If government is so horrible, what is the answer?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 
Never mind.

second
edit on 4-6-2013 by Battleline because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 09:11 AM
link   
This isn't 'do' or 'die'. No one is advocating a total withdraw of government. We just don't need a nanny state that politicizes every little 'issue' there is. Believe it or not, some of us think that government can't and shouldn't always be the answer...



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 

I really don't understand why giving Federal duties to the States helps. State and Local governments are far more corrupt, the good ol boy network. Why do we need 50 separate legislatures all making the same laws, just more money out of our pockets to pay for their perks?
edit on 4-6-2013 by MinangATS because: spelling



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by MinangATS
I really don't understand why giving Federal duties to the States helps.


You have that completely backwards.

The central government has very, very limited enumerated powers. It's only lawful duties are specifically granted in the Constitution. You are aware that federalism means states rights, that it is the people of the states setting limits on a central government?



The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Yes in some regard, smaller government is better. Smaller in regards to its influence on our lives, but I think also bigger is better. Bigger in that if we increased the number of representatives and senators, there would be a better representation of the general population. It would be harder (or more expensive lol) for corporations to buy all the votes needed to sway things their way.

Get rid of the two party system and the electoral college!

Go to a flat tax or fair tax, get rid of deductions, and get rid of the fed.

Stop messing around with other countries, starting wars, and trying to "police" the world. Call me an isolationist, I don't care!

Leave all social issues to the states.

Place term limits on members of congress to be the same as president.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
The problem isn't that government is horrible, it's that corruption within government is horrible and oppressive to the human spirit. Here in America we no longer have a government, we instead live under a group of elitists that use the term government when in all reality they are masters over us.

Government is a wonderful and greatly needed thing when that government is composed of the people and has the sole intent of serving the people by securing the rights of the people.

"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.............to secure these rights governments are instituted among men"

The problem is that government has morphed into a strawman entity that only serves its coffers, power, and absolute will upon the people. That is not government, that my friend is the text book definition of tyranny.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


I dislike the current form of 'government' (latin for "mind control", btw) because it is a lie (we're proTECting you!
). Isn't that enough? But I have a boatload of other reasons, as well.

1. The underlying culture (Agro-economics) is based on the obsolete paradigm of scarcity. Those in its thrall, "our" ostensible politicians, our parents, our civil servants, our teachers... essentially everyone involved even peripherally in bringing a child to adulthood (including you), studiously yet unconsciously adheres to the mentality of fear and subservience-to-superiors to maintain the status quo. The status quo is fear of not having enough to survive; the hum of scarcity in the background of your thoughts and motivations. Some people are free of this through good child-rearing or force of character. They tend to be artists and inventors, though some make it into the motivational speaking circuit.

1a. The governments of the world consistently engage in activity to stifle abundance wherever it threatens to surface. The assassination (of character or bodily) of successful free-energy inventors (Stanley Meyer, Edwin V. Gray, Richard Clem, Daniel Dingell, Wilhelm Reich, Nikola Tesla, Viktor Schauberger and several only known to me through anecdotal stories) and the constant raids on natural food co-operatives, small-scale farmers, profitable manufacturing businesses (see Gibson guitars) and raw milk producers, prove to me that the threat is not that there will not be enough, but that there will be so much that people decide they do not need government to protect them from the bogeyman of scarcity.

2. The intiation of force is unethical and foolish. Consequences can be forestalled, but not done away with.

3. Deception is a staple of the world's system of "government".

4. Governments conspire with officers of for-profit corporations to defraud the people of their human rights.

5. Irresponsibility is more dangerous to your well-being than any fear you can conjure, yet it is encouraged by all current systems of government I am aware of.

6. Xenophobia and jingoism are destructive and a hindering influence upon human development, and just happen to be two of the favorite tools of government

7. Legal Positivism (the notion that man can create laws that are substantively binding) is a type of insanity.

8. Death is preferable to 'life' on the terms of tyrants. Until humanity as a whole agrees, we will continue to support these parasites. I am encouraged by the spirit of the Turkish protestors who are risking (and some losing) their lives.

9. Civilization means a way of life based on contract (civil agreement). You cannot find the agreement you have supposedly consented to by participating in your particular civilization ANYWHERE. Lack of disclosure voids all contract, and the resultant 'social order' is built entirely on the threat of violence/censure.

Need I go on?


Originally posted by rock427
This isn't 'do' or 'die'. No one is advocating a total withdraw of government.
Speak for yourself, colonist.
edit on 4-6-2013 by seamus because: added another reply
edit on 4-6-2013 by seamus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   
IMO gov't itself is not the problem. The implementation is the a problem. The two MAIN problems with our current system are:

1. Lobbying: Not lobbying itself , but rather how billions are spent by corporations and special interest groups to get our politicians ears.

Fix: Simply use technology where issue priorities (lobbying) are determined by the voters instead of Money. Change the system to a Click to vote method versus the existing buy a vote method.

I wrote about this in a thread, but it doesn't look like to many people care about doing anything but blame the other side or talk about the problems instead of fixing them:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

2. The second biggest problem is to much power at the federal level and not enough at the state level. Competition is good for the consumer so why not let the states compete for a better quality of life among each other for their constituents ?



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by BadBeast
It's not Goverment that's the problem, the enemy, itt's the very idea of government.That we need to e governed..It's been culturally drummed into us for so long we have forgotten how to take charge of our own lives. How to look to ourselves for answers instead of some ruling body. Anarchy (Not anarchISM)

The rule of one. The self. There should be no sovereign greater than that which you have yourself. No kingdom bigger than one man's life. The proportionate resourcing of everyman's needs from sustainable sources. All pVia apple


how can you honestly believe what you said. the reality of great wealth and the destructive power that comes with it, has been documented for thousands of years in human history. representative governments strong enough to control the vile and barbaric use of wealth's power, is the only thing that separates us from the master/slave formula that has plagued us throughout human history.
wealth is getting it's way....it has almost eliminated unions (down to 13% of all jobs), it has almost eliminated any type of company pension, it has spent billions over the decades to lobby for less pay to workers, weaker safety conditions on the job, weaker environmental controls, dirtier air, dirtier water, less political involvement, less regulatory oversight, less taxes paid by the upper 1%........wealth does not like you, or want you, unless you are of service to them, period. I can't understand why the massive majority of people in this world don't understand that, or refuse to accept it.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   
You only have to look at what happened in Turkey to realise that the government is the enemy of the people. When the SHTF they government will turn on the people.

They do not really care about your welfare.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by BadBeast
It's not Goverment that's the problem, the enemy, itt's the very idea of government.That we need to e governed..It's been culturally drummed into us for so long we have forgotten how to take charge of our own lives. How to look to ourselves for answers instead of some ruling body. Anarchy (Not anarchISM)

The rule of one. The self. There should be no sovereign greater than that which you have yourself. No kingdom bigger than one man's life. The proportionate resourcing of everyman's needs from sustainable sources. All pVia apple


how can you honestly believe what you said. the reality of great wealth and the destructive power that comes with it, has been documented for thousands of years in human history. representative governments strong enough to control the vile and barbaric use of wealth's power, is the only thing that separates us from the master/slave formula that has plagued us throughout human history.
wealth is getting it's way....it has almost eliminated unions (down to 13% of all jobs), it has almost eliminated any type of company pension, it has spent billions over the decades to lobby for less pay to workers, weaker safety conditions on the job, weaker environmental controls, dirtier air, dirtier water, less political involvement, less regulatory oversight, less taxes paid by the upper 1%........wealth does not like you, or want you, unless you are of service to them, period. I can't understand why the massive majority of people in this world don't understand that, or refuse to accept it.


Intriguing post.

But what exactly constitutes "wealth"?

Historically wealth meant resources, output productivity, property or precious metals.

Does fiat paper constitute an actual source of wealth, or does it represent a fraudulent and ultimately temporary prosperity with no substance?

When a singular man at the top can create all currency at his whim, who will print until the engine explodes, all out of thin air, like an alchemy experiment, with no worth behind it, is what he creates actually wealth, or is it simply monopoly money that will just be useless paper again when the game is over?

I know this doesn't really pertain to the point you were making about wealth; I'm just curious as to what your thoughts are on this.
edit on 4-6-2013 by METACOMET because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
government bothers me cuz it drowns me with taxes.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 





I believe government is necessary for any civilized nation. Without common rules being set, there would be anarchy


Amarchy is not a bad thing....


Anarchism is the movement for social justice through freedom. It is concrete, democratic and egalitarian. It has existed and developed since the seventeenth century, with a philosophy and a defined outlook that have evolved and grown with time and circumstance. Anarchism began as what it remains today: a direct challenge by the underprivileged to their oppression and exploitation. It opposes both the insidious growth of state power and the pernicious ethos of possessive individualism, which, together or separately, ultimately serve only the interests of the few at the expense of the rest.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Due to the destruction of the nuclear family, I see communities-as-localities banding together to provide protection for those who want to be useful to the community. I also see the 'roving bandits' turning to traveling minstrelship in order to have a legitimate way to contribute. Or circuses. Entertainment has an important place in a post-government world.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by BadBeast
It's not Goverment that's the problem, the enemy, itt's the very idea of government.That we need to e governed..It's been culturally drummed into us for so long we have forgotten how to take charge of our own lives. How to look to ourselves for answers instead of some ruling body. Anarchy (Not anarchISM)

The rule of one. The self. There should be no sovereign greater than that which you have yourself. No kingdom bigger than one man's life. The proportionate resourcing of everyman's needs from sustainable sources. All pVia apple


how can you honestly believe what you said. the reality of great wealth and the destructive power that comes with it, has been documented for thousands of years in human history. representative governments strong enough to control the vile and barbaric use of wealth's power, is the only thing that separates us from the master/slave formula that has plagued us throughout human history.
wealth is getting it's way....it has almost eliminated unions (down to 13% of all jobs), it has almost eliminated any type of company pension, it has spent billions over the decades to lobby for less pay to workers, weaker safety conditions on the job, weaker environmental controls, dirtier air, dirtier water, less political involvement, less regulatory oversight, less taxes paid by the upper 1%........wealth does not like you, or want you, unless you are of service to them, period. I can't understand why the massive majority of people in this world don't understand that, or refuse to accept it.
I never even mentioned wealh. But seeing as you brought it up, wealth is not getting it's way. What you are talking about is money. And ultimately, money has no value. And what's the point of having a Government that is up for sale? The Ancient Greeks gave up democracy over 2000 years ago, because it's too easily corrupted. So why are we priding ourselves on our democratic process? What purpose do our governments serve? Yours? I doubt it. Mine? Certainly not. They serve whoever pays them the most money. And where does that money come from? It's MADE UP by Central Bankers. There's no wealth there. Money only has value because we're told it has value. And people just do what they're told. By their Governments. Again, what purpose does government serve?



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by rock427
This isn't 'do' or 'die'. No one is advocating a total withdraw of government. We just don't need a nanny state that politicizes every little 'issue' there is. Believe it or not, some of us think that government can't and shouldn't always be the answer...


Well just what are you proposing. I want examples of clear concrete plans. And how you would like to see things work - at different levels. What we need - how are resources (public) to be managed.

You are just offering an opinion with little actual thought behind it.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by seamus
Due to the destruction of the nuclear family, I see communities-as-localities banding together to provide protection for those who want to be useful to the community. I also see the 'roving bandits' turning to traveling minstrelship in order to have a legitimate way to contribute. Or circuses. Entertainment has an important place in a post-government world.


But don't you see that "banding together" is the very definition of government?

And who decides who "those who want to be useful" are? My idea of useful and yours maybe different. What about those that cannot provide 'concrete' items or services, the old, infirm and young.

Society is defined by how they take care of the least productive (what an awfull word) in society.

Even the Bible tells us this.
edit on 4-6-2013 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Government is horrible because it is IMMORAL. Not because I don't care for it or it's my opinion that it isn't good, IT IS INHERENTLY IMMORAL AND ROTTEN TO THE CORE.
IT IS AN IDEA THAT IS ROOTED IN AN ANCIENT, OUTDATED WAY OF THINKING AND IT IS TIME FOR US TO OUTGROW IT.

Why is it immoral? Because; To give a small group of individuals a complete monopoly on the use of violence and the threat of the use of violence against us to achieve it's goals is 100% immoral and wrong.

If you disagree about their ability to use violence, try not paying your taxes for a while, or try breaking an unjust law..you will eventually be met with force, most likely a gun held by a man with an unjust claim to authority over your innate rights.


"If you hate government so much, then what is your solution mr. smarty pants?"

Here's the answer: A moral and decent, voluntary society with respect to property rights based on the principles of non aggression and non coercion.

I implore anyone intersted in these topics to check out Stefan Molyneux. He has been pointing out the immorality of government for quite some time in a very clear and precise way.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jedimind
Government is horrible because it is IMMORAL. Not because I don't care for it or it's my opinion that it isn't good, IT IS INHERENTLY IMMORAL AND ROTTEN TO THE CORE.
IT IS AN IDEA THAT IS ROOTED IN AN ANCIENT, OUTDATED WAY OF THINKING AND IT IS TIME FOR US TO OUTGROW IT.

Why is it immoral? Because; To give a small group of individuals a complete monopoly on the use of violence and the threat of the use of violence against us to achieve it's goals is 100% immoral and wrong.

If you disagree about their ability to use violence, try not paying your taxes for a while, or try breaking an unjust law..you will eventually be met with force, most likely a gun held by a man with an unjust claim to authority over your innate rights.


"If you hate government so much, then what is your solution mr. smarty pants?"

Here's the answer: A moral and decent, voluntary society with respect to property rights based on the principles of non aggression and non coercion.

I implore anyone intersted in these topics to check out Stefan Molyneux. He has been pointing out the immorality of government for quite some time in a very clear and precise way.


And again you are mistaking the 'effect' of, as you call it, immorality, for the 'cause' of said immorality. Government is ultimately a reflection of society as a whole. It is a reflection of WE THE PEOPLE and our values (MONEY and POWER) and it is difficult to look at yourself in this mirror but until we do, this is where we are.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Cabin
 





I believe government is necessary for any civilized nation. Without common rules being set, there would be anarchy


Amarchy is not a bad thing....


Anarchism is the movement for social justice through freedom. It is concrete, democratic and egalitarian. It has existed and developed since the seventeenth century, with a philosophy and a defined outlook that have evolved and grown with time and circumstance. Anarchism began as what it remains today: a direct challenge by the underprivileged to their oppression and exploitation. It opposes both the insidious growth of state power and the pernicious ethos of possessive individualism, which, together or separately, ultimately serve only the interests of the few at the expense of the rest.




Yes Anarchism has a long tradition and speaks many truths and I used to think it was unworkable in the extreme. I've learned a bit more and see it more as an extreme form of democratic (not reuplic) socialism. Pure anarchism cannot work - it cannot cooridnate, manage and administer OUR COMMON RESOURCES/WEALTH.





top topics
 
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join