Why are you not anarchist or Libertarian?

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


But you prefer to be at the mercy of insurance companies and big corporations who only find ways to make money off your back and actually, genuinely, knowingly, and openly do not give a rats behind about you?

You prefer to be extorted by companies who do no good or help no one exept to gain tax breaks? Instead of government who uses the money for the greater good as in Canada and the other countries I mentioned?

Why do you think the US is going to collapse? Why do you think it's people are in such a situation concerning bankruptcies and foreclosures and such? The lack of government oversight and legislation allowed corporations and companies to profit without due care... And who is sufferig now? The people... This is what happens when the corporations have free reign... Government is not there only to enforce laws, it's there to protect the people from those said idiots who take away fromthe people...

He thieves are not your government, They are the corporations who are allowed to do anything they want because the government has no testicular fortitude to say NO!

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by Maslo

 

Essentially it's the same way with the government.

The government has taken "might makes right" and moved it to levels where the person has no chance of defending himself against it or changing it to work in his favor.

The government have monopolized might makes right.

As long as you're with the mob it's fine. Take a step outside of the mob and you see the cage around you.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Might always makes right, that is the basic law of nature. The question is only who or what will this might be, and how will it be controlled. In modern governments, it is (or is supposed to be) controlled primarily by people and legal experts. In natural law based society or anarchy, it is controlled by power, conflicts, amount of money and chance, with public and legal opinion being of low importance.

Reply to post by Magnum007

It's not as simple as grunting "one bad, other good."

I dont want anyone having control over my property or my life. Not some corporation or a government.

When the US collapses it will be for a multitude of financial reasons. Healthcare expense will no doubt be included it that. It's worth noting no country is immune. Ignoring the expense has any involvement whatsoever in Europes austerity mess would be foolish.

Also worth mentioning is that the entire structure of US health care from insurance practices, to government involvement to cost of services is the result of decades of politicians and lobbyists manipulation. What is and what has been for as long as many of us has been alive is not natural.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

In the US, the government and the corporate power structures are synonymous. The government works with, and for, large corporate interests. I cannot differentiate the two. We can pretend that corporations are the root of all evil, but without preferential treatment by government they would not be able to do all that they do. It began with recognizing corporate entities as having individual legal rights. That, combined with endless assets to influence the political process, created the incest we have today. I do not understand how anyone can condemn multinationals( and they deserve it) without seeing the role of government in their power.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Since we are discussing what is natural wand what is not...

I guess you should give up your telephone, your computer, your car, your Internet subscription and pretty much everything you own!

Btw, it's not natural to own anything, including land... In nature, you only occupy and use land and its resources, you don't own anything... It kind of contradicts your ideology on what's naturaland what's not...

Reply to post by Maslo

In natural law based society or anarchy, it is controlled by power, conflicts, amount of money and chance, with public and legal opinion being of low importance.

Totally unlike any government, right?

When somebody or some group decides they dont like homosexuals the homosexuals and anyone supporting them can stand up or even leave. When a government decides it doesnt like homosexuals standing up is not an option. You'd simply be marching off to slaughter.

If the Japanese Americans during WWII fought back when the government rounded them up into camps what do you think would have happened? Even if they didnt fight but just passively resisted?

It's organized crime running off of mob-rule support and extorted property.

Mob rule, might makes right, can happen with or without a government. Having the government just makes it okay. Like the FDA sanctions poisoning of food and water. It's bad and wrong if you do it but if the gov is doing it it's just and righteous.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Reply to post by Magnum007

I agree about land. But if I worked it and planted on it those crops are mine.

Using "natural" to go after modern technologies is fine but that is "natural" of a different meaning. We are talking about natural order. Not paleo human primitivism.

Though, if I could shed myself of these things I would. Currently I live in a system that punishes that practice by limiting what I can do with my land, forcing me to be connected to "services" and "utilities" and requires tithing in the form of taxation which forces me to earn an income in the kings marks which further subjects me to more tithing.

It is illegal to do what you suggest. Government has made it so.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


If it's illegal, then how do Amish people live?

I'm honestly curious!

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Why do you think that standing up or leaving would be more of an option if bigger might would be against it in anarchy, than in the same situation with government?

It's organized crime running off of mob-rule support and extorted property.

Alternative to this is what? Organized crime supported by minority? Not extorting property (third right - right to property) even when the alternative is breaching someones first right (right to live)? Both are worse.

There is no other option - either majority opinion rules, or minority opinion rules.

Mob rule, might makes right, can happen with or without a government.

Might makes right happens always. Mob rule happens when majority controls the ultimate might. So far, there was never a better system than "mob rule". Democracy is mob rule.

Having the government just makes it okay.

It makes it better than other realistic alternatives.

Reply to post by Magnum007

Unless the country is entirely Amish they are still expected to pay their taxes. This requirement leads to horrible things like puppy mills and even Amish drug manufacturing. It also gets the Amish in trouble for things like "raw" food retail.

They break laws and commit atrocities to keep living the way they do. A way which is eroding at an alarming rate. All because the gov cant leave them alone.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Reply to post by Maslo

At least you admit it. Obviously you prefer this. I don't.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


So to fix this lawlessness the answer is more lawlessness?

I don't understand!

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


If you abolish property taxes and all other ad hoc taxes not dependet on income and leave only one tax payed only when there is economic activity (either consumption tax or income tax), majority of problems like these would go away.

Reply to post by Magnum007

So to fix this lawlessness the answer is more lawlessness?

Well, yes. In this case the lawlessness is occurring to comply with the requirement of living under the umbrella of a government.

Break apart the mafia and little Johnny doesnt have to rob from his neighbors to pay the protection money his father cant afford to keep the family shop running.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Reply to post by Maslo

Yup. But that will never happen. Americans are too preoccupied with manufactured vengeance. They arent happy unless they are attacking somebody. Whether attacking the assets of the rich or the independence of the self sufficient homesteader.

Evil thieving people elected an evil theiving government.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Although it makes sense in this case (because these people live a VERY simple life needing nothing but what the land gives to them), it does not work on a larger more modern scale. For very simple reasons that I mentioned in previous posts (we all need free education, health care, and other services).

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Then it's up to the people to elect people who are willing to spend 130 Trillion dollars on them instead of on war and handouts to contractors and other companies who just made the money disappear in mid air!

Can you imagine how much health care you can get for 130 trillion?

Just a thought!

Reply to post by Magnum007

So why not permit the self sufficient to opt out? Why use government imposed taxes based on government manipulated values and government imposed legislation to herd the populations into more dense urban areas where their dependence is no longer an option but a mandate?

You'd think the system would be happy to have even 2% of the population off of the tit. So why is the gov hellbent on limiting independence?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I live in a remote northern village (north of 60) with less than 200 people... I pay taxes, am self sufficient, and the government never stopped me from doing anything.

I live my life quietly, in peace, pay my taxes, I don't own the land I'm on (it belongs to mother nature... actually it's category IA land so it belongs to all the Inuit)... The taxes we pay gets me health care, the sewage truck to come to my house every 2 days, the water truck to come every 2 days, my electricity, and the roads and infrastructure we have in town... How can I complain that the government interferes with my life? It actually makes it easier...

I don't have to worry about looking for my credit card when I go to the doctor (or when my 37 week pregnant wife needs a check-up), I don't have to worry about looking for a contractor to empty my sewage tank, or fill my water tank, I don't have to worry about my electricity nor whether my entrance is cleaned from the snow... It's all taken care of for me with my taxes...

My son will go to school one day and then later get cheap, post secondary education. What more can I ask?

IDK, I'm happy the way things are here, I really can't complain. The government NEVER interfered with my life. Once they claimed I didn't live north so they docked 1000$ from my tax return. After calling them and providing proof of me living in the north, all was fixed in less than 3 weeks...

The problems I have is with the airline that serves the north. They are a monopoly. Therefore it costs almost 5000$ roundtrip for a 3000Km flight (luckily my employer pays my trips). I can go to europe 5 times for that money. This also means that the food, which can only get here by air once the 3 sealifts are done coming here, costs an arm and a leg because we cannot choose another carrier to send the food... Also when the chairman and his collegues get a few million in bonuses at the end of the year instead of lowering prices, you know, that hurts...

In my experience :
government = not so bad, they look out for us and try to take care of us
companies = very bad, profits are the #1 drive and people are not important....

Magnum

reply to post by Control

Yep. I'll do it without the bloody labels and selfish superiority complexes though. The greatest benefit is that I don't associate with those that choose to use the label "anarchist" anymore. In fact, the "anarchist" label has become something of a red flag for me...warning me of impending idiocy and immaturity....

I would like to see a "minimalist" government with basic rights protected just as the US government was SUPPOSED to work. The Corporate/Government Revolving Door means our "regulations" are meant to keep the little guy from ever being able to compete with the corporate cartels by raising the bar so very few can enter the world of small business and those who do become successful get a visit form "BIG BROTHER" and fines and jail time.

Unfortunately most people see our present Neo-Corporatism and think it is Capitalism. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is probably the biggest con ever perpetrated on the public by the bankers.

WHY?
Because capitalism is the exact opposite of zero% Fractional Reserve Banking. Because it uses REAL wealth not fairy dust for creating more wealth (real products)

What is capitalism?

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Under capitalism the state is separated from economics (production and trade), just like the state is separated from religion. Capitalism is the system of of laissez faire. It is the system of political freedom. www.capitalism.org...

Notice there is NOTHING said about competition in the definition.

Bankers of course LOVE socialism/progressivism or what every you what to call the ever increasing expansion of government bureaucracy. The more the government expanses the more "fairy dust" the bankers loan the government and the more the Fed can increase the money supply. This creates a wider and wider gap between wages and the price of goods. I explain it in Bloodsucking Bankers

The only reason "socialism/progressivism" has become popular and capitalism has been vilified is because THAT is what the bankers and the elite WANT the "Great Unwashed" to believe. After all the elite control our media and our schools.

It used to be religion was used to control the masses now the "new" religions, used to control the masses are Socialism and Environmentalism.


(the takeover of the media)
U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917: J.P. Morgan interests bought 25 of America's leading newspapers, and inserted their own editors, in order to control the media.

JP Morgan: Our next big media player? (April 13, 2010) JP Morgan controls 54 U.S. daily newspapers,and owns 31 television stations. www.newsandtech.com...

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership: www.globalissues.org...