Due to the prolific nature of these forums, poster aggression is advised.
We should be fragmenting more governmentally. Not moving towards a world government. I've read excerpts from this book and now plan to get it now that it's in reprint. Why should I have some Europeans in The Hague telling me how to live my life in Willow Glen, CA?
*blushes*You know, the book of Judgism does say "Thou shall always make an effort when making serious replies in the intraweb". Perhaps you would like to learn more about Judgism?
Then as one entity(the world) we could allocate resources to where they need to be and re-arrange things a bit to be more suited to peaceful relations..
The plan ...
2 things..I almost completely agree with Derry. I think the government knows what its doing. I think there are meetings going on behind closed doors that are forming relations and giving corporations more power. I think the US government is in for a BIG downfall in the next 20-30 years. The world will be changed in that time. Maybe the US will sell itself out completely to corporations just for profit.. My question is where the hell can I go to get away from the problems the US is creating for itself because I, for one, am ashamed of this government and hows its run, and 2, I want NO NO part in trying to help the gov solve its problem it created for itself by paying more taxes or giving more liberities or persona freedom to the system???
Second..I didn't read the whole presidental speech link, but I looked at the last line which says "May He guide us now. And may God continue to bless the United States of America. (Applause.)" I just find this bullshit, if I may say. Isn't that just a form of bias? Shouldn't there be seperation of god(in any form) and state? Should religion be able to be brought up in state speeches, like praise god, or bless us all... I for one am spiritual, but not religious. I think this is a form of bible thumping(which seems to be what the US is about these days)..
And 3rd..I believe in a system like "1984." I think its totalitarism, a system where people are either to scared to question authority or are completely brainwashed not to. The thing with this is that this system does work, but it could be run correctly, run right, and still be that way. The other problem is corruption. There would need to be a system setup to void any corruption, under penalty of extreme death...Personally, I would probably rather rule by fear then by hope..
I bet there are plenty of people on this forum who hate the government, but don't want to jepordize their own pay stubs by doing anything radical, because they're making good money and watching out for their own self interest.
Here.I'm a loudmouth about my opinions on government and politics, but only where appropriate. I don't discuss religion or politics at work because it's unprofessional and frankly detrimental to a positive work environment. I wouldn't want to be one to be the cause of that.Some of that is admittedly self-interest -- my views on religion and politics are not what most would consider "mainstream", and I know how some people react to those of my particular world views. Evonus, you are probably as aware as I am how many religious people will treat you differently once they discover that you're an infidel.Though I'm nowhere near "ashamed" of my beliefs, I don't like that being the topic for general conversation where I work. It makes people uncomfortable. People are touchy about religion, and since so much politics these days is hopelessly intertwined with the subject of religion ( ), I avoid that as well.So it's not all about self-interest. It's also just being considerate.
Well, but I mean you could've gone on strike in response to Bush's reelection or became a protestor and such, but you'd rather live a comfortable life and try to let the system work itself out, and that's how most people are.
There is a nifty system that I think deserves a chance, and Anarchy is her name. I'm very interested to see what the result would be if people were left to their own devices (my personal theory is that eventually government would re-assert itself as the natural leaders take control, unless the government that fell sucked so bad that kids were taught that it sucked so they never made it again).
<snip>Not to mention everyone would basically have to resort to farming(which wouldn't work well in areas where there is concrete.) <snip>
I think the human race would die out, because someone would release some toxic chemical, or set off a nuke, or release an uncureable plague upon us all. Not to mention everyone would basically have to resort to farming(which wouldn't work well in areas where there is concrete.) Also, all knowledge and everything that was built over the last 7000 years or whatever would be forgotten or destroyed in favour of survival.Seriously, no offense to you, but when people propose anarchy, I really want to slap them. When anarchy did exist was when homo sapien-sapiens were first comming into existance. They had no knowledge to pass on, they hadn't reshaped the earth yet, and they hadn't made weapons that could kill billions and torch the planet into a wasteland in mere seconds.
Firstly, there's enough danger of some maniac letting loose a doomsday device already, just watch the news if you don't believe me...governments aren't helping there.
Excuse me? Governements are intervening every day in various ways. Just watch the news if you don't beleive me. Perhaps most professions could keep going under anarchy, but there would be serious changes in how they actually work and these woudl not be positive changes. Under Anarchy, there are no regulations to protect consumers. It's the jungle out there and the strong will crush the weak. With anarchy, coalitions of individuals take over and fairness and transparency isn't their motives. This is an envrionement where the mafia, for example, can really exercice influence and control. People cannot individually self-regulate the world in a fair manner. I'm not saying governement are 100% fair, but they are certainly pressured to do so and are closely watched both by their citizens and by other governements. In Anarchy, who's going to pressure criminal organizations? You?How does global anarchy affect global economy? If the stock market is influenced by certain groups who consitenlty perform illegal transactions (which wouldn't be illegal under anarchy, but highly unfair to everyone regardless), then do you think intelligent people will have any interest in investing in the stock market in the long run, when they keep getting screwed over and over? Will anarchy lead to the collapse of our global economy? If so, that would also lead to the closure of thousands of businesses, job cuts, salary cuts, and record high unemployement rates. Victims of this situation would have no choice but to turn to unfair practices such as theft and murder to survive in your crazy world.How does anarchy influence international trade? Will countires still be able to rally together and sanction imports and exports, use tarrifs and other means as a way to influence decision makers who lead other countries? Will any country leaders be able to do as they please, without regards for their citizens, without regard for the world?Don't forget that even if there are no governements in place, their will always be leaders in place and there is no way to change that. If those leaders have "carte blanche", then anarchy will lead to violence, and war. Under those conditions, Anarchy cannot exist for a long period of time because when people are treated unfairly, they revolt, they form groups, they take control and you eventually end back to some form of governement. During that process, countless innocent individuals suffer and die, which in turn fuels generations of hatred, stereotype, and racism.Many governments have limitations and they are subject to laws. We have a legal system in place that allows for a single person to challenge governement actions. You won't have these control systems in place with anarchy.If you're just throwing the word anarchy around because you think it's cool, then don't bother. If you care to illustrate with examples how anarchy would be a positive system and how it would enhance our quality of life, then please do so.
This statement implies that business would cease to exist. Why do you think that?
Also, I don't see why everyone would need to be farmers, I think most professions could keep going with no government.
Interestingly, your second paragraph seems to sort of negate the first. I'd hardly regard the reshaping of the earth, or the development of giant weapons as being good things, or in any way indicative of a sound and advanced society.
Because it would collapse from the ground up. Why would any cashier just not clean out their cash register at the end of the day? What's to stop me from walking into a bank, and killing everyone in there and taking all they have to offer. What's to stop me from killing my neighbors and taking their land? Absolutley nothing. In all reality, I work in a chemical plant, what's to stop the whole bunch of us from going to work one day, and holding the city ransom, saying unless they pay us X amount of money we dump all our toxic chemicals into the river. The system would collapse in a week. lol, fox news told me about the bad people. But seriously, governments very rarely hold the world for ransom at the price of destroying their competitors, but with no real groups to regulate them individuals could. The only maniac to ever detonate a doomsday device was Harry S. Truman.So every farmer in a region forms a cartel and starts charging 500 dollars for an ear of corn. How are you going to deal with that? You'd have to be a farmer as well, and that would force everyone back to farming.Well whether they are good or not is up for debate. I consider both to be good, but we don't need to get into that; however, I never said they were good in my previous post. I just said that anarchy worked in the caveman days, but won't now because the world has changed so much due to human development.
What is stopping you from doing any of those things NOW? All the police departments are is a mass of people with weapons.
The very fact that all those things could and WOULD happen in anarchy would just hasten the sense of responsability that the population would soon feel to band together for their mutual protection.
One of the best things about a society with no rulers is that people would indeed be free to do whatever the hell they pleased. With this ability comes the freedom to not give half a shit about money whatsoever.I'd be willing to bet that after a while, people would realize that money isn't real at all and would cease caring about it.
There are people who, for one reason or another, just love farming for no particular reason at all, and would happily do that if given the opportunity, so not everyone would have to.
You're forgetting one crucial thing. They are coordinated. A bunch of citizens with guns can not hope to compete with a vast network of law enforcement. I mean I could rob a jewlery store and flee the neighborhood, and once I got outside a certain radius the word would never travel fast enough and I would be a free man. You don't seem to understand or appreciate the very delicate network of careers that blend together to make a society. There are some unfortunate leeches on the system who contribute little, but the basic idea still stands that everyone does a job and all together these jobs work and coordinate in unison to make society. But they never would. You'd either end up with some sort of a mafia, which would lead the world back into fuedalism over time, or you would have complete and utter chaos, because people don't care about each other, they only care about themselves and their offspring. They would just as soon kill each other as cooperate to get ahead. I know what you're saying, in the long run if everyone cooperated we would have a utopia, but people don't think long term, especially not when faced with starvation.And without money things wouldn't work period. What would you use as a medium of exchange? Bartering? That doesn't work large scale. If you didn't use anything, and just expected people to work just to keep society going I'd say you're gravely mistaken. No one would work. The vast majority of people would just try to live without doing anything to contribute to see if they could get away with it.Yes, but they, like everyone, would want to get something out of it. Right now farmers can't organize, and farming is heavily controlled and subsidized. If farmers could organize, do you realize how much you'd have to give up to get food. Nothing is more important than food in the long term. They would hold the keys to survival. We would all be at the mercy of farmers, unless we all took it upon ourselves to farm.
The very fact that all those things could and WOULD happen in anarchy would just hasten the sense of responsability that the population would soon feel to band together for their mutual protection. One of the best things about a society with no rulers is that people would indeed be free to do whatever the hell they pleased. With this ability comes the freedom to not give half a shit about money whatsoever.
I'd be willing to bet that after a while, people would realize that money isn't real at all and would cease caring about it.
Firstly, thank you very much for taking the time to consider my points, I appreciate it very much.
My ideal Anarchist community is based primarily on a modified version of what I know of Native Americans (autochtones, indians, whatever you call them nowaday, pre-European contact), Hutterites, the Amish, and similar things. Yes, those all had leaders of one sort or another, but I think the primary thing that they had going for them is the overwhelming sense of family and togetherness.In these societies, everyone has/had something to do. If somebody was seriously disruptive and destructive to the community, the community tends to all pitch in to find what's wrong and how to help this person. If they can't be helped, they're exiled to somewhere where they can't hurt anyone.If anarchy were implimented in the correct manner, I believe that people could go back to realizing that we're all just a truckload of monkey flying on a wet ball of mud through a void, and we'd all do well to help each other out. It HAS been done before, and I think it could be done again. Most of the population (around 98% I'd say) is unready for that sort of thinking, self-serving beings we are these days, but who knows.
That is the true key and advantage to such a system. If everyone cared about everyone else's well being, the community would never allow someone to go hungry or any such thing. Every person would be the police, blah blah blah.
As for the first comment about bank robbery, you've got the right idea. The police are well trained, armed, and organized monkeys to be sure, but this can also be a weakness. A bunch of riled up citizens with guns could be found and stopped, but only if they were a true organization, that is, in communication with each other, and aware of each other's actions. A movement on the other hand, where each member follows the general idea, but each operates autonomously, could keep going. The members need never even meet one another, simply being aware of their comrades' existance could be enough to keep them going. This serves the dual point of never allowing an individual member to realize the movement's true size, or anything else that could be useful to the authorities.
We've never seen the police stopped in this country.
Total Members: 4951