It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by NuroSlam
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by NuroSlam
Some clearly didn't read your post or else assumed you meant more than you said. When I read your post, it was clear you were sharing your opinion with this woman, without any expectation of her to go along with you. You were giving her options.
People aren't used to a system where people share their opinions without expectation of agreement. In today's America, if you share your opinion with someone, it means that you're trying to convince them of something, trying to make them wrong, or support laws that would make all people behave in a certain manner.
We're so messed up. :shk:
Society/Government has so well conditioned people to believe that any idea that doesn't support the status quo is wrong and evil. I write these posts in the hopes that maybe one person might open their mind to an alternative way of thinking that allows everyone to actually experience freedom in their lifetime..
didn't know i was required one under the first amendment, but then again the constitution is a just a piece of paper and its routine to wipe your rear with the bill of rights
Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
Do you have a license to spread that message?
No that is not all, now since I have a daughter, I have to reconcile my beliefs with the realities, As opposed to a criminal court system, where the victim is never even made close to whole, a more civil system that actually respects the individuals rights would be in place. One where arbitration and restitution are the foundations, much in line with say the Vikings who are the model of anarchy..
Originally posted by Schkeptick
Can I ask how justice is brought about in anarchy?
I'm talking about real crimes. Your child is raped & murdered by a sick pedophile. His punishment is that no one does business with him anymore? That's it?
A system of laws was set up whereby people were governed by consensus and where disputes were resolved through negotiation and compromise.
Or does anarchy mean blood vendetta? How would blood vendetta be prevented under anarchy? John Locke wrote that we give up the right to personal vendetta in exchange for our personal rights being defended by the government. We turn that right over to the government because it prevents a never-ending cycle of blood revenge.
It does appear that way, but government is not consensual, its power is one based on the threat of violence, not because a crime was committed but because its the only way to force people to bow before the will of the state. There would be no tax, so government could not exist
I really do want to know, because this is my #1 argument against anarchy. What are the consequences for the most evil crimes? Who metes out those consequences?
In my mind, any body or group that does so would be considered "government" of a kind.