If government is so horrible, what is the answer?

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
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.

NO - the government was forced (by BIG BANKING) to act in this way over the express wishes of her citizenry.

The government listened to BIG BANKING but that was the effect of BIG BANKING wanting their interest payments to continue and this is the key these TOO BIG TO FAIL BUSINESSES cannot survive without the continuous interest payment income.

The answer is a better government. And I dont mean the Republicans are so much better than the Democrats. They are both awful.

It would be nice to reset government and start over with what is really needed, and nothing more.

And three viable parties would be desirable as well.

Originally posted by MrBigDave
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.

Wonderful distinction between two intertwined ideas. I've long agreed that we need more congress people (as per originally planned - 1 represtative per X number of Citizen)

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

You are right it is an albatross

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

Ditto, Ditto and Ditto.

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

The USA has a long and distinguished history of isolationism - conservates take note. It is a conservate value or was.....

Leave all social issues to the states.

This I can't go along with because it would make our country into even more of a hogepodge of conflicting services and priorities. I think there needs to be basic minimum social standards. It's not a deal breaker - I just forsee too many conflicts between the states and the federal government. There are now - just look at Pot laws and enforcement.

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

I'm for single longer (to get WORK done) terms with complete public funding of elections at all levels of government. No more of this 'who-ever-has-the-most-money' wins crap. No business funding and sponsering candidates. Heck I'd even do away with political parties all together - make people run as independents on their own merits and abilities.

Thanks for sharing you thoughts with us.

reply to post by FyreByrd


"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. "


It is not immorality 'as I call it'. It simply IS an immoral institution and the only thing it is an effect of is the collective agreement of all of us to submit to it day in and day out.

Originally posted by seamus
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.

I didn't know that. Thanks.

I agree with you about the 'state of government' as being corrupt and power mad. But I do think that it is a reflection of our society(s) as a whole. Sort of the collective unconscous of a nation - or perhaps those who vote - or in reality those who have the FREE SPEECH (read BIG BUSINESS MONEY) to prevail.

For lack of a better way to frame it - in the US and to a lesser extent in other Western nations, we worship - money and power without regard to how ethically and sustainable those are acquired. We don't shun those who lie, cheat and steal their way to power and wealth - we admire them - we worship them. Those that maintain certain moral/ethical standards are called losers - people who 'couldn't make the tough choices' - and naive.

Originally posted by Nicks87

Originally posted by FyreByrd

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

This is simply not workable. Even tribal man, had some form of government. You are beliving the myth of the self-refliant self where you can provide everything you need for survival on your own. It's never been, or never will be possible.

The only thing that allows civializtion is distribution of duties in the past mostly by accident of birth (going back to that one) but more and more (I hope) based on skills, education and desire.

Everyone needs a mother and community to raise them. This me, me, me is all I need delusion is dangerous.

I think you are confusing govt and society. Many tribes had functioning societies where people with different skills achieved common goals but where all members were equals in terms of decision making within the tribe.

There was no tribal council or group of elders that everyone deferred to when it came to important matters. All members of the tribe had an equal voice.

There is no need for govt. it just leads to inequality and poverty for those that have no voice.

In a small group that can work (and women didn't sit in council - BTW). But once you get over 150 (see rule of 150) that kind of consensus making doesn't work in practise or theory.

The Quakers have done very well for over three hundred years in consensus governing - but still use a form of representation at larger meetings though the 'consensus' flows organically from the bottom.

I'm all for bottom up type of legislation and policy setting but when you have to act quickly a small body must be 'chartered' to act of behalf of the body as a whole. There are valid uses for many types of governance.

The tread in the US to 1) stack the judicary with pro-business judges, 2) ever more power in the hands of a unitary executire and 3) neutering legislation (at all levels) by deliberate obscuration have created Tranny of BIG BUSINESS interests that destroy a very well designed system of checks and balances that did work fairly well for two centuries for the common wealth and well-being.

Well cut out the career politician for starters. The old buggers sitting back collecting a paycheck for doing next to nothing in congress and senate.Do it for four or five years then move on and no six figure pension either for just doing five years. No big money campaign either and scrap the two party system. The biggie scrap the federal reserve,central banking system. That would make a huge improvement but fat chance for that happening because these guys want to keep the gravy train going.

Govenment is necessary, but not the way it currently works.

A totally transparent government that is accountable to the people for every move and decision (before it is made) is the only way to peace and the future of our species.

Mickierocksman

reply to post by FyreByrd


Most people that respond to this thread are libertarians.

Originally posted by FyreByrd
I truly am lost on this subject and can't understand two things about this 'anti-government' attitude to life.

One is why do you hate government? Do you hate it at all levels (Federal, State, County, City) or just at one particular level? Do you see any value in government at any level and in any situation?

Two - what are the alternatives to government that you think would work in a diverse society such as the United States where, by definition, we are of many races, cultures, creeds, ages, abilities?

I ask this because there are so many in government that don't believe in governing and hense the business of governance is not getting done - the business of 'We The People' is not getting done.

Do you really think that Corporate governance will be benefitial to anyone in the long run?

My take, for the moment, is that it is Big Business and it's influence by endless money that is the problem and not the institution of government it'self. And I believe that diversions against government are a very well designed method of keeping the government enslaved to Big Business and Greed.

A recent article on the subject with a little history for those who are interested:

Why the Right Hates Government

www.alternet.org...

If every citizen is in mindless pursuit of money and power, the end result will be a corrupt and militaristic government.

The change has to come from grass-roots.

There are some very good things in the Christian religion that people have forgotten.

The devil has made people forget the real teachings of Jesus Christ, and what remains is only a chore of going to church and listening to sermons.

How much Jesus is present in your life? And in your neighbor's life?

Do you hold to morals preached by Jesus?

The answers are often very simple. If people become good, the government will too.

If TV teaches sins, switch off the TV. If internet teaches sins, switch off the internet. Read those books which conform to moral values. Can we all do that???

To start, cut all Federal representatives pay to nothing. They are not paid, they work a regular job and perform the votes and debates out of love of country.

Follow the "Sessions of Congress", that way the representatives have normal jobs and either commute; skype, whatever to Washington DC to do the people's business. We allow them to have a government office and as needed supplies and internet access/plane rides to DC as needed.

As a public servant, you will not be allowed to take any money from corporations, if found out, stiff penalties and the inability to ever have a public job again, even the dog catcher.

Repeal the 17th amendment and election of those positions will be returned to the state legislature.

Each state of course can choose to pay their representatives as they choose, but they will no longer be on the payroll of the Federal government. If you are a paid representative, you may only serve in that capacity for 2 terms, at which time you can run for a different office or return to private life.

Switch taxation to a Federal Sales tax, with the caveat of a prebate to a certain income level. This will allow those who work hard (sometimes 2 jobs) but spend wisely to have more rather than be punished. This will also increase the number of taxpayers to those that currently do not report due to what ever reasons. Those that spend lavishly (actors, sports stars, CEO's) will end up spending more.

End all funding to foreign nations immediately.

Eliminate as many bs divisions of the Federal government as possible, including all of the medicaid/medicare offices. Nearly everything can and should be done online as it is faster, more reliable and certainly more competent.

Finally, remove all active military from foreign bases and place many active military to the southern border and build bases to suit.........

Also, make it mandatory for all those over the age of 18 to vote. I believe that the outcome of elections would be far different if we had 100 percent participation. Again stiff penalties to those that do not vote.

Originally posted by amfirst1
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

Get rid of the Central Bankers and that would solve 90 percent of the problem with government.

Bingo.

Why did Kings issue gold coins with their likeness embossed on them? Some might say this was purely narcissistic. However, Professor David Graeber explains this was done for two main reasons. One reason was a practical matter, the King needed to pay his occupying armies in a foreign land and gold coin was a good way to do that. Secondly, as these coins began to circulate it allowed the King to tax his subjects and maintain control over these new occupied territories.

Ask yourself, is the money we use today so different?

How might we reinvent money so that 1) it has value like gold, and 2) would not be controlled by political structures that could us it to wage war? This two-fold question is one that few people have ever bothered to ask, much less attempted to answer. While others were still trying reform a failing system, Satoshi Nakamoto actually came up with the answer. Here is quote from Wikipedia:

Bitcoin (BTC) is a cryptocurrency first described in a 2008 paper by pseudonymous developer Satoshi Nakamoto, who called it a peer-to-peer, electronic cash system. Bitcoin creation and transfer is based on an open source cryptographic protocol and is not managed by any central authority.

Buckminster Fuller once said, “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” This is exactly what Satoshi has done. Calling bitcoin a disruptive technology is an understatement. Money unmoored from any central authority is the new model. As the old money that political structures depend on becomes obsolete so will the political structures themselves.

Don't worry, this isn't going to happen overnight, but I believe it is the trend moving forward. While most people don't think about it very much, we could say money makes us slaves to the system. That may sounds rather negative, and even melodramatic, but when we re-frame the problem in terms of computer technology, solutions begin to emerge and bitcoin is one very positive answer.

What we are seeing unfold is a world in which political structures of control are collapsing. With Bitcon, pyramids of power are becoming as flat as a pancake. People are reclaiming their power from false authorities, and individuals are taking back their own sovereign birth-rights.

As I've been reading through the posts, one thing emerges as truth. People on ATS are incredibly well-informed, while the majority of people I come across are either too scared, busy or apathetic to say anything outside the box of social constraints in fear of potential repercussions.

I've made the decision to enter politics because it is simultaneously adhering to the de facto system, while using it to promote "alternative" views.

If empathy isn't achieved through "social" admiration alone, irrefutable knowledge will create thought or at the very least silence.
This is about the message and not the messenger.

I read The Prince by Machiavelli to understand how the majority of politicians think and I would recommend it to anyone, including the Art of War and countless other works. Feel free to contact me, or recommend books to me, I'm an enthusiast when it comes knowledge.

The terms and titles needed to be a person perceived as credible for a message to be meaningfully translated is just part of the game right now. I understand that because we live in a system of scarcity, the majority of people don't want others to have more than what they based on distorted notions of fairness. Hence, I'll use whatever terms, and titles that are necessary to be identified as " right, credible or accurate" in relation to any potential counterparts that will surely arise.

In the words of Albert Einstein "It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer."
For, "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." Sun Tzu.

Power should be given to only those with the reluctant capacity to wield it in the most dire of circumstances as emulated in the story of Cincinnatus. For practical purposes, term limits must become a standard of governing and enforced by general consent.

I could go on for days, but I for one am incredibly thankful for the wealth of insights presented by all of you. If you're only as strong as your weakest link, I'm siding with ATS every day of the week.

reply to post by FyreByrd

I really really really want to participate in this thread but my post would be so far back, that it wont matter.

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

I really really really want to participate in this thread but my post would be so far back, that it wont matter.

In that case, perhaps you will reply to my post (just before your own).

What are your thoughts on bitcoin? Do you see this as an answer?

One might compare the rise of crypto-currency and it’s effect on banks and insurance companies to the invention of the printing press and its impact of the Catholic Church. They didn't like anarchy either... In the days of Martin Luther the Chatholic Church ruled the world. Were you to walk into any town or city in 1513 you would see that the spires of the Church towering over every other building. Five hundred years later the tallest buildings in any major city are either banks or insurance companies, thus it should be evident to anyone (who's is paying attention) exactly who rules the world today.

Its the golden rule, those who have the gold make the rules. And there is a clue, it has always been those institution that move money around. The church moved money (promising treasure in heaven as they sold a pardon for sin) and today its the bankers, like Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein still claims: “I’m Doing God’s Work.” Yeah, from my perspective, not a lot has changed in terms of money, corruption, and thinking that one’s own greed is part of God’s ordained plan for a better world.

Today’s Martin Lurther is Satoshi Nakamoto. Lurther publish his Ninety-Five Theses in 1517 and Satoshi revealed the open-source code for bitcoin in 2009. The German monk strongly disputed the claim that freedom from God’s punishment for sin could be purchased with money. Nakamoto wanted to give people the ability to move money without using a bank, and doing this is like talking to God without a priest.

In that old world the concept of debt was linked to the concept of sin. Now, with bitcoin, you have an asset based currency, and that sets you free from sin (i.e., the debt-based money). As bitcoin is being taken seriously, we are seeing a seismic shift in the world of international finance such as the world has never known. Now watch our world radically change as we remove the greed driven middle man who regulated the value of our legal tender from his ivory tower. These money junkies are in a race to rule the world, but the power these “elites” lust for is tied to an old money system and that false authority is house of cards… ready to fall.

Most people don't have the courage to embrace the only REALISTIC alternative to secrecy-based - say it: BASED - government AS WE KNOW IT. As I see it, the vast majority of those who criticize the existing political world are as much a clueless part of the problem as that which or those whom they criticize. The alternative to the present insanity is simply, or most succinctly, REAL transparency, openness, "glasnost." Primarily, we need as much scientific - including spiritual - advancement in the area of explaining as much of the unexplained as possible, even when knowing how much cataclysmic tearing down that is APPARENTLY required in order to rebuild. Religions and condescending, patrician Big Brother-style government aren't TRULY necessary for a civilized and intelligent enough people. As I've stated before, we need a truly NEW world order, NOT a more monstrous version of the existing order that's most commonly REFERRED to mistakenly as the NWO.

Originally posted by Hopechest
I wouldn't say the entire government is corrupt but I will agree that it is too large to function properly.

The answer would be to shrink the role of government however you must take into consideration that with population increases and now globalization, it is essential to have a government do far more than they did in the 18th century.

We saw the problems that existed before we had central control, the States could not govern themselves within the Union effectively so there is only so much power you could take away from the federal government for us to function properly.

you have summed it up nicely, with a population of over 3 hundred million, you can't keep cutting government to the point where it doesn't function properly. just in the field of regulations, you have to have people monitoring the very corruption you are trying to keep at bay in the first place. the more independent watchdogs you have, the less chance of corruption you get. during the financial meltdown there were fewer regulators available to adequately comb through the books, that had the authority and support of our congress to do the job properly. the American people should know that if left unchecked, people try to game the system for their personal financial advantage, even if it means harming the nation as a whole

Originally posted by FyreByrd

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?

No, I see that banding together for a mutual cause is a form of tribalism. Tribes are run by consensus. You want to do something different? Leave. No beatings, no censure, no prison. Just leave. That's how elephants and dolphins do it, and it works very well for them. Government means control of the minds.

And who decides who "those who want to be useful" are?

The tribe.... Cut the crap. You know as well as I do what useful means. If someone was a dentist before TSHTF, they would be highly prized afterward. Lawyers? Bankers? Cops? not so much. They will have to either retrain themselves to serve the tribe rather than the mercenary 'municipalities' they serve, or be exiled (the 'just leave' option)

My idea of useful and yours maybe different.

I don't think so

What about those that cannot provide 'concrete' items or services, the old, infirm and young.

Let's grab that abundance first, and decide what we have to do in case of famine later. Hypothetical 'what ifs' are worse than useless, they are paralyzing. Those who want all contingencies satisfied before proceeding with the experience of life are the bane and burden of humankind. They are the worst sort of sheeple, because not only are they ruled by their fear, they wish to infect everyone else with it. I'm not saying that's you, but that IS your average city councilman.

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

I have a secret for you. Hunter/gatherers have the most leisure time of all societies in the world. They happen to lack technology, but for those brave enough to leave technology behind them, a lot can be learned about the abundance of nature. Please see "Original Wisdom" by Robert Wolff, and "The Gods Must Be Crazy"

Even the Bible tells us this.

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

The Bible is a minefield, only useful to those with intact and highly-tuned B.S. detectors.

Originally posted by GargIndia

If every citizen is in mindless pursuit of money and power, the end result will be a corrupt and militaristic government.

The change has to come from grass-roots.

There are some very good things in the Christian religion that people have forgotten.

The devil has made people forget the real teachings of Jesus Christ, and what remains is only a chore of going to church and listening to sermons.

How much Jesus is present in your life? And in your neighbor's life?

Do you hold to morals preached by Jesus?

The answers are often very simple. If people become good, the government will too.

If TV teaches sins, switch off the TV. If internet teaches sins, switch off the internet. Read those books which conform to moral values. Can we all do that???

Thanks for your ideas and yes religion can hold good starting points for all of us (and in the Quakers and there very democratic form of governance).

However we have see in the past that religion rather then bring people together tends to set them against each other. We do not live in a world that is largly homogenous any longer, we have to base a secular government on general moral/ethical prinicpals that go beyond religion and demand personal 'spiritual' responsibility.

And to make this clear by personal 'spiritual' responsibility I in no way mean anything libertarian. What I mean is that we, each and every one, has to be responsible for our thoughts, feelings and actions - and ensure that they are not selfish nor self-centered. As more and more people work towards this 'consciousness' of compassion and well-being, I believe our governments (and business too) will begin to reflect it.

There will always be outliers - but today it seems that the collective 'attitude' here in the US is one of greed, hate and violence against 'the other' in all its forms. And I do believe that this 'attitude' is being deliberatly fostered by BIG BUSINESS out of their own fear of becoming irrelevant.

If we can beat fear we have a chance.