The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Anti government. Options
pljames
Posted: Monday, March 17, 2014 9:35:00 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/12/2013
Posts: 1,414
Neurons: 15,207
Location: Marble, North Carolina, United States
More and more every day I am becoming anti government. I was born and raised in the United States and never got involved within politics, I let everyone else do it for me. Now look at our delima. I am beginning to wonder if there is any hope for America...any? The party system we now have has proven to me, without a doubt it does not work. The politicians are for themselves there lobbist and greed. How can we succeed with that attitude? I see nothing but negative talk out of there mouth.

Like the indians use to say "white man talk with crooked tongue". Where are those who care about America? Same old (BS) from our elected politicians, again and again and again. When America goes down and she will, I will go down with her as will my fanily and friends who once loved her. Paul
reinsalkas
Posted: Monday, March 17, 2014 9:54:43 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/27/2012
Posts: 261
Neurons: 11,683
Location: Rafaela, Santa Fe, Argentina
pljames wrote:
More and more every day I am becoming anti government. I was born and raised in the United States and never got involved within politics, I let everyone else do it for me. Now look at our delima. I am beginning to wonder if there is any hope for America...any? The party system we now have has proven to me, without a doubt it does not work. The politicians are for themselves there lobbist and greed. How can we succeed with that attitude? I see nothing but negative talk out of there mouth.

Like the indians use to say "white man talk with crooked tongue". Where are those who care about America? Same old (BS) from our elected politicians, again and again and again. When America goes down and she will, I will go down with her as will my fanily and friends who once loved her. Paul


Hello Paul, nice to meet you. I read your message and I must say I find it very interesting since it makes me think of many things I haven't paid attention to before. Such as:

* That although Americans live in a nation bombarded and obscured by the biased news and tv, there is still chance for them to realize what is happening in front of their eyes with their Nation and their country in the world.

* That a loss of preponderance or power of the US in the international scene will mean that the balance of power will be much more even and that this will be positive for all the countries in the world. Or that I hope.

* That this same loss of power may mean that many Americans will feel a big hit in their pride and although this may sound trivial or superficial, I can't begin to think of what it means for the average prideful (elated), flag waving, US citizen.

* That in the end, the ones that will pay for this, are the less fortunate workers and middle class citizens (as it always is).

Also, I cannot but rejoice to read your thought: "I was born and raised in the United States and never got involved within politics, I let everyone else do it for me." I am glad you could overcome this!!

Trivium_Discipulus
Posted: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:02:33 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/20/2013
Posts: 819
Neurons: 350,106
Location: San Diego, California, United States
reinsalkas wrote:
pljames wrote:
More and more every day I am becoming anti government. I was born and raised in the United States and never got involved within politics, I let everyone else do it for me. Now look at our delima. I am beginning to wonder if there is any hope for America...any? The party system we now have has proven to me, without a doubt it does not work. The politicians are for themselves there lobbist and greed. How can we succeed with that attitude? I see nothing but negative talk out of there mouth.

Like the indians use to say "white man talk with crooked tongue". Where are those who care about America? Same old (BS) from our elected politicians, again and again and again. When America goes down and she will, I will go down with her as will my fanily and friends who once loved her. Paul


Hello Paul, nice to meet you. I read your message and I must say I find it very interesting since it makes me think of many things I haven't paid attention to before. Such as:

* That although Americans live in a nation bombarded and obscured by the biased news and tv, there is still chance for them to realize what is happening in front of their eyes with their Nation and their country in the world.

* That a loss of preponderance or power of the US in the international scene will mean that the balance of power will be much more even and that this will be positive for all the countries in the world. Or that I hope.

* That this same loss of power may mean that many Americans will feel a big hit in their pride and although this may sound trivial or superficial, I can't begin to think of what it means for the average prideful (elated), flag waving, US citizen.

* That in the end, the ones that will pay for this, are the less fortunate workers and middle class citizens (as it always is).

Also, I cannot but rejoice to read your thought: "I was born and raised in the United States and never got involved within politics, I let everyone else do it for me." I am glad you could overcome this!!



We are in the midst of an orchestrated debt based money financial collapse and it will be nasty - almost assuredly much worse that the Great Depression. This is a military grade Sun Tzu Art of War ("all war is all about deception") operation that I labeled Debt Money Tyranny.

The poor and middle class are going to be eviscerated, all by design.

But so are most of the 1%.

The 0.0001 don't want ghetto homes, they want the wealthy people's assets more than anything.

Watch The Queen of Versailles on Netflix.

Her husband was the #1 privately owned time share operator in the world and he was worth $1 billion in 2008.

The financial oligarchs did everything they could to steal everything he owned... and they aren't done yet.

Debt Money Tyranny is explained in the following PDF, along with some preparations and easy ways to resist this financial wickedness:

Debt Money Tyranny

http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/4768883/debtmoneytyranny-6-1-pdf-60k?tr=77
LostinSC
Posted: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 10:21:50 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/30/2012
Posts: 400
Neurons: 1,328
Paul,

Welcome aboard TFD.

I agree with your observation.

The obvious answer to your (and my) dilemma is congressional "term limits".

Not gonna happen, sorry to say. That would take an act of congress and congress will not act.

The true patriot must become actively involved in political discourse based on their personal belief. One cannot (ever) trust ".. let everyone else do it for me."

That philosophy will always lead to despotism.





Boogeyman
Posted: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 11:59:11 PM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 3/13/2013
Posts: 33
Neurons: 157
Term limits would be a good start. A better one would be a law that forbids anyone who has held public office from doing any lobbying for 5 years or more. That's where a good chunk of a politician's wealth is earned these days.

But I'm becoming more convinced as time goes on that universal voting rights is at the root of most of our governmental problems. Stupid and greedy people end up voting in stupid and greedy politicians. I know that's a radical notion, but consider the old saying "No democracy long survives after the people discover they can vote themselves money", or something to that effect. And I say that as someone on disability.

We have those who pay no taxes, who often produce little or nothing, who have no interest in current affairs or fail to learn even the basics of the policy or law being currently debated, indeed often they can't even name one of their own senators, governor or the vice-president - in other words the proverbial low information voter - these people have a say in how the government runs equal to those who actually educate themselves on government and history. People who produce nothing voting to give themselves an ever growing amount from people who do. People who have little if any idea what the Constitution says or awareness of history voting for or against laws based on shallow, spur or the moment feelings.

There was a reason beyond simple racism or sexism the right to vote was restricted to property owning males until this century. It was because they wanted to make certain those who had a say in the direction of the country had skin in the game, had a stake in their home's continued prosperity and safety and had demonstrated a minimum level of competence. I would never suggest we restrict the vote now based on race or gender. But maybe it would be a good idea to allow only those who actually pay taxes to have the franchise. Perhaps being honorably discharged from the military would be another way to earn the vote.

At the very least I would make potential voters - and those seeking office! - pass the same test we make people from other parts of the world take before they can become full citizens. If you have to know the basics about our history and how the government and law is supposed to work before you can become an American, you should have to do the same before you can vote in an American election. I'd also throw in a need to understand the basics of the Laugher Curve too.
pljames
Posted: Thursday, March 20, 2014 3:13:31 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/12/2013
Posts: 1,414
Neurons: 15,207
Location: Marble, North Carolina, United States
Excellent post and the truth as well. Paul
TL Hobs
Posted: Thursday, March 20, 2014 2:29:35 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/16/2009
Posts: 1,399
Neurons: 6,101
Location: Kenai, Alaska, United States

Ultimately, the voters are the product of our educational system.

Go, team, go!
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Saturday, March 22, 2014 1:46:12 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 33,914
Neurons: 219,510
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Very good post, Paul.
You have made some very good points there.

I am not anti-government (a total anarchy - no government, everyone do as they please- would only work if every person were absolutely ethical and moral).
However, I do agree that the two-party system (even if there are a few 'independents') will not work. Most problems are not solved by a totally right-wing or totally left-wing solution. Nor by a strictly conservative or absolutely liberal solution (by the American dichotomic definitions of "Conservative" and "Liberal").

I like Boogeyman's ideas, but the criteria would have to be very well worked out. There would probably have to be several alternative ways of becoming or remaining enfranchised.
0. Legal, passport-eligible citizen of the state, of any ethnicity and gender.
AND
00. has proven to be educated in the operation of government, from a public viewpoint.
AND one of the following:
1. Tax paying person.
2. Full time home-maker, spouse of a taxpayer.
3. Proven to be working full-time, productively, for a charity. Not earning enough to pay taxes, but not living on welfare.
4. Physically unable to work, due to injury, illness etc (this would actually be a fairly small percentage of the population).
5. Over the age of retirement, having been in one of the first four categories prior to retirement.

Absolute disqualifications would be:
Not a legal citizen.
Criminal.
Anyone recently coming out of jail - until they start to produce as a normal citizen.
Those declared to have mental problems which keep them from working normally.
Those declared to be mentally incompetent.

Not producing - living on welfare (there would have to be some judgement on this one, someone who has just lost his job wouldn't immediately lose his franchise).
Panos
Posted: Saturday, March 22, 2014 4:05:05 AM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 2/12/2014
Posts: 15
Neurons: 5,250
Location: Chaniá, Crete, Greece
Drag0nspeaker wrote:

I am not anti-government (a total anarchy - no government, everyone do as they please- would only work if every person were absolutely ethical and moral).


It's no wonder why such a big majority of people have this chaotic perception about anarchy since most of them either allow the media educate them(sic!)
or define something by it's literal translation.

There are many types of anarchism.
I would suggest to read some Bakunin-collectivist anarchism.

Even if it's not realistic enough to be applied in the present,
it surely broadens your insight and may give you something to fight for.

I think..
Friendly greetings
Alice M Toaster
Posted: Saturday, March 22, 2014 8:10:17 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/4/2013
Posts: 33,124
Neurons: 1,396,883
Location: Palm Springs, California, United States
TL Hobs wrote:

Ultimately, the voters are the product of our educational system.

Go, team, go!


You've hit the nail on the head. We can talk all day about what it would take to obtain a functional government, but without a focus on functional education, no one cares enough to become politically informed.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Saturday, March 22, 2014 11:15:20 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 33,914
Neurons: 219,510
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Panos wrote:
It's no wonder why such a big majority of people have this chaotic perception about anarchy since most of them either allow the media educate them(sic!) or define something by it's literal translation.


I'm not educated by the media (I know anything I see in the media is either a lie or a mistake) Whistle Whistle

I simply use the correct definitions of words according to the dictionary.

anarchy n
Absence of any form of political authority.
American Heritage
1. general lawlessness and disorder, esp when thought to result from an absence or failure of government
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the absence or lack of government
Collins
1. a state of society without government or law. Random House

I equated "total anarchy" with "no government".
That is totally true according to the definitions.

If you mean something different, call it something different, don't try to redefine words.
Panos
Posted: Sunday, March 23, 2014 4:08:22 PM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 2/12/2014
Posts: 15
Neurons: 5,250
Location: Chaniá, Crete, Greece
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
Panos wrote:
It's no wonder why such a big majority of people have this chaotic perception about anarchy since most of them either allow the media educate them(sic!) or define something by it's literal translation.


I'm not educated by the media (I know anything I see in the media is either a lie or a mistake) Whistle Whistle

I simply use the correct definitions of words according to the dictionary.

anarchy n
Absence of any form of political authority.
American Heritage
1. general lawlessness and disorder, esp when thought to result from an absence or failure of government
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the absence or lack of government
Collins
1. a state of society without government or law. Random House

I equated "total anarchy" with "no government".
That is totally true according to the definitions.

If you mean something different, call it something different, don't try to redefine words.


I didn't disagree that anarchy means no government. I just mentioned that anarchy isn't something that requires an ethical and moral society but something that describes an ethical and moral society.

It would be stupid to say we'll wait until all people are moral and ethical and then we'll apply anarchy.

You can disagree that an ideal society will be one with no government(anarchy),
but I don't think it's wise to use the literal definition when describing the movement.

That's because, as a movement, anarchy is much more than a word meaning chaos.
It's a political term and I could legitimately define it as the opposite of chaos, as people living in harmony.

As I pointed out, for me it's something like an ideal future, one should aim to move towards it and not to apply it right now.
The only thing you can apply instantly is dictatorship.

Finally, I don't imply it's the correct way of thinking, just a personal belief and sometimes way of life.
I'm not an anarchist the way it is defined.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Sunday, March 23, 2014 8:27:20 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 33,914
Neurons: 219,510
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Now, as an ideal, that is something I can agree with.

In the ideal state, with everyone living in harmony, no government would be necessary.

The trouble is that the definition of "anarchy" is "general chaos and disorder and lawlessness", so if you name your movement "Anarchy", the idea people will have is that you want chaos and disorder (the traditional stereotype 'anarchist' with the black cloak and bomb).

That's why I say it is a little mistaken, to use an existing word (which has bad connotations and implications) when the English language gives ample opportunity to coin new words.
Trivium_Discipulus
Posted: Monday, March 24, 2014 2:00:59 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/20/2013
Posts: 819
Neurons: 350,106
Location: San Diego, California, United States
LostinSC wrote:
Paul,

Welcome aboard TFD.

I agree with your observation.

The obvious answer to your (and my) dilemma is congressional "term limits".

Not gonna happen, sorry to say. That would take an act of congress and congress will not act.

The true patriot must become actively involved in political discourse based on their personal belief. One cannot (ever) trust ".. let everyone else do it for me."

That philosophy will always lead to despotism.



If term limits were the answer, CA wouldn't be such a mess.

Term limits simply means the Money Power has to find, vet and pay off more operatives to do their bidding.

William Jennings Bryan said it best well over 100 years ago in his "Cross of Gold" speech...

"We say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin money and issue money is a function of government. We believe it. We believe it is a part of sovereignty and can no more with safety be delegated to private individuals than can the power to make penal statutes or levy laws for taxation."

"If they ask us why we did not embody all these things in our platform which we believe, we reply to them that when we have restored the money of the Constitution, all other necessary reforms will be possible, and that until that is done there is no reform that can be accomplished."

Anyone who thinks a private oligarchy can covertly (do you know WHO these people are?) lend $100s of trillions into existence with the betterment of humanity as their guide, and not their own self interest at the expense of humanity, then I present to you people have learned exactly nothing from 1,000s of years of human history.

Take the Money Power back or we are doomed to the fate that the Money Power has in store for us... impoverishment under the boot of authoritarianism.

Or, perhaps, Zbigniew Brezezinksi's version of our future will appeal to some...

“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities. ”
― Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era

Or, perhaps, Carroll Quigley's explanation of the future will resonate better with others...

"In addition to these pragmatic goals, the powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, Council on Foreign Relations historian

Still others might want to look at what these people consider a "success" in order to hypothesize that this "success" will be duplicated in America...

“Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded, not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering a high morale and cummunity propose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.”
~David Rockefeller, New York Times, 1973.

Let's hope David Rockefeller doesn't have to murder 60-80 million people America like Mao had to do in order to achieve of the "success" of slave owning oligarchs and their impoverished and enslaved masses.

This is big boy and girl time in human history... the children need to pull the covers over their eyes and hope the big boys and girls can gather enough resistance to stop these lying, thieving, murdering thugs from fully implementing their agenda across the world.
Trivium_Discipulus
Posted: Monday, March 24, 2014 2:09:09 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/20/2013
Posts: 819
Neurons: 350,106
Location: San Diego, California, United States
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
Now, as an ideal, that is something I can agree with.

In the ideal state, with everyone living in harmony, no government would be necessary.

The trouble is that the definition of "anarchy" is "general chaos and disorder and lawlessness", so if you name your movement "Anarchy", the idea people will have is that you want chaos and disorder (the traditional stereotype 'anarchist' with the black cloak and bomb).

That's why I say it is a little mistaken, to use an existing word (which has bad connotations and implications) when the English language gives ample opportunity to coin new words.


That's actually the 2nd definition. The 1st definition here on TheFreeDictionary.com is...

"1. Absence of any form of political authority."

Anarchists (freedom for all, unshackle everyone's chains from the criminal element that always mass lies, mass steals and mass murders) are philosophically 100% right, IMHO.

The problem arises in the implementation. Some authoritarian thug will organize an army, beat the snot out of individual anarchists and turn them into slaves.

Hence, the US Constitution based Constitutional Republic form of government to maximize freedoms while providing minimal government oversight for the protection of those "anarchist-like" freedoms.

Alas, humanity has two flaws... 1. the delusion that what they find convenient is actually the truth and 2. the idea they can wield government to take advantage of others... or at make themselves feel righteous by forcing others to contribute to what they imagine are good causes (real and, more often than not, imagined).

Anyone not screaming about the gap between the foundational documents of America and the reality in which we live in today is a victim of their own double think.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.