Why are you not anarchist or Libertarian?

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Magnum007

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by Maslo
 


If "life" as you seem to put it were a natural right there would be no death as death would run contrary to nature.


That's what differentiates anarchists and libertarians from social conscious people, the lack of care for others on the basis that people should just die because it's the way it is... I'm sure you wouldn't think that way should you be refused medical care because you couldn't pay for it and nobody would want to help...

Scenario (don't wish this on you of course!!)

You have 2 kids and one gets sick, you mortgage the house and get a second job because the insurance company won't pay... Then you find out your second child is sick also and you can't afford the care needed to save their life... What do youtell them? "sorry w libertarians believe that people die so too bad, don't have the money to pay and that's the way it is!"

Come on!!! You can't tell me that common sense doesn't prevail!!!


what if everyone votes for a tax and the tax goes to pay for health care? What then.

You can have a stateless society and have health care. Only we would have to work in thier place. Non-violently.




posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
This video describes the purpose, and danger of the state.



Here is a debate between an anarchist and libertarian. They are far better at articulating, and describing these philosophies than my random babbles.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Healthcare breeds weak humans. What is more natural than the weak dying and the strong passing on their genes?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
There has to be a massive paradigm shift for a stateless society to be peaceful and compassionate. I don't need government (or religion) to be a good person. Do you? Until your answer to that question is "no", you inherently believe in the coercive nature of the state to force upon the people its own conceptions of morality, whether those conceptions are actually true or not. And that is an extremely dangerous thing.

The only thing that constitutes a state is the existence of people with guns, and the willingness of those people to use them. If you support the state, you support violence. Period. Anarchy is the only way for people to be truly free. To acheive such a society with any success, you must make a conscious decision, as an individual, to withdraw your support from statist systems and, of your own volition, be peaceful and compassionate. Once enough people do that, the spark will be come a wildfire and nothing will stop it.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by NthOther
 




I don't need government (or religion) to be a good person. Do you?


I dont. But look at the post above yours..
It clearly shows that some people need threats and coercion to be moral. Until that "paradigm shift" in human nature you speak of happens (I doubt it), we need the state in some form.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Anachism is a nice ideal, in some ways, I was into this view back in the 80's with punk bands like Crass and The Exploited, but this idea is a fantasy, because with a country of so many people, you have to have structure, protection, and services. Anarchism may work in a smallish commune type scenario, but it the "real world", there is too many people, too many unable or unwilling people, too many criminals who want to rob rape and kill, so anachism just don't work. Now, I think Libertarianism, as presented in the Libertarian Party, while probably not totally perfect, what is? would be a social advancement, I believe, compared to what we have now.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by NthOther
 




I don't need government (or religion) to be a good person. Do you?


I dont. But look at the post above yours..
It clearly shows that some people need threats and coercion to be moral. Until that "paradigm shift" in human nature you speak of happens (I doubt it), we need the state in some form.


Touche. However, threats and coercion are in and of themselves violent acts. You can't use violence to achieve non-violence. And as long as there are enough people who support the state, that paradigm shift will never reach a tipping point. I think it's inevitable at some point, whether it's 50, 100, or 1,000 years from now. But the awakening has to begin now, and I think it has.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by NthOther
There has to be a massive paradigm shift for a stateless society to be peaceful and compassionate. I don't need government (or religion) to be a good person. Do you? Until your answer to that question is "no", you inherently believe in the coercive nature of the state to force upon the people its own conceptions of morality, whether those conceptions are actually true or not. And that is an extremely dangerous thing.

The only thing that constitutes a state is the existence of people with guns, and the willingness of those people to use them. If you support the state, you support violence. Period. Anarchy is the only way for people to be truly free. To acheive such a society with any success, you must make a conscious decision, as an individual, to withdraw your support from statist systems and, of your own volition, be peaceful and compassionate. Once enough people do that, the spark will be come a wildfire and nothing will stop it.



Yeah anarachists are really violent vicious terrorists. The media is still smearing us as violent lunatics and killers yet we advocate peaceful non-violent change. But yeah ATS isn't Corpo-media



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
What happens when the Corpo-Media can't push the "Anarchists are terrorists" angle anymore? If we are non-violent and use peaceful non-violent protests and boycotts then what will they do to smear us? False flag? Patsy? Who knows?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


Because I have an over-abundance of common sense. Don't get me wrong I sympathize with libertarians, but pure libertarianism wouldn't work in the 21st century. Safety net's are as good of an idea as the right to own gun's(subjects are unarmed, citizens have guns). Just because some sociopath/psychopath's abuse safety nets and gun's doesn't mean the vast majority of people who act in good faith should be punished for it.

Personally I think society should be Conservative in appearance, Classical Liberal in our courts, Socialism-lite in our States and Pragmatic-Libertarian in our Federal Government. With all citizens regardless of race, gender, creed or class being equal in the law.
edit on 20-3-2011 by korathin because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
10
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join