What if you woke up tomorrow and government was gone?

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
We are always told that we can not live in peace without being governed by a government. That is probably why all of you use that argument to prevent yours and my freedom. And because of it non of you will ever dare to accept freedom without being governed.

Non of us have ever experianced absolute freedom. But we know what its like to be governed by a government. And that dosent provide equal freedom for all. Would it be that much worse to try freedom?

The thing is, we dont know what its like to be absolute free, and we are affraid of it. Maby because we have made our selves to dependent on being governed by others.

We can not be absolute free and live by the same social structure as we do now. Because it is not set in motion to give equal rights and equal freedom. We probably have to change the whole social structure first to even think about being free. A change that gives us a new mentality to make us want freedom more than to satisfy personal ego of obtaining personal wealth and satisfaction.




posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 



I agree for the most part personal responsibility appears dead, I think it is unfair to say we had it before and yet here we are.

We've had Liberty or Libertarianism before...we fought for it in the revolution.



An argument can be made that we are here because we got away from those Libertarian ideals.


I agree 100%! But I would argue that we had to get away from it because not everyone was responsible. The same will happen if we went back to it IMO. Some among us want to impose their will and infringe on others.

I don't know, friend. I'm still hunting for answers. Thanks for the input.
edit on 24-4-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 




Are you saying this isn't their position anymore? I think Gary Johnson et al would disagree with you. You can't have liberty and a war on drugs. Non-interventionism and waiting to be attacked before we defend ourselves is a problem for me, too.


I guess it is in who you talk to. Those I know within the party locally wouldn't legalize things like meth and crack if their lives depended on it. They do, however, oppose the current way the so-called 'war on drugs' has been and is being conducted. They see things the way I do... that we have millions of non-violent offenders in prison eating up tax payer money for no more than having a substance that is in some cases... naturally growing vegetation.

But again... it's not like these folks want to see meth cooked on every corner.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



We are always told that we can not live in peace without being governed by a government. That is probably why all of you use that argument to prevent yours and my freedom. And because of it non of you will ever dare to accept freedom without being governed.

I believe that to be true. Are you a Libertarian? If so, I must point out that other Libertarians have made it clear that Libertarians DO INDEED want government. Maybe you (or they) didn't get the memo. Which is it?



Non of us have ever experianced absolute freedom. But we know what its like to be governed by a government. And that dosent provide equal freedom for all. Would it be that much worse to try freedom?

You're right that none of us alive today have experienced true freedom. As far as if it would be worse or not, that's the topic of debate. I would argue that YES it would be worse; it would be chaos because a large portion of the country would go wild IMO. Many are nuts now with the current laws!! Imagine if people were free to do whatever!



The thing is, we dont know what its like to be absolute free, and we are affraid of it. Maby because we have made our selves to dependent on being governed by others.

I absolutely agree! That's exactly what's happening.



We can not be absolute free and live by the same social structure as we do now. Because it is not set in motion to give equal rights and equal freedom. We probably have to change the whole social structure first to even think about being free. A change that gives us a new mentality to make us want freedom more than to satisfy personal ego of obtaining personal wealth and satisfaction.

Why can't we want both?? Isn't freedom the right to pursue happiness and to strive for our goals? Why do we have to have a communal or simplistic mentality to be free?
edit on 24-4-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 



I guess it is in who you talk to. Those I know within the party locally wouldn't legalize things like meth and crack if their lives depended on it.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but I must point out the inconsistency. It sounds like (and this happens in every party) that people grab on to the bits and pieces they like or can stomach and act as if the rest doesn't exist. How is it personal freedom if I can smoke pot but not do any other drug? The same arguments still apply...it's about personal freedom not party preference. If you advocate freedom then you have no say in my preference, right??




They do, however, oppose the current way the so-called 'war on drugs' has been and is being conducted. They see things the way I do... that we have millions of non-violent offenders in prison eating up tax payer money for no more than having a substance that is in some cases... naturally growing vegetation.


I think most Americans have a problem with the way things are currently done.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
If I woke up tomorrow and the Government was gone...

Well, I imagine the morning would start pretty good. I imagine I would have several friends pounding on my door, smiling and holding armfuls of "party supplies"- My well stocked apartment (I live in a very solid brick Building Downtown above a series of shops- Very safe area, very secure dwelling) would provide as an awesome place to hole up for a Month or two so we would probably grab some munchies and watch the news while peeking out the Windows and watching the pedestrians do what pedestrians do (when there is no Government)-

So day 1-3 will probably be pretty awesome. Good friends, good company and nothing really to complain about more than likely. In fact, I wouldnt get the overdue Bills in the mail, and ZI imagine places like ATS will be super entertaining during this initial period.

-The problem though is this... In my City (and most) there are gangs who already are organized and fairly militant- With numbers, firearms and familiarity of the area. In rural areas (like I come from) there are already many organized Militias and established groups (even large families) and in most rural areas you are "new" until your family has lived there 2-3 generations.

-Anyhow, at some point (a week, month, several months?) I imagine pure chaos everywhere.The cities will be gang Controlled... Which is fine for me because (of coarse) I have a plan and a rural destination... But even if I get there no problem, fully supplied and outfitted without having to deal with huge traffic jams, closed Highways and chaos- I think most of the Militias are probably worse than the gangs and it woldnt take too long for fiefdoms and Kingdoms to start to materialize...

So on one hand you would have chaos in the cities- But rural wouldn't be much better. Even if you were far enough out to more than likely never run into looters/militias/gangs- I am not sure how long I (and most) could honestly make it in a collapsed society. I know its a common macho daydream to "live off the land" , "provide all your own needs" etc...etc... The reality is, an absess tooth could kill you, a slip and fall could prevent you from tending to crops, a 12 year old child could ambush and kill you when you least expect it.

"Survival" isnt something most of us could do- Even growing up in a rural area , camping a ton, hunting and having been in the Armed Forces- I honestly can I say I do not think I would last absent of any Government. Even a bit of History into the hardships folks had settling the West (starvation, disease, accidents, ambush) for a people far tougher than us, who had the skills to make it on their own- # happens.

-I do not possess those skills.

So most of us would probably die. many would join a gang or Militia (and I have experience with some Militias and was there when the Michigan Militia split because its leader was "talking to God" and getting answers and "prophecy") and would be more enslaved than anything we can imagine. Some would make it and then die a slow death from an injury or sickness. Some would be fine (but not very many- And not near what folks would imagine)

-Back in around 2003 I moved my family into the Mountains of KY to try to homestead... Even with the Government intact, I pretty much failed. It was "fun" , I learned a TON of stuff and actually gained skills I never thought I would have (and learned I wasnt as skilled in some things as I thought)- BUT, "making it" on our land, without help and without needing to "work" and buy goods- Was not in the cards. In 6 or so years I never was able to make the land work enough food for us to not have to "work" or "shop"- I suppose it could have possibly been done but would have severely limited our diet and choices.

There is a difference between "survival" and "Living"-

So I just hope it never happens (and do not think it will) because I do not want to have to fight for everything, Try to scrape by, worry about falling under a totalitarian gangs/militias control, constantly watch my back and barely scarpe by until sickness or injury brings me to cold and painful grave.

edit on 24-4-2013 by DarKPenguiN because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 




I'm not trying to be argumentative...


I know that, lol.


It sounds like (and this happens in every party) that people grab on to the bits and pieces they like or can stomach and act as if the rest doesn't exist. How is it personal freedom if I can smoke pot but not do any other drug? The same arguments still apply...it's about personal freedom not party preference. If you advocate freedom then you have no say in my preference, right??


Well, first of all... it is dangerous to discuss things like drug laws here (T&C) so I am going to restrain my urge to expand my comments on the subject.

As for preferences?

Our nation has always been about intentive liberty but never been about being able to do things freely that cause harm to others. There is a common sense division between these things.

I think the Libertarians needed to start somewhere and what they did was to pour a slab of concrete that needed to be polished and cured before the building upon it could be constructed.

To date, neither has yet happened.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Government is the symptom of what started long ago. I'm taking a tourist approach to this, meaning it's just a cursory observation and not taking all into account but rather what seems evident to me as a fleeting thought.

We have Johnson's war on poverty - welfare meant to insure people don't starve - the way to insure "a great society" where the Feds have more control/influence. Welfare turned into what it is today - a way of life rather than a temporary safety net - and while a wonderful thing for those who need it it has expanded so much that the government has their hands in everything now. Not only do those who are recipients of government sponsored basic needs rely on the Feds but you have those who are paid by the government for services, supplies, education, food, equipment, housing, etc.

If government disappeared tomorrow the question is how big of percentage of people have some form of income that is dependent on government (no matter if recipient due to need or due to service/needs you provide)? I would love to see some stats on this. We have given government this control by putting selves into a dependent position. Now the medical profession will have to answer to government even more with new health care bill.

We have government paying for kids to eat at school, child care, and at home in some cases.

We have government paying out social security - the only thing people pay into as a savings yet they have control of if and when.

We have government paying for housing, medical in the form of Medicaid and medicare, we have government providing cash to people to look for work.

Those less well off have student loans subsidized and guaranteed by the government.

We have physicians, therapists, pharmaceuticals, researchers, sciences of all sorts, educators...who are ultimately paid by the government.

They have a strong influence on Native American lands through money (at least where I live reservations still get federal monies).

They pay for our protection (FBI, etc).

They regulate medications, regulate what grants states get which influence state policies on such matters.

Etc
Etc
Etc

We have given away our power through enticement, and because as long as we're surviving it's easy to just go with the flow this has taken place and is likely to be undone easily if at all.

They take our money and redistribute it and say its for our good but really its made a mess of everything America was supposed to be (free). I want to believe our government did not do this intentionally. However, if I see it I know darn good and well they do too so to not do something about it is the ultimate in either irresponsibility or opportunism.

To wake up without them would mean a restructure that would take leadership to facilitate as people would probably not survive without a lot of help. It would mean coordination and planning. I hear people on here speak of how they will protect what they have and thats good but when will that end and community wide planning and cooperation come back? Who would facilitate? More of the same? Yes if people don't see what got us here and what has to be different. Maybe because people have become dependent even if inadvertently.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 



Well, first of all... it is dangerous to discuss things like drug laws here (T&C) so I am going to restrain my urge to expand my comments on the subject.


I know...I was treading lightly.
Let's change the object because the point is valid.

Lets say apples, oranges and pears are all illegal. I believe the current 2 parties want to keep it that way and Libertarians want them all to be legal. You're saying oranges are ok but apples and pears are frowned upon. Without getting into the health factors of each "fruit" my point is that if Libertarianism is about personal freedom then all fruit must be legal. Anything short of that would not be Libertarian-like.

Regardless, I lean that way but, like many conservatives, I just can't get on board. In the grand scheme of things I don't think it matters because there aren't enough people willing to wipe their own butts to embrace Libertarianism, which is why it won't work. Too bad, really. Our founders had it right. We screwed it up along the way.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 





I must point out that other Libertarians have made it clear that Libertarians DO INDEED want government.


You can not want absolute freedom and still want a institution to rule over you. Because than you will never be free. You will always be ruled.

A government have never been able to prevent crime from taking place, unless they have cops at the write location all the time. Which they hardly and ever have.

Crimes seldom takes place were the government actually provids for its people.

The thing is. It is not really the government that provides. It is the people, you and i are the once who provide the service to the other people.

The question is. Do you need a government to tell you that you need to be helpfull to others?

What you want is a government that force this onto people by law.



edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by redoubt
 



Well, first of all... it is dangerous to discuss things like drug laws here (T&C) so I am going to restrain my urge to expand my comments on the subject.


I know...I was treading lightly.
Let's change the object because the point is valid.

Lets say apples, oranges and pears are all illegal. I believe the current 2 parties want to keep it that way and Libertarians want them all to be legal. You're saying oranges are ok but apples and pears are frowned upon. Without getting into the health factors of each "fruit" my point is that if Libertarianism is about personal freedom then all fruit must be legal. Anything short of that would not be Libertarian-like.

Regardless, I lean that way but, like many conservatives, I just can't get on board. In the grand scheme of things I don't think it matters because there aren't enough people willing to wipe their own butts to embrace Libertarianism, which is why it won't work. Too bad, really. Our founders had it right. We screwed it up along the way.

I used to think all "fruit" should be legal (essentially taking a Libertarian stance on "fruit") but I have since changed my opinion.

-The reason is that the technology to genetically modify "fruit" to be highly addictive and incredibly euphoric (beyond anything in natural fruit) is very scary...The problem is that we all have done really stupid things as kids (most survived), eaten fruit we were told was "bad" and still came through- I imagine if all "fruit" were legal, a GMO company would being making fruit designed only to addict and thus enslave.

-But that said, the war on fruit is insane and stupid and does more harm than good- But apples and pears should both be legal and regulated...Its when tampering starts happening to make "super Oranges" that we need to consider.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by seabag
 





I must point out that other Libertarians have made it clear that Libertarians DO INDEED want government.


You can not want absolute freedom and still want a institution to rule over you. Because than you will never be free. You will always be ruled.

A government have never been able to prevent crime from taking place, unless they have cops at the write location all the time. Which they hardly and ever have.

Crimes seldom takes place were the government actually provids for its people.

The thing is. It is not really the government that provides. It is the people, you and i are the once who provide the service to the other people.

The question is. Do you need a government to tell you that you need to be helpfull to others?




No. But none really have true "freedom" anyhow beyond animals.

Some enjoy killing others for pleasure (serial killers and evil clowns) and 'their" freedom becomes hindered with laws against murder. There will always have to be agreements on putting some freedom aside or we have anarchy (not political Anarchy)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 






Some enjoy killing others for pleasure (serial killers and evil clowns) and 'their" freedom becomes hindered with laws against murder. There will always have to be agreements on putting some freedom aside or we have anarchy (not political Anarchy)


I agree some people will do harm. But have a government ever prevent a killer from becoming a serial killer?

Governments kill a hell of a lot more people. That is a proven fact.

How would we prevent crimes from taking place without forming a government?

That is a question non of us have ever been asked. And the answer is so impossible to answer because we are not educated to have thoughts like that.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 






Some enjoy killing others for pleasure (serial killers and evil clowns) and 'their" freedom becomes hindered with laws against murder. There will always have to be agreements on putting some freedom aside or we have anarchy (not political Anarchy)


I agree some people will do harm. But have a government ever prevent a killer from becoming a serial killer?

Governments kill a hell of a lot more people. That is a proven fact.

How would we prevent crimes from taking place without forming a government?

That is a question non of us have ever been asked. And the answer is so impossible to answer because we are not educated to have that thoughts like that.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

But we would have a Government.

Look, if my neighbor and I agree to not steal from one another garden we have effectively started a Government. We have agreed upon terms of behavior- Now say that your little group of your neighbor and yourself begins to grow. Rules will have to be established (or even if they do not HAVE to be, they will inevitably come)- There will have to be systems and organization put in place . Security (from looters and others groups) , Farmers, Looters (yes, we would all have to loot in one way or another for things like medicine and Steel)- Essentially you have the foundations of a Government, over a generation or two you have a Government.

I realize a "Government" doesnt stop serial killers and such (and was kind of being silly-) but the m ore complex the society, the more rules will be established and there will have to be a way to enforce those rules. The richer a society (in Gold, food, water, women) the more it will need protection as others will want what they have.

-Absent of any Government it is the law of the jungle and the strong will survive)- But that will cause people to join groups (and very "militant" groups will do the best) who will roll over and enslave the utopia you have.

-I am not defending "Government" as I think ours is in a pretty terrible place and we have very little Privacy and freedom. I am merely saying that in a complete, overnight collapse- Most of us are doomed and the darkest times in human History will come upon this World. A slow degradation of our current system, transferring things to local control would be far different. But there will always be "Government"- A society that peacefully lives without one will at some point be taken over by an opposing society that had a very strong and totalitarian one- Then the governance becomes forced.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 


Stop thinking like that. Try and open up a new _ What if you start to think about our natural moral values. A agreement is not worth a damn thing unless moral values are respected.

If people don't repect moral values why should they respect a mutial agreement?

We don't need new laws to live by. Because they are not going to prevent crime from happening. New laws only gives us a ability to prosecute people for breaking these new laws. But we don't need new laws to prosecute people if we want to live by natural moral values.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reading through this whole thread just reiterates how much genius was alive at this nations founding and the timing could not have been much better to found a nation.

As for what my thoughts are if government(s) were gone... well... it would definitely be cleansing. That is for sure.

We'd have to get back to the Poney Express but even then the likes of Jay, Hamiltom, Jefferson and (my personal favorite) Henry for examples would be worse than finding a needle in a haystack.

We'd be Borked fairly hard. In this day and age where a great portion of the US display their hunting skills at Walmart and have skill sets that are not geared to "rebuilding" anything society would be non-exsistent not unlike the Katrina aftermath only much much worse. The population is much larger and there are quite a few very bad people I remember watching "The Power of Nightmare" (BBC) and they stated that when the US tested the people entering the armed forces it was discovered that near 48% of us had serious mental issues.

Anyway it would not be pretty and the ugliness would be sustained. Look at this thread alone. With just a handful of people, even with similar ideas there are disagreements and the line on how much power the people would give governments would be contentious.

Just a knee jerk answer... Rather have what we got now than go the route of no governments and a rebuild that would take decades and would probably end up with what we have now again in time.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 


Stop thinking like that. Try and open up a new _ What if you start to think about our natural moral values. A agreement is not worth a damn thing unless moral values are respected.

If people don't repect moral values why should they respect a mutial agreement?

We don't need new laws to live by. Because they are not going to prevent crime from happening. New laws only gives us a ability to prosecute people for breaking these new laws. But we don't need new laws to prosecute people if we want to live by natural moral values.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

But that is flighty and not reality based.

In theory you are correct- 100%. But it will not work that way regardless of it being a "better" way.

Lets say you have the perfect Anarchist Utopia and it is working for you. Everyone doing their own thing and trading and everything mutually agreed upon and its working for you... Over in an adjacent State there was town that is Militia controlled , Militant, trained and out for conquest. They are working as a team, a unit, one body. They are training hard, in squads, they are taking "slaves" and expanding their reach and control...

They are rolling your way and they do not agree to your way of Government. They want tribute control over you and your Women.

This is the reality (and has always been). In a completely broken down society, Might makes Right. Might will be achieved by the strong who will trample upon everyone elses rights. The strong will take- His lack of morals will work to benefit him since statistical his strength and power will grow faster absent of pesky values. That strength will attract new members who want to be on the "winning side" and take rather than be taken from.

An anarchy utopia will not be a "single unit"- Will not train the same, work together the same, pool resources the same etc... In a complete breakdown it will take a strong , brutal, highly organised leader to have a chance- That is why it will be a series of mini Kingdoms and fiefdoms and territory wars and such. Eventually the stragglers will choose sides- being independent and without "Government" will eventually not be a choice.

-It is the way things work. It is Historically so, and is human nature.

A complete collapse would be horrible, dark and worse than we can imagine. It would not result in some "awakening" and a Utopian society. It would be the quest for Steel all over again.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
It would be cool for about 3 days, until everyone ran out of food.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Everything in this thread is already happening people...

Factionalism exists in every government and corporation on the planet

The strong already group together with guns, and in other terms, contracts that 'force' you and I to obey.

Seriously, all of your fears are already recognized, only at a much slower pace.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 




Lets say you have the perfect Anarchist Utopia and it is working for you. Everyone doing their own thing and trading and everything mutually agreed upon and its working for you... Over in an adjacent State there was town that is Militia controlled , Militant, trained and out for conquest. They are working as a team, a unit, one body. They are training hard, in squads, they are taking "slaves" and expanding their reach and control...

They are rolling your way and they do not agree to your way of Government. They want tribute control over you and your Women.


I understand you point of vew. But being free does not mean one should be ignorent to the outside world.
It is not emoral to protect oneself from harm. A free society without slaves could probably build a very sophisticated defence with very very little effort at a very low cost or at no cost at all. I would defend my freedom without being paid.

Where a society with slaves on the other hand would probably cost a fortune and take a longer time to produce.
Non of these people would fight for free or risk their life without being paid.





new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join