50 replies to this topic

[Manifesto Empire]

ok. whatever you say.

And no, i didn't " just" say anything, i worded everything correctly, you just read it like that.

Edited by Manifesto Empire, 24 April 2009 - 06:32 PM.

[Eurysilas]

Just wanted to leave this thread with a few thoughts/comments/whatever. I don't think we're slaves to the government at this point in time. That much I've already said. Now, will slavery ever make a comeback? That's VERY difficult to determine.

I'd say a kind of indentured servitude might, for a segment of the population. Face it- unless the US turns things around, it's influence will soon wane. The world stage is in the process of swapping out actors, and the replacements might not be so squeamish about words like "slavery" or "servitude". I'm not saying that's the case- for all I know, they might end up being perfectly enlightened. With China being one of the lead actors, though, I doubt it.

What I ultimately think we a slaves to is civilization, though. A hard fact of our existence is that one of our advantages, evolutionarily speaking, is socialization. When you socialize, in order to be effective, you MUST have a hierarchy (technology could change this, but that's not extant). Hierarchy eventually leads to government, and from there the cycle repeats endless breakdowns and reorganizations. It's all rather depressing, really, in that the cycle shows no signs of stopping.

One last thing, though. I always find it hilariously sad when people think the government is some nice organization always looking out for their well-being. I have news for you- it only does so at gunpoint (figuratively speaking, MOST of the time). I can just imagine some people saying "But what about things like disability benefits, or unemployment? The government doesn't have to do that....". Well, actually it does. One of the hallmarks of the relationship between a democratic (or in the US' case, quasi-democratic) government and its populace is that once either side gains an benefit, woe betide the person who takes it away. Thus, if the government were to pull Disability, their would be such a sh*tstorm that everyone would be knee-deep in brown. So we can see that it still holds to the "Gunpoint rule".

Well, I'm done pontificating. My main message was that the government is NOT your grandma, or the Red Cross- it can screw you over pretty badly, if you're the average citizen. Keep it in mind.

[Nathaniel]

I suppose it depends on one's definition of what a slave is.

You can interpret these definitions:
http://www.merriam-w...ictionary/slave

In addition to that, when you are a slave, you are a slave to a particular person, place, thing, or idea.

As an American, I don't consider myself a slave to our government (if it is a republic, democracy, something similar, or any other form of representative government), at least not in the complete sense, regardless of what I think of the president, congress, etc. If you have the right to vote, then you are not a slave to your government. If those people we elect don't work out in the ways we hope, then we have the power to vote for somebody else. Slaves to a government don't have that right. We also have the right to run for public office, but you have to be really good at it to get anywhere.

But being a slave to the government is only one type of slave. You can argue that kids can be slaves to their parents or guardians, depending on how they are raised. You can in general be a slave to somebody else (for any amount of time: minutes, days, years, etc.) simply because they are forcing you to do something without getting paid for it.

By the raw definition of what a slave is, I think we have all experienced being one in some sort of capacity, but some much more than others. I believe that we are certainly not all slaves right at this moment.

[Sheik]

I told my opinion on the slave thing already and I share the opinion of nearly everyone who posted here. But that's not the reason for me to post right now.

In my point of view most of you are a little to harsh with Manifesto Empire. He does not say everyone is wrong but he, he uses a little rhetoric to underline his opinion, I can't see anything wrong with that. Keep in mind he's the only one with that opinion, he has to be cogent. He's fighting a little for his point of view, that's no reason to be that harsh with him like some are.
I also can't see a reason to close the topic or to ban or whatever. Don't it were you who wrote 'PZC is a democracy' ? Don't being a democray means that everyone can say what he wants if does not hurt anyone else? He wasn't hurting anyone. He has an opinion. It's rather you hurting him, being that sharp. Really, that's getting anything but fair-minded.
Think of it. Do not judge out of a feeling. It's wrong to deal with persons like that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking anyone. I just felt like reminding your own rules and general stuff about coexistence.

So long, Shiek.

Edit: About the proving: no one of us will proof their respective position. The only thing proved ever is that: 'Cogito ergo sum'. So rhetoric or mass will win and some of you start being unobjective if rhetoric points something out you can't simply call 'wrong', that's the point where those who got angry or harsh, started being that. If that happens I'll simply say you aren't able to discuss how it's supposed to be done. That'S no offense but a fact.

Edited by Shiek, 25 April 2009 - 01:23 PM.

[Mitchfork]

I also can't see a reason to close the topic or to ban or whatever. Don't it were you who wrote 'PZC is a democracy' ? Don't being a democray means that everyone can say what he wants if does not hurt anyone else? He wasn't hurting anyone. He has an opinion. It's rather you hurting him, being that sharp. Really, that's getting anything but fair-minded.

The threats were totally empty. It was another member who thought he could intimidate Manifesto Empire by pretending he had the power to back up those threats. None of the real staff would even consider banning a member simply because of his opinions.

EDIT: I should note that I agree with the meat of the rest of your post. Having been on the smaller side of an argument on more than one occasion, I see nothing wrong with Manifesto Empire defending his views.

[Sheik]

The threats were totally empty. It was another member who thought he could intimidate Manifesto Empire by pretending he had the power to back up those threats. None of the real staff would even consider banning a member simply because of his opinions.

EDIT: I should note that I agree with the meat of the rest of your post. Having been on the smaller side of an argument on more than one occasion, I see nothing wrong with Manifesto Empire defending his views.

You won't believe how glad I am to read this. I was loosing faith in PZC because of this fractional impossible acquaintance with a member.