Hitler did not commit the attrocities during his reign, to include the Holocaust
He issued decrees called "laws" and had those who willingly obeyed. His enforcers, the police and military, carried out the orders and committed those evil acts. So, who was more morally culpable, Hitler or his enforcers?https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/german-police-in-the-nazi-statehttps://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/adolf-hitler-1
It seems like many people on the planet will do things that they know are wrong but, they are told that they have an obligation to do them. This is something that is not a comfortable thing to think about because it involves a guilty conscience. Sometimes a person will look at what they have done and supported in their life, realizing that they have been/done wrong. This is why the Truth can hurt so much, yet, if they decide to change this then, their life might turn around for the better. There is an old quote from one Edmund Burke that is perhaps familiar, paraphrased: "The only way for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing."
While that qoute is true many decent people may not realize that they are involved in evil acts themselves. An experiment from the 1960's showed that people tend to blindly obey 'authority'; it was called the Stanley Milgram experiment, which, you can find actual footage of on Youtube. I believe it was something like 60-80% of participants continued to do what they were told, even though things were not as they seemed at the begining.
So what is your answer to the question: Do you have a moral obligation to do what your own judgment tells you is wrong or bad?
A question people do not stop to consider, especially, when it comes to politics. This is the first question with more to follow.
This is an edited and updated version of the question I presented. The responses so far seem to not really understand what I am asking so, I will clarify by asking the same question, but worded differently:
If there is something that is morally wrong for you to do (such as, committing murder, theft, robbery, rape, assault or fraud), can you make it okay or 'right' for someone else to do it?
This video is from the middle east so the people are talking in their native tongue. But the footage is curious because it does appear to be a cloud, yet, falls to the ground and does not evaporate in the three minutes or so of video. The quality is not the greatest:
There are many misperceptions on what "anarchy" actually is. The original meaning of the word means "without ruler(s)." But through many centuries it has taken many different meanings. Those who claim to be anarchist today are more in line with the original meaning. The video presented here explains and shows what "Anarchy" is not. I ask that the video be viewed in full before any arguments for or against are posted; it is about twenty minutes. Here it is:
Please give a definition (in your own words). Can 'government' be legitimate? Please refer to the video.
Many will argue that we need 'government' or we would have chaos and disorder, but what really keeps this from happening? Many think that we need some sort of 'ruling class' to tell us what to do or not do with our lives. There are those who argue that this is a country "ruled by law", but whose laws?
The term simply means "absence of government". Most folks, no matter where they see themselves on the political spectrum, do not see themselves or the position they hold as being wrong. In fact, the reason people vote is because they believe their candidate will do things they think should be done, not thinking that they are forcing the other guy to pay or support such things they may find morally wrong; and that other guy does the same things.
Here is a political quiz of a different sort. Instead of placing from left to right; liberal, conservative, or libertarian, it goes from one extreme to the other and scores on degrees. So, on the extreme Right would be Anarchy and the extreme Left would be Authoritarian. If you are up to it, take the quiz then post your score and defend your position. On the same site it explains each question.
Here is the link:
This is the 4th of July. The celebration of the Declaration of Independence in the united States of America. There has been much debate on what rights are and if they actually exist. I hold that there is a difference between privileges and rights. In the Bill of Rights, these were simply laid out as restrictions against what the 'government' was not to infringe upon.
If the 'rights' laid out in the Declaration of Independence and The Bill of Rights that followed some years later, do not exist, then, everything that anyone claims to have a right to do, even claim to protect themselves or speak there mind, are only privileges given by the 'government'. "The 'lordgovernment giveth and the lordgovernment taketh away'."
So, which is it?
It has been said that there are two types of people in the world, those who seek to dominate and those who seek only to be left alone. Specifically, those who like to dominate and control others will tend to gravitate towards, or even seek out, positions of power.
Then, there are those who do not attempt to dominate, but would rather live their own life and let, even preferring that their "neighbor(s)" live his/hers/theirs. This does not negate situations or circumstances that arise that may require someone to take the lead; such as, parenting and/or survival/emergency scenerios, etc.
There are many who are in favor of has been called “gun control” and/or all out prohibition/banishment. They claim to be advocating the abolishment of what they refer to as “gun-violence and/or gun-crime”. Yet, there is a track record down throughout history, much of it occurring in the last one hundred years, of personal disarmament first, then, mass homicide a.k.a. “genocide” and “democide”; the latter defined as “death by Government.” As defined in the link: http://www.mega.nu/ampp/rummel/dbg.chap2.htm
There seems to be a pattern showing that it is not wise to give up personal possession of firearms in the name of some noble sounding, yet, largely naïve cause or because government people and politicians said to. The ones who give in to such demands had, do, and will suffer. The distinct possibility of losing their life after turning over their firearms can be seen in the chart link here:
All of this being said is it “better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it?”
A florida woman is facing eviction because she is attempting to live "off the grid". She was found to be in violation of city ordinance, which is bad enough, but what about the "International Property Maintenance Code?" That sounds like the U.N. Agenda 21; they changed the name, though.
My question is: because these "codes, regulations and laws exist" does that mean she must comply or be deemed a criminal? Or could the local "authority" let it go and leave her alone? She is just one of many who are attempting to become more independent and self-sufficient. Are they "criminals", too? The Judge said he did not agree with the "laws", but he has no choice and must enforce them. Really? That sounds like a weak excuse and certainly not acting in accordance with his own judgement.
Robin Speronis, a 54-year-old former real estate agent currently living in Cape Coral in a small duplex, has her own solar panels and collects rain water for her needs, She has even installed a simple outdoor shower in order to be independent from the municipal energy and water supply. The local power company and water supply surely have a hand in the Special Magistrate Harold S. Eskin’s ruling that, although the regulations for her city are redundant and unreasonable, she was in violation of city code as well as the International Property Maintenance Code.
Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/women-fights-sovereignty-judge-declares-living-grid-illegal/#ixzz2vOhwEgTg Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook
So, is she wrong?