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.

 

Anarchy isn't that bad of an idea.

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by dooper
Two hundred years ago, we in the US were given the greatest opportunity mankind was ever given.

We were blessed with men I truly believe were inspired by the Great Architect, otherwise, they could not have come up with a document as they provided us.

Continually blessed, we began our own undoing.


Oh dear, I'm going to puke....

Leaving aside the blatant "US is great, fudge everyone else" ego massaging there, you do realise that the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence were based off English and French ideas that came wayyyyy before you guys thunk it up, right? Of course you did....

Right, but the whole idea is that they used all of those ideas and created the best document they could. I'm not denying that they were borrowed from elsewhere.


Originally posted by Frankidealist35
That's not completely true. Under our current system today poor people are barred from owning businesses anyways-- so this system would allow for people to own their own business without government license-- even poor people could do it.

Poor people could create their own business.

Under government capitalism-- only people who have vested interest with the government can have a business.

Here-- poor people could form any business they want. And besides, I would like a moderate form of anarchy... perhaps a mix between both-- anarcho-capitalism and social anarchy.


Why are poor people barred from owning business? I wasn't aware that this was the case. In fact, here in the UK at least, anyone could start a business tomorrow. Wether you are poor or not does not come into wether you can start a business.

Well, poor people aren't exactly barred from owning a business per say... but I believe it's extremely hard for people to start a business.

Also, with the federal reserve-- we don't have a free market. And we won't until we get rid of it.
[edit on 17/5/09 by stumason]




posted on May, 17 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


It was a good document, yes, but Doopers ascertion that it was divine intervention and the "best document ever" is somewhat overstating it, to be honest. What about the Bill of rights in England in 1689? What about the French revolutionary movement that began years and years ahead of anything in America, without whose support might I add, the American's would never have won the Revolution anyway.

As for the business query, from what you're saying it would seem that in America where you can apparently "live the dream" you cannot unless you already have money, whereas in "socialist hell holes" (not your words I know) like the UK, one can start a business with a whole array of Government supported schemes, grants, loans and other assistance.

How ironic....



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Govern-ment. Govern means control or authority. Ment means thought or mind. So the literal translation of government is mind-thought control.

We don't need that!

It's what the info-war is all about. We need a community. Thought bred of heart. Conscience. This governs itself.

Anarchy is ideal. One day I hope that ideal is actualized



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


It was a good document, yes, but Doopers ascertion that it was divine intervention and the "best document ever" is somewhat overstating it, to be honest. What about the Bill of rights in England in 1689? What about the French revolutionary movement that began years and years ahead of anything in America, without whose support might I add, the American's would never have won the Revolution anyway.

I completely agree with you that we would have probably not revolted/won the revolution if we didn't have the philosophical justification and grounds for doing so.



As for the business query, from what you're saying it would seem that in America where you can apparently "live the dream" you cannot unless you already have money, whereas in "socialist hell holes" (not your words I know) like the UK, one can start a business with a whole array of Government supported schemes, grants, loans and other assistance.

How ironic....

Yeah, you pretty much have to have the money to do it.

I personally think that we should do away with the system though completely and allow anyone to set up shop where they please with permission of the other stores. If it's okay with them they can set up their store. If they want to set up a business they can do that. The people under my ideal system could set up a business wherever they please. I think that government regulations make it too hard for poorer people to do this.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by UFOTECH
 


I am missing something here.

Are all of you saying anarchy would be better than no government? You do realize that ANY regulation is practically the most basic form of government?

If we had anarchy, you wouldn't have ANYTHING, unless you became the tribe leader (which is still a form of government IMO). You would be begging for everyone to come together and work towards a common goal.

Yes there are cons of government, but to even attempt to argue that with anarchy we would be better off is just crazy. Take yourself to a wild island and try to do that.

Having TO MUCH government can be bad, but we would still be under a mud and brick home (thats it) if it wasn't for "government".



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by FritosBBQTwist
 


It's not crazy to envision a day when humanity grows up. A day when we're civil & responsible for our self and the community we reside in.

Anarchy doesn't mean no organizational structure, it means no government. The key difference is governments are meant to control the people, where a community is meant to provide for the people.

Governments always end up becoming too corruptible, because the power is centralized.

In a community, the power is given to each individual. No member is greater than the next. What's so crazy about that?



new topics

top topics
 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join