It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


What would be better; Anarchy or Eradication of Currency?

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 11:59 PM
This question has always made me wonder how the world would turn out to be.

When I think about it, I see that an organized system is the reason we have such magnificent cities, roads, airplanes, etc.

But I always hated the fact that government even exists. To me, government is nothing but a cloaked tyranny, because we all know that the people at the top, which means even the president nowadays, have more power and control than we do. I hate that, and I hate that they have to set up laws for us, while we are their b****s whether we like it and or want it or not.

However, why not simply destroy money. Now I know some of you might say that no one will work anymore or do anything at all. Why should people still not continue to follow their dreams, while not worrying whether they will put food on the table or pay rent.

I know eliminating money is hard, but there has to be a way to do it. They did it in Star Trek, even though it is just a show.

But when you think about it, the elite which are very rich, are in control of everything, they are the Judge, Jury, and Executioner, and they handle all currency, so what do we do? Which do we eliminate?

posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 01:41 AM
Why not just have it both ways?

posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 01:51 AM
working for free is called slavery, I would rather work for money vs the whip. I do agree with you that if we could find a moneyless way that insures our freedoms we would live in a utopia, like Star Trek, but we humans are much too greedy for that.

The only place I know of where there is no government is Somalia.

Untill humans lose this greed and lust for control, and power, we are stuck

posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 02:34 AM
Why does everybody keep saying Star Trek has no money? It does have some money. Like the gold pressed latinum? They had other types of money too like credits and stuff in some episodes.

Star Trek wasn't supposed to have money, but I suppose that since all the writers live in a world where we do have money they just naturally think the future will too right? It's hard to break your natural train of thought sometimes. So, they just messed up and forgot sometimes. Nevertheless, even in the Star Trek universe you end up dealing with money sometimes.

The more important issue is everyone keeps calling Star Trek a utopia. I'm not so sure about that. Every time I watch that show or the movies somebody is always getting shot at, or something is about to blow up, or someone is trying to take something over, or everything is on the verge of a new war breaking out before the captain stops it just in time!

After all, if it was a utopia I doubt people would watch it as much. Wouldn't be very exciting. Every story needs a conflict or a real good PR person. One of the two.

Now I love ST as much as the next fan, but in the end, if that's a utopia I think I'll stick with what I got lol.

[edit on 29-10-2009 by tinfoilman]

posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 02:38 AM
Neither would be better, the world should just be put under my rule. Life for everyone would be so much better if you all just acknowledged that I am your superior.

Just remember, Wuk is right, and all will be good.

posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 03:50 AM
Anarchy would be particularly bad in places where a lot of good people are NOT armed.

It would be tough at first anywhere, until the thugs were all shot.

new topics

top topics

log in