Do we need to control?

[raynetwilight]

In the end I believe this thread is an illusion towards politics and will soon become taboo, but nonetheless I will say this:

Control often equals an established government, which we DO need. But all of this should indeed be set up so that no man need be afraid of another man...or woman.

In most of today's cultures, govt. is set up in the opposite direction and everyone gives away their civil liberties because they're afraid of what people will do if they don't.

Everyone needs a line drawn in the sand, everyone needs boundaries, but such things shouldn't resemble 'control' so much as guidelines.

America, for example, is supposed to be a free country, but they seem to have more law preventing said freedoms than most any other country and govt. This such control isn't keeping people safe or happy, it's keeping the govt happy.

So I say, not control, guidelines.

[Wildor]

You know folks, something must be made clear here.

When we put politics in the unallowed subjects, we mean politics in the concrete, newsworthy, partisan, national, patriotic sense.

Politics in the abstract, by which I mean more political science and theory, and in it's general application is very much allowed.

The object, always, is to avoid potential explosions in the forum.

[FatZero]

Here are two quick examples:

1) Wounded Knee Massacre

On December 29, 1890, 365 troops of the US 7th Cavalry, supported by four Hotchkiss guns, surrounded an encampment of Miniconjou (Lakota) and Hunkpapa Sioux (Lakota) near Wounded Knee Creek, South Dakota. The Army had orders to escort the Sioux to the railroad for transport to Omaha, Nebraska. One day earlier, the Sioux had been cornered and agreed to turn themselves in at the Pine Ridge Agency in South Dakota. They were the very last of the Sioux to do so. They were met by the 7th Cavalry, who intended to disarm them and ensure their compliance.

During the process of disarming the Sioux, a deaf tribesman named Black Coyote could not hear the order to give up his rifle and was reluctant to do so. A scuffle over Black Coyote's rifle escalated into an all-out battle, with those few Sioux warriors who still had weapons shooting at the 7th Cavalry, and the 7th Cavalry opening fire indiscriminately from all sides, killing men, women, and children, as well as some of their own fellow troopers. The 7th Cavalry quickly suppressed the Sioux fire, and the surviving Sioux fled, but US cavalrymen pursued and killed many who were unarmed.

By the time it was over, about 146 men, women, and children of the Lakota Sioux had been killed.

2) Amritsar Massacre

The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, alternatively known as the Amritsar Massacre, was named after the Jallianwala Bagh (Garden) in the northern Indian city of Amritsar where, on April 13, 1919, 90 British Indian Army soldiers under the command of Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer opened fire on an unarmed gathering of men, women and children. The firing lasted for 10 to 15 minutes, until the soldiers ran out of ammunition. Official British Raj sources placed the fatalities at 379, and with 1100 wounded. Civil Surgeon Dr. Smith indicated that there were 1,526 casualties.

These two massacres both were a result of land control problems. The Sioux were forced off their land because the US wanted to control its land.

The Indians were killed, peacefully trying to take back their land.

Now I ask you, do we need to control? Is there a need deep in our subconcious to know everything that happens? To make everything happen?

This has nothing to do with control, and everything to do with rich, white, christian, wealthy, land owners

You know folks, something must be made clear here.

When we put politics in the unallowed subjects, we mean politics in the concrete, newsworthy, partisan, national, patriotic sense.

Politics in the abstract, by which I mean more political science and theory, and in it's general application is very much allowed.

The object, always, is to avoid potential explosions in the forum.

And Gay panic!!

[Heraclius]

i beg to differ
too much controle is just as bad as none at all. too much controle by out side partys and not of ones own self is more dangorus then anything man has yet come up with. to excersize such tight controle over another human being that it has no power to express its own will, will stifle and kill the essence of it. it will then become a mindless drone, just another ant in the hill doing the bidding of its master as placidly as a robot.

To this point I must say that it is just going on to support my point. As is evidenced by many leaders in this world, dictatorial or otherwise, they will ignore the people of their country when they reach their state of power. Which goes back to the whole agressive imperfect race ideal I mentioned above.

i am not advocating a compleet lack of social niceaties, or a chaotic state with no government of any kind, but nether do i belife that more controlle from outside forces will solve any of the worlds problems.
those who feel oppressed will always find their voices. i dont remember if it was a book, movie, or vidoe game where i heard this quote but it stuck in my head and buzzed in my brain untill i woke up and knew that it was right.

Yes, I've heard the quote as well. But why do the people rebel against the dictator? Control of course. While it is a different kind of control, it is still a quest, often violent, to gain control. Now by control I don't mean control over our lives, I rather mean control over others. Often the revolutionary leaders that overthrow the dicator take over, and become dictators themselves. And the cycle often repeats itself until either

A) The people take up arms as a whole and establish a new government themselves
or
B) An outside power interviens [again, seeking control and/or security. Almost never do you see America or others invading a country for the sole reason of helping the oppressed people, though they often say that is the case].

So while I do agree that too much control over a nation is bad for the people in it, that point does not accurately debate my claim. People will still seek power, often through means adverse to those around them. And this power and control seeking is a result of millions of years of evolution, and will hopefully be purged from the human mind in a million more.

It is my opinion that we cannot rise to our full potential while these agressive instincts remain in place. Either we will be locked in purpetual war and waste all of our resources, or destroy ourselves with our vast array of nuclear weapons [which as I said in a thread I made previously, it would only take 100, detonated anywhere in the world, to do this].

In the end I believe this thread is an illusion towards politics and will soon become taboo, but nonetheless I will say this:

Control often equals an established government, which we DO need. But all of this should indeed be set up so that no man need be afraid of another man...or woman.

In most of today's cultures, govt. is set up in the opposite direction and everyone gives away their civil liberties because they're afraid of what people will do if they don't.

Everyone needs a line drawn in the sand, everyone needs boundaries, but such things shouldn't resemble 'control' so much as guidelines.

America, for example, is supposed to be a free country, but they seem to have more law preventing said freedoms than most any other country and govt. This such control isn't keeping people safe or happy, it's keeping the govt happy.

So I say, not control, guidelines.

I agree, Governments in an ideal situation should be created to serve and protect the people, not the other way around. Unfortunantly the human mindset makes that nearly impossible at the moment, which is why there are so many dictatorships and Stalinistic "communisms". It isn't a few corrupt individuals, a majority of people, despite what kind of people they are, will often conduct themselves in a similar way when in that position. Power and Control have a way of corrupting even the purest of individuals, which is a sad fact when taken into account the vast amount of already corrupt people taking office.

[TheCookiesareNeverFree]

i'm not arguing that the race of humanity will not seek control, i did in fact agree with you on that point as you said. what i AM arguing is weather or not we as individuals should hand over control of our lives to someone else. knowing the state our race is in, i believe that it is a bad idea. should that change, and change for the better, should avarice, greed, and selfishness be removed from humanities common traits, then one could trust ones leaders more and allow them to control more things
ideologically i believe in so******m. but i am cynical enough to see that it will never work so long as what christanity calls 'the natural man' still exists within us.

[hochunknation]

i'm not arguing that the race of humanity will not seek control, i did in fact agree with you on that point as you said. what i AM arguing is weather

That's a good point. Should we be controlling the weather more so?

China does it. Are we going to let them get the jump on us even further in the weather manipulation racket? I'd hate to see the rest of the world fall victim to a massive weather control technology gap between China and the rest of the world.

[Brooke ♥♥]

A good part of the world has fell technologically behind the U.S.
A gap would just create more reasons for other parts of the world to focus on that certain area more to catch up with other countries..........

[Rodri]

Why do I get a shiver down my spine when Americans start talking about control?

By the way, the USA is not so technologically superior to any other developed nation. New technologies and ideas come from all over the world and are shared, with free nations deciding to adopt them or not based on the interest and concerns raised by their populations.

If anything, the average American is less informed about the world and world events than the peoples of most other first world nations. I am not American bashing. It's just a fact of life.

[hochunknation]

Yeah, what was the last great technological innovation America had to offer the world?

The Segway?

[Brooke ♥♥]