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.

 

Anarchic Harmony vs. Government cHAoS?

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   
I have been contemplating how the United States has become vastly more chaotic and violent as government has become a dominant force over the past century, compared to something just a tiny fraction of its current size 100 years ago when the tax rate was closer to 3% than 18% for a middle class person. As governments around the world have grown in size to control 35% to 45% of economies, a system just as communist as capitalist, there seems to be wide-spread chaos and violence, which are supposed to be features of anarchy. So why does it seem like every single place with the least government also has the most harmony, and the places with the most government have abject chaos?



In today's world, you need government permission to build a house on "your property" while paying annual rent to your "fellow man"... the financial overlords who decide how much of your money they allow you to keep each year. In the USA a cop can kill you for any reason at all, and won't be charged for murder. A judge can and sometimes does throw people in jail because they chose to remain silent, or say something disrespectful to the judge. So, if tyranny was a system of order, there should be nothing but harmony in the streets. It seems like there is the opposite of that, and it seems as the years roll on government grows, and chaos grows.

Its very strange to me after watching the linked video, that we are told by others anarchy is a system of chaos. While I'm not an anarchist, I'm also not bothered by the idea of anarchy. Personally I don't view anarchy as an achievable goal. However, I do imagine that should such a thing find its way into existence, it would be vastly less chaotic than the world we have today, and possibly a very peaceful world.

There are a few people who mention Somalia as an anarchy. That is just plain wrong and 100% misinformation, because before slipping into a state of total chaos tightly ruled by local warlord politicians, it was the most repressive government on the face of the planet according to the one source that tries to make an objective comparison, the Index of Economic Freedom released by the Heritage Foundation. Some people say they are biased and I challenge those people to find a more complete and accurate study of which countries are the most free and least free from an economic standpoint. So, the only good study on Somalia showed it as the least free country before it became so chaotic as to be inaccessible by the researchers. So, the idea that they were just too free of a people and slipped into anarchy is laughable and dishonest.They are not an anarchy now and have not been for all of modern history.

The closest thing to a sudden power vacuum I've seen is that the entire police force in Acapulco, Mexico, a sizable town, went on strike. Reports are that everyone was a bit happier and their life went on with less worries of being harassed. So my prediction is that if the US Federal Government were to be fired wholesale, everyone except those truly totally dependent on welfare would suddenly be happier with less worries. And I predict that nobody would starve to death just like nobody starves in Hong Kong. Hong Kong isn't entirely capitalist but its certainly a lot like the USA was about 100 years ago in terms of social and financial freedoms.


The majority of people began treating red lights like a “yield” sign. They’d slow down, check that no cars were coming, and if there weren’t, they’d just roll through the red light instead of sitting there for a minute or two, as traffic backed up behind them,” he said.

Source: thefreethoughtproject.com...

How can we have food without the government? How can we have clothes without the government? How can we have shelter without the government? We had food, clothing, and shelter, which are ALL our needs, without the government. What we didn't have before governments were formed were genocides of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, and millions. None of us could say with certainty how things work in an anarchy (military, roads, schools, etc) until such a thing is tried.

Scare questions with unknown answers are on one side ("Oh God help us, what do we do now?"), while trial-and-error with known seems to be in favor of anarchy. We know what happened after in 1776 America became the most free place in the world. We don't know what happens when a place becomes even more free than 1776 America. I'm certainly not particularly afraid of the idea of anarchy, and don't find it scary. What I find very scary is what we have now. What I find very scary is governments with nuclear bombs and a history of genocide and mass murder. What I find scary is knowing I have to go in a long government line and hope my overlords smile upon me when I get to the front of the line.




posted on May, 27 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward

Great thread! S&F

I think the trend and attitude of a free and peaceful people should always lean toward anarchy even if only as minarchists such as our founders.

"The worst evils which mankind has ever had to endure were inflicted by bad governments."

-Ludwig von Mises




posted on May, 27 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: wayforward

What I find very scary is what we have now. What I find very scary is governments with nuclear bombs and a history of genocide and mass murder. What I find scary is knowing I have to go in a long government line and hope my overlords smile upon me when I get to the front of the line.

Well it was always about being the biggest and the best, to do that, you need to start war and blame the other for starting it in the first place. After that events take on a life of their own. Good thread.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward

Anarchy is what happens on the way to totalitarianism. America represents the closet thing inbetween those two. I see Democracy as a buffer between the two, Anarchy and Totalatariansim

I agree less is more, but None is none, no less no more.

Humans are addicted to progress. As one form of controll dies out, some other form of government will or religious right will develop as dissatisfaction sets in, searching for hope in something better.

That's how America started.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: wayforward

Anarchy is what happens on the way to totalitarianism. America represents the closet thing inbetween those two. I see Democracy as a buffer between the two, Anarchy and Totalatariansim

I agree less is more, but None is none, no less no more.

Humans are addicted to progress. As one form of controll dies out, some other form of government will or religious right will develop as dissatisfaction sets in, searching for hope in something better.

That's how America started.


Every form of government is "between" anarchy and totalitarianism.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Right, I'm trying to say democracy provides freedoms that are more closley related to those that were birthed out of its anarchy.
It's closer to anarchy than totalitarianism on the scale, so to speak.

We have slowly been moving down that scale, closer to more control and monitoring. I suspect another round of anarchy before we arive to a new form of government.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: greencmp

Right, I'm trying to say democracy provides freedoms that are more closley related to those that were birthed out of its anarchy.
It's closer to anarchy than totalitarianism on the scale, so to speak.

We have slowly been moving down that scale, closer to more control and monitoring. I suspect another round of anarchy before we arive to a new form of government.



Yes, bad as it is becoming, we started out with a representative republic based upon balance of power and concurrent majority as opposed to numerical majority. The 17th amendment was the beginning of our conversion to numerical majority.

I don't see how anarchy could be included in the government-revolution-chaos-new government process though. I think of anarchy as how we live in our own homes and chaos as the absence of any civility.
edit on 27-5-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward

Excellent thread. Hope it generates great discussion. I was applauding the anarchic tenets and [uninformed] use of them recently with the public shaming in the 'court' of public opinion in regards to [influencing] Pacsun and Chipotle without involving Government: regardless of if I agreed or not.

Anarchy, in its purest etymological sense is simply the state of a people without a government. It is neither utopic nor enthrotropic. Any association with bedlam, is pure disinformation. Even chaos is simply a gaping void, and not indicative of the [political] power vacuum associated with anarchy.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   
I think taxes are a shake down. Property taxes? You never own YOUR property, ultimately the government does. Don't think so? Don't pay your property tax and see who really owns your property.



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join