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.
Originally posted by Hendrix92TheUniverse
The Rebels who took over the corrupt government of Myanmar, TODAY, turned over the government to the democratically elected government.
So your premise is indeed false.
But thanks for posting, and making us think about it.
Originally posted by shagreen heart
i have to disagree with the title of this thread, it's a linear logical fallacy. the 2nd amendment isn't there to make things worse, it's there to rollback the warped constitution. a violent revolution doesn't mean a new violent government.
Originally posted by LanMan54
reply to post by shagreen heart
So, your implying that the American Revolutionaries, for instance, weren't violent? Didn't they overthrow the British government? What about the French Revolutionaries? What about the Russian Revolutionaries? Who fought in the world wars? Non-violent soldiers working for the government? Sorry, you're wrong.
Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
Originally posted by shagreen heart
i have to disagree with the title of this thread, it's a linear logical fallacy. the 2nd amendment isn't there to make things worse, it's there to rollback the warped constitution. a violent revolution doesn't mean a new violent government.
The very wording of that last sentence is a contradiction of itself. The fact that violence was used to establish a new government, explicitly defines the meaning of "the new government (created by the 'Revolutionary's') is violent", They have already used violence...
To all that truly believe a violent revolution can achieve lasting peace and rights, I ask of you; have you ever killed a man? Or even shot a man? Have you ever been shot before? Has anyone in your family, or multiple people, ever been murdered in an act of violence?
I ask these questions because the average human is pushed to the brink of insanity when they are confronted with these situations. Military personal go through a completely life altering breakdown and rebuilding process of their 'self' just to prepare for these situations, and even they cannot always kept their sanity when exposed to this type of murder, blood and war.
Originally posted by AboveTheTrees
Anyway, Beezer,
let me add one thing...
I agree 100% with your post.
Violence appeals or attracts more violence. One Government overthrown with violence will surely be managed by violent squads. and it would be likely to presume it will be overthrown by violence too.
Peaceful Democracy Is Needed across the whole world.
Originally posted by lowki
Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
Ban all private ownership of infrastructures.The public owns it. Waterworks,Power,roads,railroads,harbors,land(no property tax).
Ban all private ownership of business entities.The public owns it(1% per local resident no more).
You an aspiring socialist dictator?
no
Oh ya, once you have public agriculture,
you'll probably starve the populace.
Cause that always happens.
"By accident".
Stalin, Mao, you name it.
Industrial Russian Agriculture still can't grow an food.
people have to grow at home, or else they'd starve (mostly).
Both were very authoritarian I am very libertarian. The local infrastructures are owned by local public democratic cooperatives. Not privately owned multinational corporations owned by the elite. The people that live there own the infrastructure there. They can lease it to a local cooperatives for use though.Either way the community profits
Back money up with raw resources like nickel,copper,platinum,silver,gold,fresh water,non-GMO crops etc.
No central banks.No FIAT currency. PERIOD.
then what are you backing up?
you mean You want to be The Central Bank?
Our central "bank" is publically owned. If your a citizen you already own 1% of the "bank". No one is allowed to own more than 1% shares. They are untradeable. Everyone can vote on how the "bank" can be ran. All other banks have to be publically owned(1% per local resident of the community).
Pay is determined by how much you contribute to the community in paid volunteership hours.Sit on your ass you get barely enough to pay the bills and some cheap subsidized food. Contribute and you can get a condo and eat at a nice restraint and order a pizza.
Oh Soviet Russia,
how lazy everyone was,
all the same pay,
a scientist,
or janitor.
why work,
when you can socialize?
still putting in the hours.
This is false. Unlike the soviet union you have a choice to work or not work. Your allowance is based on your community voluneteership hours and value of work to a publically owned cooperative. Do nothing you get paid a bare minimum.(barely enough to pay your bills in subsidized housing and industrial canned foods etc) Do alot for the local community your allowance is alot. A scientist asking price for his services to a publically owned cooperative is higher than a janitor because a janitor's service's are easier to come by.
Allowance == Bidding price of quality of work + volume of work + rarity of service
I mean you don't HAVE to work but you can be ALOT more confortable if you do.
Giving money to another person is impossible AND illegal(secured debit).
Oh ya, soldiers with machine guns walking around,
on the streets enforcing anti-trade laws.
Yep, definitely most people starve.
You don't have to when its almost impossible.It has to be approved by the local public community first.You don't need guns/police state servience just fine people electronically.
edit on 1/2/11 by lowki because: quotes
at least in Soviet-Communism, internal-trade was ignored,
there was the bazaar or farmer's market,
which provides the bulk of the food,
without it, we'd mostly be dead.
non-profit food markets are legal. Cooperative food markets are legal. What are you talking about
during the artifical-famines,
my grandma starved so hard,
she had a swollen colon, like those sympathy-ad African children,
even though they were growing potatoes and vegetables themselves.
the less fortunate reverted to cannibalism,
and there is still lots of "black humour"
to remind us of those days.
A joke I overheard at the dinner table:
One Cannibal as discussing with another:
Why shouldn't you make a student in soup?
why not?
Cause they'll eat all the vegetables!
ahahaha
Ya I was surprised,
they were so hungry,
that they would eat vegetables.edit on 1/2/11 by lowki because: Cannibalism
Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
Originally posted by lowki
Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
Ban all private ownership of infrastructures.The public owns it. Waterworks,Power,roads,railroads,harbors,land(no property tax).
Ban all private ownership of business entities.The public owns it(1% per local resident no more).
You an aspiring socialist dictator?
no
Oh ya, once you have public agriculture,
you'll probably starve the populace.
Cause that always happens.
"By accident".
Stalin, Mao, you name it.
Industrial Russian Agriculture still can't grow an food.
people have to grow at home, or else they'd starve (mostly).
Both were very authoritarian I am very libertarian. The local infrastructures are owned by local public democratic cooperatives.
Not privately owned multinational corporations owned by the elite. The people that live there own the infrastructure there. They can lease it to a local cooperatives for use though.Either way the community profits
Our central "bank" is publically owned. If your a citizen you already own 1% of the "bank". No one is allowed to own more than 1% shares. They are untradeable. Everyone can vote on how the "bank" can be ran. All other banks have to be publically owned(1% per local resident of the community).
Pay is determined by how much you contribute to the community in paid volunteership hours.Sit on your ass you get barely enough to pay the bills and some cheap subsidized food. Contribute and you can get a condo and eat at a nice restraint and order a pizza.
Oh Soviet Russia,
how lazy everyone was,
all the same pay,
a scientist,
or janitor.
why work,
when you can socialize?
still putting in the hours.
This is false. Unlike the soviet union you have a choice to work or not work.
Your allowance is based on your community voluneteership hours and value of work to a publically owned cooperative.
Do nothing you get paid a bare minimum.(barely enough to pay your bills in subsidized housing and industrial canned foods etc)
Do alot for the local community your allowance is alot. A scientist asking price for his services to a publically owned cooperative is higher than a janitor because a janitor's service's are easier to come by.
Allowance == Bidding price of quality of work + volume of work + rarity of service
I mean you don't HAVE to work but you can be ALOT more confortable if you do.
Giving money to another person is impossible AND illegal(secured debit).
Oh ya, soldiers with machine guns walking around,
on the streets enforcing anti-trade laws.
Yep, definitely most people starve.
You don't have to when its almost impossible.It has to be approved by the local public community first.You don't need guns/police state servience just fine people electronically.
at least in Soviet-Communism, internal-trade was ignored,
there was the bazaar or farmer's market,
which provides the bulk of the food,
without it, we'd mostly be dead.
non-profit food markets are legal. Cooperative food markets are legal. What are you talking about
during the artifical-famines,
my grandma starved so hard,
she had a swollen colon, like those sympathy-ad African children,
even though they were growing potatoes and vegetables themselves.
No one is advocating starving people. Nor are we advocating authoritarian central governments.
Local democratically ran libertarian collectives would make sure people don't starve. How? The collectives(the local governing body) are the residents of that community NOT elite private interests.
In this system the dominating government is the public itself. There are no presidents or kings or prime ministers. None. Just the people. These libertarian communities have thier own bill of rights and local direct democracy voting precedure.
They all have an unchangeable civil/human rights laws and libertarian constitution.
If the local community wants to legalize weed and prostitution then they can legalize it via local direct democracy.
They can freely construct their society the way they want to. They just can't violate libertarian constitutional laws.
(no state governing body that is not the public. No leaders. No taxes that are not agreed on by the local community.No property tax, there is rent though but is owned by a local land coop.The income tax pays for public social services,like,all the insurances,workman's comp,disability,medicare,etc NOT to a privately owned industrialist cartel).
Under Xeer, there is no authority that dictates what the law should be. The law is instead discovered by judges as they determine the best way to resolve a dispute. As such, the Somali nation by tradition is a stateless society; that is, Somalis have never accepted the authority of any central government, their own or any other.
"Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalia's service sector has managed to survive and grow. Telecommunication firms provide wireless services in most major cities and offer the lowest international call rates on the continent. In the absence of a formal banking sector, money exchange services have sprouted throughout the country, handling between $500 million and $1 billion in remittances annually. Mogadishu's main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets. Hotels continue to operate, and militias provide security."
RE: Debate about resource based economy, i did not want to derail thread
Please take some time to view the bigger picture here.
Ok money is great, it has been a huge contributor to our human evolution as a species. It has done its job so far, and a pretty good job of it.
But also with money, the system is designed to have pockets of very very poor people, some of the pockets being entire countries. Look at the rate of which infants,children,teens,young adults,middleaged people, and the elderly are ALL starving to death because of the lack of care for these countries. Guess what, if this was a person that was killing 18,000 people a day, we would spend billions of dollars to send soldiers to find that person and end the problem, BUT it is a silent killer, no bombs no nuclear anything, so nobody really cares, I mean on a daily basis I'm sure there are way more people that don't think 1 second about any of them, and its very sad.
The resources wasted on WW2 could of built several hospitals in every single country in the world where it was needed, Yet we wasted it on war and even more death and destruction, all for what? If you follow the money trail it goes to people that made a lot of money on WW2.
Humanity has a case of "Values Disorder"
In our minds, $20,000,000 is worth way more than 1 persons life, I would bet the farm that more people would take money over a strangers life.
The argument that countries that are starving does not have farmland is laughable.
We have the technology to build farms in buildings that are as tall as the demand for food is, with hydroponics.
Hydroponic food is 1000 times better than soil grown s*it
with poisons sprayed on it for our own good, also it has a lower chance of spreading diseases that kills the populace, which happen all too often.
Guess why countries like africa do not have those everywhere?? Oh yeah money. Its not because it does not work, look up the farms that are already on youtube, its amazing.
History does not apply to the current times, no other time in history did we have people losing a vast amount of jobs
that created wealth due to robots, and it is showing no intent to slow down, it will get worse by the decade, by 2050 how many robots to todays do you think there will be
Im interested in a civil debate with you because I would really like to hear your reply.
Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by shagreen heart
"i grip the hypothetical bait you're dangling,"
" just because it's never happened before (because all systems fail and we aren't a spiritual or altruistic and unified planet yet) doesn't mean it can't, or won't, or is impossible and therefore untrue."
Hypothetical huh? Your whole premise is hypothetical as you have no evidence.
How can a culture, society or group of people who are sympathetic to violence, ever create a non-violent society? Isn't a non-violent society unsympathetic to violence?
Oh, and if A = Revolution, and B = New Government, and C = Violence
Then if A=B and A=C, then B=C
Math simplifies everything. Thanks.edit on 2-2-2011 by LifeIsEnergy because: (no reason given)