


But, for the purpose of discussion, let us assume that he has enough brain power to keep his breathing going without assistance.
 
There is also a level of comfort in the weakness of deferring decisions to another.

Ben Franklin is credited with saying; to give up Liberty for a little security you deserve neither-

Liberty acknowledges an almost infinite number of choices for an Individual. Numbers want to make those choices hard finite. Is deferring that decision to another not a weakness in the decision making process?
So, how is it that there is strength in numbers when weakness is relied on to achieve the numbers?
I'll do you one better if you aren't willing to defend all rights laid out in the bill of rights you deserve no rights.
 
But, for the purpose of discussion, let us assume
I prefer not to assume anything- the purpose of this discussion is pretty clear in the first post- deferring to another is a sign of being weak in the decision making process- - - that weakness is counted on by the leader of the numbers- the question, to me, in this day and time is; why isn't that obvious to even casual observers?
But, whatever the excuse given, not making a decision is a willingness, if not desire, to let someone else choose for you-
If indeed it's because one considers himself uninformed isn't it his responsibility to get informed? How does he know or even suspect the recruiter for the numbers is informed as to what's best for him?

Letting others decide for you takes away autonomy- and, without Individual effort, the numbers are pretty useless- Individual effort creates group strength which does not always remain on course at which time the one(s) who have deferred are then trapped in a never ending cycle of abuse- all because they couldn't make a decision for themselves- didn't or couldn't isn't really relevant- someone else making a decision for many is numbers- that someone else is an Individual- why is his preferences more important?

Now, IF the Individual recognizes the potential loss of personal Liberty, then by all means, do it- but, in a perfect world shouldn't the Individual be made aware of the quite possible change of direction of which he has no control? You know, kind of the way political Party's do- simply because Individuals feel weak and afraid to choose against or for unless many others do-
 
But, for the purpose of discussion, let us assume
I prefer not to assume anything- the purpose of this discussion is pretty clear in the first post- deferring to another is a sign of being weak in the decision making process- - - that weakness is counted on by the leader of the numbers- the question, to me, in this day and time is; why isn't that obvious to even casual observers?
But, whatever the excuse given, not making a decision is a willingness, if not desire, to let someone else choose for you-
If indeed it's because one considers himself uninformed isn't it his responsibility to get informed? How does he know or even suspect the recruiter for the numbers is informed as to what's best for him?

Letting others decide for you takes away autonomy- and, without Individual effort, the numbers are pretty useless- Individual effort creates group strength which does not always remain on course at which time the one(s) who have deferred are then trapped in a never ending cycle of abuse- all because they couldn't make a decision for themselves- didn't or couldn't isn't really relevant- someone else making a decision for many is numbers- that someone else is an Individual- why is his preferences more important?

Now, IF the Individual recognizes the potential loss of personal Liberty, then by all means, do it- but, in a perfect world shouldn't the Individual be made aware of the quite possible change of direction of which he has no control? You know, kind of the way political Party's do- simply because Individuals feel weak and afraid to choose against or for unless many others do-



1. Perhaps the individual has other more pressing individual responsibilities that preclude taking the time to get informed. Perhaps the individual has no faith in the the information available to them to get themselves informed.

2. Calling it a weakness is a value judgement. Some people are simply stupid. If a stupid person, decides to defer to more intelligent people, is that a weakness, or a sign of emotional maturity?

3. In your final point, you introduce the possibility of misrepresentation by the leaders. That is a whole other kettle of fish, apart from the concept of working together.
 
I've always thought of America as a collective society , terms like 'United we stand, divided we fall' mean the freedom and liberties we enjoy as a nation apply to the entirety of us from sea to freakin' shinin' sea.

They are individually enjoyed OR abused , because they assume a common denominator , IE > cut one of us, we all bleed

~S~
 
1. Perhaps the individual has other more pressing individual responsibilities that preclude taking the time to get informed. Perhaps the individual has no faith in the the information available to them to get themselves informed.

Perhaps the Individual doesn't want to and prefers relying on- information is limitless in this day and time- that's choosing to remain ignorant. That's a weakness, an excuse is used in an attempt to justify, a reason is a sound explanation.

2. Calling it a weakness is a value judgement. Some people are simply stupid. If a stupid person, decides to defer to more intelligent people, is that a weakness, or a sign of emotional maturity?

Perhaps I prefer to call it a weakness- stupid can't be fixed though some do work hard at maintaining it- ignorance can be remedied if one wants to- one being key, the Individual- emotional maturity is multi faceted and, again, key is one- numbers don't change that, when the emotions do mature what then? They discover what?

3. In your final point, you introduce the possibility of misrepresentation by the leaders. That is a whole other kettle of fish, apart from the concept of working together

My point is, leaders are known as Individuals, numbers aren't. Why? Leaders rarely "work" anything but their mouth, they want others to work for them (especially in today's climate/environment)- yet, "true leadership is for the benefit of the follower, not the enrichment of the leader"- only the intentionally ignorant ignore that, and, who most benefits from intentional misinterpretation by "a" leader?
 
When Mr. Franklin stated, "to give up Liberty for a little security you deserve neither", was not uttered in the 21st Century.

Liberty, as defined in the Declaration of Independence:

"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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

We can infer with both statements that the right to defend their life and liberty applies equally to the right to own and possess a gun, and the right to go about their lives with the security some nut will not murder their children or themselves.

"whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, 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"

Further inferences can be applied to the 9th and 10th Amendments which would, is seems, provide the power to regulate guns within their state as the people of State so desire.

Given the carnage of gun violence in today's world, it seems each state has the duty to protect its citizens as the citizens see fit.

The thing about the 2nd, the states have the power to write laws that are not mentioned in the US Constitution. The 2nd, is clearly noted in the constitution. So any states that have enacted laws restricting the 2nd, are unconstitutional. No where in the constitution does it give the states the right to over ride the constitution.
In fact, there's a lot of things states do that restrict a citizens right to pursue their happiness.
 
I've always thought of America as a collective society , terms like 'United we stand, divided we fall' mean the freedom and liberties we enjoy as a nation apply to the entirety of us from sea to freakin' shinin' sea.

They are individually enjoyed OR abused , because they assume a common denominator , IE > cut one of us, we all bleed
What happens when the "collective/numbers" carry the dissidents away by force? Terms like all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights come to mean nothing- terms like Liberty and Justice for all, come to mean nothing- when one is cut the numbers walk all over "him/her" (no plural) while they bleed because they can- strength in numbers relies on ALL participating- a chain is only as strong as its weakest link- when ALL are forced there will be a conflict and is THE root of all conflict throughout History- yet, who is remembered from the conflicts? The numbers or the Individual?
 
I've always thought of America as a collective society , terms like 'United we stand, divided we fall' mean the freedom and liberties we enjoy as a nation apply to the entirety of us from sea to freakin' shinin' sea.

They are individually enjoyed OR abused , because they assume a common denominator , IE > cut one of us, we all bleed

~S~

Bumper sticker slogans are used to create emotions. United we stand. Divided was have the liberty to not follow along in a group, like sheep.
What are we united for/against? United to stands against the LGBT community? Divided so we can watch people "sagging" their britches?
Propaganda is usually open ended, and meaningless. But it sounds good.

A good example of this is forcing kids to pledge their allegiance to the USA. It sounds all patriotic. But when you get right down to it, it's quite the opposite. The government forcing kids to pledge their allegiance to something they might not agree with. Of course, the only real punishment is being shamed by the government (teacher) in front of the other kids.
 
freedom and liberties we enjoy
Highly restricted- free is unencumbered, Liberty is the exercising of rights- they have been collectively restricted and officially eroded- the numbers are tyrannical of the Individual- yet, when our current History is written about- who will be remembered?
 
What happens when the "collective/numbers" carry the dissidents away by force?

When we are not free to dissent, we will no longer be a free country Gdjjr

The government forcing kids to pledge their allegiance to something they might not agree with

Nobody here agrees 100% w/governance , we pledge to uphold an ideal

when our current History is written about- who will be remembered?

I suppose the victors of however we end up will

~S~
 

Forum List

Back
Top