Because The State Loves You, page 10

reply to post by LeeOben

---

No, I have never seen them. I have long known that this was all a farce. If you look at native American cultures, you will see that they did not have a wealth system per se. They traded amongst themselves and other tribes for things they needed. An Indian nation consisted of small villages. Each village had a tribal council, with a tribal leader. There was a meeting once a month, and ALL members of the tribe attended. Issues were discussed, and a consensus was taken. However the majority voted was what was done. However, they never voted until ALL members had discussed the points of argument. It was considered rude to interrupt the person speaking.

Tribes also had two governing bodies. One for peacetime and one for war. The war council ALWAYS included a woman whose son was a warrior. In Indian tribes, a woman's voice was as powerful as a man's, true equality. I would say that a governing body which is different during war/peace is truly an objective form of government. No one political arm can have a biased interest in the outcome of either war or peace.

Each of the tribal leaders would participate in "national" conferences. They met with the overall chief of the nation, and similar to the village councils, they debated and voted on important topics concerning the welfare of the tribe. Again, there was a peace council and a war council just as the villages had. If it had not been for the native Americans taking pity on the new settlers, and showing them how to survive in this new land, who knows where we would be today. Unfortunately it was also their death warrant.

I guess my point of all of this is if you truly want a free society, one that promotes equality and equal opportunity, you need look no further than our native ancestors. Unlike their European counterparts, these people survived for generations by following this form of government. Wars were never about wealth, or power but about securing good land and/or food supplies. We could learn a lot if we just listened to them and followed their examples.

reply to post by mnemeth1

---

Awesome!
I think i love you.

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug

---

I asked you to prove that the state the state does not do good things. lets see some good that the states does. welfare, student loans. ETC. are these not thing that the state does to help people. There is good here and what I challenged the OP to do is prove that the state (america) does not do good for the people. I have only heard your opinion. The system is not perfect. I will be the first to say this. But you have to realise how lucky you are. You could be living in China where your post would be considered an act against the state. You would be in jail in many other countries. You wouldnt even be able to try to force your opinion of the state to others. You would be shot just for being anti state.

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug

---

So you really believe that half of our defense budget not spent on outer space? Really? How do you know that is incorrect? Im not talking about NASA. Do you really believe that the military does not have an interest in space or that we are not actively pursuing space based defense systems bases ETC? Here i thought you were an informed American.

reply to post by haarvik

---

If what you posted is true and I have no reason to doubt it, it means a free society can exist only as long as no scumbag(s) more powerful than them covet(s) their resources, which makes this whole discussion meaningless.

reply to post by Observor

---

You are correct. If a society does not know what money is, then they function normally as a free society should. Look at tribes in the Amazon. They pretty much live that way to this day. They do not use money, yet they still thrive. Now we consider them 3rd world, but they themselves do not. It is all they know, and to them they are fortunate. A free society can exist, but in order for it to exist you must unlearn what you perceive as money and valuable. Nothing is more valuable than life, and the means to sustain it. in the end, that is all there is. Money just gives the illusion we are better than our neighbor. We all enter this world naked and penniless. Amazing that is also how we leave this world, penniless.

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug

---

Yes, I Understand that perhaps I spun these too far the other way, but my point was that these relatively benign things can suddenly support any cause with a little different wording. But they are slanted so heavily this isn't a logical post, it's just meant to stir up emotions.

I can completely understand the need for being able to have a way to stop older men/woman from preying on little children BEFORE it happens, by not allowing them to stake out children's playgrounds. However, perhaps these woman should have been warned before being fined, or just ignored if they didn't pose a threat. But that doesn't completely invalidate the purpose of the law in the first place.

However, just because some officers follow the letter of the law instead of the spirit doesn't mean the system itself is inherently bad or needs to be completely thrown out. Most of these people who were wronged have legal recourse. The police do not have absolute power, that is why the legal system exists. For every one of these cases where someone's civil liberties may have been violated (and in most of them they weren't) there are tens of thousands of other cases across the country where people are treated with respect and receive the help they called for.

And no, we don't need the state to protect us, but no one else is sure as hell going to do it for free (and yes, I realize the police don't work for free, but would you voluntarily pay taxes without the 'state'?)

Originally posted by Akasirus
reply to post by DrinkYourDrug

---

And no, we don't need the state to protect us, but no one else is sure as hell going to do it for free (and yes, I realize the police don't work for free, but would you voluntarily pay taxes without the 'state'?)

I would voluntarily pay for protection without the State.

I voluntarily pay to protect my home from fire.

I voluntarily pay to protect my car from damage.

I voluntarily pay to protect my health and life.

I voluntarily pay additional costs for the private security guard that my complex hires.

Clearly I would voluntarily pay for security services either through buying an insurance policy or paying directly by pay-per-use services.

Obviously no one is going to volunteer to pay taxes, but people will voluntarily pay for court and police services. They do it all the time when they hire private security guards or private lawyers/arbitrators.

Consider that it was only recently that all airport security was taken over by looting thieving tyrants. It used to be run by upstanding private security guards.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by LeeOben

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by SWCCFAN

---

I really don't think violence would solve any systemic problems better than non-violent disobedience would.

While I think people have a right to defend themselves against unwarranted aggression by the State, ultimately this just gives the State political propaganda to further entrench itself.

Consider the institutional damage the video of those charity workers being arrested for feeding homeless people causes the State, then consider the damage that a rebellious militia could do.

While the militia would generate front page news across the nation, most people would not feel any sympathy for men who initiate violence against government agents.

However, when people can see peaceful activists being beaten and arrested for feeding homeless people, they feel a great deal of outrage at the State over its actions.

This is a propaganda war - a war for hearts and minds. Violence undermines that objective.

edit on 10-8-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

Your point of view does not work in the real world my friend. If you think violence doesn't solve anything tell that to your great grand parents who fought, bled and died in the creation for your country's freedom from tyrants.

When you see your ancestors on other side after you've been executed on your knees because you did not believe violence would solve anything try and explain that.

I'm guessing your the type of person that would let your whole family get wiped out at the hands of these monsters. You know they're planning on killing ALOT of Americans. You all know thats in their game plan. Are you just going to sit there and take it like alittle bitch? Or are you gonna be prepared to throw down the gloves and get bloody??

Violence is a last resort. It is like any other weapon. Must be used effectively, and only used to protect yourself and your family. On a larger scale to destroy REAL enemies that threaten your very existence.

Well the question you have to ask yourself is whether the colonists could have overthrown British rule by simply not complying with them.

What would the Red Coats have done?

Locked up all the colonists without a trial?

Would they have spent a mighty fortune on building prisons to hold them all?

The fact of the matter is that the colonists could have ended British rule without firing a shot had they chosen to go that route.

No, the empire would of found another way to make the colonies comply. there are other methods that are just as deadly as all out warfare. Like starvation. Poisoning the land. that sort of thing. Disobedience will only get you so far. It always comes down to violence. Just we never seem to kill the right enemy. We never seem to find these elitest types and hang them. Instead we're lead around the nose and directed at some other group of people to destroy.

I say storm the major government buildings, burn them down. Start hanging bankers and politicians and the like.

I'll quote my top favourite movie: "people should not fear their government, the government should fear the people." They work for the people, remind them of that.

Or just wait around, they'll round up you and your family and stuff you in a cattle car to ship you off to some death camp.

The system is like an overgrown forest. Every couple of decades a huge fire sweeps through and pretty much destroys everything. But from the ashes rises new life to take shape and grow. Until the next firestorm.

reply to post by mnemeth1

---

Are we just going to provide police services to those who pay for them? Will criminals get away if they rob from those who either cannot or will not pay for the services? Nice ideas here, but in reality huge portions of the populous would be living in the dirt and this would drag the entire country down. It would help with the overpopulation problem maybe, but man we fight and die to live in a just world where we don’t have to worry about starving or being fed to the dogs regardless of how much money we have.

In a world where you can be taken out of commission in an instant most all are best served by having safeguards like entitlements, food stamp and welfare etc. And this is just the human side of things. What about environmental rules and ethic rules etc?

This sounds like a method to self destruct a civilization! I conceed that we do not have it right, but we are not that far off base!

reply to post by semperkill

---

I asked you to prove that the state the state does not do good things. lets see some good that the states does. welfare, student loans. ETC. are these not thing that the state does to help people.

State welfare is not "good" or moral. Being poverty stricken does not justify robbing people at gunpoint (taxation). I have found the first thing people typically bring up when discussing this topic is that they feel welfare is definitely needed. If most people feel this way then most people would voluntarily give to those less fortunate without the need to be threatened with violence for not doing so. I give to the less fortunate both in my own country (through violent coercion) and in a third world country (voluntarily). Guess which one I resent and which one makes me feel good? If state welfare did not exist I would happily donate to a charity performing the same function (minus the extortion).

Student loans.. no more "good" here than what the free market would provide. There's no money being created for free. If the borrower is getting a sweet deal then that is thanks to funding from money which has been immorally collected. People who do not take out student loans should not be threatened with violence to satisfy the needs of students.

There is good here and what I challenged the OP to do is prove that the state (america) does not do good for the people.

The examples showed instances where the state did not do good. These could happen to any of us. Can you tell me what makes taxation moral but a mafia style protection racket immoral?

Also I don't think "the State" was limited in definition to just the USA. I interpreted it as meaning all coercively funded governments throughout the world with silly laws (basically all of them).

But you have to realise how lucky you are. You could be living in China where your post would be considered an act against the state.

Which just further proves that the state is not a good thing. All coercively funded states are immoral. That some states are even less moral than others does not prove that the system is moral.

You would be in jail in many other countries. You wouldnt even be able to try to force your opinion of the state to others. You would be shot just for being anti state.

Therefore state = bad.

Im not talking about NASA./quote]
Sorry, I thought you meant "outer space" (as you put it) exploration. Not near-earth defense systems. With the amount of money required to fund the extended wars being fought and the economy falling apart I would still be surprised if half the military budget is spent on such things. On top of being surprised I would be angered that honest citizens are being robbed to fund such wastage while money is so desperately required elsewhere.

reply to post by mnemeth1

---

Yeah , and I Love STATE CHEESE Too ! ..........

reply to post by semperkill

---

I dont know but i pretty much do what i want and go where i want. I feel free and so do the people that I know and not just my fellow military members. 99.99 percent of the time you are left alone to pretty much do what you want.

That is because you have been conditioned so that "what you want" is to act within the law.

I want to be able to do all the things listed in the OP.
I want to put whatever food or drugs into my body I please (I know best, not nanny state).
I want to earn money without a significant portion being stolen by a protection racket.
I want to enter into whatever mutually beneficial exchange of goods/services/money I please, and without the state taking a cut.
I basically want the choice to be able to do whatever I like, provided I don't harm others or their property. I want to be free.

The law abiding citizen is not being harrased by cops.

Exactly. But those who refuse to submit to tyranny and disobey unjust laws are constantly being harassed.

Have you recenlty been arrested or put in one of the positions that the OP referred. more than likely not.

I have not. My beliefs are purely a result of intellectualizing and not an emotional response to an unfortunate situation.

I feel pretty free.

Pretty free is not free.

The system is working for me. I am sorry that it is not working for you.

Thank you.

Is it really that bad in America.

I'm not sure what you mean by "that bad". The system is immoral, but the state does not prevent one from living a fantastic life in any first-world nation. Not being as free as I would like does decrease my happiness at times and can be quiet inconvenient.

Have you travelled to any other countries.

Yes but not a lot. The system is basically the same everywhere. I have been to a very poor country where you could pretty much do what you want in some parts and had a ball. Penalties for breaching prohibition laws in poor countries are usually very inhumane though.

reply to post by Akasirus

---

I can agree with what you are saying about stopping people from casing out a playground. I just think we have to be very careful not to persecute people who are not harming others. If they are having an innocent donut they are not harming others. If they are casing the place out they are harming the children by putting them at risk of being kidnapped etc. The best way to make this clear cut is to have clear signage showing the area in which child accompaniment is a requirement. Otherwise as you said, you get some officers which follow the letter of the law and some the spirit.

And no, we don't need the state to protect us, but no one else is sure as hell going to do it for free (and yes, I realize the police don't work for free, but would you voluntarily pay taxes without the 'state'?)

Like mnemeth1, I would voluntarily pay for the things I use. I would also give more to charities than I do now (due to having more money available).

reply to post by Donkey_Dean

---

Are we just going to provide police services to those who pay for them? Will criminals get away if they rob from those who either cannot or will not pay for the services?

I also agree that those who cannot afford security services should not have to go without them. Therefore both of us (and many like us) would voluntarily continue to fund security services for others through a charity providing security services in poor areas. And we would feel really good about the difference we were making, rather than the anger of being robbed.

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug

---

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug

---

I agree with that fully,

Now let me start by saying I am a firm believer of everyone needs a chance to do right! People will surprise you more often than not. I lived in a ghetto in SE Arkansas. Terribly poor and out of work area. Houses were ran down, Most didnt have doors on the front, Just a piece of wood nailed shut. Got to the point to where everyone was hungry and would do anything to eat. So people Stole, robbed, killed, extorted, kidnapped. Just name it, they did it. They unemployment rate there was about 90%. It got to the point where people werent white, or black...they were just hungry and stressed because there kids are hungry. The school distrects closed down 2 neighboring schools so they all had to come to our school system. Which left them with way to many students and o where near enough teachers. Around August of 07, me and some of my long time friends were sitting around at house of another we just buried because of mugging.

The whole group of us hot headed, ready for war "fools" (yeah fool is the right word) was sitting around talking about how we going to retaliate. We all coming up with the usual angry emotions of "Lets just ride and get em" At this point Big Momma "mother of our friend who had passed" stands up and just SCREAMS!! to the top of her lungs and then just cradles her head in her hands as she weeps. a moment passes while me and my friends are left quiet and waiting, She then began to speak words that made more sense than anything we ever heard before. She said:" You fools, do you not learn? Do you not see how this has all came to be?" we just stared harder at her eyes full of passion. "This all started with what someone else has done and has became a viciouse cycle of pain and loss sense" We were confused right there but still kept listening. "If throw a rock in the air, will it not fall back to you?" "So why do you ignorant children think that when u cast a stone at someone to harm them that it wont come back to you?" Honestly coming from her and hearing the pain and loss in her voice as she says this brings tears to my eyes. She continues,"What u do, will come back to you, its the way of the world. YALL MUST STOP CASTING STONES"

After that she went to sleep, me and my friends stayed up thinking on what she said and what it meant. We found a solution. We talked it over with Big Momma the next morning and then put the plan into action that very next weekend.

What was the plan? Well here is what happened. We took an old tow trailer and built into a high capacity grill. We set up a block party inwhich we supplied all food to. Big Momma gave her speech again.

Now its no longer a block party. Its a community supporting there neighbors and there neighbors doing same for them. Big Momma is now head of the relief league "thats what she likes to call it haha" She has other people from the community that help her out. What they do is every morning they set up the grill and get it goin. the food comes shortly after "Each house hold donates what they can and the local grocery store works with her.

EVERY NIGHT, they feed the entire community. one plate at a time.

The ending result of this long story is Crime rate dropped ALOT. People were helping eachother and it showed that when people are givin the chance or oppurtunity to do better they will. Now last time i checked people help out big momma as a way of doing community service. Even bigger shock, the mother of the man who killed Big mommas son, works side by side with her each day... showing forgivness and sorrow for they both lost a son. But now you see the smiles in there face as they know they made a difference in bettering there community.



So basis of all that was, people want to help. They really do, They just need the oppurtunity.


sorry tried to stay on topic but think i may have wandered a bit

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by Observor

---

You are correct. If a society does not know what money is, then they function normally as a free society should. Look at tribes in the Amazon. They pretty much live that way to this day. They do not use money, yet they still thrive. Now we consider them 3rd world, but they themselves do not. It is all they know, and to them they are fortunate. A free society can exist, but in order for it to exist you must unlearn what you perceive as money and valuable. Nothing is more valuable than life, and the means to sustain it. in the end, that is all there is. Money just gives the illusion we are better than our neighbor. We all enter this world naked and penniless. Amazing that is also how we leave this world, penniless.

The example of native Americans proves that however ideal a society is, it has no hopes of continuance when there are less ideal societies/people around. No one understands this better than the descendents of the people who murdered and looted the native Americans of their possessions.

There are things more valuable than one's personal life. Or else life wouldn't exist on the planet, since there are no immortal creatures. In the case of species other than humans what the individual organisms value above their personal life seems to be pre-programmed into the individual organisms through their genes. Only amongst human beings can we see a real choice in the matter. What we choose to value above the genetically programmed compulsions of one's well-being and that of one's genetic kin is what we can call culture. A society exists to preserve and spread its culture. Culture can be preserved only by a society, not by individuals, since cultural transmission doesn't happen through genes. It is the culture that defines the relationship of individuals to each other and the society itself. State is the instrument of the society to preserve the culture, using force if need be. Native American societies were not free societies, in the sense the OP is discussing them, they had a state. But the state was not strong enough to protect the culture from an invading state in the form of European colonists.

When someone declares, as the OP does, that state is not a necessity, it means one of two things, that there is no culture worth preserving or that the culture is dominant enough everywhere that no credible external threat to it exists. But since the OP does indicate principles like voluntary respect for others' property, which are not genetic in nature but cultural, there is a culture the OP believes is worth preserving. However no culture can be preserved in a geography unless the culture can protect its territorial extent and members from those of a different culture intending to grab the territory by force.

The Native Americans could have been anarchists without a state for all we care. They and their culture were practically wiped out because, they encountered people who didn't respect their rights to land and life and were more powerful. Simple as that.

reply to post by mnemeth1

---

Only the State can keep us safe from ourselves.

'Cuz we are bad.

Interesting how the 'original sin' concept keeps getting repackaged and shoved down our throats.

S&F& Of course.

Attention ATS, This Is Important
  Posted 9 days ago with 33 member flags

Labor Day Has Been Canceled
  Posted 8 days ago with 21 member flags

Nine Myths About \'Socialism\' In The United States.
  Posted 7 days ago with 20 member flags

Asking for help around here......
  Posted 16 days ago with 19 member flags

Are You All Deranged?! Women Want Rape? o_O
  Posted 19 days ago with 15 member flags

I am tired.
  Posted 11 days ago with 12 member flags

Namaste = pretentious
  Posted 11 days ago with 11 member flags

Gays have the right to marry and always have
  Posted 4 days ago with 10 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: