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.

 

The Government Is A Monopoly

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
It is a criminal institution of looting thieves that suck the life out of you and make you into scared dependent slaves.

Communists incessantly whine about private corporations monopolizing markets, so I have to scratch my head when they demand that the State be given an ultimate monopoly on force and violence.

The State has a monopoly on violence.

The State has a monopoly on arbitration.

If a police officer kicks your face in because he doesn't like your pro-2nd amendment shirt, you have to file a complaint WITH THE SAME POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT HE WORKS FOR.

If you manage to get a civil complaint filed against him, you then have to go before a judge THAT GETS PAID BY THE SAME GOVERNMENT THAT THE COP WORKS FOR.

Do you think you will get justice? - LOL

Of course, violence and arbitration aren't the only things the criminal government has a monopoly on, oh no no no.

They also have a monopoly on your money, which they debase and inflate every day to the tune of billions. The government is robbing you blind and you demand more of it. You DEMAND TO BE LOOTED! PRAISE MAO!

They force you to use their phony fraudulent money through legal tender laws. Then they place taxes on real money, such as gold and silver, so it becomes impossible to use as a functional currency.

Fail to pay your taxes, you will get a gun in your face.

The funny thing is, you are paying for that gun in your face out of your own pocket.

Hey, but lets not stop the monopolization there, lets look at the public educraption system as well. Don't have a kid? Too bad, you pay. Don't want to send your kid to some rat infested publik concentration camp for 8 hours a day? Too bad, you pay. Don't like the indoctrination materials called textbooks that are used in your local internment camp? Too bad, you have no say in the matter. The kids will use the textbooks the State deems appropriate.

You are a slave.

You are nothing more than cattle to be harvested for your labor.

Fat bureaucrats and their crony corporate partners have you on a meat hook with your throat cut open drinking the blood of your labor. Do you think General Electric would be the fascist multi-billion dollar warmongering enterprise it is today without the criminal government confiscating your wealth and handing it to GE?

Do you know how much GE's CEO made last year? - Thanks to your tax dollars that were looted from you at gun point, he's doing quite well. The same can be said about McDonald Douglas's CEO, Raytheon's CEO, Exon's CEO, Goldman Sachs's CEO, and all the rest. They live off of your stupidity, your trust in government.



One proposed alternative to this insane system of violent enslavement:



[edit on 27-7-2010 by mnemeth1]




posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Hey, you know what else is beautiful about our system?

If that cop beats your face in, and by some miracle of god you actually manage to get him convicted of assault (fat chance), YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR HIS IMPRISONMENT OUT OF YOUR OWN TAX DOLLARS

LOL

Thus, it is IMPOSSIBLE - IMPOSSIBLE - to ever get real justice.

You get kicked in the face, then you get robbed at gun point.

Praise Stalin.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
speaking of cops beating your face in for no good reason and then having nothing happen to them:


TORONTO — A human rights watchdog group is calling for a full review of Toronto's G20 summit last month after filing 78 individual complaints Thursday that allege police brutality.

Public complaints were filed with the Office of the Independent Police Review Director, an agency that reviews police policies in Ontario, by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

More than 1,000 people were arrested during the two-day meetings, with the majority released without any criminal charges; 278 people were criminally charged with an offence.

"These incidents have caused considerable concern and alarm for the (civil liberties association) and members of the public," the letter said. "They have undermined confidence in policing in Ontario."

The complaints add to the five police institutional complaints filed last week to the same office.

Another activist group, the Toronto Community Mobilization Network, claimed Thursday that a number of women who were arrested during the protests were beaten, threatened with sexual assault and forced to undergo illegal strip searches.

The group said a number of women have come forward with stories of being targeted at protest sites and at the makeshift detention centre in east Toronto where prisoners were held.

"The purpose of our activities is not just to hold the individual police officers responsible for this violence against women to account but also the politicians, the decision-makers," said Farrah Miranda, a spokeswoman with the group.


I just recently watched a video of the proceedings of the OIPR. A law professor got up and demanded the OIPR recuse themselves from the investigation of the brutality complaints for the same reasons I laid out.

Of course, the board rejected his demands and said they were perfectly capable of conducting an unbiased investigation. - which is already a total sham.



[edit on 27-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Yep, I agree with you, a government is a monopoly on governance. Ideally in my opinion it's a monopoly of the people, the citizens specifically.

When the citizens have a monopoly on their governance, that is an inherently good thing I believe. In fact I think it to be a beautiful thing, the people, as masters of the destiny of their country. This mastery, and sole power, is kept from despots and radical fringes by the citizens.

That's a monopoly I hope is never broken up!



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 


Government can never be contained because government makes its own rules.

It will always grow until it implodes under the weight of its own tyranny.

It can not be restrained, it will only grow until it consumes itself like a cancer.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
Ideally in my opinion it's a monopoly of the people, the citizens specifically.


What a poetic way to describe mob rule.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
Ideally in my opinion it's a monopoly of the people, the citizens specifically.


What a poetic way to describe mob rule.



Sir, its clear that the US Constitution says the majority has the right to impose its will on the minority.

Private property rights be damned, you can't do anything without approval from the majority.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 


Government can never be contained because government makes its own rules.

It will always grow until it implodes under the weight of its own tyranny.

It can not be restrained, it will only grow until it consumes itself like a cancer.


So you have always said, and I have always responded that you're too focused upon Anarchism and hatred of governments that you have become a blind partisan.

I do not agree with you, I in fact hold the opposite view. I hold that if the government is of the citizens, and all citizens not just the workers, or the aristocracy, or the middle class, but everyone, in true equality, then that is a good thing. The blame or praise for a nation then rests equally upon all, not on the government, which is really just a mechanism by which the people rule.

You think government is evil, I say it is effectually morally neutral because it is not in and of itself a living being. And when something is not in live being, it cannot by definition be rational on its own accord.

You can keep spouting Anarchist jargon, and I can keep responding with legitimate and verifiable classical and enlightenment philosophical arguments that defeat them...

...or you can finally just admit that there are people whom genuinely disagree with you, not out of stupidity or malice but simply because they hold a different view of the world than you do.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
Ideally in my opinion it's a monopoly of the people, the citizens specifically.


What a poetic way to describe mob rule.



I take it you do not approve of democracy or republics based upon your response, please do correct me if I am wrong in that assessment of course, but may I ask then what system of social order or social contract you would advocate then, if you do not like equality and parity in governance?



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 


In the end, I hold the moral high ground.

At the root of all your arguments in favor of the State, you ultimately advocate that violence be used against the innocent.

The State can not exist without violence, thus a peaceful society is impossible with government that is funded by involuntary taxation.

I suppose I should clarify - Government isn't necessarily bad, it is the State which is evil. The two are not necessarily synonymous.



[edit on 27-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
... what system of social order or social contract you would advocate then, if you do not like equality and parity in governance?


I dont approve of governance and I do not believe in the fabled 'social contract' as enforced by some grand external entity.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
... what system of social order or social contract you would advocate then, if you do not like equality and parity in governance?


I dont approve of governance and I do not believe in the fabled 'social contract' as enforced by some grand external entity.


I've yet to meet a communist that can produce a "social contract" with my signature on it.

I'm going to create a "moral contract", where by everyone in the US is subject to the principles of peaceful interaction.

Then I'm going to wave it in their face whenever they mention social contract.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   


[edit on 27-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
How ya doin fella's?


May I by chance offer reconciliation between the two of you?


Government is a inevitability. Anarchism can and often does have forms of government with it. What it lacks is a STATE.

Government isn't a problem, a STATE is the problem.

Government by definition is how mankind coexists and the structure thereof. It is IMPOSSIBLE to be without government unless you live an individualistic primitive anarchic lifestyle, essentially being Tarzan. Which would be #ing awesome but is practically impossible.

As you say Mnem, the state is the problem because a state makes it's own rules and thus the ability for corruption is almost absolute.

I agree with Jimmy that a government completely comprised of the people is the best government, one that uses reason and ethics as rules of thumb to move on and to compromise. We currently don't have any such system currently sadly.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SpectreDC
 


Jimmy's idea of government is not government of the people.

Jimmy's idea of government is 51% of the people gang up on the most productive and prosperous among them, then rob them at gun point.

I would be in agreement with Jimmy if he actually felt that self-governance was the way to go.

Unfortunately that is far from his ideology.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 


Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy. Apparently you're a journalist or something right? Well...don't talk about politics anymore. Please.

Let me explain why I say this...


I hold that if the government is of the citizens, and all citizens not just the workers, or the aristocracy, or the middle class, but everyone, in true equality, then that is a good thing.


What's the problem here?


all citizens not just the workers, or the aristocracy, or the middle class, but everyone, in true equality, then that is a good thing.


Getting closer now


true equality


What's this doing with...


the workers, the aristocrats and the middle class


I just have some question, what the hell kind of definition are you using for true equality, what the hell do you think is a worker, a aristocrat, and a middle class person, and what the hell makes you think any of those three things above can be together with "true equality".

That makes no sense. None. Notta. Zelch. That's like saying for everyone to be truly free you need to submit to god. What you're suggesting is, in reality is not. You can't have equality and also have workers(poor/lower middle class), and aristocrats (rich snobby folk) and the middle-class.

THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE AND YOU'RE MAKING MY BRAIN HURT SO PLEASE STOP.

Equality and freedom are two things that do not thrive well with one another. It's like mixing two food items in storage that can spoil one another. It can work, but not with how you're suggesting. Because the state uses violence and violence will...is like the opposite of freedom.

Equality works when the PLAYING FIELD is equal. When people have equal opportunities to reach the same goal. And again sadly we don't live in a world like this. Wanna be a politician? Unless your rich, you can't run a useful campaign unless you live in South Carolina and come up first alphabetically. And if you're not rich you need to become rich, which is why politicians are always corrupted by industry. That's the system we live in today and if that is truly successful governance, I wanna be Tarzan.

[edit on 27-7-2010 by SpectreDC]



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 


In the end, I hold the moral high ground.

At the root of all your arguments in favor of the State, you ultimately advocate that violence be used against the innocent.

The State can not exist without violence, thus a peaceful society is impossible with government that is funded by involuntary taxation.

I suppose I should clarify - Government isn't necessarily bad, it is the State which is evil. The two are not necessarily synonymous.



[edit on 27-7-2010 by mnemeth1]


You can claim whatever high ground you like, I could do the same based upon Hobbes' State Of Nature and Locke's Natural Rights, but such is.

In the end of it, I wouldn't be able to change your mind on such things anyways so I will just ask you a question to see if we can whittle down exactly what premises and definitions we are coming from on this:

What philosophy have you read?



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpectreDC
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 


Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy. Apparently you're a journalist or something right? Well...don't talk about politics anymore. Please.

Let me explain why I say this...


I hold that if the government is of the citizens, and all citizens not just the workers, or the aristocracy, or the middle class, but everyone, in true equality, then that is a good thing.


What's the problem here?


all citizens not just the workers, or the aristocracy, or the middle class, but everyone, in true equality, then that is a good thing.


Getting closer now


true equality


What's this doing with...


the workers, the aristocrats and the middle class


I just have some question, what the hell kind of definition are you using for true equality, what the hell do you think is a worker, a aristocrat, and a middle class person, and what the hell makes you think any of those three things above can be together with "true equality".

That makes no sense. None. Notta. Zelch. That's like saying for everyone to be truly free you need to submit to god. What you're suggesting is, in reality is not. You can't have equality and also have workers(poor/lower middle class), and aristocrats (rich snobby folk) and the middle-class.

THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE AND YOU'RE MAKING MY BRAIN HURT SO PLEASE STOP.

Equality and freedom are two things that do not thrive well with one another. It's like mixing two food items in storage that can spoil one another. It can work, but not with how you're suggesting. Because the state uses violence and violence will...is like the opposite of freedom.

Equality works when the PLAYING FIELD is equal. When people have equal opportunities to reach the same goal. And again sadly we don't live in a world like this. Wanna be a politician? Unless your rich, you can't run a useful campaign unless you live in South Carolina and come up first alphabetically. And if you're not rich you need to become rich, which is why politicians are always corrupted by industry. That's the system we live in today and if that is truly successful governance, I wanna be Tarzan.

[edit on 27-7-2010 by SpectreDC]


I said not rule by any of those classes, or any classes for that matter. What I am looking for is egalitarian unity, where all persons are of equal voice in government.

I am not a Communist, so I don't want the workers in charge.

I am not an Oligarch, so I don't want the Aristocracy in charge.

I am not a Populist, so I don't want the Middle Class in charge.

However,

I am not an Anarchist, so I do believe that someone has to be in charge.

I am a socialist, more specifically a Democratic Socialist, so I believe that everyone should be in charge. I believe in the current definition as it stands, where a person is not sovereign, but a people are.

In my view, yes you and I are cogs in our respective nations mechanism of governance, but we are just as important as every other cog. If that does somehow abridge your definition of freedom, so be it.

A large part of Democratic Socialism is the philosophy of utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number. Now I believe that happiness is the true goal of humanity, so therefore it is the greatest good. Since it is impossible to quantify happiness, because it is a qualitative concept it is impossible to equate it directly with your idea of personal freedom for all individuals. Therefore, an egalitarian system such as Democratic Socialism can produce a framework where about happiness can exist, because it does not begin with presupposed notions.

Edit: Also what makes journalists unqualified to talk about politics? I am actually really curious about that one.

[edit on 27-7-2010 by ProjectJimmy]



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 


Rothbard, Mises, Hoppe, etc..

Did you know Rousseau was entirely against representative government?

The social contract theory that the statists love to shout from the roof tops was originally philosophized to entail sovereign individuals acting in micro-republics whereby the people organized an ran government themselves.

The General Will applies only to very small republics, republics that are so small that the sovereign people themselves ran the general government and made the rules. Rousseau was entirely against the artificial man created by representative government.

"The size of nations and to a large extent the states, these are the principle cause of human misfortunes."

"Nearly all small states, republics and monarchies alike flourish by reason of being small."

-Rousseau.

Now if government operated as such, I really wouldn't have a problem with it because I COULD MOVE to somewhere that wasn't run by a group of sadist control freaks.

He's talking about cities of people less than a few thousand, where everyone would enact direct government without representation.

At the time of his writing, there were no cities that even had a population of more than 50,000.

When these guys wrote of a social contract, they were expressly talking along the lines of direct sovereign individuals coming to agreement with each other about the rules of social conduct in their society.

NOT some elected fascist turd making decisions supposedly on their behalf and robbing them of their money.

I'm sure who ever taught the philosophy classes you took left that little part out.



[edit on 27-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Here's an entire lecture that deals with social contract theory and the nature of the State given by someone who isn't a total communist insurgent.


If you want more history, look here:
fascistsoup.com...

If you want more political philosophy, look here:
fascistsoup.com...

If you want more on the nature of the State, look here:
fascistsoup.com...



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join