It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Pox on Representative Politics! It Is A Poison To Society! Anarchy Is The Answer!

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by DietJoke
 


If those that don't agree with you are not human then what are they?

Also are saying that slaves that where brought here from Africa and elsewhere we're not human and their offspring are not humans?


And




posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ColCurious
 



Until the reasonable man gets really hungry.


This is very true!


When that happens they lose their humanity and become slaves or monsters and it is a very hard road back from that ... nigh on impossible!


But if there was only reasonable men and women to deal with, then there is easily enough land for all 7+billion of us to each possess at the minimum an acre of good land.


A reasonable man can live comfortably off of one acre of land!

I shall read up on Minarchism!

Thank you!



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 



Unfortunately you can't trust humans to adhere to anarchy. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


You can always trust a reasonable conscientious human being!

What you are calling human is really monsters and slaves and neither of them meet the criteria to be human!

Now if you have trouble discerning who is a monster, slave or a human being then you indeed are in a wild situation and I can only reasonable and conscientiously suggest that peoples actions speak louder than their words and to take people at their word until their actions become unreasonable and then kill them with good reason.

It is simply self defense at that level and here is why ...

www.un.org...


Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,


Again Anarchy means no rulers NOT no rules!


Now ...


The biggest problem with implementing Anarchism is the way to enforce it, which is a contradiction in terms.


... There is no need to enforce Anarchy at all as it is made up of a body of reasonable conscientious human beings who can consult each other to come to a commonly held agreement between those parties!

What needs enforcing is keeping out the wild monsters and the slavery!



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   

SubTruth
reply to post by DietJoke
 





In real life people would rather live under Fascism then Anarchy if they truly lived both. Why? In Fascism the weaker can still survive under anarchy the weak all parish until only the strongest survive.



After only the strongest live they will eat each other alive until nothing is left. Argue all you want this is simple logic and fact.


Again another person confusing no rules with Anarchy!

A reasonable man lives within his needs and as I have said before in the thread we each have 1+ acre of land available as means to survive on and that is quite reasonable.

Habitable land/Number of people= 2.3 Acres a person

So this strong preying on the weak argument is weak sauce! It is fear based!

A reasonable man has little to fear has little to fear from his fellow human beings but should reasonably and conscientiously arm themselves against the monsters and the monsters slave army!



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Bassago
Anarchy is the natural state humans should strive for. I'm proud to consider myself an Anarchist.

Anarchy is the wet-dream of unschooled imbecilic children.

The first time you need:
- - - the roads fixed
- - - the bridges fixed
- - - the criminals captures
- - - the fraud corrected
- - - the schools to hire teachers
- - - the land title checked before buying a house
- - - etc.
you're anarchy pipe dream goes up in a whiff of funny-smelling smoke because no one's willing to pay for any of that, much less organized to figure out how to pay for it.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 




Anarchy is the wet-dream of unschooled imbecilic children. The first time you need:

- - - the roads fixed
- - - the bridges fixed
- - - the criminals captures
- - - the fraud corrected
- - - the schools to hire teachers
- - - the land title checked before buying a house
- - - etc.
you're anarchy pipe dream goes up in a whiff of funny-smelling smoke because no one's willing to pay for any of that, much less organized to figure out how to pay for it.


Well it's my dream and I'll stick to it. I don't need any roads or bridges fixed and don't care about criminals I'll deal myself. Fraud, land and home buying are also meaningless to me at this time in my life. Kids are grown but I did most of their teaching as well, govt teachers are over rated.

I know it's a dream (fantasy more like) but it's mine and nobody can take it. Honestly I think there is a better than even chance humanity may once again live that way if/when we have the economic collapse I expect we will. We'll claw ourselves back up from Mad Max and for a while at least we will have true anarchy. (And maybe more freedom.)

ETA - Ah, testing out the new mud-pit. I see what you did there.

edit on 285am3636am122014 by Bassago because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by DietJoke
 


True anarchy is kill or be killed. I don't get people who say that anarchy is the answer, and worse, sugar-coat it.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Expat888
 



Humanity still has a long way to go before its ready .. currently far too many think theyre leaders and the rest too stupid to think along with not wanting to take responsibility for their own actions .. as to trusting them .. trust no one. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


I think you may mean "trust NOT one" ... as a reasonable man still trusts themselves and their senses to identify monsters and their slaves.

However if you do mean "trust NO one" then you are but another wolf in sheep's clothing!

I ask you for clarity on this matter.

What did you really mean please



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 06:51 AM
link   

DietJoke
reply to post by beezzer
 



I don't trust others to be human.

Sorry.


Then expect the same in return!


So if you do not trust ... you can not expect to be trusted ever anywhere at anytime and that makes one a slave or a monster, neither of which have any rights to speak about human politics ...

.. So why don't you STFU!


I bet I will be telling a lot of slaves and monsters to STFU throughout this thread!


I suppose you could. I have a rather jaded view of humanity though. I guess it may have something to do with age, experience, events in one's life.

I admire people that can still look at humanity and see all that is good in it.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Granite
reply to post by DietJoke
 

Over time, I am slowly seeing Anarchy as an option to personally consider.

The major turning point for was Obama getting re-elected in 2012. A "think tanker" in DC said just before election "yes, we can survive another four years of Obama...but can America survive an electorate that would do it?"

This is why Anarchy is a real option for me and a whole lot of regular Americans.

edit on 7-4-2014 by Granite because: (no reason given)


Thank you ... but I am feeling you are maybe mistaking Revolution for Anarchy ... one comes before the other and they are not the same.

An Anarchist reasonably and conscientiously moves on from war and revolution, as and when required by circumstance, to live life in liberty and the pursuit of happiness!


Where as the Revolutionary selfishly seeks out another bogeyman and another land grab war for profit, power and position!


Revolution is fine and reasonable when the circumstances clearly dictate that as a last resort response to tyranny and oppression, just return to Anarchy when the fighting has finished or one loses their humanity!

I ask you to please clarify whether you meant Anarchy or Revolution?



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 07:13 AM
link   

thesaneone
reply to post by DietJoke
 


If those that don't agree with you are not human then what are they?

Also are saying that slaves that where brought here from Africa and elsewhere we're not human and their offspring are not humans?


And


reply to post by thesaneone
 


I have not pointed fingers at anyone who hasn't already identified themselves as a consequence of their own words which, when measured against the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights charter, betray themselves as a slave or a monster.

And yes that is what I am saying ... slaves are subhuman and don't get a say in human politics!


Here is why .. their executive functions are in the control of their monster slave masters (i.e. they have to follow orders and that does not make a free or fair vote.)

They can of course rebel against their slave masters and possibly regain their humanity! [This happened during the Civil War!]


A reasonable man does not own slaves as it goes against their conscience!

A reasonable man does all they can to end slaves suffering by freeing slaves from bondage by conscientiously identifying and then reasonably killing the monsters that enslave them!



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 07:37 AM
link   

SkepticOverlord

Bassago
Anarchy is the natural state humans should strive for. I'm proud to consider myself an Anarchist.

Anarchy is the wet-dream of unschooled imbecilic children.

The first time you need:
- - - the roads fixed
- - - the bridges fixed
- - - the criminals captures
- - - the fraud corrected
- - - the schools to hire teachers
- - - the land title checked before buying a house
- - - etc.
you're anarchy pipe dream goes up in a whiff of funny-smelling smoke because no one's willing to pay for any of that, much less organized to figure out how to pay for it.


Again, somebody confusing slave and monsters for human beings!

Slaves could not organize to save themselves and couldn't afford to pay for it anyway and that is very unreasonable!

Monsters don't want anybody organized, you know rebellion and all that jazz, and they will just unconscientiously put their slave army to work, no matter the cost in lives, to build it if they really need it!

A reasonable man is willing to physically work conscientiously, with other Anarchists, to reasonably build the required road/bridge/etc. infrastructure, as that is well within their capabilities as self sufficient human beings able to erect their own farming infrastructure and organize a work detail.

In this they are no different than the monsters except that they themselves are willing to work to get it done and they have no intention of forcing anybody to help construct it at all ... it will get done when it gets done!

There ^^^ is your mud pie back in your eye, Sir!


[btw great forum
] Thank you!



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 07:42 AM
link   
I'm sorry, but I cannot sign onto this political philosophy. Humans are just terrible people. You can only trust so many people before you get burned. It's going to happen. Someone will take advantage of your trust if you are too trusting. I'm a Libertarian, which is just enough government for me, because any less and we start having societal welfare problems and any more and we have control problems.

Call me a slave or monster if you want, but in the end it's just a label that you have given me for understanding how reality works. Besides it's also a huge ad hominem attack and doesn't create any sympathy for your cause.
edit on 8-4-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 

William Bradford was an Anarchist to the King of England in 1620.
So he pack his family on Mayflower with 200 fellow "Anarchists" and sailed west to The New World. Landed at Plymouth Rock in 1621.

He was elected Governor of the colony 22 times ending in 1656. Mainly because he allowed religious freedom, promoted trade with Native Indians, and guidence for societal structure was open to criticism and made appropriate changes everyone could abide by.

His log of these events was eventually published "Plimoth Plantation". The tradition of Thanksgiving was based on that account by Bradford.So one man's "Anarchist" is another man's "Saint" in the American history.

Perhaps you should read more about it.
Although, I understand the "degenerate" label towards "Anarchists" has perhaps some validity.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Granite
 


William Bradford wasn't an anarchist if he was elected to ANY political office. That defeats the whole idea of anarchy. You just contradicted yourself. Being an anarchist doesn't mean that you are opposed to the current rule of law, it means that you are opposed to ALL rules of law.

ETA: In fact, what you described are Libertarian ideals. So if you called Bradford a Libertarian, I'd be more apt to believe you.
edit on 8-4-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 09:20 AM
link   
The older I get (60+) the more I agree - Taxes only support those that already think they own you.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 

Did you even bother to read my post?

"William Bradford was an Anarchist to King of England of 1620 era."

Are you saying that is false statement?

If yes, then Deny Ignorance is last thing you should be involved with...



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 

Your present day "labels" are not going to align with 1621 new colony life.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Granite
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 

Did you even bother to read my post?

"William Bradford was an Anarchist to King of England of 1620 era."

Are you saying that is false statement?

If yes, then Deny Ignorance is last thing you should be involved with...


Being opposed to a government doesn't make you an anarchist. The statement, "William Bradford was an Anarchist to King of England of 1620 era," is either nonsense or redundant. You cannot be anarchist to one particular governmental rule, that just means you are either revolutionary or reformist, therefore if that is what you are getting at then the statement is nonsense. If it is the other case and he is opposed to all governments then it is redundant because of course as an anarchist he'd be opposed to the King of England. You went on to say that he served as a Governor of Massachusetts for a while, therefore he definitely believes in some form of government which means he isn't an anarchist.

You are just trying to be selective with your definitions, then trying to stand on intellectual high ground with your word jumbles. However, I happen to know the definition of the words you are trying to use as well as the ones you mean. It's not going to work on me.

Revolutionary


In politics, a revolutionary is someone who supports abrupt, rapid, and drastic change...


Anarchist


a person who believes that government and laws are not necessary


Going by what you said, Bradford more closely resembles a revolutionary since he opposed the rule of the King of England, went overseas and helped start a totally new government that worked differently than the one where he came from. How about YOU deny ignorance?

And by the way, Libertarian philosophy is derived from people like Bradford who wanted more freedom of expression than their government was allowing. Just because he wouldn't have called himself a Libertarian doesn't mean he didn't adhere to certain Libertarian ideals. ETA: With SkepticOverlord's information it has come to my attention that he was really a socialist. So even my description isn't entirely correct, but I did say that I was basing my description on what you described.
edit on 8-4-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Bradford was a socialist, not anarchist.


Granite
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 

William Bradford was an Anarchist to the King of England in 1620.
So he pack his family on Mayflower with 200 fellow "Anarchists" and sailed west to The New World. Landed at Plymouth Rock in 1621.

Brandford is more accurately described as a separatist. Only recently have contemporary "anarchists" attached their label to him as a method for legitimize their chosen moniker.



He was elected Governor of the colony 22 times ending in 1656. Mainly because he allowed religious freedom, promoted trade with Native Indians, and guidence for societal structure was open to criticism and made appropriate changes everyone could abide by.

If Bradford was an anarchist, he'd not transplant the parochial government structure of England to the Plymouth Colony, thus requiring a Governor.

He did not allow "religious freedom" unless you were a Socialist Pilgrim. And face it. Plymouth Colony was a failed socialist commune that required adherence to the Pilgrim religion.



His log of these events was eventually published "Plimoth Plantation". The tradition of Thanksgiving was based on that account by Bradford.So one man's "Anarchist" is another man's "Saint" in the American history.

"Of Plymouth Plantation" was written nostalgically, some years after the actual events. While historians praise the detail and it being essentially the first piece of American history, they also regularly question the accuracy.

edit on 8-4-2014 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join