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.

 

Using Statist Idiocy Against Itself

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
The statist elite seek to dominate and enslave, yet in order to effectively do this, they had to turn the great unwashed into a horde of mindless idiots.

It has occurred to me that this is indeed a double edged sword. Since the great unwashed have been reduced to an ignorant drooling stupor, they can no longer rationally comprehend why certain things are bad while others are good. They react completely on emotion with no logical thought processes underpinning their belief structure. Populist arguments have massive sway since rationality has been abolished through decades of statist public education.

Hence, we see totally illogical events unfolding, such as “anarchists” demanding more government and democrats calling for an end to the federal reserve system. The later of which I think can be effectively targeted by the few remaining logical thinkers left in our society as a means to shut down the machine.

Since the unwashed are too stupid to realize that abolishing the federal reserve would necessarily force government to spend within its means, we see many statists today calling for an end to the great Ponzi unwittingly knowing they are undermining their own totalitarian Utopian vision.

If the great unwashed can be convinced that the fed actually props up and supports the “bourgeois” banking class, the populist sentiment against centralized banking may be used as a weapon against itself.

Perhaps free thinkers should adopt a stance of class warfare, but rather than directing the broad irrational/emotional based arguments at the private banking industry, they should direct their arguments at the private federally mandated commercial banking cartel called the federal reserve system that enables the mass looting of the public by the private commercial banks themselves.

The use of Marxian terminology should not necessarily be thrown out the window if its use will further the agenda of freedom and prosperity.


edit on 8-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
And your point is what?

A great many leftists of the anarcho-socialist/leftist libertarian variety would agree with you here. Using Marxist analysis to attack the Federal Reserve and state-sanctioned monopolies in no way whatsoever invalidates left-wing viewpoints... in fact, it only gives further support to the concept of non-statist left-wing philosophies.

Not all left-wing anarchists are statists. Making such broad, nonsensical generalizations and assumptions only serves to weaken your argument and reduces it to mere propagandized mudslinging.


edit on 8-9-2010 by Someone336 because: Symantics and clarification.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Someone336
And your point is what?

A great many leftists of the anarcho-socialist/leftist libertarian variety would agree with you here. Using Marxist analysis to attack the Federal Reserve and state-sanctioned monopolies in no way whatsoever invalidates left-wing viewpoints... in fact, it only gives further support to the concept of non-statist left-wing philosophies.

Not all left-wing anarchists are statists. Making such broad, nonsensical generalizations and assumptions only serves to weaken your argument and reduces it to mere propagandized mudslinging.


edit on 8-9-2010 by Someone336 because: Symantics and clarification.



The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting different results.

The Marxist Utopians and socialist democrats would have us believe that eliminating one state sanctioned monopoly and replacing it with another will somehow result in a better state of affairs.

Economic law makes it clear that monopolies can not provide superior service at a superior cost. It is literally impossible for this to occur.

Further, if we take monopoly out of the picture, the social welfare state envisioned by the Utopians becomes an impossibility due to the massive theft of the middle class that must necessarily occur through taxation. The plebes will resist higher levels of taxation. The State can not tax enough to create the Utopian vision. It will naturally be limited if government was forced to spend within its means.




edit on 8-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
My issue here is that you making broad generalizations and assumptions about the beliefs about all leftists and leftist-anarchists, in that you maintain that they all support 'government sanctioned monopolies such as the Federal Reserve.

This is not true. A true leftist would use the exact same rhetoric that you are using in this, using the Marxian analysis to attack the corporatist power structure in this country. Sorry to burst your bubble, but not all of us are slobbering statist drones.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Someone336
My issue here is that you making broad generalizations and assumptions about the beliefs about all leftists and leftist-anarchists, in that you maintain that they all support 'government sanctioned monopolies such as the Federal Reserve.

This is not true. A true leftist would use the exact same rhetoric that you are using in this, using the Marxian analysis to attack the corporatist power structure in this country. Sorry to burst your bubble, but not all of us are slobbering statist drones.


You can't have socialism without State monopolies enforced at gun point.

It is literally impossible.

Left-anarchism is an oxymoron, I don't care what excuses Chomsky throws out there to justify his ridiculous belief structure. You can't have socialism as a national economic system without the State monopolizing resources at gun point.

I make the point that socialists supporting the elimination of the federal reserve is illogical.




edit on 8-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


That's funny, because I would consider voluntary collectivism to achieve common goals for the community to be pretty peaceful.

A real socialist, much like any real anarchist, would not believe in a national economic system, because they would not believe in the nation. Thus, there would be no state to monopolize industry. This is the fundamental fact that you are overlooking.

A real anarchist would be against all forms of social hierarchy, be it the byproduct of the state, the church, or capitalism.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Double post.


edit on 8-9-2010 by Someone336 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Someone336
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


That's funny, because I would consider voluntary collectivism to achieve common goals for the community to be pretty peaceful.

A real socialist, much like any real anarchist, would not believe in a national economic system, because they would not believe in the nation. Thus, there would be no state to monopolize industry. This is the fundamental fact that you are overlooking.

A real anarchist would be against all forms of social hierarchy, be it the byproduct of the state, the church, or capitalism.


Voluntary collectivism is fine.

Of course, this is not what left-anarchists, communists, socialists, or socialist democrats agitate for.

A left anarchist would argue that they should be able to create a tax-free voluntary commune and that no one should be able to regulate what they do there. - That is the ONLY logical definition of "left anarchist".

Anything else necessarily results in the use of violence to monopolize resources.




edit on 8-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Someone336
My issue here is that you making broad generalizations and assumptions about the beliefs about all leftists and leftist-anarchists, in that you maintain that they all support 'government sanctioned monopolies such as the Federal Reserve.

This is not true. A true leftist would use the exact same rhetoric that you are using in this, using the Marxian analysis to attack the corporatist power structure in this country. Sorry to burst your bubble, but not all of us are slobbering statist drones.


You can't have socialism without State monopolies enforced at gun point.

It is literally impossible.

Left-anarchism is an oxymoron, I don't care what excuses Chomsky throws out there to justify his ridiculous belief structure. You can't have socialism as a national economic system without the State monopolizing resources at gun point.

I make the point that socialists supporting the elimination of the federal reserve is illogical.




edit on 8-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



At the same time your anarchy depend upon a framework of natural law, this is fact giving a framework to anarchy which also an oxymoron. True anarchy would be the law of nature, which is no frame work, no laws,
rules, property or official consequence... Your anarchy is belief system that has definition and bounds, hence it is not really anarchy in the true sense of the word.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red
At the same time your anarchy depend upon a framework of natural law, this is fact giving a framework to anarchy which also an oxymoron. True anarchy would be the law of nature, which is no frame work, no laws,
rules, property or official consequence... Your anarchy is belief system that has definition and bounds, hence it is not really anarchy in the true sense of the word.


Anarchy results in no State, it does not result in "no law".

Much of our law originated out of private law courts, which were created by merchants to deal with trade disputes. For example, admiralty law was established by the shipping industry.

A State is not necessary to enforce or create such common law.




edit on 8-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



Of course, this is not what left-anarchists, communists, socialists, or socialist democrats agitate for.


Again, those sweeping generalizations... Yes, social democrats lean to the neo-conservative ideology, while 'communists', and 'socialists' fall all over the place, as there is no set doctrine for either of these. Meanwhile, left-anarchists would advocate for


a tax-free voluntary commune and that no one should be able to regulate what they do there.


I know quite a few individuals who support this idea with all of their being.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Someone336
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



Of course, this is not what left-anarchists, communists, socialists, or socialist democrats agitate for.


Again, those sweeping generalizations... Yes, social democrats lean to the neo-conservative ideology, while 'communists', and 'socialists' fall all over the place, as there is no set doctrine for either of these. Meanwhile, left-anarchists would advocate for


a tax-free voluntary commune and that no one should be able to regulate what they do there.


I know quite a few individuals who support this idea with all of their being.


The "set doctrine" of socialism is violent monopolization of resources.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Janky Red
At the same time your anarchy depend upon a framework of natural law, this is fact giving a framework to anarchy which also an oxymoron. True anarchy would be the law of nature, which is no frame work, no laws,
rules, property or official consequence... Your anarchy is belief system that has definition and bounds, hence it is not really anarchy in the true sense of the word.


Anarchy results in no State, it does not result in "no law".

Much of our law originated out of private law courts, which were created by merchants to deal with trade disputes. For example, admiralty law was established by the shipping industry.

A State is not necessary to enforce or create such common law.




edit on 8-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



But anarchy exists without pretext or pretense - it is the absence of construct. You apply a construct and a value system which is a state in itself - you are not a true anarchist because you do not oppose the
verb STATE. A true anarchist would oppose the verb and the noun -

no physical structure or philosophical structure

You advocate a state that is privately administered - without a state; would provide no basis for private ownership


edit on 8-9-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red
But anarchy exists without pretext or pretense - it is the absence of construct. You apply a construct and a value system which is a state in itself - you are not a true anarchist because you do not oppose the
verb STATE. A true anarchist would oppose the verb and the noun -

no physical structure or philosophical structure

You advocate a state that is privately administered - without a state; would provide no basis for private ownership


edit on 8-9-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



I'm not applying anything - you are.

The accepted definition of anarchy is "no state"

It does not mean "no law"

Private individuals using private for-profit courts and private for-profit security would be entirely capable of peaceful dispute resolution without the need for a coercive State.

Much of the world operates a "loser pays" court system, where the loser of the litigation pays the court costs.



edit on 8-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Janky Red
But anarchy exists without pretext or pretense - it is the absence of construct. You apply a construct and a value system which is a state in itself - you are not a true anarchist because you do not oppose the
verb STATE. A true anarchist would oppose the verb and the noun -

no physical structure or philosophical structure

You advocate a state that is privately administered - without a state; would provide no basis for private ownership


edit on 8-9-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



I'm not applying anything - you are.

The accepted definition of anarchy is "no state"

It does not mean "no law"

Private individuals using private for-profit courts and private for-profit security would be entirely capable of peaceful dispute resolution without the need for a coercive State.

Much of the world operates a "loser pays" court system, where the loser of the litigation pays the court costs.



edit on 8-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



I don't see why you want to do away with the constitution - No taxation and no representation too... I just realized this; I am surprised that you and libertarians get along... It is probably the free market ideas that
provide the commonality.

anyhow

let me get this straight, I can be a judge???

What is to keep me from awarding the judgement to the highest bidder? What determines my judgement?

This sounds like it could be more corrupt than the current SOP



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


I'd rather represent myself.

The point of a judge is to be an impartial arbitrator of disputes.

Since the State is its own arbitrator, it can not be impartial in disputes that involve itself.

This is why we have a Supreme Court that says its OK to make everything illegal.

In a private system, the judge is always impartial.





edit on 8-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Janky Red
 


I'd rather represent myself.




Fair enough

So lets say I am your judge... and I suggest that I need $5,000 to side with you in judgement.

IS it pay me OR guilt regardless of the case?



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Janky Red
 


I'd rather represent myself.

The point of a judge is to be an impartial arbitrator of disputes.

Since the State is its own arbitrator, it can not be impartial in disputes that involve itself.

This is why we have a Supreme Court that says its OK to make everything illegal.

In a private system, the judge is always impartial.





edit on 8-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



Unless the judge has a financial motive and desires to better their economic position in life.

You see this is where your ideas lose me even on a logical level "In a private system, the judge is always impartial."

How do you know, I mean really, this is what you want, but you cannot retain logic and expect this is what you will get.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Janky Red
 


I'd rather represent myself.




Fair enough

So lets say I am your judge... and I suggest that I need $5,000 to side with you in judgement.

IS it pay me OR guilt regardless of the case?


The way it works is as follows:

I have a dispute with you over some property.

I sue you and take you to court.

If I lose the case, I have to pay the judge for his time.

If you lose the case, you have to pay the judge for his time.

The judge doesn't care which of us loses or wins.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Janky Red
 


I'd rather represent myself.




Fair enough

So lets say I am your judge... and I suggest that I need $5,000 to side with you in judgement.

IS it pay me OR guilt regardless of the case?


The way it works is as follows:

I have a dispute with you over some property.

I sue you and take you to court.

If I lose the case, I have to pay the judge for his time.

If you lose the case, you have to pay the judge for his time.

The judge doesn't care which of us loses or wins.


But this assumes that the judge is not as crooked as a modern day politician -

The judge might have become a judge in the first place because he sees a potential for profit.
He may base his judgement on who is willing to pay for a particular decision.

It is the same concept that is wrong with government, people are corruptible


edit on 8-9-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join