Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > New World Order / Global Government

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 17-05-2011, 07:55 PM   #2781
johnfb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: on the other side of your monitor
Posts: 6,822
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by knightofthegrail View Post
You said it...ding ding ......seconds away ..round eight hundred and thirty three....
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by bones: 04.03.2014
i can find no evidence that any jews were in camps pre 1939,

Quote:
Originally Posted by bones: 14.03.2014
some jews like many political prisioners were interned b4 1939
johnfb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2011, 11:01 PM   #2782
observer333
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: over the rainbow
Posts: 2,546
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnfb View Post
You said it...ding ding ......seconds away ..round eight hundred and thirty three....
There was heaps of good stuff on this thread too.

Some people just don't like people to dream of life outside of centralised government control, hence all the carry on. Also, the PTBs of this world have largely propagated the ideas in our psyche that without them as leaders, there would be none who could lead and take initiative when circumstances and situations call for people to step up and take on leading roles for a time so as to meet an objective [I am not speaking of designated leaders either].

I disagree with this reality construct that says that no leaders = chaos.

Since this thread, I have been looking to nature which shows me that without outside control their is a natural order which brings naturally forth leading components of the whole without particular components monopolising this quality.

THink of an ocean and currents within the ocean. This is a perfect example. In nature, according to the natural flow, each water droplet plays different roles according to need or according to a natural order, and these droplets switch roles according to the current situation. [Interesting this, current as in now, current as in flow/exchange of water or energy and currency as in flow/exchange of money ]

I have also been looking into Indigenous Worldviews in which the self is not considered front and centre and divorced from its environment and the world at large. The focus is instead on that which binds us, our shared ancestry in a very spiritual sense. Everything exists in relation to each other. ANd the self is seen in relation to the whole. Everything is considered in relation to the whole.

Does this mean the self is without autonomy. Most definately not for the self and its autonomy is considered just as essential to the whole as the whole is essential to the self. There is no conflict between self and the whole, between self and community, between self and this world, the land, the waterways, the animals. For all are seen as relations and all relationships are reciprocal.

It is just like understanding nature. Humanity has become divorced from nature, from each other, from the ecosystem and from the world, and we have forgotten the reciprocal nature of all relationships. This system is far from reciprocal. Furthermore, what we call human nature is not natural whatsoever. It is the byproduct of a contrived environment devoid of the space to explore our intrinsic and natural capabilities. Diversity is mother natures way of creating a macrosocosm in which all of its components work in harmony as a whole as a very complex organism.

Consider the word organism and organ such as the organs in our body and how they work together in a healthy body, and consider that these words derive from the same root as organised and organisation.

Who told us that organisation = led and ordered and organised by leaders.

Its crap and some of us have seen through this illusion.

Pure democracy that has not been distorted like the idea of organisation to the idea of a centralised power governing has its roots in people working together in community spirit with a shared purpose, for example in a village circle, a meeting in which community members come together to brainstorm an issue they would like to address.

It does not need to be national.

Just some food for though
__________________
THE TRUTH NEEDS NO DEFENSE, BUT FALSE-HOODS WHICH VEIL THE TRUTH MUST BE CHALLENGED UNTIL THEY NO LONGER REMAIN.
To Free our Minds, we must think outside of the box. Multiple choice thinking is how they keep us blind, and in chains.
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it" ~ Albert Einstein

Last edited by observer333; 18-05-2011 at 11:13 PM.
observer333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2011, 11:18 PM   #2783
eternal_spirit
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 31,206
Likes: 6 (6 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnfb View Post
ohh please God NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...


eternal_spirit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2011, 01:52 AM   #2784
observer333
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: over the rainbow
Posts: 2,546
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eternal_spirit View Post


Classic
__________________
THE TRUTH NEEDS NO DEFENSE, BUT FALSE-HOODS WHICH VEIL THE TRUTH MUST BE CHALLENGED UNTIL THEY NO LONGER REMAIN.
To Free our Minds, we must think outside of the box. Multiple choice thinking is how they keep us blind, and in chains.
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it" ~ Albert Einstein
observer333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2011, 04:56 AM   #2785
luciferhorus
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Glastonbury, UK
Posts: 4,333
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by observer333 View Post
I disagree with this reality construct that says that no leaders = chaos.

Since this thread, I have been looking to nature which shows me that without outside control their is a natural order which brings naturally forth leading components of the whole without particular components monopolising this quality.

THink of an ocean and currents within the ocean. This is a perfect example. In nature, according to the natural flow, each water droplet plays different roles according to need or according to a natural order, and these droplets switch roles according to the current situation. [Interesting this, current as in now, current as in flow/exchange of water or energy and currency as in flow/exchange of money ]
.....
Pure democracy that has not been distorted like the idea of organisation to the idea of a centralised power governing has its roots in people working together in community spirit with a shared purpose, for example in a village circle, a meeting in which community members come together to brainstorm an issue they would like to address.

It does not need to be national.
Yes, the idea that political Anarchism is about a world where there is no organisation or hierarchy is just a popular misconception; it would certainly be a world without political archons and religious archons (authority figures) and without government, but it would have to be highly organised and technocratic, otherwise very little would ever be produced and there would be no public services. To organise a factory, a farm or indeed any form of public service such as education, transport and healthcare there would have to be some form of technocracy, but it would not need to be a political or economic heirarchy where people work for tokens (Capital) which can be exchanged for goods; however unfortunately I think it will be at least many generations or possibly even many centuries before humankind politically evolves to create such a utopian socialist world.



One of my close freinds for many years when I was living in London was a prominent London Anarchist who opened and organised many large Anarchist squats. I do recall seeing a list of "laws" pinned on the kitchen wall of one such squat which including various demands that the residents perform various household duties such as cleaning the house and so forth. The kind of silly, selfish, anti-social, "don't tell me what to do" Anarchists who refused to contribute to the upkeep and maintenance of such communities were regularly thrown out of such squats. I do recall one such meeting I attended where everyone in the squat gathered together to discuss one such eviction. Anarchism has nothing to do with being anti-social and just telling everyone else to fuck off; it is about collective organisation and communal living; it is quite the opposite of being "anti-social."

Lux

Last edited by luciferhorus; 19-05-2011 at 05:03 AM.
luciferhorus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2011, 12:14 PM   #2786
fishonwheels
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,201
Likes: 12 (12 Posts)
Default

Well said, Lux.

Not sure if you have observed seemingly synergistic, synchronistic efforts by people who seem to coordinate telepathically or through some other unseen channel but I see it everywhere, mostly rudimentary forms of it. There seems to be competing groups so it's not always harmonious.

If this trend grows and matures it'll help create a world without the big three but like you said I'm unsure how soon this will be or how hellish it can get before it matures.

more in post 16
fishonwheels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2011, 02:19 PM   #2787
octopusrex
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,287
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Anarchy (chaos) is what we have since the days of agriculture and before. The strong rule the weak by whim and then try to excuse it with some law or another based on whatever they like. But the strong follow no law. They ARE the law.

Order would be when the strong follow the law. They have no internal guide to make them do that, so anarcy is the result.

Its called Kali Yuga. The age of discord.
octopusrex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2011, 03:49 PM   #2788
jesusistruth
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,022
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amaralsright View Post
I've seen lots of people here avocating anarchy.

I'm assuming they mean "Rule without Government".

Please could these people tell us why it's so great.

Thanks.

(PS. I think rule without Government is impossible, just so you know).
In anarchy there would be clan wars to the extent that people lack sense. About 90% of people however are good, want to do what is right, so we shouldn't expect evil to prevail very much.

The states of current nations however are clans themselves, they are organized criminals and will forever be because their foundation is to rob people each month. And you will simply have to choose to be part of it or to fight it.

To equal anarchy to chaos is rediculous. How many died in the first world war? How many died in the second? How many died under stalin, hitler and mao? And being ruled by a criminal elite, you call that order?

Last edited by jesusistruth; 19-05-2011 at 03:51 PM.
jesusistruth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2011, 09:44 PM   #2789
shotoku
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: not in Japan
Posts: 2
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I just finished reading all 279 pages. Though not every single post - I was skipping the trollish ones. It was quite a read. Before this thread I was merely interested in anarchism, but thanks to some posters of this thread I feel like I really gained some insight into the topic. By the way, the encounter between amaralsright & dogsmilk was hilarious - I really was laughing out loud several times (hospital, anyone?). Thanks for that.

Anyway, that's not why I'm posting. Someone here proposed a view pages earlier that he was going to read through the thread and give us a summary of the most important things that have been said pertaining anarchism. (Rather understandibly) he didn't follow up on this. But while I was reading through the thread, I kept a text file open in which I copy-pasted everything that I thought had some merit. Since I saw that some people here were enthusiastic about the prospect of having a "best-of" of this thread I registered and thought of sharing my compilation.

So for anyone who is interested - here it is (by the way, I won't include the hilarious tidbits, but strictly the things that relate to anarchism - oh, and I won't include the user names, since I didn't saved them alongside the text, sorry about that; and the excellent posts by lucifer aren't included since his posts started rather out late, so they're rather easily found):

Quote:
Anarchists want to do away with the state. They want to dispose of a central ruling authority that dictates how it's going to be. Anarchists do believe in organisation that entails some kind of structure. Anarchists want to minimise the prospect of individuals wielding power. There's nothing about anarchist theory overall (remembering it's not one thing) that says no representative roles can exist or individuals will never make decisions that affect other people. Though they must be highly accountable. Anarchist ideology actively promotes the notion that you have to watch out for power, to strive to stop power structures emerging, that your organisational structures should be genuinely representative. In a way, it wants to do what democracy pretends it does. What is actually more realistic about it is it says if you're going to send someone to Westminster and let them just get on with deciding everything for you, it's naive to expect them not to be corrupted.

[...] What baffles my head is carping about any manifestations of 'leadership' by people who are apparently strongly in favour of having a small group of people control everything, seem to naively believe they'll act as selfless saints and act all surprised and indignant when they line their own pockets or decide to bomb some foreigners. [...]

Anarchism takes power seriously. It warns against it and tries its best to cut off the dangers it presents and the situations its got us into. Anarchy would never be perfect because no political system will ever be perfect. What it asks you to consider is why your life is dictated by other people and why we allow ourselves to be exploited. [...]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fundamentally, why do other people control your life to the extent of being in principle being able to wipe out the entire planet at the push of a button? Why do people constantly whine about what governments being corrupt as if they think power is anything other than corrupting?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

People are complaining about cuts in benefits. Their only option is wait several years and put a tick in a box in the hope some nice person will decide not to be so mean. They are not allowed to say fuck this shit, it's not fair, so it's just not going to happen so don't think it is because we won't let it. Because when the man at the top decides, there is a whole chain of people too scared to say no I won't do that because they will lose their livelihood and someone else will make the cuts happen instead. Right from the man at the top down to the front line there is a chain of people having to do things no matter how dumb they think it is. Because they have to and are too scared not too. How can this be the right way to go about things? How can we say this works? What right have you to complain about such things if you endorse this mechanism?

If you're happy with things they way they are, just get on with your life. Just don't complain when a man in Downing Street decides sick people have to work or starts a war. You endorse the system that gives him the power to do that and claim it is legitimate. It's no good complaining about leaders doing things you don't want them to do - if you want a very few people to be in charge, then live with the consequences. And don't complain if they have all the money and power. You gave it to them.

The people in charge need you far more than you've ever needed them. After all, it's you who does all the real work.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anarchy would only happen if most people wanted it. It wouldn't happen otherwise. And sure some people wouldn't want it. They'd have other ideas but would find themselves stuck living in anarchy. Just like every other conceivable society will always dissatisfy some people. Why can we only have anarchy if every single person wants it? I don't want capitalism but have to exist within it because that's what we have. Would you argue capitalism has failed because I don't like it?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[...] anarchy is just a different way of doing things, a way that says it is fairer. That could cause conflict, it would certainly with those with a lot to lose. And? What political ideology in history has never caused conflict? Any system you live under imposes itself on people. All anarchy does is try to inflict the least impositions it can.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's amazing how everyone complains about 'the elite', but when it's suggested they don't actually need to have one, they shit their pants.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point is, people are generally quite good at organising themselves. People just keep coming up with these asinine notions of "how would you build a..." All this demonstrates is that people haven't even thought about what they talking about. People seem to have got it into their heads that all forms of anarchism means no forms of organisation at all.

Anarchism comes from the recognition that one person isn't superior to another and people often don't like to have their lives dominated by others. So it seeks to establish systems that are the fairest and least oppressive possible.

Historically, factories have adopted such principles quite effectively. Rather than the boss telling everyone what to do, the employees make big decisions collectively. They may rotate posts that have more responsibility. They value each employee equality - the person that does the cleaning is just as important and valuable as anyone else. Everyone shares equally in the profit (if you're stuck with a money system). Doesn't that sound nice?

You've been raised being taught to expect and embrace hierarchy. Anarchists say that's not a given. They say your freedom should be maximised. And with that freedom comes responsibility to that of others. They say nobody is inherently better than you. Nor are you inherently better than anyone else. More than anything, it's an attitude.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't believe in saying we should do this, this and this.

I'd say the biggest value anarchism has is as a state of mind. Having anarchism in the first place is predicated on an anarchist mindset being widespread.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just remember most people's idea of anarchy comes from watching Mad Max.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Government does what it does because that is the nature of a control system, to control. It's not because this particular government is bad and we just need a new one. It's the nature of the beast itself.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why is it that people panic whenever it's suggested there shouldn't be a distant power controlling their lives?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

People on here bang on and on about the Illuminati, the New World Order, the Jews, the Zionists, the Jesuits, the Masons, the blood drinking lizards, blah blah blah. They imagine if they just got rid of their bogeyman, everything would be dandy. Assuming any of these wildly competing mythical overlords were actually in place, if they all dropped dead tomorrow it would mean jack shit. You live under a system. A system perpetuated by its participants. Now the current UK is better than a totalitarian dictatorship. But we've only got as far as we have because people fought for it.

If you happily devolve all major decisions affecting your life by voting for one person representing thousands out of a narrow choice once every four-five years who is under no compulsion whatsoever to do what they say they will, that's up to you.

Anarchism is no more utopian than anything else.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anarchism recognises power corrupts and seeks to avoid letting that happen. I consider that both more realistic and desirable than imagining other than your benevolent dictator would suddenly think of a jolly good reason why you don't need to have any more elections.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point is that people claim that anarchy means the power crazed lunatics would take over. Anarchists tend to think that's what governments tend to represent. So that's why they don't like them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I get where you're coming from, and it's true that the government has been hijacked. But it always will be. That's why I don't trust it to even exist; it will always be taken over. There will be revolution after revolution after revolution until this is finally understood. The people have no control over it and never will, and even if they did, I don't want to be enslaved by 51% of my fellow citizens any more than I want to be enslaved by an elite. I do not want to be told what to do, period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The government doesn't build them, people do. Architects, tradesmen, and self-employed contractors are hired to do the work. These are real life people who build a hospital. People who would make up part of an anarchist society. Do you think a concretor could not concrete without a government, how about a carpenter, electrician, roof tiler, plasterer, plumber, an architect, etc. Would they lose their trades, skills and expertise without a government?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anarchists, though, tend to be at a disadvantage. If the state wants you to do something and you don't want to do it, it will make you do it. So a big problem anarchists have is around 'seizing power', so in its heyday was more about encouraging people to act for themselves and build a mass movement. People who believe in government have a distinct advantage. Get in power and tell people how it is. Job done.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The society would be leaderless, but groups within it would certainly not have to be.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fear that someone is going to take away your "stuff". Fear is the weapon most used to keep us in slavery to the system we have now.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

And it's unrealistic to think everybody would embrace anarchism. The super rich wouldn't. The entire top strata wouldn't - it's not in their interest because they're doing very nicely thank you. No political system conceivable will ever please everyone. Anarchism will never please control freaks. You seem to want to hold anarchy to standards that you would doubtless instantly accept are ludicrous to apply to any other ideology. Anarchy isn't heaven on earth that would please everyone all the time until the end of time. It's an idea for a fairer system where people aren't working for $1 a day so someone can have their own personal helicopter and claim they deserve it. It's about having more say in your life and work. It's about trying to tackle the endemic problems of exploitation and inequality virtually everyone agrees exist but not everyone thinks will be solved by having every single thing owned and run by a multinational corporation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do you need to be coerced all the time? Who decided everyone downs tools and does fuck all if some guy with a whip isn't standing over them? Particularly if work is more fun because it's about making and doing things for need as opposed to making people rich. Why do people form community groups? Why do they volunteer? People like engaging in activities. They don't like it if these activities are pointless or made miserable.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go have a walk round town., See all those people with radically different ideas. Are they all killing each other? No. So why would it be any worse under anarchy where they get more of a say?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
shotoku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2011, 09:50 PM   #2790
johnfb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: on the other side of your monitor
Posts: 6,822
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by observer333 View Post
There was heaps of good stuff on this thread too.

Yeah I was reading at the beginning but then it just seemed to spiral into insults and egos and I lost interest in it.
Plus I think I really don't understand the whole subject either.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by bones: 04.03.2014
i can find no evidence that any jews were in camps pre 1939,

Quote:
Originally Posted by bones: 14.03.2014
some jews like many political prisioners were interned b4 1939
johnfb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-05-2011, 10:41 PM   #2791
springrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Fun little recap, shotoku And nice to see your smile


.
__________________
anarcho-capitalist
springrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-05-2011, 08:19 AM   #2792
rebirth
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 77
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amaralsright View Post
I've seen lots of people here avocating anarchy.

I'm assuming they mean "Rule without Government".

Please could these people tell us why it's so great.

Thanks.

(PS. I think rule without Government is impossible, just so you know).
How can it not be good in a time where we struggle to release the clutches of centralised power, that is consuming us against our wishes?

It is based of cooperation and being realistic, I would say government would most likely be ruled by the people, possibly through a system such as direct-democracy (in theory).
__________________
Knowledge becomes evil if the aim be not virtuous - Plato

Last edited by rebirth; 27-05-2011 at 08:20 AM.
rebirth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-05-2011, 09:12 AM   #2793
shotoku
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: not in Japan
Posts: 2
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I have a question for all of those who defend the state & who say that there would ensue chaos without the state.

I just saw several videos of the protests that are going on in Spain. Of course they would merit their own thread, they should get as viral as possible. But anyway I thought that they would suit this thread very well:




Now, I have so many different thoughts about this, I barely know where to begin.

First of all, people here said "if there was no state then everything would go wrong", but what is it that you see in these videos? You see people going to the streets & begging for their rights. They protest so they hope that the "leaders" will have mercy on them. Now what happens here is that they don't get mercy. They're begging for their rights and for this they're getting brutally clubbed (and one can see the protestors couldn't be more peaceful/harmless).

Now I know that defenders of the state will say "but the riot police was overdoing it, they ought to get punished and everything will be just fine".

Firstly, the problem doesn't lie within the riot police itself. They were just acting on orders - from the state. It was their "job" to clear that place, to eradicate violently any resistance to the state. As far as the state is concerned they did nothing wrong. Of course they will depict it differently in the media/press releases (I will expound on this as well). Some of them came with their faces masked - pure unaccountability - of course, all calculated beforehand.

The state brutality that you see in these videos is all intended. And think about it. If you would defend yourself against these nice policemen you would defy the law, you would act criminally - remember, all this, because you went to protest/beg for your rights in the first place.

Just think for a second you would have seen the same footage from Iran or Lybia. A lot of people would immediately say: "Down with the government!" - but seeing this footage originating from a Western society, the first response is more likely "riot police acting wrong..." without even considering the state-level. I hope you're aware of this bias.

Now the media is beginning to report about these protests. And they do this as I expected it. There were talks about "clashes" between the police & protesters. Clashes? For a clash to happen it needs two parties. But what we have here is the one-sided beating of a totally unarmed, peaceful people that is merely sitting on the ground. A more accurate depiction would liken the behaviour of the riot police to that of brownshirts. And I'm not saying this in a provocative way, but in earnest.

Anyway, so people like to tell us that society wouldn't function without the state/brutal riot police, because chaos would ensure et cetera. But I'm starting to think - how could it get worse than it is now? People begging for their rights (although they have the power, or rather they chose to delegate their power to a very small group of people) and getting beaten up for this. Though even if they would not get beaten up, I find this system very strange, where people have to beg for mercy from their oh-so terrific leaders. I'm increasingly seeing the state as a unnessesary, even vile entity.

Sorry for the bad English, it's not my native language.

@springrain: actually that's not "my" smile, but I'm glad you like it I like your avatar/bjork too.
shotoku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-05-2011, 10:38 PM   #2794
jonb
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: not here anymore
Posts: 307
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amaralsright View Post
I've seen lots of people here avocating anarchy.

I'm assuming they mean "Rule without Government".

Please could these people tell us why it's so great.

Thanks.

(PS. I think rule without Government is impossible, just so you know).

I’m fed up with this
A biased question is asked in a biased way to win an argument, and this point scoring is supposed to mean something. Debating points mean nothing in the real world.
There cannot be a government if it does not rule. There can be no rule without a body to do the ruling i.e. a government. You have made your debating point well done score one to yourself. However if the argument is made a little wider do we need a government and its rule, is an interesting question.
I can get along fine on my own. Do I personally need anyone to tell me what to do? No. But unfortunately life is more complicated than that. Things can happen where I might have to call on outside help. So the role of government is clearly like that of insurance, and the only real way of working out weather to have or not have insurance is, is it a benefit or not.
The problem with people is simple the average person expects about 6 out of 10 in rewards for 4 out of 10 of work.
Let me depict this;
A while ago there was a social experiment
People were asked ten maths questions on average they got 4 out of 10 right.
When they were asked to mark their own papers on average they would say they had six right.
This could be for many reasons, but let’s not go into that here.
In a repeat of the experiment where people were given a dollar for each question they reported as being correct on average they still said six out of ten.
In another repeat of the experiment where a pile of money was left on a table and they could just take however much, and they knew they could not be observed, but were asked to take dollar for each question they got right and nobody had seen the maths papers apart from the individual filling it in, still the average amount taken was still six dollars!
These people didn’t think they were stealing, even when there was an opportunity to steal, it probably didn’t happen or if it did it was balanced by others taking less and there was always money left on the table when everybody had been through. It is just that people over value themselves.
This fits very well with my experience I’ll do six hours of work as a favour for somebody, and on average, I’ll get about four back and they’ll think they’ve done me more of a favour than I’ve done for them, so be it.
But that is our base line if a government is worthwhile I should be able to get four parts back for every six I give.
The trouble is that for most people, the centralised powers are now not even coming close to that.
When new governmental forms are set up they are quite responsive, but as they go on all governments have a tendency to become less and less responsive. The trouble is that the people at the top are people and they will give 4 for the 6 they take, and as the group at the top have all the power they will naturally take more and more for themselves and return less and less, you can slow this process down by holding periodic elections, but soon the different ruling groups realise they have more in common with each other than with the people they rule. So however you vote it will make no difference. Politicians promise, but they don’t deliver.
Just look around you, isn’t that true?
jonb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2011, 03:04 AM   #2795
psychicdude
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Oz...Earth sometimes
Posts: 567
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amaralsright View Post
I've seen lots of people here avocating anarchy.

I'm assuming they mean "Rule without Government".

Please could these people tell us why it's so great.

Thanks.

(PS. I think rule without Government is impossible, just so you know).
I think Anarchy with this present level of thought that we "myself included" have is a very dangerous thing. I feel if we were to be raised into it it is the best method of living there is. You see we see ourselfs as seperate from one another and as such, if you have something and I want it, then I take it from you so I can have it. Now Anarchy with that type of thought is going to only lead to war. BUT Anarchy with a hive mentality of oneness can exist as we are the same person, if I see my self as you than if you have something and I do not then You Share....What a concept eh? Sharing, after all there is more to sharing than there is to keeping because there is more to others than there is to self. Now I do not believe Anarchy with this separate type consciousnesses can exist, the monkey's will fight over trinkets and woman and fight and take and fight and take, the closest level of anarchy this level of Monkey Man can have is Direct Democracy anything stronger will collapse. Now I am not saying Anarchy is impossible but it takes a certain type of Psychology to handle it, and that Psychology for me at least is Oneness, where I am you and you are me. Anarchy in this world can exist peacefully I am not writing this in Stone, but in Sand.
psychicdude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2011, 02:47 PM   #2796
kahn2010
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Mars
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonb View Post
I’m fed up with this
A biased question is asked in a biased way to win an argument, and this point scoring is supposed to mean something. Debating points mean nothing in the real world.
There cannot be a government if it does not rule. There can be no rule without a body to do the ruling i.e. a government. You have made your debating point well done score one to yourself. However if the argument is made a little wider do we need a government and its rule, is an interesting question.
I can get along fine on my own. Do I personally need anyone to tell me what to do? No. But unfortunately life is more complicated than that. Things can happen where I might have to call on outside help. So the role of government is clearly like that of insurance, and the only real way of working out weather to have or not have insurance is, is it a benefit or not.
The problem with people is simple the average person expects about 6 out of 10 in rewards for 4 out of 10 of work.
Let me depict this;
A while ago there was a social experiment
People were asked ten maths questions on average they got 4 out of 10 right.
When they were asked to mark their own papers on average they would say they had six right.
This could be for many reasons, but let’s not go into that here.
In a repeat of the experiment where people were given a dollar for each question they reported as being correct on average they still said six out of ten.
In another repeat of the experiment where a pile of money was left on a table and they could just take however much, and they knew they could not be observed, but were asked to take dollar for each question they got right and nobody had seen the maths papers apart from the individual filling it in, still the average amount taken was still six dollars!
These people didn’t think they were stealing, even when there was an opportunity to steal, it probably didn’t happen or if it did it was balanced by others taking less and there was always money left on the table when everybody had been through. It is just that people over value themselves.
This fits very well with my experience I’ll do six hours of work as a favour for somebody, and on average, I’ll get about four back and they’ll think they’ve done me more of a favour than I’ve done for them, so be it.
But that is our base line if a government is worthwhile I should be able to get four parts back for every six I give.
The trouble is that for most people, the centralised powers are now not even coming close to that.
When new governmental forms are set up they are quite responsive, but as they go on all governments have a tendency to become less and less responsive. The trouble is that the people at the top are people and they will give 4 for the 6 they take, and as the group at the top have all the power they will naturally take more and more for themselves and return less and less, you can slow this process down by holding periodic elections, but soon the different ruling groups realise they have more in common with each other than with the people they rule. So however you vote it will make no difference. Politicians promise, but they don’t deliver.
Just look around you, isn’t that true?
Interesting point.

Whats your view on having a goverment made up of different commitees?

For example, instad of having a minister for health, who would most likely be a politician, NOT a doctor/surgeon, you have a commitee of top ranking doctors, nurses and surgeons of that country.

The same goes for all other sections of society.

Each commitee could have a spokesperson that has to be replaced democratically every month.

The people in the commitees are replaced every 6 months.....

Instead of having general elections for different parties of politicians, people vote for the most qualified group of people to fit the job.



PS: Candidates would have to sever all ties with external companies that could influence their descisions.
__________________
Your political compass:
Economic Left/Right: -6.88 (Left)
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.03 (Libertarian)

'Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither' -Benjamin Franklin
kahn2010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2011, 08:25 PM   #2797
indolering
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Rocky Mountain High
Posts: 3,092
Likes: 79 (59 Posts)
Default The Psychology of Anarchism

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychicdude View Post
I think Anarchy with this present level of thought that we "myself included" have is a very dangerous thing. I feel if we were to be raised into it it is the best method of living there is. You see we see ourselfs as seperate from one another and as such, if you have something and I want it, then I take it from you so I can have it. Now Anarchy with that type of thought is going to only lead to war. BUT Anarchy with a hive mentality of oneness can exist as we are the same person, if I see my self as you than if you have something and I do not then You Share....What a concept eh? Sharing, after all there is more to sharing than there is to keeping because there is more to others than there is to self. Now I do not believe Anarchy with this separate type consciousnesses can exist, the monkey's will fight over trinkets and woman and fight and take and fight and take, the closest level of anarchy this level of Monkey Man can have is Direct Democracy anything stronger will collapse. Now I am not saying Anarchy is impossible but it takes a certain type of Psychology to handle it, and that Psychology for me at least is Oneness, where I am you and you are me. Anarchy in this world can exist peacefully I am not writing this in Stone, but in Sand.
I don't necessarily agree with much of what you say, but you bring up a good point about the psychology of Anarchism. But the experience of oneness with others is not what I would describe as 'hive mentality', not, at least, when referring to humans. I'd like to think homo sapiens are beyond and above merely instinctual, genetic imperatives. But I digress....

I have read and resonate with much of John Zerzan's work (see post #1268, this thread), and his primitivistic view of anarchism provides ample food for speculation in the psychology of living simply, close to the land, without interference by regulatory bodies. He argues that for tens of thousands of years (and probably much longer) men and women in tribes and clans around the world lived in relative peace, harmony and abundance without any centralized authority. There were tribal leaders, to be sure, but ideally, these men had the interests of the tribe at heart. Rather than a brutish struggle for survival as portrayed by anthropologists for decades (this too has now changed, and academic anthropology now recognizes the dominant traits which characterized prehistoric tribes: oneness among nature, sharing, cooperation, little time expended for 'work', much time for family and recreation, egalitarian, and abundance of resources), we now know that there were no really rich people nor very poor people, and organized warfare was rare.

Many people are reluctant to return to a simpler way of life - unfortunately, technology and civilization itself have proven toxic to all life. I'm not suggesting we abandon the wheel - it seems to me that when free energy finally becomes available to all, we can exist quite comfortable, fulfilling lives without becoming slaves to useless gadgets and oppressive hierarchies.

Technology is not neutral, especially the form which has developed on this planet. I can hear you argue that computers and the internet have brought us all so much closer together - really, I have to laugh - you only feel closer together because you're so alienated from the real people in your life!

But the real point I wanted to make here is that there are psychological aspects to early forms of anarchism which may be of great value to us as we struggle to rebuild this world after the lethal system we are in is dismantled.
We need to look at: the domination/domestication of nature; division of labor and the formation of hierarchies; the abolition of work in a world of abundance; sharing; equality; non-interference; the sovereignty of individual life; spiritual context within the tribe/community; recognition of a Creator Spirit. There are others, but this is a start.
indolering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2011, 11:15 PM   #2798
jonb
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: not here anymore
Posts: 307
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kahn2010 View Post
Interesting point.

Whats your view on having a government made up of different committees?

For example, instad of having a minister for health, who would most likely be a politician, NOT a doctor/surgeon, you have a commitee of top ranking doctors, nurses and surgeons of that country.

The same goes for all other sections of society.

Each commitee could have a spokesperson that has to be replaced democratically every month.

The people in the commitees are replaced every 6 months.....

Instead of having general elections for different parties of politicians, people vote for the most qualified group of people to fit the job.



PS: Candidates would have to sever all ties with external companies that could influence their descisions.
Any government of any sort will gather resources to itself for the betterment of the individuals in that group. Yes you can put lots of checks and balances on it, but who then would police that. The average empire lasts for about ten generations before it is economically impossible to support it, so it either dies or goes through a period of revolution.

The other side of the coin.
The question is not whether anarchy can come about, when governments can’t even honour their own rules it is pretty near. The question is whether anarchy is sustainable, that pretty soon after a government fails, the thought of somebody solving all your problems for you can look like a good idea.
There are a lot of people mouthing off, just to be trendy, and that don’t like being told what to do that say I am an anarchist, but they haven’t thought it through, what it would actually entail. The problem for anarchy is not as commonly thought how to deliver medicines, or how to cooperate to achieve some sort of goal, so many people have vocations and desires to help others for little or no reward. You see this all the time even in our current society; for instance teachers don’t get even near the pay they would get in another profession for the same amount of work, No the problem with anarchy is when it is successful, when a group cooperate and manage a great achievement, that they don’t use that success to start imposing their will on others, by exploiting the relative rarity of their success. In doing this they would naturally become a new government. To sustain an anarchy would actually be more demanding of the individual, than being a surf in an Autocracy. It would be a hard life, I think that being a grown up and standing on my own feet, and sometimes helping others without expecting a reward other than seeing their pleasure, is a good way of life and as much as I can I keep to that code, but it also holds another side to it, if I can stand on my own feet, it means I cannot ask for things from others if I am unable to give something back for it. That is easy enough to say when you live in soft times like most of us enjoy now; but is an almost oppressive code when there are shortages and you care for others who are dependant on you. Then you watch, how many of the people who now say I want an anarchy, would like the children they are want some sort of nanny to come and sort their mess out for them.
Anyway in the eighteenth century, Thomas Pain was laughed out of court, for saying there could be a democracy. What sort of system would that be? Rule by the mob, it would never be able to make consistent laws. It would do things like, Back the founding of North Vietnam and then fight a huge war to try and crush it. It would spend years supplying weapons to Iraq, and then go to war because Iraq had weapons. It would say it was backing democracy and then, back the overthroughing and killing of a president of an elected democracy in Chile, to impose a military junta, etc, you get the point.
It is not just about the system it is also about the culture, Athens 400bc was a real democracy individuals did not just elect leaders once in a while as we do now, but ran the government daily, yet they owned slaves, made women wear a veil and cover themselves completely and stopped women even leaving the house on their own, an idea they spread throughout the middle east, on the other hand, the Spartans who lived under the most authoritarian autocracy, didn’t give their women freedom, but expected their women to exert their own freedom, being able to choose who they slept with going out naked if they wanted to and fighting with the men if they chose to, in short to do whatever they liked and not defer to anybody, as freeborn women and mothers of the greatest warriors. The difference being that the Athenian men had little self control, where as the Spartan male’s life was all about learning self control.
I would not be at all surprised to find that actually living in a state of anarchy those that are now arguing against it would find it far more acceptable than they had thought, and many of those that are now wishing for it would be craving the nanny state back, saying we didn’t want this, it’s not our fault.

Last edited by jonb; 30-05-2011 at 03:51 AM.
jonb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 01:07 AM   #2799
mo0n5tar
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: the forest
Posts: 4,555
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

This was written in 1891 by Italian Anarcho-Communist Errico Malatesta:
Quote:
What is the government? There is a disease of the human mind, called the metaphysical tendency, that causes man, after he has by a logical process abstracted the quality from an object, to be subject to a kind of hallucination that makes him take the abstraction for the real thing. This metaphysical tendency, in spite of the blows of positive science, has still strong root in the minds of the majority of our contemporary fellowmen. It has such influence that many consider government an actual entity, with certain given attributes of reason, justice, equity, independent of the people who compose the government.

For those who think in this way, government, or the State, is the abstract social power, and it represents, always in the abstract, the general interest. It is the expression of the rights of all and is considered as limited by the rights of each. This way of understanding government is supported by those interested, to whom it is an urgent necessity that the principle of authority should be maintained and should always survive the faults and errors of the persons who exercise power.

For us, the government is the aggregate of the governors, and the governors – kings, presidents, ministers, members of parliament, and what not – are those who have the power to make laws regulating the relations between men, and to force obedience to these laws. They are those who decide upon and claim the taxes, enforce military service, judge and punish transgressors of the laws. They subject men to regulations, and supervise and sanction private contracts. They monopolize certain branches of production and public services, or, if they wish, all production and public service. They promote or hinder the exchange of goods. They make war or peace with governments of other countries. They concede or withhold free trade and many things else. In short, the governors are those who have the power, in a greater or lesser degree, to make use of the collective force of society, that is, of the physical, intellectual, and economic force of all, to oblige each to their (the governors’) wish. And this power constitutes, in our opinion, the very principle of government and authority.
Quote:
The government – or the State, if you will – as judge, moderator of social strife, impartial administrator of the public interests, is a lie, an illusion, a Utopia, never realized and never realizable. If, in fact, the interests of men must always be contrary to one another, if, indeed, the strife between mankind has made laws necessary to human society, and the liberty of the individual must be limited by the liberty of other individuals, then each one would always seek to make his interests triumph over those of others. Each would strive to enlarge his own liberty at the cost of the liberty of others, and there would be government. Not simply because it was more or less useful to the totality of the members of society to have a government, but because the conquerors would wish to secure themselves the fruits of victory. They would wish effectually to subject the vanquished and relieve themselves of the trouble of being always on the defensive, and they would appoint men, specially adapted to the business, to act as police. Were this indeed actually the case, then humanity would be destined to perish amid periodical contests between the tyranny of the dominators and the rebellion of the conquered.

But fortunately the future of humanity is a happier one, because the law that governs it is milder.

Thus, in the contest of centuries between liberty and authority, or, in other words, between social equality and social castes, the question at issue has not really been the relations between society and the individual, or the increase of individual independence at the cost of social control, or vice versa. Rather it has had to do with preventing any one individual from oppressing the others; with giving to everyone the same rights and the same means of action. It has had to do with substituting the initiative of all, which must naturally result in the advantage of all, for the initiative of the few, which necessarily results in the suppression of all the others. It is always, in short, the question of putting an end to the domination and exploitation of man by man in such a way that all are interested in the common welfare, and that the individual force of each, instead of oppressing, combating, or suppressing others, will find the possibility of complete development, and everyone will seek to associate with others for the greater advantage of all.

From what we have said, it follows that the existence of a government, even upon the hypothesis that the ideal government of authoritarian socialists were possible, far from producing an increase of productive force, would immensely diminish it, because the government would restrict initiative to the few. It would give these few the right to do all things, without being able, of course, to endow them with the knowledge or understanding of all things.

In fact, if you divest legislation and all the operations of government of what is intended to protect the privileged, and what represents the wishes of the privileged classes alone, nothing remains but the aggregate of individual governors. “The State,” says Sismondi, “is always a conservative power which authorizes, regulates, and organizes the conquests of progress (and history testifies that it applies them to the profit of its own and the other privileged classes) but never does it inaugurate them. New ideas always originate from beneath, are conceived in the foundations of society, and then, when divulged, they become opinion and grow. But they must always meet on their path, and combat the constituted powers of tradition, custom, privilege and error.”

In order to understand how society could exist without a government, it is sufficient to turn our attention for a short space to what actually goes on in our present society. We shall see that in reality the most important functions are fulfilled even nowadays outside the intervention of government. Also that government only interferes to exploit the masses, or defend the privileged, or, lastly, to sanction, most unnecessarily, all that has been done without its aid, often in spite of and opposition to it. Men work, exchange, study, travel, follow as they choose the current rules of morality or hygiene; they profit by the progress of science and art, have numberless mutual interests without ever feeling the need of any one to direct them how to conduct themselves in regard to these matters. On the contrary, it is just those things in which no governmental interference that prosper best and give rise to the least contention, being unconsciously adapted to the wish of all in the way found most useful and agreeable.

Nor is government more necessary for large undertakings, or for those public services which require the constant cooperation of many people of different conditions and countries. Thousands of these undertakings are even now the work of voluntarily formed associations. And these are, by the acknowledgment of everyone, the undertakings that succeed the best. We do not refer to the associations of capitalists, organized by means of exploitation, although even they show capabilities and powers of free association, which may extended until it embraces all the people of all lands and includes the widest and most varying interests. We speak rather of those associations inspired by the love of humanity, or by the passion for knowledge, or even simply by the desire for amusement and love of applause, as these represent better such groupings as will exist in a society where, private property and internal strife between men being abolished, each will find his interests compatible with the interest of everyone else and his greatest satisfaction in doing good and pleasing others. Scientific societies and congresses, international lifeboat and Red Cross associations, laborers’ unions, peace societies, volunteers who hasten to the rescue at times of great public calamity, are all examples, among thousands, of that power of the spirit of association which always shows itself when a need arises or an enthusiasm takes hold, and the means do not fail. That voluntary associations do not cover the world and do not embrace every branch of material and moral activity is the fault of the obstacles placed in their way by governments, of the antagonisms create by the possession of private property, and of the impotence and degradation to which the monopolizing of wealth on the part of the few reduces the majority of mankind.

The government takes charge, for instance, of the postal and telegraph services. But in what way does it really assist them? When the people are in such a condition as to be able to enjoy and feel the need of such services they will think about organizing them, and the man with the necessary technical knowledge will not require a certificate from a government to enable him to set to work. The more general and urgent the need, the more volunteers will offer to satisfy it. Would the people have the ability necessary to provide and distribute provisions? Never fear, they will not die of hunger waiting for government to pass a law on the subject. Wherever a government exists, it must wait until the people have first organized everything, and then come with its laws to sanction and exploit what has already been done. It is evident that private interest is the great motive for all activity. That being so, when the interest of every one becomes the interest of each (and it necessarily will become so as soon as private property is abolished), then all will be active. If they work now in the interest of the few, so much more and so much better will they work to satisfy the interests of all. It is hard to understand how anyone can believe that public services indispensable to social life can be better secured by order of a government than through the workers themselves who by their own choice or by agreement with others carry them out under the immediate control of all those interested.

Certainly in every collective undertaking on a large scale there is need for division of labor, for technical direction, administration, etc. But the authoritarians are merely playing with words, when they deduce a reason for the existence of government, from the very real necessity for organization of labor. The government, we must repeat, is the aggregate of the individuals who have received or have taken the right or the mean to make laws, and force the people to obey them. The administrators, engineers, etc., on the other hand, are men who receive or assume the charge of doing a certain work. Government signifies delegation of power, that is, abdication of the initiative and sovereignty of everyone into the hand of the few. Administration signifies delegation of work, that is, the free exchange of services founded on free agreement.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/mala...xx/anarchy.htm
mo0n5tar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2011, 12:59 AM   #2800
indolering
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Rocky Mountain High
Posts: 3,092
Likes: 79 (59 Posts)
Default

.
.
Bump
indolering is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:20 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.