PDA

View Full Version : Martin Luther King with modern government




Promontorium
01-18-2010, 12:19 PM
I imagine and hope this point has been made many times, but on this day I'm going to spam it all over the internet.

Just imagine. If today's government were functioning in the 60s. Rosa Parks refuses to get off the bus. They arrest her. 26 year old unknown Martin Luther King Jr. joins the struggle, emerging as the leader of the subsequent bus boycott.

The bus, deprived of its income from the oppressed poor caste of people is hemorrhaging money.

U.S. government sees the crisis, bails out the bus companies, with tax payer money coming from the poor.

Civil Rights Movement dies.




As long as our government is willing to subvert our rights, we can not make this world a better place.

People choose Microsoft, government splits the company in half, within weeks the dot coms realize if Microsoft can't succeed, no one can, dot coms all go belly up, America enters recession leading up to 9/11.

People choose not to fly after 9/11, government spents billions bailing out the airline companies. Companies still go out of business, and to this day are still going out of business. Recession continues, now accusing 9/11 as the culprit.

Housing market collapses, people lose faith in ownership, banks lose faith in loans. $1 trillion pledged in bailouts, deepest recession in decades, car companies get bailouts, not one dime goes to the homeless, the laid off, or those, like me who got royally fucked by the housing crash and barely escaped penniless. Entire cities and states experience 20% + unemployment. Reference the worst point in great depression, 25% unemployment.

I just wonder, how many dreams, how many ideas or solutions to modern problems have been destroyed by the government and its bailouts. As South Park famously mocked the government at the time, perhaps better solutions have been viable, but the government crushed them to support their investments in the failing institutions of old.

Maybe there was a better plane, or a better system for global transit, but the government refused the competition, as the only monopolies the government allows are the ones they make.

Maybe there was a better car, but the usual suspects would never let it see the light of day, thank god they were bailed out.

I am in no way trying to delineate the heroic efforts of Martin Luther King Jr. Perhaps nothing would have stopped him from what he accomplished. But I honestly can't see anything productive, anything new, anything good, coming out of this country, culturally or economically as long as this nation is held hostage by cycles of failure and government bailouts. This is exactly what people criticize communism for, the idea that 'now' is the best we can do, so we must expend plans for tomorrow for the good of today.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
01-18-2010, 12:38 PM
I imagine and hope this point has been made many times, but on this day I'm going to spam it all over the internet.

Just imagine. If today's government were functioning in the 60s. Rosa Parks refuses to get off the bus. They arrest her. 26 year old unknown Martin Luther King Jr. joins the struggle, emerging as the leader of the subsequent bus boycott.

The bus, deprived of its oppressed poor caste of people is hemorrhaging money.

U.S. government sees the crisis, bails out the bus companies.

Civil Rights Movement dies.

The Civil Rights Movement was only a true movement because it returned our nation to the Truth. If not, then it was a false movement. In other words, the only true American movements are those that return our nation to the natural law declared by our Founding Fathers, the self evident and unalienable Truth that our nation was founded on and, as a result, the new Formal-Culture that all Americans live by. The real important matter to focus on here is the Civil Purpose the new Formal-Culture of the people and how it should always supercede every legal precedence established by the tyranny of past traditions and future occurences yet to happen.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
01-18-2010, 12:54 PM
-Rousseau-
"I prefer liberty with danger than peace with slavery."

-Locke-
"The state of nature has a Law of Nature to govern it... that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions."

-Hobbes-
"The right of nature... is the liberty each man hath to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life."

In regards to Rousseau, the Fullness and the Almighty Lord Jesus Christ said that "The Truth will set you free." Not danger.
In regards to Locke, a law of nature is physical. This means a natural right reduces down to become a physical part of our Dna. This makes a natural right greater than a civil right. Anyone in violation of a natural right is subject to God's judgement. While Rousseau moved people with his essays, Locke is the foundation.
In regards to Hobbes, most people are part of the woman. This woman is a mystery in that she is a prostitute representing the prostituted (just meditate for a moment on the fact that the Almighty's mother was treated as a prostitute by the Jewish people). As "we the people," our only hope is for a marriage to a necessary tyranny just as the prostitutes only hope is for a marriage to a necessary tyrant (husband). Such a marriage will give her a face with a face representing authority. Therefore, in marriage is equality in that the veil is lifted from the wife's face.
But her power is very limited just as our power is also very limited as "we the people." When the people fall for the suggestion that we should use power that we don't have, we falter.

Promontorium
01-19-2010, 12:43 AM
In regards to Rousseau
In regards to Locke
In regards to Hobbes.

I've found it fascinating how these three people stand out for their classic compare/contrast nature (even to the point that each compared and contrasted himself to the previous).

They didn't all start from the same point, as we can only theorize about a past where only fragments remain. They most definitely didn't finish in the same place.

But, quite easily, quite naturally, they all agreed about the observable/objective truths in this reality of ours.

I really like that. Because if people can not at least start from a foundation of understanding about the objective world we live in, there's little hope for understanding each other's subjective or theoretical ideas about the past and the future.

Thank you both for your comments.