What CAN We Agree On?

Discussion in 'Protest' started by R. August Croen, Jun 4, 2006.

  1. I read a little of this board before I just jumped in, mostly down in News and Issues > Politics. Everyone there, save one, seemed to be on the same page politically (not sure what that one, someone called "Justwow," is doing in a place called "hipforums" anyway), and most of the debate I saw seemed to be over details.

    I tried to respond there, but for some reason I'm getting a "may not post replies" message in the Politics forum.

    Anyway, just wondering... differences aside, as political statements go, can most of us agree on this:

    Hands off my body.
    Hands off my property.
    Hands off my spiritual faith.

  2. woodsman

    woodsman Senior Member

    I'll agree with that.
  3. Thanks. As slogans go, I'm pretty happy with it. I hope it catches on.

    The trick with a slogan is getting people to repeat it without thinking. Otherwise they might start to think:

    Hands off my body... unless I want to have an abortion, or do illicit drugs, or kill myself.

    Hands off my property... unless I want to keep firearms, or allow people to smoke, or run a brothel, or manufacture meth.

    Hands off my spiritual faith... unless I'm Islamic, or Pagan, or a Satanist, etc.

    I stand by the statement, even considering all that. I'm a Libertarian. But I know not everyone would agree.

    There's an old joke about an elegant, well-dressed gentleman who sits down at a bar next to a beautiful lady, buys her a couple of drinks, and says, "My dear, if I take you back to my yacht, show you a lavish evening beyond your wildest dreams, and give you a 100,000 dollar diamond in the morning, will you come to my bed with me this evening?"

    The lady blushes and says, "Why, Sir... My answer is yes!"

    "Wonderful. So, how do you feel about a quickie in the alley for twenty bucks?"

    Shocked, the lady says, "I'm insulted! Just what do you think I am?!"

    "We have already determined that, my dear," the gentleman says. "Now we're just haggling over your price."

    I feel exactly the same way about fascists.
  4. Green

    Green Iconoclastic

    What are you talking about? You can't be serious.
  5. I'm not certain, but I think a more careful reading of my post might be in order.
  6. Dr Phibes

    Dr Phibes Banned

    I'd agree with that to a certain extent because we each believe our truths are
    truths that are defensible. The point being tho - what is your property your spirituality
    your body = to what do these things refer?
    If its organised religion - its got a lot to answer for
    your property is mostly made of stolen resources and your body is public property to a certain extent
  7. boothy

    boothy Senior Member

    If he is really a Libertatrian... he can't be serious...
  8. Dr Phibes

    Dr Phibes Banned

    I think he may be a librarian
  9. I'm serious about this statement:

    Hands off my body.
    Hands off my property.
    Hands off my spiritual faith.

    The exceptions I listed were examples of where I've seen other people's minds go, not where mine is. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

    As for someone shoving their religion down my throat, I don't really care. Free speech, an' all that. I can usually avoid them. I only have a problem when they get Big Brother to enforce their agenda.
  10. Yep. Except I think you mean millennia.

    We Americans just tend to forget that, supposedly being founded on religious freedom and so on. The ghosts of a few... hundred thousand? million? ...dead Native Americans might tell you differently. Lots of other dead folks would, too.

    Anyway, it didn't start with Nixon in the 'sixties, or Reagan in the 'eighties, or Bush in the Dawn of the 21st Century. It's always been with us.

    That's no excuse to allow it to continue. It's a plea to wise up and not get fooled again.
  11. uhmiloveyou

    uhmiloveyou Member

    So, i'm not sure how much of this i agree with. I'm pro-choice all the way. I believe that as long as you arent doing anything that hurts anyone but yourself than the government shouldnt be envolved. We. as a country, have so many other VERY important things besides abortions and weed to deal with . I think that you should be able to smoke and do drugs as long as it doesnt interfear with your ability to do your job. I also think as long as you dont drive there isnt really a difference between drugs and alcohol. I hope this all made some kind of sense i'm really out of it right now. Let me know if you disagree with any of what i believe
  12. I think we pretty much agree, Uhmiloveyou. You might've said a couple of things I'd like to pin down a little bit:
    Even if it does, that's none of the government's business. That should be between you and your employer.
    Regarding driving though, there's a big difference: alcohol impairs your driving much, much worse than most illegal drugs do. During the Nixon administration, there was a government study that indicated drivers are more cautious after smoking pot. So the government covered up its own study!

    Please note: I said MOST illegal drugs. I'm not saying it's cool to drive on acid or anything. But amphetamines improve performance, unless you've gone overboard and are all strung out. Cocaine clearly doesn't mess you up as badly as booze, unless we're talking about long-term effects on habitual users. Opiates aren't even that bad, compared to a slurring, falling-down drunk.

    The law has nothing whatsoever to do with reality. It's become a game of "gotcha."
  13. gardener

    gardener Realistic Humanist

    Hey how many times have the american public been sold on new law because it supposedly was going to save them money. Now in California anyone under 18 has to wear a helmet when riding a bicycle. Did your insurance rates go down? Mine didn't. And it's really hard when its 105 degrees out to convince a 10 year old that wearing a helmet for a one block ride pays off. But the helmet manufacturers and the insurance companies made a bundle on this bill.

    The only one I ever knew of that got hurt on a bike while I was growing up when I was a kid was my brother and he broke his big toe, would a helmet help that?
  14. believe

    believe Hip Forums Supporter HipForums Supporter

    I agree R. August Croen (is there something I can call you for short?)...to a certain extent. The issue of property concerns me a bit. When you say hands off my property I'm assuming you mean the government, is that correct? I live in an area where there is a fairly large homeless population and there is also a fairly large richer-than-need-be population. I don't believe that a person who lives alone should have a 14-bedroom house while others are forced to sleep under a bridge. No one is free while others are enslaved and no one should be poor while others have more.
  15. Thanks, Believe. Just call me RAC, everybody does. And yes, I did mean government when I said "Hands off my body; Hands off my property; Hands off my spiritual faith."

    I respect where your heart is when you say, "I don't believe that a person who lives alone should have a 14-bedroom house while others are forced to sleep under a bridge," but I think we might disagree about that somewhat. I don't have a problem with a person living alone in a 14-bedroom house; I do have a problem with a society that doesn't care for its most unfortunate citizens.

    I'll cop to being a supporter of capitalism, simply because I can't envision a system that works any better. Communism and socialism have a fatal flaw: they both depend on government to re-distribute wealth. If there's any entity I trust less than Big Business to distribute wealth fairly, it's Big Government.

    I don't have a problem with people working harder than average and earning more than average; I do have a problem with a system that protects those at the top of the heap, helps them stay on top through legislative action and other means, and ignores those who have fallen through the cracks in the system.

    I have a problem with large systems, period. I think things would get a lot better if we simply eliminated campaign contributions altogether and gave each candidate equal resources to conduct his or her campaign. Nobody could spend one cent more than anybody else. Let them state their positions on a website created for the purpose. I don't even care to know the candidates' sex.

    Ronald Reagan promised us "small government." He lied through his fucking teeth. I saw it then, and I see it now. When Republicans say "small government," they generally mean "small" in the sense that it leaves big business virtually unregulated and does as little as possible for the poor, but they mean HUGE GOVERNMENT when it comes to denying a woman the freedom to have a legal abortion, or being able to kick in your door because you're smoking pot in your own home.

    I do believe in small government, but I don't believe there's a politician in federal office (with the possible exception of Representative Ron Paul) who does.
  16. believe

    believe Hip Forums Supporter HipForums Supporter

    Interesting. So if I understand you correctly, RAC, you support capitalism because it works, but you despise Big Government...aren't they one and the same? I feel that capitalism is a vehicle for Big Government. If we define Big Government as government run by a few upper-class, older, white males, they are also the ones who benefit most from our capitalist economy. I agree that communism and socialism are flawed, but the idea that everyone would have what they needed and no one had what was unnecessary seems pretty perfect to me.

    Also, how are we defining capitalism? I'm of the opinion that if someone gets hurt during any process then it's unsuccessful and an alternative needs to be found. The United States and every other country with capitalism as their operating have damaged lives throughout their history. How's that saying go? An' it harm none do as you will.

    I would also agree that a system that lets its most vulnerable citizens go ignored and fall through the cracks, as you say, is in need of serious repair. But is it only the fault of the system, Big Government? I understand that the government makes the rules, but they're not the only ones with resources and opinions. There are individuals in our society who are in a position to help such unfortunate individuals yet they do not. Why is that? Perhaps because they would prefer to live in their 14-bedroom homes and take vacations to exotic places with their well earned cash. Props to those who make a living and bust their butts doing it, I mean no disrespect there, but what is it about our cultural ethos, world ethos even, that makes ignoring our problems okay? The problems in this country and on this planet are not just the problems of our government, they are our problems as well. We are just as responsible.
  17. I want to come back and give my response to your post the attention it deserves, but I have a social engagement tonight. But in a word, no. They're not. That's just the point to which we've allowed things to fall in the U.S., but it doesn't have to be that way, any more than religion and government have to be one and the same.

    In fact, I think the farther apart business and government are kept, the better. That's why I like the idea of banning private campaign contributions altogether, and making candidates draw equally from a public fund.
  18. bamboo

    bamboo Hip Forums Supporter HipForums Supporter

    A great many religions are guilty of that...in fact most have at one time or another pretty much been regular assholes to the people they subjugated, conqured, controlled, lived next to or lived in peace with until they decided to not live in peace with them. Even the Buddhists, who have the cleanest track record of all have still forced their stuff down the throats of others at one time or another (the overthrow of sri lanka a few centuries ago comes to mind). History is full of this stuff...or rather History is really just the record of this stuff throughout the world.
  19. believe

    believe Hip Forums Supporter HipForums Supporter

    Thanks for taking your time responding to me, RAC. Here's another question for you (and anyone else): how well do you think capitalism would do without the support of Big Government?
  20. YEM36313

    YEM36313 Member

    I think that what we can ALL agree on is that every system thus-far has been flawed- especially our own. No- capitalism could not survive without the support of big government because they are contingent upon eachother. We definately live in a world of fragmentation- we see what we choose to see. It is much easier for people to go with the flow and do as they're told. As people, though, we forget that we have the power to choose. So while one person may see a free country, I see an oppressed society. I see that we can do better, and i think that we would all agree on that. That in and of itself is the "American Spirit." We came to this country as imigrants- why? To do better. And now that we are here, and now that we are comfortable, we might as well be any other struggling country. Nothing has changed in years, in fact, its all gotten worse. The hippie culture is more critized now than it ever has been by the fact that people try their best not to even acknowledge its existence. It is an up hill battle, and we are faced with an enormous task. The 60's aren't dead, the love is not dead, but it seems anymore, that people are too scared to open up. Or perhaps we are all just at a cross-roads, where we have to act, but we don't know what to do. I believe that love can win, but i am not sure that you will find it in an open forum any time soon...

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice