We still waiting on the U.S. to change

The only way for the U.S. to show change is for no dem or rep to be the next president. Are you all ready to make that happen? Or will it all be so the same since it's politics where none are honestly for actual change yet? The majority of the general public wont step out from the dem and rep party umbrella, will they? Then it looks like all is lost till people realize anarchy is the only best bet. If there could be just one small term period to see how anarchy works over government... But what say you to such a change from dem/rep to another party or change from government to anarchy?

Anarchy Hmmm..... So murder is alright? What about no school for kids? Should we just let the old people die in the woods? Should it be a constant fight for life? Is rape ok? How do we protect ourselves from a outside force? Is it alright to own slaves?


I think you get the point anarchy is a pipe dream. It will never and has never worked. Show me once in history when a people prospered under anarchy.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by Subjective Truth]

Originally posted by Subjective Truth
Anarchy Hmmm..... So murder is alright? What about no school for kids? Should we just let the old people die in the woods? Should it be a constant fight for life? Is rape ok? How do we protect ourselves from a outside force? Is it alright to own slaves?


I think you get the point anarchy is a pipe dream. It will never and has never worked. Show me once in history when a people prospered under anarchy.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by Subjective Truth]

You really need to do some reading on the ideology of Anarchism.

Originally posted by Phlynx

Originally posted by Subjective Truth
Anarchy Hmmm..... So murder is alright? What about no school for kids? Should we just let the old people die in the woods? Should it be a constant fight for life? Is rape ok? How do we protect ourselves from a outside force? Is it alright to own slaves?


I think you get the point anarchy is a pipe dream. It will never and has never worked. Show me once in history when a people prospered under anarchy.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by Subjective Truth]

You really need to do some reading on the ideology of Anarchism.

Well let's make it easy for you guys then. In Anarchy are there laws? And what happens to the weak and unfortunate when you don't have laws?


I still don't see one of my questions answered. Without laws we would fall apart and laws can mean many things to many people. It does not have to be a judge and jury if you get what I am saying. The ancient Indians had rules it is the only way they could survive.



ANARCHY=DEATH

[edit on 4-3-2010 by Subjective Truth]

reply to post by Tormentations


I personally don't see how having no govt. equates to anarchy. You seem to think that if a country doesn't have govt., then they have anarchy.

I don't see it that way. But I also don't see a need for the government as it is right now. It's broken beyond repair IMO. If we can't vote in independant, non-political Senators, Congressmen, and Presidents, then we shouldn't have a Federal Govt. at all. Let each individual state take care of their own in regards to the law, business dealings with foriegn countries, and the safety of their citizens from terrorist threats both here and abroad.

Although, if you think about it, if there is no Federal Govt. then we won't have a C.I.A. butting in other countries' business, pissing them off and threatening to kill us. Sounds good to me.

Is this idea radical? Yes

Will this idea work? Yes, in that we won't be worse off then we are now.

Is this idea necessary? Yes. Washington doesn't care about us, and even if they did, they are too inept to do anything constructive to help us.

We need to downsize people. And the only way to downsize the Federal Government is to get rid of it and keep with local leadership and laws.



Peace

Originally posted by Taupin Desciple
reply to post by Tormentations

 

I personally don't see how having no govt. equates to anarchy. You seem to think that if a country doesn't have govt., then they have anarchy.

I don't see it that way. But I also don't see a need for the government as it is right now. It's broken beyond repair IMO. If we can't vote in independant, non-political Senators, Congressmen, and Presidents, then we shouldn't have a Federal Govt. at all. Let each individual state take care of their own in regards to the law, business dealings with foriegn countries, and the safety of their citizens from terrorist threats both here and abroad.

Although, if you think about it, if there is no Federal Govt. then we won't have a C.I.A. butting in other countries' business, pissing them off and threatening to kill us. Sounds good to me.

Is this idea radical? Yes

Will this idea work? Yes, in that we won't be worse off then we are now.

Is this idea necessary? Yes. Washington doesn't care about us, and even if they did, they are too inept to do anything constructive to help us.

We need to downsize people. And the only way to downsize the Federal Government is to get rid of it and keep with local leadership and laws.



Peace

When you have no laws or rules or govt. that can enforce the dictates of said society, you will have anarchy. A functioning society is beneficial for the old, weak, disenfranchised because if it was dog eat dog then those groups and others would be preyed on first. If there's no law governing murder or rape or taking of ones things, then whats to stop a group of 6 to 9 large armed men to come into your house take all of your stuff take your wife/girlfriend and smash you in the head and go to their house or living area to ENJOY THE SPOILS OF CONQUER. Being a typical male you may say well it won't happen and I will fight them off or shot them or whatever, thats BS. You know what you will do, you will cry in pain from the attack and cry from them taking your woman and anything else they wanted. You will feel powerless because you where prey and they where predator. You see predators go after other animals and things that are perceived as weak. Also they will go after others if they see it as opportunistic.

Anarchy is no better from the powerful and rich who where in power before. All it does is to transfer that power from the previous ones to the the new power brokers, in the name of revolution/anarchy/collectivism. When in reality it's just a budding Oligarchy using the naive people to become powerful. In anarchy it doesn't pay to be rich, it doesn't pay to be too pretty, it doesn't pay to be to smart. And thats because they individuals in the revolution see this as things THEY WANT, but won't say it out loud. As a society we make sacrifices in order to have a stable civilization. If we don't make these sacrifices or have self control of our freedoms, then we would be just bands of mauraders running around the countryside taking what they want and who they want without regard if it's right or wrong.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by hoghead cheese


I'm sorry, were you responding to MY post?

My post has nothing to do with anarchy. It does have, however, EVERYTHING to do with localizing all laws, programs, etc.... that the Feds THINK they have a handle on. Every single thing that the federal government does, states can do for themselves 50 times better because it's all localized and pertains to that particular state.

One reason that some federal programs and laws don't work is because they have to be a blanket approach to all the states' problems. It is unrealistic to assume that what works for Hawaii will also work for West Virginia. Hawaii's needs and problems vary greatly from West Virginia.

The only way we are the UNITED States of America is by geography only IMO.

If you seriously think that downsizing our government to the point where we have none on the FEDERAL level yet we still have 50 on the STATE level will bring about anarchy, I would really like to hear your reasoning.

BTW. How do you know I am a typical male?



Peace

Anarchy is a solution most often offered by the adolescent.

Pshaw!!! Anarchy....

Yes America needs a change. Ain't gonna happen. The people who actually vote don't tend to want much change if it might risk their status quo. Consider the health care debate. I, like so many other Americans, have found gainful employment with insurance benefits. I don't want a change. It works for me. Besides, look how badly Medicare is run. Do we need another albatross like THAT to lug around.

The sameness of the two parties is staggering. Obama has predator bombed more in 1 year than Bush did in 8 years. What is different?

Nope, nothing will change. One of the two parties will be elected as The People cozy back into their leather, over stuffed armchair and watch a PPV on the big screen HDTV. As long as they hvae that, The People are content to maintain the status quo.

reply to post by Subjective Truth




Well, anarchy is a bad idea. But i would do ok.

Not many people are going to mess with me. It makes it awfully easy to be peaceful and kind to others when they are scared to death of pissing you off. Being big has its advantages.

(now, if i could just find a good, sturdy office chair that will last more than a few weeks).

The online community, unfortunately, represents only a minority, as seen from the last election. Ron Paul was a big hit on the Internet, but very few Americans even knew his name.