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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 30-03-2011, 07:37 AM   #1
amaralsright
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Varies in quest for more Sooty
Posts: 12,275
Likes: 2 (1 Post)
Default Anarchy - Tell us why it's good

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).
amaralsright is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-2011, 07:54 AM   #2
faustus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,152
Likes: 16 (5 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).
If the Human race has been around for 1million years, then anarchy has been our default state for more than 99% of its existence.

I think its possible.
You have a government that does everything it can to convince people that they have no personal power and need to rely on the govt for their every need.
Take away that propaganda and I think people will find themselves able to cope just fine.


Why do you think its impossible?
faustus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-2011, 07:57 AM   #3
maxi
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,372
Likes: 52 (23 Posts)
Default

Govern (control) ment (mind)

Look it up in ancient Greek, then wake up...
maxi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-2011, 07:58 AM   #4
knightofthegrail
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,646
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

It can work, on a small and pre-industrial scale as a relationship between adults......if people realise that the individualistic notion of identity is misleading and instead catch on to how the majority of their identity is located in a wider self than the "personal self".

Outside of those parameters, it is a recipe for chaos.
knightofthegrail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-2011, 08:14 AM   #5
amaralsright
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Varies in quest for more Sooty
Posts: 12,275
Likes: 2 (1 Post)
Default

Who catches the criminals in an Anarchist society (or whatever the term is for the thing)?

Who builds the hospitals?

Who builds and repairs the roads?

(I could go on).
amaralsright is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-2011, 08:25 AM   #6
faustus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,152
Likes: 16 (5 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amaralsright View Post
Who catches the criminals in an Anarchist society (or whatever the term is for the thing)?

Who builds the hospitals?

Who builds and repairs the roads?

(I could go on).

I know the point you are trying to make but you remind me of one of my neighbours during the snows we had towards the end of last year.

I'd got some grit from the local bucket and had cleared my drive and was doing the bit of pavement outside my house.
My neighbour came out asking if I was allowed to use the grit. He was expecting the council to come and clear his pavements for him.

We have the power to act as individuals or collectively.
The whole power of government rests in convincing us we don't have that power.

"I voted so I expect the government to fix everything for me and tell me how to raise my children and how to live"

Its a pathetic mindview when you think about it.
faustus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-2011, 08:40 AM   #7
amaralsright
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Varies in quest for more Sooty
Posts: 12,275
Likes: 2 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by faustus View Post
We have the power to act as individuals or collectively.
We're nearly there.

What if we don't agree on a collective decision?
amaralsright is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-2011, 08:43 AM   #8
faustus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,152
Likes: 16 (5 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amaralsright View Post
We're nearly there.

What if we don't agree on a collective decision?
Then we vote.
A pure democracy has no government. It is truly the voice of the people.
We police ourselves.

You ask about schools and hospitals. Who do you think built our first schools and hospitals?

Communities built their own.

Its all within our power. The idea that we need David Cameron and the rest of the Westminster puppet show to live our lives is laughable to me.
faustus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-2011, 08:44 AM   #9
danster82
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 3,923
Likes: 4 (4 Posts)
Default

Promoting Anarchy is nonsense because theres nothing Good in Anarchy.

The question is centralized government, as opposed to self government.

The recent experiments in road traffic where they remove signs and traffic lights and congestion has dropped 90% because people on the roads are allowed to govern their own decisions and it worked in that case, Im sure there are other scientific studies.

There really is no such thing as lawlessness because the law is created in the moment when needed, lets say theres lawlessness in a group of people and one starts acting out violence against the others, well the others will simply deal with the situation in their own way, even though no law was written on how to deal with it, as the law was written in their inward parts.

Last edited by danster82; 30-03-2011 at 08:49 AM.
danster82 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-2011, 08:46 AM   #10
redman
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 8,419
Likes: 352 (159 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 people comment on something being great if they have never actually experienced or lived under an anarchic system.

Last edited by redman; 30-03-2011 at 08:46 AM.
redman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-2011, 08:46 AM   #11
jay2k
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Disproving the State
Four arguments against government

by Stefan Molyneux

Two objections constantly recur whenever the subject of dissolving the State arises. The first is that a free society is only possible if people are perfectly good or rational. In other words, citizens need a centralized State because there are evil people in the world.

The first and most obvious problem with this position is that if evil people exist in society, they will also exist within the State – and be far more dangerous thereby. Citizens are able to protect themselves against evil individuals, but stand no chance against an aggressive State armed to the teeth with police and military might. Thus the argument that we need the State because evil people exist is false. If evil people exist, the State must be dismantled, since evil people will be drawn to use its power for their own ends – and, unlike private thugs, evil people in government have the police and military to inflict their whims on a helpless (and usually disarmed!) population.

Logically, there are four possibilities as to the mixture of good and evil people in the world:

1. all men are moral
2. all men are immoral
3. the majority of men are moral, and a minority immoral
4. the majority of men are immoral, and a minority moral

(A perfect balance of good and evil is statistically impossible!)

In the first case (all men are moral), the State is obviously not needed, since evil cannot exist.

In the second case (all men are immoral), the State cannot be permitted to exist for one simple reason. The State, it is generally argued, must exist because there are evil people in the world who desire to inflict harm, and who can only be restrained through fear of State retribution (police, prisons, etc.). A corollary of this argument is that the less retribution these people fear, the more evil they will do. However, the State itself is not subject to any force, but is a law unto itself. Even in Western democracies, how many policemen and politicians go to jail? Thus if evil people wish to do harm but are only restrained by force, then society can never permit a State to exist, because evil people will immediately take control of that State, in order to do evil and avoid retribution. In a society of pure evil, then, the only hope for stability would be a state of nature, where a general arming and fear of retribution would blunt the evil intents of disparate groups.

The third possibility is that most people are evil, and only a few are good. If that is the case, then the State also cannot be permitted to exist, since the majority of those in control of the State will be evil, and will rule over the good minority. Democracy in particular cannot be permitted to exist, since the minority of good people would be subjugated to the democratic will of the evil majority. Evil people, who wish to do harm without fear of retribution, would inevitably take control of the State, and use its power to do their evil free of that fear. Good people do not act morally because they fear retribution, but because they love goodness and peace of mind – and thus, unlike evil people, have little to gain by controlling the State. And so it is certain that the State will be controlled by a majority of evil people, and will rule over all, to the detriment of all moral people.

The fourth option is that most people are good, and only a few are evil. This possibility is subject to the same problems outlined above, notably that evil people will always want to gain control over the State, in order to shield themselves from retaliation. This option changes the appearance of democracy, however: because the majority of people are good, evil power-seekers must lie to them in order to gain power, and then, after achieving public office, will immediately break faith and pursue their own corrupt agendas, enforcing their wills with the police and military. (This is the current situation in democracies, of course.) Thus the State remains the greatest prize to the most evil men, who will quickly gain control over its awesome power – and so the State cannot be permitted to exist in this scenario either.

It is clear, then, that there is no situation under which a State can logically be allowed to exist. The only possible justification for the existence of a State would be if the majority of men are evil, but all the power of the State is always and forever controlled by a minority of good men. This situation, while interesting theoretically, breaks down logically because:

1. the evil majority would quickly outvote the minority or overpower them through a coup;
2. there is no way to ensure that only good people would always run the State; and,
3. there is absolutely no example of this having ever occurred in any of the dark annals of the brutal history of the State.

The logical error always made in the defense of the State is to imagine that any collective moral judgments being applied to citizens is not also being applied to the group which rules over them. If 50% of people are evil, then at least 50% of people ruling over them are evil (and probably more, since evil people are always drawn to power). Thus the existence of evil can never justify the existence of the State. If there is no evil, the State is unnecessary. If evil exists, the State is far too dangerous to be allowed existence.

Why is this error always made? There are a number of reasons, which can only be touched on here. The first is that the State introduces itself to children in the form of public school teachers who are considered moral authorities. Thus is the association of morality and authority with the State first made – which is reinforced through years of repetition. The second is that the State never teaches children about the root of its power – force – but instead pretends that it is just another social institution, like a business or a church or a charity. The third is that the prevalence of religion has always blinded men to the evils of the State – which is why the State has always been so interested in furthering the interests of churches. In the religious world-view, absolute power is synonymous with perfect goodness, in the form of a deity. In the real political world of men, however, increasing power always means increasing evil. With religion, also, all that happens must be for the good – thus, fighting encroaching political power is fighting the will of the deity. There are many more reasons, of course, but these are among the deepest.

It was mentioned at the beginning of this article that people generally make two errors when confronted with the idea of dissolving the State. The first is believing that the State is necessary because evil people exist. The second is the belief that, in the absence of a State, any social institutions which arise will inevitably take the place of the State. Thus, dispute resolution organizations (DRO’s), insurance companies and private security forces are all considered potential cancers which will swell and overwhelm the body politic.

This view arises from the same error outlined above. If all social institutions are constantly trying to grow in power and enforce their wills on others, then by that very argument a centralized State cannot be allowed to exist. If it is an iron law that groups always try to gain power over other groups and individuals, then that power-lust will not end if one of them wins, but will spread across society until slavery is the norm. In other words, the only hope for individual freedom is for a proliferation of groups to exist, each with the power to harm each other, and so all afraid of each other, and more or less peaceable thereby.

It is very hard to understand the logic and intelligence of the argument that, in order to protect us from a group that might overpower us, we should support a group that has already overpowered us. It is similar to the statist argument regarding private monopolies – that citizens should create a State monopoly because they are afraid of monopolies. It does not take a keen vision to see through such nonsense.

What is the evidence for the view that decentralized and competing powers promote peace? In other words, are there any facts that we can draw on to support the idea that a balance of power is the only chance that the individual has for freedom?

Organized crime does not provide many good examples, since gangs so regularly corrupt, manipulate and use the power of the State police to enforce their rule, and so cannot be said to be operating in a state of nature. A more useful example is the fact that no leader has ever declared war on another leader who possesses nuclear weapons. In the past, when leaders felt themselves immune from retaliation, they were more than willing to kill off their own populations by waging war. Now that they are themselves subject to annihilation, they are only willing to attack countries that cannot fight back.

This is an instructive lesson on why political leaders require disarmed and dependent populations – and a good example of how the fear of reprisal inherent in a balanced system of decentralized and competing powers is the only proven method of securing and maintaining personal liberty. Fleeing from imaginary phantoms into the protective prison of the State will only ensure the destruction of the very liberties that make life worth living.

November 11, 2005

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux4.html
jay2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-2011, 08:51 AM   #12
mrunhappy
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 6 (5 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amaralsright View Post
Who catches the criminals in an Anarchist society (or whatever the term is for the thing)?

Who builds the hospitals?

Who builds and repairs the roads?

(I could go on).
Libertarian can be considered a form of anarchism. And an anarchic society can of course have a police force and well.. society!

What anarchy really represents is the removal of the slime that creams of all the wealth and treasure from our labors. The rotten Rothschilds, Rockefellers, the Royal family etc, the Etonian twats in parliament, the Bushies, the Gores, Kissenger.. their removal from our direction.....
mrunhappy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-2011, 08:53 AM   #13
amaralsright
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Varies in quest for more Sooty
Posts: 12,275
Likes: 2 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by faustus View Post
Then we vote.
Using what system?
Is everyone going to vote on every single decision?

Quote:
A pure democracy has no government. It is truly the voice of the people.
We police ourselves.
How do you stop abuse?
How do you stop the clever people usurping the system?
What about the sociopaths?
What is the process for building a new road or a new hospital?

Quote:
You ask about schools and hospitals. Who do you think built our first schools and hospitals?
We now live in a country with a population of 60 million, most of whom have ZERO access to any kinds of resources needed to build a hosiptal or a school.

Quote:
Communities built their own.
What about national railway systems?
WHat about national highways?
What about airports?
What about sea ports?
What about power plants?
Where you going to get the OIL?

Quote:
Its all within our power. The idea that we need David Cameron and the rest of the Westminster puppet show to live our lives is laughable to me.
How?
I'm serious.
Show me how this system would work in reality.
amaralsright is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-2011, 08:56 AM   #14
phildee3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: wherever I am
Posts: 12,622
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amaralsright View Post

Who catches the criminals in an Anarchist society?
The police.
Also people making citizen's arrests.

At the moment, the biggest criminals are in government (or in league with/protected by the government).

Quote:
Originally Posted by amaralsright View Post

Who builds the hospitals?
Bricklayers, architects, plumbers, electricians, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amaralsright View Post

Who builds and repairs the roads?
Road builders/repairers.
(I could go on).

Why do these people have to work for the government? Why can't they work for the people?
During the Tarihr square occupation the police, working for the government, were evicted and the people did their own policing very successfully. Now the police have joined the people, they are back assisting them with policing.
__________________
~ ~
There's no such thing as a mistake, an accident or a coincidence.

Last edited by phildee3; 30-03-2011 at 09:01 AM.
phildee3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-2011, 08:58 AM   #15
porridge
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: emigrating to Scotland..
Posts: 10,947
Likes: 1,651 (822 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).
When governments all you've ever known, I am not surprised it would be hard to get your head round anything else.

Most things the control freak fascist state says is bad, is alright in my book..
porridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-2011, 09:02 AM   #16
faustus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,152
Likes: 16 (5 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amaralsright View Post
Using what system?
Is everyone going to vote on every single decision?


How?
I'm serious.
Show me how this system would work in reality.
Yes if necessary we vote on every decision,
Direct democracy works very well for the Swiss.

There is nothing we cannot achieve together.
Its just centuries of programming that stops us (or perhaps just you) realising that.

If you need a rail link to another town, why do you need a government to tell you to build it? Do people not have spades?
faustus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-2011, 09:02 AM   #17
mrunhappy
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 6 (5 Posts)
Default

Anarchy could still have a London based parliament if it so wished.. it is surely more a case of ridding ourselves from the control of Etonians, banks and banking dynasties, and the rotten royal family...

Last edited by Mr Happy; 30-03-2011 at 09:03 AM.
mrunhappy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-2011, 09:04 AM   #18
amaralsright
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Varies in quest for more Sooty
Posts: 12,275
Likes: 2 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phildee3 View Post
Why do these people have to work for the government? Why can't they work for the people?
There are 60 million people in this country.

There are thousands of decisions made on a daily basis to keep the infrastructure alone going.

Are you seriously saying that 60 million people should vote on every decision or would you say that delegation of responsibilities to trusted individuals makes more sense?

Quote:
During the Tarihr square occupation the police, working for the government, were evicted and the people did their own policing very successfully. Now the police have joined the people, they are back assisting them with policing.
Ah.. the Egyptian people's revolution.

Well that worked.. oh wait... the military elite still rule... damn.
amaralsright is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-2011, 09:07 AM   #19
lens
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 4,661
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redman View Post
How can people comment on something being great if they have never actually experienced or lived under an anarchic system.
An anarchic system?

Sorry, I know what you mean, and you're right. But we can imagine some of the joy of a less rigid and hierarchical system.
lens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-2011, 09:09 AM   #20
amaralsright
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Varies in quest for more Sooty
Posts: 12,275
Likes: 2 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by faustus View Post
Yes if necessary we vote on every decision,
Direct democracy works very well for the Swiss.
The Swiss people do not vote on every single decision (just totally impractical) and they do have a Fderal government, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Quote:
There is nothing we cannot achieve together.
Its just centuries of programming that stops us (or perhaps just you) realising that.
Yeah... why don't we THE PEOPLE elect people we can trust to make the decisions for us rather than 60 million people studying every single decision for themselves.

Quote:
If you need a rail link to another town, why do you need a government to tell you to build it? Do people not have spades?
Jesus.

Seriously.

You can't build a rail link with spades.

Where you going to get the metal, the concrete, the diggers, the oil, the electricty, the TRAINS?

Are you now taking the piss?
amaralsright 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 04:52 PM.


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