Lets just say you were going to build a Republic, what are the laws?

[General of Darkness]

I'd like to hear the ideas of GSUS members.

If you want to use the U.S. Constitution etc, that's fine, but please lets label them 1 thru etc. Maritime law works also.

I know we hem and haw about life, the world, all the bullshit over our heads, but lets try and make a living and breathing document that we could make our own, if WE were to make a declaration.

We could call it the GSUS Declaration.

[midnight rambler]

The Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation are two good places to start.

The founders largely depended on Vattel's Law of Nations.

[Glass]

I would like to see something that bars party politics. Perhaps by having people nominated for a Job/position in the Govt Executive and being elected just to that position. They might nominate for say a maximum of 3 positions. Main position plus 2 alternatives. Then the people elect that person to that job on a majority. So all executive positions are selected by the people directly and not by party influence.

Much like a local mayoral or Police Chief election. Do that for all public positions.

Also make them "Honorary" like they used to be. That way only people truly dedicated to public service would nominate.

And no gerrymandering or territorial representation.

[General of Darkness]

The Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation are two good places to start.

The founders largely depended on Vattel's Law of Nations.

Exactly, but I want us to do some work. Let's not cut and paste it here but lets make a document that could actually be used.

[Shami-Amourae]

I'm all for having a government as long as it's no bigger than a city-state. I believe the MORE governments, the better. The worst thing is having few governments, that are really big and powerful. If your government is local, you can have real influence over it, and it's harder for outside forces to influence it.

Here are some law suggestions from me:



All political positions should have a 1 term limit. 4 years of "service" max. The biggest mistakes I believe the founding fathers made was not having term limits.
All taxation is banned. The government can levy tariffs to raise revenues. The US Federal Government used to fund 80% of itself through tariffs. If the government needs revenue, it can levy a tariff on incoming goods. This helps protect the local economy.
Only land and/or business owners can vote.
There is never any legal tender. All currencies are welcome. Let the free-market decide what money is.
The government cannot go into debt.
The government cannot borrow money.
The government must balance it's budget. If it can't, it must cut spending.
No government official can carry/wield a lethal weapon while on duty (non-lethal weapons like pepper spray and pink plastic BB guns are okay.) This ensures the people always outgun the government.
No political parties.
All politicians (president, congressmen, whatever), police, and so forth also have to perform trash pickup service for public on a weekly basis. Public servants need to be reminded they are SERVANTS. You can arrange their schedules so you don't need to have a designated trash pickup service. Everyone in the government just does it once a week on different days depending their location/schedules.
No government unions.
No government unions, really.
No government unions, I REALLY mean it.

[LuckyStrike]

Some good suggestions already.

We would've been much better had we stuck to the Articles of Confederation.

Laws would be only pure Whites allowed in, no jews.

Usury would be a capital offense.

Jewish movies, literature, music or anything influenced or created by the mind of a jew would be immediately destroyed and being caught with it would be punished by permanent exile.

Anyone in government office who proposed any one of the 10 planks of the communist manifesto should be shot on sight, anyone who hears this person propose any of the planks that doesn't kill the person would be later tried for treason.

No standing army.

And all of the things mentioned by Shami.

[Shami-Amourae]

Jewish movies, literature, music or anything influenced or created by the mind of a jew would be immediately destroyed and being caught with it would be punished by permanent exile.


I think that's VERY dangerous to do, and extremely authoritarian. Banning anything just makes it more prevalent and popular. You also don't want the government to have the power to ban anything really. If they can ban things from Jews, they can ban things from Christians the next day. Banning alcohol in the Prohibition only raised crime rates, and made more people drink alcohol. How do you enforce that too? You can't. If you banned a book like the Communist Manifesto, then every rebellious kid would want to read it. In other words you'd legitimize it. The things you listed are there since you want to stop certain ideas from getting into society. The best way to fight against those ideas is with freedom. Freedom is the answer to tyranny, not more tyranny. Freedom creates prosperity. Why would anyone take Marxism serious if everyone is free and wealthy because of their freedom?

[Carl]

I would go with the constitution, with a few changes.

Remove the 13th, 14th, 16th, 17th and 22nd Amendments.

Limit congressional/government worker pay to be no more that the national median pay.

Anyone deriving income from government is barred from voting for as long as they receive that income.

Corporations are not people and have no right to a political say, they are barred from making any campaign contributions.

[Horn]

Only self representative, no congress, or executive branch.

Congress was created for the horse age.

Judicial only with term limits.


Anyone deriving income from government is barred from voting for as long as they receive that income.

^that's a good one from Carl, but would be hard to justify their second class citizen status...

[Shami-Amourae]

I think all voting should be done online, through an open sourced decentralized P2P cryptography. In other words, use the same technology as Bitcoin, but with voting. That's how all voting should be done in my view. It would be impossible to cheat. There would be no centralization or bottle neck on results. All vote tallies would be visible on all computers in the network with the voting client open. So you wouldn't need to turn on the news to find out the election results, they'd be the same on your computer as they would at any government office.

[osoab]

I would go with the constitution, with a few changes.

Remove the 13th, 14th, 16th, 17th and 22nd Amendments.

Limit congressional/government worker pay to be no more that the national median pay.

Anyone deriving income from government is barred from voting for as long as they receive that income.

Corporations are not people and have no right to a political say, they are barred from making any campaign contributions.

If you are going to use the Constitution as your basis, are you keeping the clause that treaties supersede the Constitution?

[undgrd]

Right off the top of my head.

Political Action Committees are now Illegal
Lobby Congress using anything other than logic and facts is Illegal

[Carl]

If you are going to use the Constitution as your basis, are you keeping the clause that treaties supersede the Constitution?

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land

Treaties cannot supersede the Constitution.

The United States derives its authority from the Constitution, no treaty can supersede the cap on their authority.


I'm still puzzled as to what to do about the Supreme Court's propensity for legislating from the bench, maybe disallow their use of precedent in establishing the constitutionality of laws.

[osoab]

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land



Right there, treaties become supreme law of the land. How do they not supersede?

[Horn]

I'm still puzzled as to what to do about the Supreme Court's propensity for legislating from the bench, maybe disallow their use of precedent in establishing the constitutionality of laws.

Make all laws subject to judicial review before voting.

That way they can't run into many interpretation loopholes later.

[Carl]

Only self representative, no congress, or executive branch.

Congress was created for the horse age.

Judicial only with term limits.



^that's a good one from Carl, but would be hard to justify their second class citizen status...

What's hard to justify is giving those that recieve their income from the tax payer the ability to vote themselves pay raises and job security.

They retain their freedom of choice, no one is forcing them to be public servants or dependants.

[horseshoe3]

Why would anyone take Marxism serious if everyone is free and wealthy because of their freedom?

I can answer this. Wealth is relative. The poorest of modern americans are fabulously wealthy from a global and historical perspective. The problem is that there is always someone wealthier than you. Therefore, shortsighted and greedy people will rush to Marxism even though it will lower their standard of living.

[osoab]

What's hard to justify is giving those that recieve their income from the tax payer the ability to vote themselves pay raises and job security.

They retain their freedom of choice, no one is forcing them to be public servants or dependants.

Do what some cities/towns tackle this problem. The current council will vote for a pay raise for the next council that is elected. They also only do the vote for a raise every 10 years.

[Carl]

Right there, treaties become supreme law of the land. How do they not supersede?

How can they sign onto a treaty that supercedes their Constitutional, legislative authority?

They can't, and even today they don't.

And a president's signature on a treaty that hasn't been ratified and approved by congress is meaningless, it's just a powerless gesture, political theater.

[mamboni]

The Constitution is the boilerplate. Some excellent ideas here. Now that we have the benefit of two centuries of "experimentation" with the Constitution, we see that the flexibilities left in it by the Founders are a two-edged sword. In the area of monetary policy, I would add copious specific language forbidding the government to issue currency except specie backed by gold and silver. I would add clear and unequivocal prohibitions against issuance of unbacked credit and especially against the Congress delegating currency creation to a private central bank. Interest-bearing private money is strictly prohibited. Only in times of extreme national crisis (to be defined ad nauseum) can the federal government issue unbacked "greenbacks."

[Horn]

What's hard to justify is giving those that recieve their income from the tax payer the ability to vote themselves pay raises and job security.

They retain their freedom of choice, no one is forcing them to be public servants or dependants.

Once you start deeming one group as second class citizens you'll run into a heep of other problems down the road, IMO.

There must be another way, such as letting each of their votes only count as 1/3 of a vote,

with a 66.6% majority of course required on any ruling. :)

[Carl]

Make all laws subject to judicial review before voting.

That way they can't run into many interpretation loopholes later.

Yes, I was considering that and that's what they started out doing. Gave Jefferson fits because they kept telling him that he had no Constitutional authority to purchase the Louisiana Territory from Napoleon without prior congressional approval.

Marbury v. Madison changed that, establishing the Supreme Court's role in the process as an "upon petition, after the fact reviewer" of the laws.

I think that if we were to disallow their use of precedent in establishing the Constitutionality of a law, we would effectively remove the use of loopholes.

[Carl]

Once you start deeming one group as second class citizens you'll run into a heep of other problems down the road, IMO.

There must be another way, such as letting each of their votes only count as 1/3 of a vote,

with a 66.6% majority of course required on any ruling. :)

They are not "second class citizens" they are Volentary Public Servants or dependants of the tax payer.

Public Service should be a vocation, not an occupation.

[undgrd]

They are not "second class citizens" they are Volentary Public Servants or dependants of the tax payer.

Public Service should be a vocation, not an occupation.

What happens when the only people who can afford to run for office are the rich and powerful? They're in a position of being able to live on already earned income while in office. While in office, they'll pass laws that allow them to earn more once out of office.

Average Joe seems to get swallowed whole.

[Carl]

The Constitution is the boilerplate. Some excellent ideas here. Now that we have the benefit of two centuries of "experimentation" with the Constitution, we see that the flexibilities left in it by the Founders are a two-edged sword. In the area of monetary policy, I would add copious specific language forbidding the government to issue currency except specie backed by gold and silver. I would add clear and unequivocal prohibitions against issuance of unbacked credit and especially against the Congress delegating currency creation to a private central bank. Interest-bearing private money is strictly prohibited. Only in times of extreme national crisis (to be defined ad nauseum) can the federal government issue unbacked "greenbacks."

Well I guess I'm setting myself up to be pummeled but...

A government mandated gold or silver backed currency is, by definition, a Fiat Currency and I don't think the government has any business telling us what is or is not money.

If the government wants to print script to pay its bills and mandate taxes to be paid in that script to legitimize its use, then that's fine by me.

We can use gold and silver as well, let their value float freely and allow them to provide a check against government over printing.

[jimswift]

This looks like it would get back to the Federalist / Anti-Federalist discussion.

The current monster is unsustainable because it is unchecked. How often does the Supreme Court rule against an expansion of the national governments size and scope?

Then again, I suppose if the 17th were abolished....

[Horn]

They are not "second class citizens" they are Volentary Public Servants or dependants of the tax payer.

Public Service should be a vocation, not an occupation.

We can't set these people apart as if they might become Saints of Servitude, giving them the higher moral grounds from which they defeat you...

A different way might be set up some form of qualified "jury duty", whereas those private citizens become public to fill vital .gov functions for a couple weeks a year.

[Carl]

What happens when the only people who can afford to run for office are the rich and powerful? They're in a position of being able to live on already earned income while in office. While in office, they'll pass laws that allow them to earn more once out of office.

Average Joe seems to get swallowed whole. I don't think campaign affordability will that big of an issue as the only ones running for office will be your district House Representative and the President. The President has no legislative authority and the House will have to get all of their legislation through a Senate controlled by the States' governments

[Carl]

We can't set these people apart as if they might become Saints of Servitude, giving them the higher moral grounds from which they defeat you...

A different way might be set up some form of qualified "jury duty", whereas those private citizens become public to fill vital .gov functions for a couple weeks a year.

Anything is possible, give it a hundred years and we'll see how it turns out....

[iOWNme]

What makes any of you think this new 'Republic' would turn out any different than the original? ANSWER THIS!

ALL Government = VIOLENCE.

There was a reason this was doomed from the begining. The smallest Government ALWAYS turn into the most Tyrannical, and now GSUS'ers are trying to create a small 'limited' Government. Give me a break.

Instead of figuring out what size the throne should be and what powers the throne should have, you need to realize the reality of the situation: THERE IS NO THRONE and never will be.

Anarchy is what exists in reality. Government is what is hallucinated into existence. EVERY member here lives their life by anarchy = Peaceful interactions between individuals. Nobody here uses violence to get a job, nobody here uses violence to buy products, yet everybody condones the use of violence through Government.

I will play along: What will you do to people who are non-violent and refuse to go along with your new Government?

TO ALL GSUS'ers: FREEDOM means letting people run their own lives, regardless of how you think they should run it. Looks like not many of you want real freedom, you want your version of it. Just like the Founding Fathers did you are attempting to creat arbitrary mythical powers and then give them to mere mortal humans and then allowing those mortal humans to act as Gods over the mere mortals in society.

Do you know why man came to the ultimate conclusions like the earth being flat, and the earth being the center of the universe? BECAUE IT IS THE TRUTH.

Man owns himslef = TRUTH.
No man has any power or right over any other man = TRUTH
Man is the highest species on earth = TRUTH
ALL forms of Government are immoral and unjust = TRUTH

[Carl]

What makes any of you think this new 'Republic' would turn out any different than the original?

ALL Government = VIOLENCE.

There was a reason this was doomed from the begining. The smallest Government ALWAYS turn into the most Tyrannical, and now GSUS'ers are trying to create a small 'limited' Government. Give me a break.

Instead of figuring out what size the throne should be and what powers the throne should have, you need to realize the reality of the situation: THERE IS NO THRONE and never will be.

I will play along: What will you do to people who are non-violent and refuse to go along with your new Government?

TO ALL GSUS'ers: FREEDOM means letting people run their own lives, regardless of how you think they should run it. Looks like not many of you want real freedom, you want your version of it. Just like the Founding Fathers did you are attempting to creat arbitrary mythical powers and thgen give them to mere mortal humans and then allowing those mortal humans to act as Gods in society.

Yes, the country would be so much better off with 300 million self anointed governments running around making their own laws as they go.

I think you're naive as all hell and F.O.S.

[Horn]

Shami's idea of more local governance (state's powers) took some of what you're speaking to into account, Sui.

Most of us are just looking at how to shrink the "all seeing eye" central part, so as to give balance to the larger base. A right angled square pyramid if you will.

True, the effectiveness of the central to enforce thru violence plays a key role in any functioning .gov. One state could easily become dictatorial and simply choose not to listen and go out and defeat the rest.

Man has yet to create the perfect weapon when wielded or combined by individuals becomes greater than an individual states WMD. You'd need a global law outlawing WMD firstly, or it'd just be another bombtrack.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUaL1FnotRQ

[mamboni]

Well I guess I'm setting myself up to be pummeled but...

A government mandated gold or silver backed currency is, by definition, a Fiat Currency and I don't think the government has any business telling us what is or is not money.

If the government wants to print script to pay its bills and mandate taxes to be paid in that script to legitimize its use, then that's fine by me.

We can use gold and silver as well, let their value float freely and allow them to provide a check against government over printing.

Is your proposal synonymous with FOFOA's free gold?

[Bigjon]

No secret voting. All votes will be in the sunshine, with a name and address attached.

[iOWNme]

Yes, the country would be so much better off with 300 million self anointed governments running around making their own laws as they go.

I think you're naive as all hell and F.O.S.


I notice you couldnt rebutt anything i posted.

Carl - Do criminals follow Laws?

The entire idea of Government is self contradictory, it is contrary to civilization and morality, and constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed.

[iOWNme]

You'd need a global law outlawing WMD firstly, or it'd just be another bombtrack.


Do criminals follow Laws?

[Carl]

Is your proposal synonymous with FOFOA's free gold?

No.

FOFOA's proposal is to demonetize gold completely and make it a tier one commodity asset for the purposes of investment and savings.

You can own gold, even barter with it but the only place you will be able to buy or sell it, will be at your local bank, with central banks being the main gold repository.


*Ponder that a while and see if any alarm bells go off....

[Horn]

Do criminals follow Laws?

Think of the one thing that weighs on us reforming our own .gov. We all worry tremendously (maybe subconsciously) that the big button will get pushed if we tread that ground.

Typically criminals are convicted after proven guilty.

They would have no enemy to use them against and would only be able to hold the entire world hostage with them.

[vacuum]

The Greeks had an interesting system, where citizens were required to serve in the government, kind of like jury duty or military conscription.

[Carl]

I notice you couldnt rebutt anything i posted.

Carl - Do criminals follow Laws?

The entire idea of Government is self contradictory, it is contrary to civilization and morality, and constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed.



I rebutted nearly everything you said, which was mostly nonsense.

"Government = VIOLENCE"

Your solution, create 300 million new governments.

"Do criminals follow Laws?"

If everyone is their own government, then there wouldn't be any criminals, would there? Every action would be justified.

"The entire idea of Government is self contradictory, it is contrary to civilization and morality, and constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed."

That's just a mouthful of historical ignorance.

Government has existed since the time when man first congregated.

[undgrd]

Sui Juris, would you agree that with the same morals guiding all people, there would be no need for an organized government?

The proper way to conduct one's self would be understood and followed by all. The need for coercion would cease to exist.

[Carl]

Sui Juris, would you agree that with the same morals guiding all people, there would be no need for an organized government?

The proper way to conduct one's self would be understood and followed by all. The need for coercion would cease to exist.

That's exactly what Marx was saying...

[osoab]

No.

FOFOA's proposal is to demonetize gold completely and make it a tier one commodity asset for the purposes of investment and savings.

You can own gold, even barter with it but the only place you will be able to buy or sell it, will be at your local bank, with central banks being the main gold repository.


*Ponder that a while and see if any alarm bells go off....

What, like the banks end up with all the gold?

[Libertytree]

Jefferson foresaw that a large central government was problematic, both in the sense of its broad powers and also geographically. He proposed that all that power centered in DC would not be reflective of and accountable to we the people and that the way to counter that was to put that into largely the hands of each state but he went even further, saying that even state and local govs would be immense in their scope and that their should be a system of wards or districts that would counter mandates from the higher state level. Each ward or district would be their own equally sovereign entity, answerable to it's respective citizenry.

[Horn]

Anything is possible, give it a hundred years and we'll see how it turns out....

Anyway this thread needs an evolutionary judge you're too liberal, and although i would fit the position perfectly.

I refuse. :)

[Carl]

What, like the banks end up with all the gold? The banks would own the gold regardless of who pays to check it out from their ownership for a time, it always comes back...

It gives the banks the ability to create a lot of paper assets with "Gold" on the label to sale and a shiny new carrot to dangling at the end of their control stick for people to chase into their retirement...

[Carl]

Anyway this thread needs an evolutionary judge you're too liberal, and although i would fit the position perfectly.

I refuse. :) "too liberal"???? How so?

[Horn]

"too liberal"???? How so?

What's with Ben Franklin anyway? "Here's a Republic, if you can keep it"

Its like "Hey Ben" get a clue about the "if you can keep it" part...

I feel like a one armed man & you just sent me down the river in a kayak... lol

Ben & Carl has a certain ring to it.

[Carl]

What's with Ben Franklin anyway? "Here's a Republic, if you can keep it"

Its like "Hey Ben" get a clue about the "if you can keep it" part...

I feel like a one armed man & you just sent me down the river in a kayak... lol

Ben & Carl has a certain ring to it.

Government has always existed, the historical trick has always been, getting one that you can live with and is the most conducive to a life of liberty and prosperity, an ages old struggle. The Constitution is, by far, the best blueprint for such a government and maybe with a few tweaks to counter human nature it can still work. The only other alternative would be a benevolent dictatorship.

[iOWNme]

Carl you never answered my questions:

-What makes you think a new small Government would turn out any different? You said i have no historical knowledge, yet ALL SMALL LIMITED GOVERNMENTS grow to enslave their citizens. Egypt, ROme, Greece, etc.
-Do criminals follow Laws?
-What will you do to people who are non violent and decide to not go along with your 'limited' Government?



I rebutted nearly everything you said, which was mostly nonsense.

"Government = VIOLENCE"

Your solution, create 300 million new governments.

Your way of rebutting is putting words in my mouth? Where did i say we need 300 million new Governments? Nice strawman Carl. Either show me where i said that or stop lying.

Do you deny that the definition of Government is the monopoly on violence?


"Do criminals follow Laws?"

If everyone is their own government, then there wouldn't be any criminals, would there? Every action would be justified.

Again i NEVER said everyone is its own Government. This is the second lie you have tried to pass off. You are a peice of work. You have no intellectual acumen to even have this discussion.


"The entire idea of Government is self contradictory, it is contrary to civilization and morality, and constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed."


That's just a mouthful of historical ignorance.

Government has existed since the time when man first congregated.

Yes the self contradictory, immoral and unjust fiction called Government has existed since the begining. What is your point? Man used to think the world was flat but he got past that lie didnt he?

Government has killed 200 million people in the last 100 years. Even Religions most darkest age only managed to kill 1 million people.

Now Carl says that Mark advocated for anarchy. LMAO! Marx was a STATIST. Are you?

Carl - Do you believe the State is legitimate?

[iOWNme]

Sui Juris, would you agree that with the same morals guiding all people, there would be no need for an organized government?

The proper way to conduct one's self would be understood and followed by all. The need for coercion would cease to exist.

So your answer to violent poeple is to add more violence to society? Talk about self contradictory.

Right and wrong exist in reality. They existed BEFORE GOVERNMENT. So by default, ANYTHING Government does will fall into one of those catagories. Morals are not to be decided by Government. They are not to be arbitrated in the halls of Congress, they are not to be determined by 'high priests' which is what politicians are. They are not to be determined on a case by case basis.

You are either going to live by morals or Laws, but it CANT be both because one existed before the other.

[Horn]

In the spirit of GoD's thread,

I think an amendment clause needs to be added at this time to separate Carl & Sui to opposite ends of the Republic!

[Carl]

Sui Juris,

All I've done is point out the fallacy of your beliefs using what you would apparently consider a novel approach called "deductive logic".

"If - Then".

Try it.

In your world, who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong? Are there any grey areas in the rightness or the wrongness of a deed? Whose interpretation of rightness or wrongness do you use to decide if you are violated or in violation? Who gets to decide punishment and how would that punishment be carried out?

And you really should read up on Marx, after all, you are following his blueprint.

*Oh and, I don't expect any government designed by men to remain small, I fully expect that in one hundred years or so a bunch of pissed off people will be gathering to conduct this argument all over again...

[Horn]

THE SHERIFF: A NECESSARY OFFICE

http://www.libertygunrights.com/SheriffsANecessaryOffice.html

[Santa]

This is a really good thread. I'm impressed.


I really like the idea of decentralization and free competition of all currencies. That sounds right to me.

People naturally congregate to form unions to accomplish things they're unable to accomplish alone, though. It's the basis of social organization. It's genetic, most likely. Government represents the full bloom of the organism known as society. Whatever it's called, whether it be State or Religion, if it represents society as a whole, then that's what constitutes "government."

Maybe government itself as an institution needs term limits. Maybe all institutions need term limits. A mandatory revolution every 20 years?

My real deep concern though, is this. How do we manage the exponential inevitability of technology hurling toward us like a death star?

I watched a video here a few days ago about an amazing new nano-carbon structure that can eliminate all our energy problems forever, easily,
but quickly realized that "we" are not gonna get that technology because it threatens every current hierarchical authority in existence today.
"THEY"... ALL Authority... will take that awesome technology and use it against us to further their power and limit any possible future competition.

[iOWNme]

Sui Juris,

All I've done is point out the fallacy of your beliefs using what you would apparently consider a novel approach called "deductive logic".

"If - Then".

Try it.

In your world, who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong?

Individuals decide what is right and wrong for them which would be better than what we have because right now individuals do what is LEGAL instead of what is RIGHT. You live your life like this every single day as it is and so do about 329 million other people. The amount of actual criminals in society is inconsequesntial in comparison to the criminals in GOVERNMENT.


Are there any grey areas in the rightness or the wrongness of a deed?

When it comes to using violence on non violent poeple NO THERE NO GREY AREAS. But of course there are other grey areas. But i dont need to have the answers for everything to know Government is immoral and unjust. Just like i didnt need to know how the cotton was going to be picked in the 1860's to know that slavery was immoral and unjust.



Whose interpretation of rightness or wrongness do you use to decide if you are violated or in violation? Who gets to decide punishment and how would that punishment be carried out?

YOU decide if you have been damaged or not, which is better than what we have now because Government decided if you have been injured or not.


And you really should read up on Marx, after all, you are following his blueprint.

Since i know you have no intellectual argument you have to resort to pulling names like Marx out to try and invoke an emotional response from me. I advocate for anarchy which is 100% PEACEFUL. You on the other hand advocate for the STATE which makes you a STATIST. I dont care how 'small' youre State is, you still believe that a group of men has the moral right and authority to rule over other men, which makes you sir the problem and not the solution.


*Oh and, I don't expect any government designed by men to remain small, I fully expect that in one hundred years or so a bunch of pissed off people will be gathering to conduct this argument all over again...

So you have finally admitted what have been saying all along. But i thought i had no historical knowledge? Why would you advocate for something THAT YOU KNOW IS DOOMED TO FAIL? And this is supposed to be an intelligent and enlightened idea?

I am not saying anything that hasnt been said by many great philosophers. Carl seems to think this is some new radical idea.....Maybe you need to learn a little about morals and truth aka philosophy?

[joboo]

Jewish movies, literature, music or anything influenced or created by the mind of a jew would be immediately destroyed and being caught with it would be punished by permanent exile.


Holy crap dude, that's a bit over the top no? Try not to alienate new users from participating here all at once. NSFW ;)

I've known a lot of Jewish people that disagree with their government just like everyone else, and are not religious at all. They're just people. Believe me it can happen, it is a possible scenario. ;)

[LuckyStrike]

I think that's VERY dangerous to do, and extremely authoritarian. Banning anything just makes it more prevalent and popular. You also don't want the government to have the power to ban anything really. If they can ban things from Jews, they can ban things from Christians the next day. Banning alcohol in the Prohibition only raised crime rates, and made more people drink alcohol. How do you enforce that too? You can't. If you banned a book like the Communist Manifesto, then every rebellious kid would want to read it. In other words you'd legitimize it. The things you listed are there since you want to stop certain ideas from getting into society. The best way to fight against those ideas is with freedom. Freedom is the answer to tyranny, not more tyranny. Freedom creates prosperity. Why would anyone take Marxism serious if everyone is free and wealthy because of their freedom?

Say I'm running a chicken farm, is it wrong for me to ban foxes? Should I ban literature that makes the chickens turn on each other and destroys their egg laying? Literature that tells them the foxes are the greatest of all animals and that chickens should worship them?

The article from Dr. Pierce that I posted "why the jews are hated" explains very clearly why they are despised above all others, because they pollute the brain. It's the same thing with drugs, (meth, crack, heroin, pharmaceuticals etc) there are things you can put in to your body as well as your mind that destroys you for life whether it is your ability to think critically or your body to function properly. These things have NO place in society, people would NOT want these things because as dictator I would expose the jews for what they are and after rampant peace and prosperity everyone would be thinking clearly and see things for how they are. For example, I have no desire to read jewish literature because I know the jew, they could deport every jew from the US and ban books and movies and I wouldn't have the slightest desire to seek them out even though I am the most rebellious person I know towards the government.

This argument that people seek out what is banned only holds water because when corrupting influences are banned, there is always a slimy jew all the more willing to sell it to you at higher prices and destroy your mind body and soul, that is what they live for.

[Serpo]

What about sharia law where some one that thinks you have been naughty chops bits of you off so you dont/cant do it again..............



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2242719/Al-Qaeda-committed-truly-shocking-human-rights-abuses-power-Yemens-Abyan-region-says-Amnesty-report.html

[LuckyStrike]

Holy crap dude, that's a bit over the top no? Try not to alienate new users from participating here all at once. NSFW ;)

I've known a lot of Jewish people that disagree with their government just like everyone else, and are not religious at all. They're just people. Believe me it can happen, it is a possible scenario. ;)

Yeah I'm sure they do. You always have menshevik bolshevik infighting but at the end of the day they are all jews. Look at mises for example, he says a lot of truths about economics and such yet buried in his writings he equates Jesus with a marxist and Christianity as marxism, this is all babylon, this is all confusion by a jew who is always willing to float one single lie on a wave of truth. Another example is ayn rand, says a lot of things I agree with, but when asked about Palestine her true jewish talmudic supremacist roots show, what do you expect her to say she is a talmudic whore who writes thousands of good pages in order to sneak in a handful of pages which are hell bent on destroying the pillar of White Western Civilization? Get real. You have to see these things, they don't just come out and tell you.

[LuckyStrike]

Sham

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUaL1FnQ

Why am I not surprised you post a jewish marxist band?

[Libertytree]

Any laws passed could only be viable for one generation at the most, that goes doubly for debt. One generation cannot shackle the next with restraint it might not adhere to nor debt that it didn't sanction.

[Hugginator]

What about a law that makes it legal for you to kill one person. Would that make a difference in how all affairs would be approached?

[Carl]

Individuals decide what is right and wrong for them which would be better than what we have because right now individuals do what is LEGAL instead of what is RIGHT. You live your life like this every single day as it is and so do about 329 million other people. The amount of actual criminals in society is inconsequesntial in comparison to the criminals in GOVERNMENT. What if one individual decides something is wrong but another individual decides that it is right?

What if you leave your house one day and come back to find it occupied by a man, his four wives and 18 children?

You can claim that it was your house but they consider your arguments a waste of their time, the house was vacant when they arrived and their occupation stands as proof of their claim to the house.

Do you have anything to prove it was yours and who would you present it to in order to validate your claim?



When it comes to using violence on non violent poeple NO THERE NO GREY AREAS. ~

That's your opinion. Others may be of the opinion that violence against others is economically beneficial therefore legitimate.



YOU decide if you have been damaged or not

And then what?



So you have finally admitted what have been saying all along. But i thought i had no historical knowledge? Why would you advocate for something THAT YOU KNOW IS DOOMED TO FAIL? And this is supposed to be an intelligent and enlightened idea?
Because the nature of man, especially western man, dictates it to be so. You are free to assume that government, in all of its violence, does not afford you the ability to sit around in relative peace, order and safety and postulate a stateless society (an oxymoron) but I harbor no such illusions. Man, left to his own devices, will seek to better his personal economic conditions by any means they deem necessary, up to and including killing you and taking whatever you got, and will feel justified in doing so.


I am not saying anything that hasnt been said by many great philosophers. Carl seems to think this is some new radical idea.....Maybe you need to learn a little about morals and truth aka philosophy? Yes, and every single one of them were doing so under the conditions described above...

[Errosion Of Accord]

Clarify the 2nd
Put an end to legislative judges
No corporate personhood
No foreign aid EVER
Clarified war powers/no entanglement
Government officials must live under the laws they pass for the people. Obama care for instance
.Gov is out of scale as compared to years after the formation, I.E. there are too many persons per representative. There is no way the few members of the house can represent us effectively.
Define freedom, one of the biggies would be along this line. Wages are a conversion of personal time and energy, Since a person owns their time and energy they therefore own their wages. Any involuntary separation of a person and their wages is theft.
bribery=treason=death, super majority vote.

[LuckyStrike]

I would also re institute duels.

[osoab]

bribery=treason=death, super majority vote.

This

[Horn]

Why am I not surprised you post a jewish marxist band?

Just another bombtrack, you've got alot of growing up to do soldier...



Another funky radical bombtrack
Started as a sketch in my notebook
And now dope hooks make punks take another look
My thoughts ya hear and ya begin to fear
That ya card will get pulled if ya interfere

With the thoughts from a militant militant mind
Hardline, hardline after hardline

[Shami-Amourae]

What makes any of you think this new 'Republic' would turn out any different than the original? ANSWER THIS!

ALL Government = VIOLENCE.

There was a reason this was doomed from the begining. The smallest Government ALWAYS turn into the most Tyrannical, and now GSUS'ers are trying to create a small 'limited' Government. Give me a break.

Instead of figuring out what size the throne should be and what powers the throne should have, you need to realize the reality of the situation: THERE IS NO THRONE and never will be.

Anarchy is what exists in reality. Government is what is hallucinated into existence. EVERY member here lives their life by anarchy = Peaceful interactions between individuals. Nobody here uses violence to get a job, nobody here uses violence to buy products, yet everybody condones the use of violence through Government.

I will play along: What will you do to people who are non-violent and refuse to go along with your new Government?

TO ALL GSUS'ers: FREEDOM means letting people run their own lives, regardless of how you think they should run it. Looks like not many of you want real freedom, you want your version of it. Just like the Founding Fathers did you are attempting to creat arbitrary mythical powers and then give them to mere mortal humans and then allowing those mortal humans to act as Gods over the mere mortals in society.

Do you know why man came to the ultimate conclusions like the earth being flat, and the earth being the center of the universe? BECAUE IT IS THE TRUTH.

Man owns himslef = TRUTH.
No man has any power or right over any other man = TRUTH
Man is the highest species on earth = TRUTH
ALL forms of Government are immoral and unjust = TRUTH

I'm an anarchist, but I realize anarchy wouldn't work with most people. It just can't happen with them. It could happen if everyone were like me, but there's too many people who are naturally collectivistic. Anarchism isn't a final solution. Eventually a tyrannical government will arise from an anarchy since that's the only sort of thing that will bring order. It's an eternal struggle between the forces of tyranny and the forces of liberty. There is no final solution unless we all become the Borg or something, and they chip us all. The only "anarchy" that exists today is in Somalia, and that's from a failed Communist state. In other words you have a bunch of Commies who were so corrupt that their government collapsed. Does this mean the people magically are all anarchists? No. It means they are all a bunch of collectivists that are so corrupt the State they did build crumbled around them, but they are still collectivists. Denying that reality discredits anarchists as totally naïve in my view.

Anarchism is an ideal goal for humanity. It's something I believe we should strive for as individuals, but it's not an obtainable goal WITH CURRENT TECHNOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGICAL IMPLEMENTATION unless it's done very slowly where all the collectivists are weeded out of society over many generations. If you have collectivsts in the population they will poison the well and just start another state. That's why I believe all governments should be local. That's the only realistic solution in achieving something as close to anarchy as we can get for now. Government should be run through decentralized cryptography programs online so everything is transparent and everyone has access to the same information as the people in the government. In other words, it's fully engaging and there are never any secrets. This technology is all brand new, and we don't utilize it to keep the government in check. I think if it was used it would be ground breaking in keeping government honest and transparent.

[LuckyStrike]

I'm an anarchist, but I realize anarchy wouldn't work with most people. It just can't happen with them. It could happen if everyone were like me, but there's too many people who are naturally collectivistic. Anarchism isn't a final solution. Eventually a tyrannical government will arise from an anarchy since that's the only sort of thing that will bring order. It's an eternal struggle between the forces of tyranny and the forces of liberty. There is no final solution unless we all become the Borg or something, and they chip us all. The only "anarchy" that exists today is in Somalia, and that's from a failed Communist state. In other words you have a bunch of Commies who were so corrupt that their government collapsed. Does this mean the people magically are all anarchists? No. It means they are all a bunch of collectivists that are so corrupt the State they did build crumbled around them, but they are still collectivists. Denying that reality discredits anarchists as totally naïve in my view.

Anarchism is an ideal goal for humanity. It's something I believe we should strive for as individuals, but it's not an obtainable goal WITH CURRENT TECHNOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGICAL IMPLEMENTATION unless it's done very slowly where all the collectivists are weeded out of society over many generations. If you have collectivsts in the population they will poison the well and just start another state. That's why I believe all governments should be local. That's the only realistic solution in achieving something as close to anarchy as we can get for now. Government should be run through decentralized cryptography programs online so everything is transparent and everyone has access to the same information as the people in the government. In other words, it's fully engaging and there are never any secrets. This technology is all brand new, and we don't utilize it to keep the government in check. I think if it was used it would be ground breaking in keeping government honest and transparent.

I like what you're saying, and I agree, I personally do not need a King to tell me how to live, but I am in the minority. Libertarians are bad (like everyone) about projecting their thoughts, emotions and reactions on others, they think because they can run their lives that everyone can. I was at the DMV today and I can tell you they can't.

I would say this, and this is currently where my philosophy is over years of evolving. It doesn't so much matter the form of government as long as you have a homogenous population, that way one decision generally benefits everyone. I think it's hard for us to imagine that, but based on the very definition of nation being people of common language, religion, customs and defined borders we are none of those things in the US or any Western country, we have been invaded, first by the jews and they opened the floodgates for the browns. So we are being occupied plain and simple, we throw it around a lot but ZOG is exactly what we have, the queers in DC don't represent you or me they represent international talmudic marxist jewry plain and simple. So I think for people like us it just leaves a horrible taste in our mouth "government" is a bad word to us, but more accurately it is the criminals who hijacked our government who are the enemies and not necessarily the entity itself, the driver not necessarily the vehicle.

Suffice to say, I think whoever runs whatever form of government it should be strongly nationalist, not militaristic don't put words in my mouth, but have the good of the people at heart, perhaps a government of anarchists who don't care for the institution but recognize that there needs to be order in any society.

[Shami-Amourae]

I recommend playing the Deus Ex video game series. At the end of Deus Ex 2 (the third is a prequel) it shows four possible "solutions" for humanity. I think these are all realistic. This game deals with the morality and future involvement of cybernetic technology which is something I firmly believe will play a major role in the struggle for freedom in the decades to come. I think the following paths presented in the following videos will be the paths available to humanity from then on, and I don't think there will be much deviation after that. I'm talking about humans literally merging with, and becoming machines. Please check them out so you can see what would happen with all the factions competing for control/lack of control:


This is the bankers/Illuminati gain control and are able to harness the power of A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) to control and rule over all humanity with an iron fist. This A.I. is interwoven with the human consciousness (people are chipped) and it controls them through this manner. This is if the NWO wins:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIX0BIuRYGo


This is A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) ending where a supreme AI computer becomes a benevolent dictator of the world. This virtual "God" connects to everyones' minds and calculates the best courses of action to run daily life based on everyones' consciousness and knowledge:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeboqg4t9vs

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST

[Shami-Amourae]

This is what happens if the environmentalists/religious fanatics take control. This is the ONLY ending in which humanity is preserved in it's natural state without being permanently altered through cybernetics. In the game there's a group of people are are against technology, believing it is what has messed up man. In the game many people have been cybernetically implanted (including the player), and they all all killed off in this ending, as well as all modern technology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcCGGracpCw

This is the anarchist ending. In this ending all technological barriers are lifted and humanity is allowed full access to literally turn ourselves into machines. This can be seen as the brightest or darkest endings depending on your views:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLMn3_SzBiU

[Errosion Of Accord]

I listen to Mike Church ( http://www.mikechurch.com/ ) on Sirius 125 when I'm working nights. The guy is in my opinion the only person in the MSM worth listening to. He often talks of a Constitutional convention which makes me think of the very things we are speaking of in this thread. One of the best threads on this forum IMHO, and a subject that needs far more research and commentary.

[Santa]

A big problem with upcoming technologies is they're much too great a threat for everyone to be allowed access to. It'd be like
everyone having access to weapons of mass destruction. I can hardly imagine the potential damage that nanotech, or biotech, or gentech might be able to do to the environment, or for others to be held hostage by power hungry psychopaths without major restrictions implemented by some overseeing body of some sort.

Technology of these sorts virtually guarantees a massive central global government, which is exactly opposite of the decentralized government
I might find acceptable.

How do the fangs of these technologies get pulled before they're set loose when the tiniest cutest little self replicating nanobot might escape it's confines and
completely fucking destroy the natural world within a week or two.

Now wouldn't there need to be some serious bad ass government control over that shit?

[iOWNme]

I'm an anarchist, but I realize anarchy wouldn't work with most people. It just can't happen with them. It could happen if everyone were like me, but there's too many people who are naturally collectivistic. Anarchism isn't a final solution. Eventually a tyrannical government will arise from an anarchy since that's the only sort of thing that will bring order. It's an eternal struggle between the forces of tyranny and the forces of liberty. There is no final solution unless we all become the Borg or something, and they chip us all. The only "anarchy" that exists today is in Somalia, and that's from a failed Communist state. In other words you have a bunch of Commies who were so corrupt that their government collapsed. Does this mean the people magically are all anarchists? No. It means they are all a bunch of collectivists that are so corrupt the State they did build crumbled around them, but they are still collectivists. Denying that reality discredits anarchists as totally naïve in my view.

Anarchism is an ideal goal for humanity. It's something I believe we should strive for as individuals, but it's not an obtainable goal WITH CURRENT TECHNOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGICAL IMPLEMENTATION unless it's done very slowly where all the collectivists are weeded out of society over many generations. If you have collectivsts in the population they will poison the well and just start another state. That's why I believe all governments should be local. That's the only realistic solution in achieving something as close to anarchy as we can get for now. Government should be run through decentralized cryptography programs online so everything is transparent and everyone has access to the same information as the people in the government. In other words, it's fully engaging and there are never any secrets. This technology is all brand new, and we don't utilize it to keep the government in check. I think if it was used it would be ground breaking in keeping government honest and transparent.


Im going to keep this thread on topic:

In any new form of Government created what will happen when a non violent person decides not to go along with the other 99.9% of the people? Will they use violence against him? Because as soon as they use violence against a non violent person they are CRIMINALS not Government.

Government CANNOT exist.

If a group of men have the moral authority to use violence on non violent people then they arent Government they are CRIMINALS. If a group of men do not have the moral authority to use violence on non violent people then they arent Government they are just a bunch of people nobody listens to.

Read that last sentence 5 times if you have to, because it is the undeniable TRUTH.

[Santa]

Are you aware that political Anarchy is an outgrowth of Libertarian Socialism and Marxism?
I'm not trying to be sarcastic. It's historical fact.

[Shami-Amourae]

In any new form of Government created what will happen when a non violent person decides not to go along with the other 99.9% of the people? Will they use violence against him? Because as soon as they use violence against a non violent person they are CRIMINALS not Government.


That's why I said only give them pink plastic BB guns and pepper spray. Give the illusion that they have control, when they really don't. To be honest, no government really has control, it's just an illusion that when enough people go along with it it is enforced. If a ten-million people marched into Washington D.C. (I'm not advocating this!) with guns to take over the place, who would stop them?




Government CANNOT exist.


Yes it does. If people believe it, it exists. God doesn't exist, but since so many people believe in God, he sort of does exist. It's all self-fulfilling. If I'm wrong, throw out all your paper dollars since they don't have any intrinsic value. You wont since people believe they have value, so they do. That's what I'm saying.



If a group of men have the moral authority to use violence on non violent people then they arent Government they are CRIMINALS. If a group of men do not have the moral authority to use violence on non violent people then they arent Government they are just a bunch of people nobody listens to.


I fully agree. All government is just a criminal organization. It's just a monopoly on violence that is tolerated by the populace. This is why it's so insane, yet people can't wrap their minds around it. I can see it, but most can't. I don't pretend I live in a world were 99% of the people agree with me. They don't. You just can't convince these people. Their mental operating system isn't good enough to process this kind of information. They will never, and can never understand it. Most people are religious like most people are statist. Both religion and statism are forms of control, designed to enslave man to other men. These "other" men are special, and are granted special privileges. It's horrible, I know. It sucks, I know. But can we wake up most people to this? No. Not yet at least without a massive die off. The best we can do for now is try to achieve the closest thing to what we want. I'm trying to be realistic with what is achievable. My ideas mean nothing if they can't be implemented in the flesh. What is the value of an idea that cannot be achieved?

[Horn]

Technology of these sorts virtually guarantees a massive central global government, which is exactly opposite of the decentralized government I might find acceptable.

The dangers of such technology are increased 10x due to government secrecy, if everything were open & on the table there would be any number of snitches available to turn criminals in for rewards. WMD or anything there capable of would just need to be outlawed globally.

The entire time they come after our guns and others WMD, when we should be taking away their WMD.

Government violence could easily be eradicated as it had been at some points in the past. They know what they are up against in most cases. Its just as Sui says, a gross display in most cases.

[steyr_m]

What ever the Swiss have. The US, and any other country has a flawed constitution.

They are the freest people in the world.

[Shami-Amourae]

What ever the Swiss have. The US, and any other country has a flawed constitution.

They are the freest people in the world.

They are homogenous and have a strong gun culture...

[Carl]

Im going to keep this thread on topic:

In any new form of Government created what will happen when a non violent person decides not to go along with the other 99.9% of the people? Will they use violence against him? Because as soon as they use violence against a non violent person they are CRIMINALS not Government.

What do you mean by "when a non violent person decides not to go along with the other 99.9% of the people"? What are you deciding to not go along with?

Just because you follow an ideology that requires 100% compliance by 100% of the population, 100% percent of the time, doesn't mean that every other form of social organization must also demand that same level of compliance.

You want to be a hippy anarchist, then be a hippy anarchist, I'm almost 100% positive that nobody will care!

[Carl]

What ever the Swiss have. The US, and any other country has a flawed constitution.

They are the freest people in the world. Switzerland is a tiny country with 8 million residents and they can afford to be socialist.

The U.S. is a big country with over 300 million residents and we can't afford socialism.

[LuckyStrike]

Switzerland is a tiny country with 8 million residents and they can afford to be socialist.

The U.S. is a big country with over 300 million residents and we can't afford socialism.

Can't afford socialism what a joke. Switzerland has no niggers either, or do you lack the balls to say that?

[Carl]

Can't afford socialism what a joke. Switzerland has no niggers either, or do you lack the balls to say that? I'm not overly concerned by a few gnats buzzing around, in fact, I could care less about their 11%.

[LuckyStrike]

I'm not overly concerned by a few gnats buzzing around, in fact, I could care less about their 11%.

I'm just telling you why you can have socialism in a White country but not a multi cultural one, Whites aren't parasites, browns are. Simple as that.

[Twisted Titan]

Its is the duty of person to understand the nature of currency and coin. ..so they cannot be abused by ususers

Its the duty of every head of household to be well armed with a pistol rifel and shoutgun.




All else IS secondary IMO

[Agrippa]

Whereas it has been found that allowing a monopoly on the provision of any good or service results in higher costs and lower quality in that provision: the government shall be forbidden to exercise or grant any such monopoly.


Whereas a just government exercises only the rights and powers expressly delegated to it by the people, the rights and powers expressly delegated to this government shall be the extent of its rights and powers.

[Bigjon]

They are homogenous and have a strong gun culture...

How can a nation with three languages be homogeneous? German, Italian and French, as far as I know there is no Swiss language. They do have a strong gun culture, but I think they too have a Jew problem, I recall that there is a problem getting ammo or a limit on ammo.

[Bigjon]

I'm just telling you why you can have socialism in a White country but not a multi cultural one, Whites aren't parasites, browns are. Simple as that.

OK, I'll let you do the work and I'll go on the dole.

[iOWNme]

Are you aware that political Anarchy is an outgrowth of Libertarian Socialism and Marxism?
I'm not trying to be sarcastic. It's historical fact.

Oh really? So the 10 planks that Marx laid out was a list of how to accomplish self ownership and private property?


"In this sense, the theory of the Communist may be summed up in one sentence: The abolition of Private Property" - Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto, pg2.


Are you purposefully trying to push disinformation here?


Next Marx advocated that there no such thing as truth or morals. I have stated the exact opposite: That Truth and morals exist in reality and they are not to be decided by politicans.

I have now stated the exact opposite of Marxism. For the hundreth time.

I now realize NONE of you want to have an intellectual discussion about this topic, mainly because you cant. You only want to push your own veiws and then attack others who challenge your thoughts by throwing out names like Marx.

I guess all of the other great philosophers who have said this same thing were pushing Marxism even though they were saying this same thing 2000 years before he was alive?

[iOWNme]

What do you mean by "when a non violent person decides not to go along with the other 99.9% of the people"? What are you deciding to not go along with?

It doesnt matter. It is a philosophical question. You can dream up any form of Government you want, and all i am asking is what are you going to do to non violent people who resist your 'Government'?


Just because you follow an ideology that requires 100% compliance by 100% of the population, 100% percent of the time, doesn't mean that every other form of social organization must also demand that same level of compliance.

What are you even saying? I follow an ideology that says this: Leave other people alone. Use the non aggression principle.

If anything i have stated that NOBODY should be forced to comply with ANYTHING. You have put untruthful words in my mouth in every single post you have made. You are a dishonest STATIST who cannot debate anything on merit, because your entire argument hangs on a mythical superstition called authority.


You want to be a hippy anarchist, then be a hippy anarchist, I'm almost 100% positive that nobody will care!

You obviously would care because you wouldnt leave me alone in your dream fantasy. You would dream up some 'social' reason that i need to be compelled to agree with you.

[iOWNme]

Yes it does. If people believe it, it exists. God doesn't exist, but since so many people believe in God, he sort of does exist. It's all self-fulfilling. If I'm wrong, throw out all your paper dollars since they don't have any intrinsic value. You wont since people believe they have value, so they do. That's what I'm saying.

Im not so sure you are an anarchist.

'Sort of' existing?

Your analogy of paper dollars is another strawman. A paper dollar is real because i can hold it in my hand. Can you hold Government in your hand? Can you hold 'authority' in your hand?

Did you REALLY read the last sentence i posted 5 times?

GOVERNMENT CANNOT EXIST.

If a group of men have the moral authority to use violence on non violent people then they arent Government they are CRIMINALS. If a group of men do not have the moral authority to use violence on non violent people then they arent Government they are just a bunch of people nobody listens to.

Can you please rebutt this?

[Horn]

Sui, aren't you just a tad bit off topic?

I mean the title states "Let's just say".

Granted a fine republic would need some well insulated borders which in the space age would put it somewhere on the moon, but

man hasn't evolved (actually may be regressing) enough to trust in anything but violent rage power at this stage.

[Carl]

It doesnt matter. It is a philosophical question. You can dream up any form of Government you want, and all i am asking is what are you going to do to non violent people who resist your 'Government'?

If the government is leaving you alone, which was the original intent in the design of the Constitutional Republic, then what would be the motivation for your resistance?



What are you even saying? I follow an ideology that says this: Leave other people alone. Use the non aggression principle.

In a society without government, how many people would be required to believe as you do in order for your ideology to work?



If anything i have stated that NOBODY should be forced to comply with ANYTHING. You have put untruthful words in my mouth in every single post you have made. You are a dishonest STATIST who cannot debate anything on merit, because your entire argument hangs on a mythical superstition called authority.

And again, I have not "put words in your mouth", I have used deductive logic to arrive at a naturally occurring consiquence from following your stated ideological aims.

And now, you resort to name calling because I do not capitulate to your point of view.....funny.


You obviously would care because you wouldnt leave me alone in your dream fantasy. You would dream up some 'social' reason that i need to be compelled to agree with you. It appears your reading comprehension skills are lacking as I have stated; if you want to be a hippy anarchist, then be a hippy anarchist, I'm almost 100% positive that nobody will care!

And I will add, STOP TRYING TO FORCE ME INTO BEING ONE TOO!

Damn, how I despise totalitarian ideologues...

[freespirit]

Whites aren't parasites, browns are. Simple as that.

With all due respect that statement is not entirely accurate, LS.

personally i must say that i see many white parasites, soaking up welfare, disability, unemployment insurance, etc. also, i know many "browns" that are not, and are extremely productive and motivated. many of them even own their own businesses that provide good jobs for others in their community, regardless of color.

i am not saying there isn't some truth to what you stated, but as far as blanket statements go, that was a doozie.
those that think their social problems will be solved by going "white only" are only fooling themselves.

parasites and animals come in ALL colors, shapes and sizes.

[LuckyStrike]

With all due respect that statement is not entirely accurate, LS.

personally i must say that i see many white parasites, soaking up welfare, disability, unemployment insurance, etc. also, i know many "browns" that are not, and are extremely productive and motivated. many of them even own their own businesses that provide good jobs for others in their community, regardless of color.

i am not saying there isn't some truth to what you stated, but as far as blanket statements go, that was a doozie.
those that think their social problems will be solved by going "white only" are only fooling themselves.

parasites and animals come in ALL colors, shapes and sizes.

So why can outright socialism work fine in Scandinavia and not in Africa, or any country where browns are?


My parasite comments had nothing to do with them being nice or owning businesses, Warren Buffet is a parasite and he owns many businesses.

[Horn]

So why can outright socialism work fine in Scandinavia and not in Africa, or any country where browns are?


My parasite comments had nothing to do with them being nice or owning businesses, Warren Buffet is a parasite and he owns many businesses.

It works pretty well in Venezuela and Cuba, Africans go for Royalty mostly, look at Obama.

I think whites introduce other forms of politics into Africa other than monarchy.

[LuckyStrike]

It works pretty well in Venezuela and Cuba, Africans go for Royalty mostly, look at Obama.

I think whites introduce other forms of politics into Africa other than monarchy.

LOL, Cuba...... right.


You do realize that nobody on this forum takes you seriously right?

[Horn]

LOL, Cuba...... right.


You do realize that nobody on this forum takes you seriously right?

What's not working in Cuba?

They even get to ship their untouchables over to Florida every so often...

I don't condone communism, but they're still there making cigars...

Moscow votes to end Washington’s 52-year Cuban embargohttp://rt.com/politics/moscow-cuba-washington-embargo-churkin-669/

[LuckyStrike]

What's not working in Cuba?

They even get to ship their untouchables over to Florida every so often...

I don't condone communism, but they're still there making cigars...

It shows that you know very little about Venezuela or Cuba.

[freespirit]

So why can outright socialism work fine in Scandinavia and not in Africa, or any country where browns are?


My parasite comments had nothing to do with them being nice or owning businesses, Warren Buffet is a parasite and he owns many businesses.

i'm not entirely sure why any one political ideal can work in one area and not another, it may have to do with resources, but i admit, i am not completely schooled on the subject of socialism.

aside from that, your own words state that "whites are not parasites, browns are..." then you reference a white parasite (warren buffett).

not looking to split hairs here, but i think you just proved my point.

not all whites are parasites, but some of them are.
not all blacks are parasites either, but some are.
not all jews are cheap, but some of them are.

to say "whites aren't parasites, browns are" is not entirely accurate, by your own admission even. if i have grossly misunderstood your context, forgive me, and explain it a little more for me, please.

but in all seriousness, is it even possible to package socialism in such a way as to be able to sell it to the american people?

it doesn't seem possible to me...

[osoab]

So why can outright socialism work fine in Scandinavia and not in Africa, or any country where browns are?




Who says socialism works fine? Your idea of "fine" is my definition of a duped Scandinavian. Socialism is not fine in any way shape or form.

[Horn]

It shows that you know very little about Venezuela or Cuba.

O.K. champ, is that like a chip off your flea bitten collar response?

Did communism work in white U.S.S.R.?

What exactly are the requirements for white communism working as opposed to brown communism not?

[Carl]

Oh, I thought of another good one; ban lawyers from holding public office.

[sirgonzo420]

Oh, I thought of another good one; ban lawyers from holding public office.

The original 13th amendment kinda did that, (if one considers "Esquire" a title, and the BAR a "foreign power", and I do):

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain, any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

http://www.amendment-13.org/

http://www.amendment-13.org/va1819images/va19std13p30.jpg

[Carl]

It doesnt matter. It is a philosophical question. You can dream up any form of Government you want, and all i am asking is what are you going to do to non violent people who resist your 'Government'?

It's a nonsensical question, if the government following the non aggression principle as well and is leaving you alone then what would you be resisting?


What are you even saying? I follow an ideology that says this: Leave other people alone. Use the non aggression principle.

The vast majority of the people in the world do not believe as you do so, how would you go about getting them to believe as you do?


If anything i have stated that NOBODY should be forced to comply with ANYTHING. You have put untruthful words in my mouth in every single post you have made. You are a dishonest STATIST who cannot debate anything on merit, because your entire argument hangs on a mythical superstition called authority.

No one is putting words in your mouth and I am attempting to debate the merits, or the lack thereof, in your arguments but I can't do that with you stuck in a mental loop. The dialog can't progress if the only response you have is I'm "putting words in your mouth" and repeating the mantra "mythical superstition called authority" instead of addressing my arguments.

What if the government is safegarding your right to be a hippy anarchist? What if it is protecting you from those who would percieve you as an easy target?

You've already stated you wouldn't defend yourself, so somebody has to protect your dumb ass.



You obviously would care because you wouldnt leave me alone in your dream fantasy. You would dream up some 'social' reason that i need to be compelled to agree with you. You got that backwards sport, you're the one attempting to live in a fantasy, I'm just trying to inject a little reality into it.

That's the beauty of living liberty, you're free to follow any crazy assed notions you want as long as you cause no harm to others or their property and everybody else are free to follow their more reality oriented beliefs in the same manner.

So I have to ask again, why do you feel it necessary to compel others to follow your beliefs?

[Carl]

The original 13th amendment kinda did that, (if one considers "Esquire" a title, and the BAR a "foreign power", and I do):

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain, any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

http://www.amendment-13.org/

The claim is that that particular "proposed" amendment never got ratified and it's still sitting on the books waiting.

But then again, the 14th, 16th and 17th were never properly ratified but they're counted as amendments.

[iOWNme]

It's a nonsensical question, if the government following the non aggression principle as well and is leaving you alone then what would you be resisting?

Carl what you dont seem to grasp is that if 'Government' does not have the moral authority to use violence on non violent people THEN THEY ARENT GOVERNMENT.

Government is defined as the monopoly on violence. I have stated it 10 times and there is no way you can ever try and debate that fact. This is where we are having trouble communicating. You call a group of men that DOES NOT have the moral authority to use violence on non-violent people 'Government', while i call a group of men that DOES NOT have the moral authority to use violence on non-violent people a bunch of NOBODY'S. Because if they dont have the moral authority to use violence NOBODY WILL LISTEN TO THEM. I have said this 10 times in this thread, and nobody can rebut it, BECAUSE IT IS THE TRUTH.


The vast majority of the people in the world do not believe as you do so, how would you go about getting them to believe as you do?

I wouldnt. I do not seek to control anyone, and i have plenty of armaments if someone does try to use aggression on me.




No one is putting words in your mouth and I am attempting to debate the merits, or the lack thereof, in your arguments but I can't do that with you stuck in a mental loop. The dialog can't progress if the only response you have is I'm "putting words in your mouth" and repeating the mantra "mythical superstition called authority" instead of addressing my arguments.

I have tried several times to get you to answer very easy questions, but you choose not to. Im thinking we should just agree to disagree now.


What if the government is safegarding your right to be a hippy anarchist? What if it is protecting you from those who would percieve you as an easy target?

How is it going to 'protect' me without first robbing citizens of their wealth and then using it to protect me? You honestly still dont understand. I dont know what more to do....


You've already stated you wouldn't defend yourself, so somebody has to protect your dumb ass.

Lie number ten from you. Either show me where i said i would never protect myself or admit you are a blatant LIAR.



You got that backwards sport, you're the one attempting to live in a fantasy, I'm just trying to inject a little reality into it.

Reality? I want you to explain to me where IN REALITY did the US Constitutional Government got the power to tax laid out in Article 1 Sec 8? Now you know why i chose the words 'mythical', because it is all made up. Just like ancient Priests would make up the power they had from their 'Gods' in order to rule their slaves.


That's the beauty of living liberty, you're free to follow any crazy assed notions you want as long as you cause no harm to others or their property and everybody else are free to follow their more reality oriented beliefs in the same manner.

You are starting to sound like me! I knew i could convince you. :) My notions are crazy because i choose to live by the non-aggression principle? What is the matter with you? I am literally opening your cage and telling you to be free, and you are yelling at me to close the cage door and leave you alone.


So I have to ask again, why do you feel it necessary to compel others to follow your beliefs?

I feel it necessary to compel others to live their lives by THEIR own moral absolutes, NOT what some politician tells them. I know you dont understand that so i will not even try to explain it to you.

[Carl]

Carl what you dont seem to grasp is that if 'Government' does not have the moral authority to use violence on non violent people THEN THEY ARENT GOVERNMENT. No argument, I agree completely.


Government is defined as the monopoly on violence. Not in any dictionary I own or can find on line.


I have stated it 10 times and there is no way you can ever try and debate that fact. This is where we are having trouble communicating. You call a group of men that DOES NOT have the moral authority to use violence on non-violent people 'Government', while i call a group of men that DOES NOT have the moral authority to use violence on non-violent people a bunch of NOBODY'S. Because if they dont have the moral authority to use violence NOBODY WILL LISTEN TO THEM. I have said this 10 times in this thread, and nobody can rebut it, BECAUSE IT IS THE TRUTH. You're being overly dramatic, of course government has no authority to use violence on non-violent people, why would they need to?



I wouldnt. I do not seek to control anyone, and i have plenty of armaments if someone does try to use aggression on me.

We're discussing your ideology and you said you believe there should be no government, and I've been repeatedly asking how do you go about getting 7 billion people to peacfully agree to go along with that plan? Feel free to dodge again.


How is it going to 'protect' me without first robbing citizens of their wealth and then using it to protect me? You honestly still dont understand. I dont know what more to do....

Assuming that you would like to live in some semblance of civilization, how would you and your fellow citizens go about building, managing and paying for infrastructure? Would you form committees to discuss it? Would you divvy up the costs between all who would benefit from it? Would you hire people to oversee its construction and to maintain it? If so then congratulations, you've just created a government paid for with taxes! I like living in civilization with amenities like running water and flushing toilits and paved streets and I wouldn't mind paying a share of the costs to build and maintain those aminities in the form of taxes. And, I would venture to guess that almost everyone else would agree.


Lie number ten from you. Either show me where i said i would never protect myself or admit you are a blatant LIAR. Not a lie, liar. You have repeatedly stated you were Non Violent, so I assumed you meant you were non-violent, passive, a woosyfied doormat. I honestly didn't pay much attention to the "non-agression princple" and I did have to look it up:

Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner’s free will and interfere with his right to self-determination or the principle of self-ownership.

Wow, I really stand corrected! And you are a really big liar, peacful and non-violent my ass! That has to be one of the most, in your face, declaration of intent to do violence for any perceived offence, real or imagined, I've ever read. That would make the warlords on the sub cotenant of Africa and in the mid east, flush with envy! You really don't want civilization at all do you? You want to live, if you can even call that fucked-up mindset living, in a world of chaos, strife and brutality, like an animal. True anarchy.

And you want to insist that all the people would willing give up civilization for that?

You're out of your fucking mind.

[Santa]

Oh really? So the 10 planks that Marx laid out was a list of how to accomplish self ownership and private property?


"In this sense, the theory of the Communist may be summed up in one sentence: The abolition of Private Property" - Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto, pg2.


Are you purposefully trying to push disinformation here?


Next Marx advocated that there no such thing as truth or morals. I have stated the exact opposite: That Truth and morals exist in reality and they are not to be decided by politicans.

I have now stated the exact opposite of Marxism. For the hundreth time.

I now realize NONE of you want to have an intellectual discussion about this topic, mainly because you cant. You only want to push your own veiws and then attack others who challenge your thoughts by throwing out names like Marx.

I guess all of the other great philosophers who have said this same thing were pushing Marxism even though they were saying this same thing 2000 years before he was alive?

Just read the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism



Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[1][2] and sometimes left libertarianism)[3][4] is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private productive property into the commons or public goods, while retaining respect for personal property.[5] Libertarian socialism is opposed to coercive forms of social organization. It promotes free association in place of government and opposes the social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor.[6] The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism[7][8] or by some as a synonym for left anarchism.[1][2][9]

Adherents of libertarian socialism assert that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.[10] Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that promotes the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of life.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17]

Accordingly, libertarian socialists believe that "the exercise of power in any institutionalized form—whether economic, political, religious, or sexual—brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised".[18] Libertarian socialists generally place their hopes in decentralized means of direct democracy such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions, and workers' councils.[19]


Political philosophies commonly described as libertarian socialist include most varieties of anarchism (especially anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism,[20] mutualism[21]) as well as autonomism, communalism, participism, libertarian Marxist philosophies such as council communism and Luxemburgism,[22] and some versions of "utopian socialism[23] and individualist anarchism.[24][25][26]


I know you won't, though. It'll enrage you.You're eyes will pop out of your head from the blood pressure before you can even scroll down to the part about Marxism and William Morris. :)

[gunDriller]

the American Indians generally followed a much more moral lifestyle than the Westerners - and the Indians' laws were not even written down.


i wonder what there rule of thumb was regarding "Prairie Roadkill" ?

[Horn]

the American Indians generally followed a much more moral lifestyle than the Westerners - and the Indians' laws were not even written down.

Ha, the Indians were better Republicans than US, Never thought of it that way, but probably true.

One could say writing laws down leaves them open to be rewritten, and in a republic should limit the freedom of individuals to group up or get over on the individual.

So much of it comes down to the judiciary, and how the laws are enforced. Strict limits should be placed on enforcement, but a relative amount needs to be determined up front that can somehow flex its muscle conservatively, then also lay limber at times its not needed.

Theres just no good way to govern a sheriff and his mob, maybe it was intended to be this way?

[Shami-Amourae]

I recommend playing the Deus Ex video game series. At the end of Deus Ex 2 (the third is a prequel) it shows four possible "solutions" for humanity. I think these are all realistic. This game deals with the morality and future involvement of cybernetic technology which is something I firmly believe will play a major role in the struggle for freedom in the decades to come. I think the following paths presented in the following videos will be the paths available to humanity from then on, and I don't think there will be much deviation after that. I'm talking about humans literally merging with, and becoming machines. Please check them out so you can see what would happen with all the factions competing for control/lack of control:


This is the bankers/Illuminati gain control and are able to harness the power of A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) to control and rule over all humanity with an iron fist. This A.I. is interwoven with the human consciousness (people are chipped) and it controls them through this manner. This is if the NWO wins:



This is A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) ending where a supreme AI computer becomes a benevolent dictator of the world. This virtual "God" connects to everyones' minds and calculates the best courses of action to run daily life based on everyones' consciousness and knowledge:


CONTINUED IN NEXT POST


How humans will merge with machines:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86m6pEulafM