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: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


To some degree your are right, but this violent behavior is something that is an inherent part of us that has surfaced all through history. And when there is no overpowering force controlling it, it will surface.

About your the workers owning the workplace, that has not much to do with enforcing laws and protecting citizens. I think the only effective way to do this is by powerful government that has a monopoly on violence and can not be undermined by a relative small group.




posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
In this proposed stateless area we now call USA, who will guarantee your human rights?

Smith and Wesson

How do you prevent the most violent people to take control of your community?

Smith and Wesson

Who will protect you against other, less pacifist, communities?

Smith and Wesson

How are you even able to travel safely?

Smith and Wesson

It seems to me this proposed system exists all over the world already, where the government has no or little control. What all these places have in common is that violence reigns.

The places that have the most violence have the most government. This is true, always. The bigger the government, the more violence it requires to maintain it.

The State has brain washed most people into believing they need to have violence directed against them through the tax system in order to protect them from violence directed against them from robbers and murders.

This is utterly ridiculous.



[edit on 28-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Oh I get it now, you want society to go back to 1750, nice...

What about all the people who don't have or can't use a gun?

Wouldn't it be better to have a system that doesn't need protecting because there is plenty for all?

And you're the one saying the state is bad because it's violent.

Hilarious...



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Everyone could afford and use a gun if the government didn't tax and regulate them into the ground.

A gun would be roughly as cheap as a power drill.

As the statistics clearly demonstrate, an armed society is a less violent and more peaceful society.

The State is not my protector. I am my own protector. The State can not keep me safe from any harm.

The State can not prevent me from getting robbed.

The State can not prevent me from getting raped.

The State can not prevent me from getting murdered.

The State can not prevent me from getting assaulted.

The State can do nothing to protect me, it can only punish those who are caught after the fact. And its track record at that is horrible.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK
 


To some degree your are right, but this violent behavior is something that is an inherent part of us that has surfaced all through history. And when there is no overpowering force controlling it, it will surface.


I disagree. People are pushed to violence when they have no other choice. No one chooses to go to war, that is decided for us by those with agenda out of our control. It's pretty easy to see wars are fought over the control of resources, including people (we are just a resource for labour), for capitalist interests.


About your the workers owning the workplace, that has not much to do with enforcing laws and protecting citizens. I think the only effective way to do this is by powerful government that has a monopoly on violence and can not be undermined by a relative small group.


When the population is really a community crime goes down, when people have good paying jobs and feel they are a part of their community crime goes down. When people are alienated from society due to whatever reason crime goes up, when people have the choice of working for minimum wage, college they can't afford, or military service crime goes up.

Obviously our present justice system isn't working. Again because of capitalism the prison system is not for punishing and rehabilitating people but a money maker. The system doesn't want to reduce crime, it serves 2 purposes for them, revenue, and fear. The more the state can make us fear each other the easier we are to control.

The majority of crime is property crime, most often due to poverty. Again the poor are usually the most targeted group because they are the least protected by the state. The capitalist class is protected, from crime and the law, when they are the real criminals.


Opponents of capitalism and the state point to the fact that the existing law making and law enforcement infrastructure acts primarily for the rich and powerful. In effect, the wealthy elite, who live in untold luxury from the proceeds of property and labour time stolen from the masses, are just thieves on a grand scale. Their institutionalised theft, however, is perfectly legal. Take the recent cases of the big 6 energy companies that hauled in record profits by introducing unprecedented price hikes that consigned thousands to fuel poverty; or the City speculators who made millions by gambling on the misery wreaked by the economic downturn.

news.infoshop.org...



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Well, this is not the world I want to live in, on the contrary. But maybe this idea can have some success, I wouldn't mind a bunch of people giving it a try.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The State can do nothing to protect me, it can only punish those who are caught after the fact. And its track record at that is horrible.


I never said it could, or did.

Are you reading what I say or just skimming and picking up words like 'state' and making assumptions as to what I'm saying? Cause your replies ain't making much sense to me.

I understand that your are anti-state, SO AM I.

I just realize that capitalism can not work without the state, and 'anarcho-capitalism' is not the Anarchism of the circled A you use, as that is based on Socialism. You should have a circled $ sign or something lol.


... freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice... Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality...Mikhail Bakunin , the founding father of Anarchism 1814 - 1876


Freedom without socialism is what you want, more of what we have now, privilege and injustice.

Bakunin must be rolling in his grave...

[edit on 7/28/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I am less optimistic about human nature. As long as people are well educated this may work. But, since you can't enforce education either, I suspect there will be a significant part that will not be very educated. And these people will fall back to primitive instincts more likely.

When I look at the country I live in, material poverty doesn't really exists. There is enough money for everyone, even (or maybe especially) the poorest people buy IPhones and 50 inch LCD's etc. But when you look at mental poverty, there is enough around. And this IMO is the real problem. People won't just start behaving because you tell them to.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by -PLB-]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK
 


I am less optimistic about human nature. As long as people are well educated this may work. But, since you can't enforce education either, I suspect there will be a significant part that will not be very educated. And these people will fall back to primitive instincts more likely.


Why would we not have an education system? It won't be as it is now but it doesn't mean we'll all give up educating people. We are going forward here not back.

If we fall back to our 'primitive' instincts this means we will act on our true nature and it has been found that we are naturally altruistic and cooperative. We are naturally social creatures and can not survive successfully on our own. We would naturally form social groups and cooperate for the good of the group, not ourselves as it is now due to capitalism and the conditioning through the state school system.

In a society that puts emphasis on cooperation rather than competition then people will change.


When I look at the country I live in, material poverty doesn't really exists. There is enough money for everyone, even (or maybe especially) the poorest people buy IPhones and 50 inch LCD's etc. But when you look at mental poverty, there is enough around. And this IMO is the real problem. People won't just start behaving because you tell them to.


I also believe that this system created the culture of TV watching and and wanting the lastest Iphone. There is not a lot of motivation for people to want to educate themselves, or better themselves. It's easier to buy the Iphone for that instant gratification.

We get these Iphones and stuff, and the social conditioning to buy them, because of the private ownership of the means of production, and it's need to make profit for the private owner above what is actually good for society.
Turning the population into selfish consumers with no consideration of the societal problems it causes that effect all of us. Except the capitalists, as they are the puppet masters and they only benefit.

Socialism will not utopia, it would be a rude wake up call for a lot of people.

[edit on 7/28/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Why would we not have an education system? It won't be as it is now but it doesn't mean we'll all give up educating people. We are going forward here not back.

If we fall back to our 'primitive' instincts this means we will act on our true nature and it has been found that we are naturally altruistic and cooperative. We are naturally social creatures and can not survive successfully on our own. We would naturally form social groups and cooperate for the good of the group, not ourselves as it is now due to capitalism and the conditioning through the state school system.

In a society that puts emphasis on cooperation rather than competition then people will change.


Sure there can be an education system, the issue is that it can not be enforced. You can't make people to educate themselves.

Of course humans have a lot of other qualities also. But violence, competition, greed and such are also human nature.



I also believe that this system created the culture of TV watching and and wanting the lastest Iphone. There is not a lot of motivation for people to want to educate themselves, or better themselves. It's easier to buy the Iphone for that instant gratification.

We get these Iphones and stuff, and the social conditioning to buy them, because of the private ownership of the means of production, and it's need to make profit for the private owner above what is actually good for society.
Turning the population into selfish consumers with no consideration of the societal problems it causes that effect all of us. Except the capitalists, as they are the puppet masters and they only benefit.

Socialism will not utopia, it would be a rude wake up call for a lot of people.

[edit on 7/28/2010 by ANOK]


I don't believe this behavior is created by the system. I think this is just the way humans are, this is how we evolved to be. Capitalism is just a way of exploiting this human property. That is why capitalism is so successful, no matter what culture or country.

I don't see it as "bad" per definition, we just need to find a place for it. I think denying this human trait is bad as dissatisfaction will start to grow, at least among a number of people, and eventually that will end up bad.

The problem with non-capitalist socialism is that a country can't be competitive with other countries that are capitalistic democracy, or even worse what we see lately capitalistic dictatorships. But that doesn't need to be a problem of course. Bottom line is though that most people prefer an easy life, not a hard working low standard of living one. So this kind of country would not be a preferable choice for most people.

I think capitalistic socialism is the best way to go for now. Humans are just not ready yet for the next step, whatever this step may be. I don't think you can easily change how people are just by changing the system.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Of course humans have a lot of other qualities also. But violence, competition, greed and such are also human nature.


That is true, and that is why capitalism is the way it is. Capitalists want it all for themselves, socialism can stop this.

The capitalist system conditions us to be overly competitive, it's not natural. Greed comes from others having more, this system is based on that, greed thrives on capitalism. We do not live in a natural system, so you can't expect our best traits to be prominent in this economic might is right system.



I don't believe this behavior is created by the system. I think this is just the way humans are, this is how we evolved to be. Capitalism is just a way of exploiting this human property. That is why capitalism is so successful, no matter what culture or country.


Capitalism is not successful for most people.


Bottom line is though that most people prefer an easy life, not a hard working low standard of living one. So this kind of country would not be a preferable choice for most people.


Again why would socialism have a low standard of living, how many times do I need to explain the opposite is true?


I think capitalistic socialism is the best way to go for now. Humans are just not ready yet for the next step, whatever this step may be. I don't think you can easily change how people are just by changing the system.


There is no such thing as capitalistic-socialism, they are opposites.

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production.
Socialism is the workers ownership....

Again how many time do I have to repeat this? I'm not arguing for social health care or handouts. Social programs are the result of capitalism and it's unfair distribution of wealth created by peoples labour.

With that in mind do you want to re-think your argument?



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


What I mean with succesful is that it appeals to almost everyone in the world. In a way you can say it has "spoiled" many cultures, who now prefer television and luxury goods above their old way of living. People look at the west and think "I want this too".

Maybe something just got lost in translation. I mean social democracy, which is also capitalist. edit: it seem this term is rather confusing when I translate it to English, I am not sure if it means the same in my language as in English.

About lower standards of living, with this I mean in a materialistic sense. As far as I can think of the only reason your idea is not possible within capitalism is because a company like this can't be competitive, legally there are no problems. What is keeping anyone from starting a company where every employee own an equal share of this company?

Anyway, I haven't read much from you or your ideas, so if you could point to a post or site where its explained in detail that would help.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by -PLB-]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join