If you think any of these systems will safeguard against tyranny, I strongly implore you watch The Money Masters:
"If one understands that Socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but in reality a method to control and consolidate the wealth, then the seeming paradox of the super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism, or more accurately socialism, is not a movement of the down-trodden masses, but of the economic elite." -Gary Allen, author, cited in Money Masters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs
Be sure to watch the whole documentary first if you'd like to understand why these systems inevitably lead to elitism and corruption. Here's another quote, this time from The Naked Capitalist:
"Power from any source tends to create an appetite for additional power...It was almost inevitable that the super-rich would one day aspire to control not only their own wealth, but the wealth of the entire world.
To achieve this, they were perfectly willing to feed the ambitions of the power-hungry political conspirators who were committed to the overthrow of all existing governments and the establishments of a central worldwide dictatorship." -W. Cleon Skousen, cited from Money Masters
My thoughts and possible solutions:
As our current global monetary system collapses and oil becomes too expensive to mine, I think we must work on creating sustainable, local decentralized communities as advocated in www.transitionnetwork.org
Edited: This is an important issue for all of us wanting to maintain a fruitarian diet. If we're not in the proper climate, I think it will be very difficult to maintain the diet as food prices rise with oil prices. I'd like to see more of us working together on a Transition Fruitarian Community, so that we can all enjoy an 801010 lifestyle.
Secondly, if we are to create abundance on earth as described in www.thevenusproject.com and www.thezeitgeistmovement.com, we must all be educated in the means of producing our basic necessities and renewable energy through automation. We currently have the technology to grow tropical fruit trees in northern climates using hothouses and vegetables in hydroponics. We all must be scientists and researchers, in order to protect against the misuse of technology.
I leave you with a couple quotes by Thomas Jefferson:
"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite."
Replies
I think Feudalism is the natural government type. Here's why, primitive socialism or small tribes are conquered by larger tribes. The weak perish and the strong become stronger. Eventually the tribe becomes so immense that you need multiple leaders, and thus feudalism is born.
Eventually, feudalism evolves into capitalism. Here's where Karl Marx theory breaks down in my opinion. The problem is there is always that push to go back to feudalism. I'll give an example. In the USA there is many streets named cherry street, church rd, school ln, etc. In fact it causes problems because two cherry streets in different towns can be very close to each other.
People seek the familiar. They want one big mega corporation like Walmart as opposed to a bunch of tiny businesses. Its more familiar and simpler to have only a few conglomerates rather than lots of small businesses.
Like the tide or current the natural state of human government is feudalism. One cannot fight the tide forever.
As for anarchy. Anarchy from what I understand means no laws. With no laws there is nothing to stop a bunch of highly trained and highly armed people from participating in thrill kills. Just going into a neighborhood and massacring everyone. Eventually everyone left would fall into one of these militaristic groups and thus Feudalism again.
Don't know what a mutualist anarchist is, too lazy to look it up at the moment.. but i am an anarchist, there's only one true divide in the world.. anarchists and statists.. people that are against slavery and people that support it.
Anarchism simply means no/the absense of, rulers/masters, it means the absense of slavery.
it means that all interaction is voluntary.
Agorism by the way is not self-sustainability and everyone growing their own food.. agorism is black and gray market activity, a free market going behind governments back basically.
Anyway the only way a anarchist world can exist is most people understand natural law and live it.. it's love vs fear, acceptance of truth vs ignorance, anarchism vs statism..
Most people are stuck in the realm of effect (the world around us) there is no change to be made in the realm of effect.
I highly recommend checking this out without skipping or cutting short, or you've wasted your time.. but i can assure you the only way the world can be changed for the good is people knowing and understanding natural law and living it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASUHN3gNxWo&list=PLrxa_yRZ28s67...
The youtube link isn't working. For a long time now I thought welfare was a good idea. Now with vaccines and welfare I see that welfare can be used as leverage to force poor people to do as the those in power desire. Before I used to believe in cut throat libertarian-ism. With no welfare nor social security.
Now with the vaccines I'm leaning more towards libertarian-ism again. Here's why I'm a fan the idea, it dissolves the illusion that the government will take care of you. For some reason socialism means the government runs everything, public education, health care, welfare, etc. At some point you have to realize that gives the government too much power. Btw, if you don't think public education can be used to coerce parents think again.
Any system can be corrupted. Lets take education for example, under pure Laissez-faire there would be no public/government schools. Meaning the poor would be illiterate and only the rich could afford education. If you have public schooling then the government has more control over the curriculum and can take it away, as with the "no jab no play."
I've given up a long time ago and accepted that there will always be feudalism. Democracy is a fleeting ideal. The rich and power will always conspire and ultimately win, except for a few brief exceptions. I'm always surprised at how people act when a powerful person gets caught in a corrupt act. I'm like so, this surprises you how?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-32274107
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/13/asia/australia-anti-vaccination-welfa...
http://www.sciencealert.com/no-jab-no-play-vaccination-laws-will-be...
So glad this post has been floated again.
of course, jacob!
there's just a lot of confusion caused when terms are thrown around and they all mean whatever the particular person wants it to mean. that's why i think it is good you provide clarifications and even definitions.
in any case, i hope you come up with some examples when you get a chance. i think it is very important we demonstrate the existence of sensible societies (not just on paper as in the create your country thread), but also on the land, where it really counts.
there are fine societies which work smoothly and harmoniously. people just don't realize that it can be done. they either rail at the present status quo or they rail at those who rail at the present status quo (and of course, the process gets extended ad infinitum :D )
both andreas and markus argue the importance of providing the alternative a few posts above. often the best way to remove something that is broken happens to be getting the replacement package opened up and ready to go!
so as yet another variation on the "become the change you wish to see in the world":
"become the bearer of the replacement part if you want to fix something in the world." :D :D :D
(ya i know, gandhi would roll in his grave for sure)
in friendship,
prad
jacob,
i was only responding to some of the things that markus wrote. i realize some of them were addressed to you, but i wasn't commenting on anything you had said - merely following up on the items markus had written (in a general, not specific sense).
we don't have much disagreement at all on the items above, but i'll comment anyway just to be clear.
every organism on the planet is "greedy".
here we would have a point of disagreement, were it not for the fact that you put the word greedy in quotations. greed by definition is a sin, which means you grab at things not through symbiosis (or even survival), but because you want more. the exchange of goods is not greed so long as it is a fair exchange.
It is also often easier to "grab at coins", if by this you mean "earn a profitable income through voluntary trade with other people
no that is not what i mean at all. what i am saying is that a normalized pecuniary system makes it easier to get more and more. for instance, it is much easier to collect dollar bills than apples. so as a result of this physical convenience more people will find it easier to 'get rich' by putting dollar bills in their wallets than figuring out how to store apples. there wasn't any deeper significance to what i was saying.
Now I'm a bit confused. What do you mean by "economic system"?
by economic system i'm talking about the present economic system the same one you'll smash (along with government) in your 811 and gov thread that i commented on. i have no issues with barter or fair trade situations which are not exploitative.
The free market, by the definition that I use it, is the place (either physical or virtual) where voluntary trade of land, labor, goods and/or services between individuals occurs. If you can find any moral fault in the free market by this definition, please explain it to me.
no fault at all - in fact, you've just taken down one of the walls of that labyrinth. as i said, i wasn't commenting on what you had written, only on specifics of what markus had put down which refer to the general state of things. (the only improvement might be to state that no one can own land, we can only share it and make use of it along strict guidelines - you avoid a host of potential problems by these though i realize it flies in the face of some anarchistic ideas)
Being "free to do exactly what you want" is in no way how I define anarchy, and I believe that herein lies your central misunderstanding. I define anarchy as a society lacking a central government, which itself I believe is appropriately defined as the legal monopoly on the uses of force generally recognized as legitimate within the society that it claims dominion over.
we don't have a disagreement here, because i was again not going by your definition, just the ones i had come across over several years and there are quite a few. i think your principle of 'lacking a central' government though, is somewhat superfluous because what you mean is central gov as in our present systems. you can't avoid centralization anymore than you can form crystallization without a nucleus. what you can do though is force the government to follow the guidelines set out for it rather than have corporations and lobby groups take over its management. interestingly enough, i don't think you are presently going to accomplish this without a draconian dictatorship or a flood to cleanse the debris away.
If you're interested as to how such a system might work without a central government forcefully claiming ultimate authority in all legal matters, please feel free to ask, but do not presume that no alternate institutions ...
no presumptions, jacob. :D
i'm familiar with anarchy over the past 2 decades one form being the intentional communities effort. there are many variations though both in principle and practice. i can point you to some threads right here on 30bad which show some of the differences. the idea is quite old though sometimes enthusiasts act as though they've just discovered it. i am particularly glad to see your statement:
An anarchist society would neither be one without rules, nor one without consequences. There would still be law and order
(it is a necessity that is often overlooked by some enthusiasts. :D)
again in principle it is a good idea. in practice, you are going to have to work a bit to make it go right. that is how it is with many things of course.
i am interested in having you provide some examples of 'comparative high success' though. it is important, imho, that we demonstrate that there are sensible implementations of principles and that we really can make things work if we make the effort.
so present some cases here and i may do the same (may be one of the intentional communities).
also, may be you'd like to contribute to this thread:
create your own country
there are some wonderful entries there and i'm sure yours will be also.
in friendship,
prad
and you markus, lead the 'host of new ones' - the new wave!!
you heat that iron in the flames of compassion and burn it indelibly into the very soul.
in friendship,
prad
I grew up in a church where they taught that the heart of man is inherently evil. Of all things, that was what in the end made me leave.
There may be something to it though, I think Left in the Dark may be on the track of some of the real issues. We might have some serious brain damage.
However I still believe environment is the most decisive factor in this time and age, whether or not there is brain damage. Every time my daughter has a 'tantrum', I see exactly where it comes from. I see it in the eyes. I've seen a few kids who had all the unconditional love you can ask for and they really 'shine'. You can see it in the eyes - the traces I see in my daughter's aren't there.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 8 Next