Free Humanity - Separated by DTWARREN

[tonym]

dtwarren. Let me ask you.

Do you believe that a Free humanity is threatened by those in power?

[dtwarren]

dtwarren. Let me ask you.

Do you believe that a Free humanity is threatened by those in power?

Define what you mean by a "Free Humanity."

[tonym]

Define what you mean by a "Free Humanity."

Since probably the beginning of humans existence, man has fought to be Free. We have history, and if Biblical scripture is accepted, this seems like a fair conclusion.

We have some philosophical thinkers through periods of time, and some documents restricting power from doing harm to the commoners, from just before the Magna Carta through the 1600's.

Then in the 1750's through the 1770's, we have quite the number of people who speak and write of what it takes to keep a common man Free. It is put forth in the development of a governing system, concluding with the Constitution and BoR's. What the documents contain, is, what must be followed in order for the common man to be Free.

These documents have been accepted world wide as, sort of, the holy grail of a governing system for Freedom.

I would believe that almost all people across the globe want to be Free.

History has proven that powerful people hurt the common folk. And they do it with weapons. Humans are what they are, always have been, and will be. Therefore, the common man must have the right to be able to defend themselves from whatever power could get out of hand and decide it is going to remove rights from humans.

The second amendment is not about personal defense or hunting, it is about accepting man, power, and governing systems, from history, and concluding that humans hurt one another with governments hurting the most people (killing them); the simple, common, poor person, must have the ability to be able to defend the right of humans to be Free. And still in this era, the means for that defense, is the firearm. In the past it was swords. In the future it will be something else.

A Free Humanity is what we have strived throughout history to be. And this nation had reached that and documented what it takes to be so.

So, do you believe that a Free humanity is threatened by the those in power?

And I would like to add another.

Do you believe that people in power today are any different than those in power a thousand or five hundred years ago?

***

I would speculate that you might want to ask what is Free? What are inalienable rights?

[tonym]

I would speculate that you might want to ask what is Free? What are inalienable rights?

The Declaration of Independence has a good list of inalienable rights. It doesn't matter the era, power is power, no matter when or where it takes place.

But I think I can summarize some a bit:

People want to be left alone. They do not want to be forced either to do or not to do things, as long as they do not hurt anyone else. They want privacy. They want the fruits of their labor.

People are willing to contribute "for the common good" for what is needed, not wanted, as long as it is performed frugal with minimal accidental waste.

We would have bridges, roads, etc, because humans achieve. It could be done with an Iroquois Confederacy if need be.

Bad people do gain control and our representatives are the ones, with the judicial system that are supposed to stop the bad people. The general populace are there to help the other branches of government achieve that. The executive branch is supposed to contain the wisest of our society to provide guidance to the legislature and the populace.

However, our society evolved into a massive corrupt empire. Thoroughly and probably completely.

Occupy and Tea Party is the beginning of the people starting to counter, peacefully. Someday, they will come together, and there will be more. And it will be in the name of the good for a Free humanity.

And it is made out that Americans who have firearms are a threat. With all the rights that the people in America have had restricted, it shows how restraining firearm owners are. That is because firearm owners do not want to hurt anyone because they are good people. An example for all the world to follow.

The common man kills the common man, with whatever. They always will. I accept that as human nature.

Government kills the most. This is unacceptable.

Basically, we are now the nation we fought against to be Free.

[dtwarren]

I think there is still something off on the definition. Humanity implies all of mankind and your definition of free comes from a document that is about 238 years old and only applicable to those in the United States.

[tonym]

I think there is still something off on the definition. Humanity implies all of mankind and your definition of free comes from a document that is about 238 years old and only applicable to those in the United States.

The age of philosophers wisdom and pinnacle documents, especially on power, are timeless.

It is not my definition, it is what the founders have written in their docs, speeches, and entered into the nations founding documents, worded more elegantly.

You don't believe all of mankind wants to be Free? Or at least most of it?

The founding guys docs have them using philosophers and history actions, as references in their research. This isn't just one person but numerous people on the same page.

****

I have been trying to respond the best I can. I study macro human dynamics not micro human dynamics. Micro is what is fed through the media and draws the emotional response for the commoner to divide against other commoners. Macro is about the powerful controlling the commoners. The founding documents are based on macro. The founders did well. They were good students of history in understanding power, governing, and the simple person.

These docs and previous ones from hundreds of years earlier should have existed from the time humans first existed and through the future of humans. They are there for all people, in all countries, to study for themselves and draw what they can from them. The question they would ask themselves is, do they want to be Free or other.

I have asked you a couple questions. Can you return a response to them?

[nogods]

People want to be left alone. They do not want to be forced either to do or not to do things, as long as they do not hurt anyone else.

Normal people, like most other living things want and need integration with others. Normal people don't want to be left alone.

Autism is not a definition of freedom.

[NY The Vampire State]

Normal people, like most other living things want and need integration with others. Normal people don't want to be left alone.

Autism is not a definition of freedom.

Another stupid thing to say coming from your yap.

And thats where your wrong. This isn't about "making friends " as you want to put it. Its about being left alone by Government. Why do you feel the need to tell everyone what to do?

[dtwarren]

Assuming that you are limiting this to the United States and not all humanity and the standards set forth in the founding documents then the answer is no. Because the free people put those in power, in power. So if free people feel threatened by those in power they should not re-elect them. However, if they re-elect them then they apparently do not feel threatened by them.

The Declaration of Independence is of no force or effect over the U.S. Constitution. Since the U.S. Constitution (and the Articles of Confederation adopted before it) is the true expression of what the founding fathers intended to be governed by. While it permits one of limited government it does not require absolutely limited government. So long as the people are free to chose which they want through representatives the people vote in.

[nogods]

Another stupid thing to say coming from your yap.

And thats where your wrong. This isn't about "making friends " as you want to put it. Its about being left alone by Government. Why do you feel the need to tell everyone what to do?

Human interaction with others is much more than "making friends" - people, like all species, want, need, and thrive in villages that integrate social, cultural, political, and economic integration.

The Ted Kaczynskis in the world are not normal

We know you are not normal every time you post something, so why do you insists on repeating it?

[NY The Vampire State]

Again... This is not about the interaction between human A and human B. Its about human C in GOVERNMENT dictating everything A &B can do, while C has his own set of rules. Stop changing the talking points.

[Save Us]

The root problem is that people will trade freedom for security everytime, that's how we have the patriot act.

[tonym]

2

thx 1138

[tonym]

Assuming that you are limiting this to the United States and not all humanity and the standards set forth in the founding documents then the answer is no. Because the free people put those in power, in power. So if free people feel threatened by those in power they should not re-elect them. However, if they re-elect them then they apparently do not feel threatened by them.

The Declaration of Independence is of no force or effect over the U.S. Constitution. Since the U.S. Constitution (and the Articles of Confederation adopted before it) is the true expression of what the founding fathers intended to be governed by. While it permits one of limited government it does not require absolutely limited government. So long as the people are free to chose which they want through representatives the people vote in.

Do you believe people in power today are different then those in power one thousand, 300 years ago? Third time I am asking...

[tonym]

Assuming that you are limiting this to the United States and not all humanity and the standards set forth in the founding documents then the answer is no. Because the free people put those in power, in power. So if free people feel threatened by those in power they should not re-elect them. However, if they re-elect them then they apparently do not feel threatened by them.

The Declaration of Independence is of no force or effect over the U.S. Constitution. Since the U.S. Constitution (and the Articles of Confederation adopted before it) is the true expression of what the founding fathers intended to be governed by. While it permits one of limited government it does not require absolutely limited government. So long as the people are free to chose which they want through representatives the people vote in.

Sounds like you believe that our government is run like a stand up guy. You sure your talking about the same USA I am, you live in?

Ok, I understand democratic voting.

You want this nation to be a democracy or a Republic? We are as a corrupt democracy as there is, you don't believe that? Think we are an oligarchy?

***

"Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."

- Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, Mar. 4, 1861

***

What is this guy saying?