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.

 

Does anyone remember 1931?

page: 2
26
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:07 AM
link   
I agree 100% with what you are saying Rock; I suppose that is why I had friended you so long ago.

You are making a ton of sense about small gov't vs no gov't. I agree and I prefer to have at least some type of governance. Although limited in scale.

I like the original idea of the Republic, where the governments main job is to protect the citizens' rights from abuses.

Liberty cannot exist without some form of protection because barbarians will take whatever they want and hurt anyone they want. And the Republic offers just that very thing. Protection from abuses.

Without protection, we are simply living in the jungle where survival of the fittest is the only law.




posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:10 AM
link   
I actually really like the discussion going on in this thread.

It is about philosophy much more than partisan politics. And this is the type of talk that is needed in the world.

Partisan politics is a head ache and I cannot stand it anymore.

But the discussion you guys/gals are having here, is refreshing and I am happy to have found it.

Two thumbs up for the intellectual stimulation yall are providing me with tonight.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:16 AM
link   
They aren`t even trying to fix it this time. They are saying -SNIP- it and giving up. The rich who have anything left will leave and the ones who stay will be ruthless controllers of the huge lower class (the middle class will be integrated into the lower so it will be only upper and lower). Of course they will come under the guise of being saviors. Oh come here I`ll help you and feed you and put a roof over your head. Just come work all day for me for barely anything. In fact, you won`t actually collect a paycheck. You will recieve housing, food, and medical attention deemed necessary. You will be alloted a certain amount of electricity and water and etc. each month, and when this runs out the services will be disconnected for the month unless you decide to continue services while we keep track of what you owe, which will be paid back in overtime work performed either after your normal shift or on your day off. What`s really cool about a full fledged corporatocracy is that the company you work for and the entity which governs you is one and the same. So if you do not follow the policies set by your employer or if you disobey your immediate supervisor, it will be the equivilant of breaking the law. You can be "fined" but since there`s no such thing as money you will pay your fines by working more overtime. Refusal to pay off your debt can result in additional punishments, like demotion to a lower job, with less "enjoyable" living quarters and available services. You might find yourself in a community, or "labor camp" with a few amenities: electricity, water, phones (of course these will be surveillanced, for your "safety") cable tv (with company approved viewing for your "safety"), a library (do I have to say anything here? just don`t worry, your "safety" will be looked after). Or if you haven`t been behaiving properly, like too many bathroom breaks, not reporting for overtime duty, or defying the company in any way, you may find yourself without these comforts and in a place without a decent bed to sleep on. Good workers might even get a pcile and havce of


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Sorry, started getting bogged up with a bad lag there, hence the gibberish. A good worker might have a private domicile and some semblance of a family, while the worst behaived will be in a jail cell and brought out only to do the hardest work, and if this is refused, then common amenities like food and water will be reduced drastically along with other various punishments to be used at the discretion of your guardians or supervisors. If you want to do business with somebody, like buy something from them or have them perform a service, the transaction will be conducted completely in work hours. So if someone wants a massage from you to relieve the stress of work, you will agree to work however many hours or half or quarter hours agreed on in extra overtime while the other person will enjoy some time off. Everyone will work for the company, but you can give massages or whatever you want in your free time so you can plan ahead for days off, save up for a 3 day weekend or whatever. If you were to choose not to live under the protection of the community of the company, you may choose to try to survive outside the walls in the wilderness if you want. But I have to warn you, there are random bands of "bandits" who like to ride around in helicopters and hunt down stragglers. They`re well equipped too. I wonder who they are funded by? Probly best not to worry about that and just stay safe with the company. They have weapons and guards to protect us. Come to think of it they ~got helicopters too... better to protect us I suppose.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Has anyone read Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood? It portrays a dystopian future picture of an America run by corporations which host their own housing communes, universities, security, research agendas, and self-governance while the chaos ridden "pleeblands" beyond the gates are the selling grounds to the masses. It's a post-apocolyptic scenario with flashbacks that weave the plot together, and offers a chilling speculative reality.

I read this last year, and it's becoming more realistic, plague scenario and all.

Corporate Power


In Oryx and Crake, corporations exist separately from the rest of the world. Characters who are lucky enough to work for a corporation can escape the lawlessness and filth of pleeblands and live in an idyllic corporate compound instead. Although Oryx and Crake takes place in America, the novel includes no reference to local, state or federal government. The corporations rule instead. Each compound is a distinct locale, but it appears that the corporations are somehow united because they share a legion of CorpSeCorps agents that work in tandem on such cases as that of Jimmy's mother.

The corporations featured in the novel employ science and marketing techniques that make the public powerless consumers. OrganInc specializes in manufacturing spare parts for organ replacement. HelthWyzer sells medicines that fight various diseases.


www.bookrags.com...



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by time91
 


Ya we hear how much progress we are making and how much better we are off now than before, but why is unemployment still increasing among the poor and middle class citizens. Sounds like false words of encouragement.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by unityemissions
 




Anarchy doesn't mean no unity, laws or structure. It means no government.


this is the flawed illogical assumption that to have Anarchy is Utopia.. and to achieve the Utopia 100% of the members must unanimously agree to a certain creed or code of conduct, and no one at any point in their lives would ever break it. To break the code requires response, to coordinate response requires direction, and direction comes from man, be it the most rudimentary form of Government or not.. Anarchy is impossible by complication of Human nature. I'd club you over the head too, take your food too, and steal your woman too. Soon I'll have my own Utopian harem gorging myself on canned foods.


Nope, you've got the faulty logic. Where did I ever state Utopia


100% of the members don't have to agree to anything. Just the majority. If they disagree to a large extent, they can leave the community. I don't think you understand the definition of Anarchy. Let me state once again, it's not no order or laws, it's no centralized authority. Anyone who would break basic civil laws like clubbing someone over the head, taking someone's food, or stealing their woman would have to answer to the community. If the majority decides that their actions are not dismissible, they get the boot.

You're making Anarchy out to be something it's not. Well, I take that back. Anarchy MAY be as you describe, but that's an uncivil, and unlawful form of Anarchy.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   
in a nut shell

1929=2008

cause of problem= bankers-wallstreet

ultimate problem=federal reserve

conclusion for the rich= full circle paradigm=nothing lost-nothing changes for the elite

conclusion for serfs-middle class=destruction of there well being!

Did I Miss Anything



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 




100% of the members don't have to agree to anything. Just the majority


That's called Democracy.



If they disagree to a large extent, they can leave the community.


Or rather kill off the idiots who thought they could live in a Utopia .. which history shows us is what happens 99% of the time.




I don't think you understand the definition of Anarchy. Let me state once again, it's not no order or laws, it's no centralized authority.


No, I am afraid YOU have no idea what you're talking about .. though i have found not a single Anarchist who does, so don't feel alone. No Centralized government only moves Centralization to other levels. For instance if the Fed was abolished, we would be liberated from Centralized Power. But the new Centralized Power would fall to State Capitols. If we abolished that it would go to the County, who would rule us all albeit in a much smaller community, regardless, it's centralized. Or it could be a town hall .. regardless, it's a form of government and all governments even at rudimentary levels have organization.. thus non-anarchist.



I think some if not most Anarchist are highly confused Libertarians. Some are ultra confused Fascist and just don't know it yet.. but most are simply Libertarians. Anarchy is the rebel state of mind some cling to in High School because it makes them feel cool and different... some never learned to leave such immaturities behind.



You're making Anarchy out to be something it's not. Well, I take that back. Anarchy MAY be as you describe, but that's an uncivil, and unlawful form of Anarchy.

Anarchy is the Absence of Law/Government.

PS: Since our government funded school system has failed you, I took the liberty of copy/pasting the dictionary definition of the word you don't get.

Main Entry: an·ar·chy
Pronunciation: \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch-
Date: 1539

1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

I loves it when the Dictionary uses the same words I do ....... even more so when it's contested.


reply to post by allprowolfy
 




cause of problem= bankers-wallstreet


I must have missed the day the Banksters convinced the American people to gorge themselves on plastic # from China, but 3 brand new cars, move into a house they can't fill and clamor for handouts.

No .. 1929-2010 the problem has always been ignorant greed. Yes, greed on behalf of the banksters, but also the home owners, the credit card swamped, the idiots who borrowed 10 times their wealth, and those who 5 years before retirement had their retirement accounts in highly aggressive mutual funds.

It's easy to point fingers and blame people.. but until we find our personal independence it will be a perpetual cycle.. Nothing will change, not if our habits don't.



[edit on 5/5/2010 by Rockpuck]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Way to assume a lot about me, fool! Yes, your schooling must have been so much better than mine.


You know what I love? When dictionaries are found to contain erroneous interpretations of words.

Remember, what I referred to was an Anarchy community.


Anarchist communism is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, private property, and capitalism in favor of common ownership of the means of production,[1][2] direct democracy and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to ability, to each according to need"[3][4]. According to anarchist communists Peter Kropotkin and Murray Bookchin, the members of such a society would spontaneously perform all necessary labour because they would recognize the benefits of communal enterprise and mutual aid.[5][page needed] Others, such as Nestor Makhno and Ricardo Flores Magon believed that all those able to work in an anarchist communist society should be required to do so.[6][7][8][9]. While Kropotkin didn't think it'd be a major problem in an anarchist communist society, he did agree that a freely associated anarchist commune could disassociate from those not fulfilling their communal agreement to do their share of work if these "sluggards... became too numerous".[10] Anarchist communism is also known as anarcho-communism, communist anarchism, or sometimes, libertarian communism. However, while all anarchist communists are libertarian communists, some libertarian communists, such as council communists and Luxemburgists, are not anarchists but are instead Libertarian Marxists. What distinguishes anarchist communism from other variants of libertarian communism is the former's opposition to all forms of political power, hierarchy and domination. However, some writers use libertarian communism and libertarian socialism as synonyms for anarchist communism or even anarchism in general
Source

Seeing as Anarchy communism is non-hierarchical, it would seem appropriate to define it as a lack of government. A lack of centralized authority.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by unityemissions]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


wallstreet sheisters= greed

2nd line



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


Oh yes I love it when people link ironic and wacky ideas like "Libertarian Communism" ... an oxymoron if I've ever heard of one.. of "Anarchy Communism" .. which is (both actually) a Utopian ideology.. (ie. Fairy Tales) ...

Next time don't link something as absurd as "Libertarian Communism"



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by allprowolfy
 


Wall Street = Greed
Main Street = Greed



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by unityemissions
 


Oh yes I love it when people link ironic and wacky ideas like "Libertarian Communism" ... an oxymoron if I've ever heard of one.. of "Anarchy Communism" .. which is (both actually) a Utopian ideology.. (ie. Fairy Tales) ...

Next time don't link something as absurd as "Libertarian Communism"


Yeah...

It must be fairy tales to people who can't comprehend it...



Just because an idea has yet to be implemented doesn't mean it can't be done. Way to think within the box.



[edit on 5-5-2010 by unityemissions]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


bud i gotta disagree with you here. look at my profile and go to the "anarchy FAQ" link on my favorites.. that should answer all your questions..



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TheCoffinman
 


Sorry mate. Anarchy = no Government. If there is a Government or any form of Social construct is another form of Government. You cannot even put "Anarchy" into the name ... as it's greek.. it means "No Government" .. literally.

Communism as a theory:

a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

The idea being centralized control over everything, but no government to control it.. essentially, that every thing is everyone's and that's it.. however within this system demands a required structure to control the "fairness doctrine" .. that no one group gets more than any other. This is why all Communisms are destined for it's evil sister: Socialism. Without some form of power to dictate who gets what, when they get it, how they get it etc, it's simply pure anarchy .. in which everything really does belong to anyone, as anyone can take it. Hence I can bop you over the head and steal your woman and food. There's no centralized power to dictate punishment or enforcement.

Now the typical argument: An organized defense force of the community it's self governs the community and protects it's ideas and property. But that's called a Stratocracy, not Anarchy.

Some would say tiny individual communities would regulate and govern themselves without centralized or "nationalized" power... this is Tribalism.

All it comes down to is people controlling Government, not Government controlling people, but in no uncertain terms the complete absence of Government (Anarchy) is entirely impossible.. even if it could be achieved it would be impossible to hold onto, whether that be internal corruption or external desecration. Imagine, please, that the USA was not a Democracy, in fact, it had no Government at all. We see the massive corruption, the Plutocracy that controls through consolidation .. now imagine there was no Government.. would these people instantly become enlightened and end their thievish ways? No.. the doors would be wide open, and it wouldn't be called corruption, it would be called a social norm.. as there is no rules regulating it and there is no structure to define it.

All Anarchist are Libertarians.. this is why there is so much confusion regarding the terminology.. every last one of them. They want to be left alone, they want the smallest form of government humanly possible, they want to live their lives, keep their work and fruits of their labor and don't want to have to fear internal persecution from their own government.

All Libertarians are not Anarchist.. as most Libertarians would see the necessary evil of Government, and the impossibilities of Anarchy.

NO Libertarian/anarchist is a Communist. That is a political ideological fallacy that makes no sense. Where Anarchy and Libertarianism represent the ultimate forms of self assurance, self governing, self responsibility etc.. Communism represents the ultimate consolidation and control of power by a despotism in a centralized position .. they who give from the few and disperse to the many. It is the ideological polar opposite of Anarchy. And while it would be nice to say our communities can exist without Government in a Anarchy/Libertarian utopia, such a tribalism society still have a Government, and micro Governments are more often more intrusive to personal lives than macro governments.

I know there are two forms of Communism -- Political Communism which is a Despot form of Government, and an Ideological form of Communism, but the idea is impossible without government because it demands a state of pure enlightenment over the entire population.

A more correct term to describe both yours and the other twos ideas would be "Non-Federalist Neo-Socialist"


Or for the idea of Anarchy Communism: Ochlocracy




[edit on 5/5/2010 by Rockpuck]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   
theyre doing it again:


The U.S. economy should expand at a solid pace this year and next as consumers increase spending, confident the recession is behind them, a panel of economists said in a survey released Monday.

online.wsj.com...



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   
The NYSE closed at 6666.74 Dose any one smell antichrist?? Armageddon?? Paranoia??



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunIsSon
Regardless of any paranoid one party views, or any conspiracy theories, it is HISTORY itself that I am using as my source of opinion. History speaks MUCH louder than some of the stuff that floats around in conspiracy forums.

Edit - Typo

[edit on 4-5-2010 by SunIsSon]


Does your history account for what the party platforms were in those days? Methinks not, or you might realize that what you are calling a "republican" would be more like a "democrat" today.

Even if there were more than a minor cosmetic difference, that is.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1   >>

log in

join