Would you rather have no rights and be protected or...

although there are some things about our state i disagree w/, i by far think we WOULD be better off and concur. i know alot of ppl around these parts that agree and we have often wondered what it would take to have something like that happen. after all, it is certainly supposed to be one of our possibilities. Gawd, i love this state!!

reply to post by BlackOps719

---

The real danger of anarchy is our tendency to form alliances for greater and greater reasons. Once you are the bigger group, you have government.

So, in the end, neither of the options proposed is really feaseable, but I would certainly lean towards alliances/cooperation for more clearly defined goals than the mountains of laws we have today. I think a few basic rules, and a few projects for the future is all we need.

EDIT to add: But yes, I do agree with what you have said, starred.

SECOND EDIT: I think people equate anarchy with chaos, it is not. It is the natural order which has been upset by man. WE are the chaos. The American founding fathers sought to put this chaos called government in check. The reverse has happened.



[edit on 7/3/0808 by jackinthebox]

[edit on 7/3/0808 by jackinthebox]

Anyone who would give up even a fraction of an ounce of freedom for perceived "safety" doesn't deserve any freedom at all.

Reliance on the government has never proven to be beneficial.

Great thread!

Wanted to throw in my .02 before this thread rockets off to 10+ pages soon..

I would honestly choose option A, mainly because I have faith in the human race. I know it's probably an ignorant statement and most would say unfounded, but in my experience I think that the greater percentage of people in this world just want to live peacefully and live their days out happily.

In my ideal situation A, groups of like minded people with similar interests and walks of life would form small townships and work together to become a self sufficient unit. As children grew up and took their own walks they would be encouraged to find the right "group" for them, let people exploit their natural talents as much as possible and encourage gene pool diversity.

Obviously you'd still have "groups" that want to cause trouble for people and prey on the weak, I think a community that was driven to support and assist all members, would also be a community that would not tolerate such behavior against them and they would come after them with a swift and effective force.

Utopian I know, but hey, you've got to really widen your vision sometimes when it feels like reality is headed opposite end.

Not sure I was supposed to add in how Option A would look, but it felt good to vent that, and at least it wasn't a None of the Above!!

reply to post by HaTaX

---

Congratulations....you just described what is known as a "city"


I think someone else already beat you to it.

That one individual is free to do whatever he wants with his rights, He's not however free to do what he wants with my rights or violate them.

[edit on 3-7-2008 by C0le]

Youv'e listed two extremes niether of which are a real choice in a "free" country, One doesnt need an overbearing government dicating what one can and cannot do, simply common decency, In a "free" country the government exists at the approval of is citizens and what that government does is dicatated by will of its citizens, Rights can't be given to you by government why would they be? You are born with your most basic rights, The purpose of government in any "free" country is to protect that which is already yours, not dictate to you what you can or cannot do.


I choose a country in which the government protects my rights, ALL of them, and restricts none.

My life is in my hands im here 24/7, The cop on the other end of town isn't... When seconds count, the police are just minutes away....

It always surprises me how people believe that the government makes them safe,I belong to a neighbourhood watch which incudes martial artists ex military etc ;we all realise that in this part of the city it takes 45 minutes for police to respond to an emergency,a lesser complaint such as a domestic will take longer-if they show.

That leaves security in our hands if theres a home invasion,a party gatecrash or other drama I can have a supportive crowd here in five to ten minutes,if things hit the fan it will be communities that look out for each other not the authorities that stick it out-they probably wouldn't even show in a peak oil Mad Max situation.

reply to post by wvwooten13

---

I have to disagree with this statement. The purpose of a Governement is to Govern. It is up to the people to protect their own rights.

My rights are my protection. They protect me, and I protect them.

I think this is fairly easy to answer. Simply follow the Constitution and we'll be ok. It's a GREAT document that protects the individual while ensuring the individuals rights.

I will take the first one. The original indiginous people to the America's did not have brutal and inhumane consequenses for laws (that didn't exist). The European's brought that over to them (what was left after the French, Spanish, and British slaughtered more than 8,000,000 natives). Prior to the European arrivals, the people did just fine with their system that did not consist of profits and ownership and private property. When someone did "wrong" they were banished and gradually brought back into the norm...True freedom existed before the onslaught of Columbus and the Virginia slave colony. Since then, it's been blood shed in the name of Christ and very little freedom except for the "privlaged few" as Barbara Bush likes to say.

Thread on this very topic forthcoming....

[edit on 3-7-2008 by skyshow]

reply to post by justamomma

---

You are absolutely right. It IS a privilege. We haven't deserved them because of our inaction towards the rape of of society...

This will change. Very soon.

Maslows Heirarchy of Needs has Security as its base need. When any level of need is removed then no other level above it can be achieved. With events such as Oklahoma and 9/11 the need of security was literally obliterated and predictably the "people" said in a collective voice "I don't care what you have to do, take or enact, just restore my sense of security." Its simple psychology and it has worked very well throughout history.

I of course choose Freedom and I don't need anyone to protect that for me, I will go out and get it myself.

gubernamental = government - this is all you need to know, break it down and all becomes clear

reply to post by harvib

---

The problem with a proposition like this one is that it is an either/or situition... it does not account for the real world shades of gray.

Franklin said that those who would trade freedoms for security deserve neither.

Your first is called anarchy and despite those who advocate for a small government it won't work on a nation this size and complexity.... given the fact that half the country is armed and there are deep and abiding social, racial and cultural hatreds... and there are... no laws would be an invitation to a blood bath make no mistake about it.

As for the second, its called government... period. All of our rights and freedoms, including the one to have this discussion are given or allocated by the government and it doesn't matter if that government is a democracy, monarchy or dictatorship... and the type of governments we have are determined by the culture we have and our history which is why exporting something like democracy, while it makes fine rhetoric is usually doomed from the outset... there are examples as in occupied Japan but they are few and far between. A prime example of this problem is Russia. After a decade of democratic reform it is reverting back to a more autocratic form which is more in keeping with it's history. Democracy takes time and education and practice.

In the long run when all of the rhetoric is stripped away the sole purpose of government is to provide a safe place to raise crops and have children... everything else is icing on the cake.

The pimary difference between the conservative stance and the liberal stance in the interpertation of that mandate... is it soley for policing and protection from foreign aggressers or can it be taken as a mandate to provide a clean environment, for example.

So I say your choice is a false one and cannot be reconciled with the reality.

As a choice it just does not work.

[edit on 3-7-2008 by grover]

Doesnt seem like much of a choice.

How about the choice of a govt that protects my rights, where they make the law, and where I abide by them, but also have a say in those laws?

Or is that too much to ask for these days?

[edit on 3-7-2008 by Nonchalant]

Crime is like beauty. It is in the eye of the beholder.