addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

San Diego 9/11 Truth Message Board › Solutions - by Larken Rose

Solutions - by Larken Rose

A former member
Post #: 118
Peter H.
user 3471076
San Diego, CA
Post #: 269
That's an interesting piece, and I agree with the idea of freeing peoples minds from "sanction of the victim", as well as the power of passive non-compliance, but what I don't understand is what Larken offers as an alternative manner of organizing society. Absent some governing body, who would coordinate the traffic lights? Who would protect others and decide who goes to prison? How can a society function with nobody in charge? There has to be some organizational power, and I can't see any way around that.

For me this was the critical passage:

As long as their efforts are focused upon trying to reform "government" --in other words, trying to somehow create a NICE master, who will CHOOSE not to oppress his slaves--their efforts will be in vain. As long as they believe in irrational superstitions like "servant governments, " "the consent of the governed," "elected representative government," and so on, they will remain enslaved. As long as they accept the notion that someone has to be "in charge," that someone has to be making and enforcing "the rules" for everyone, that someone has to be given huge, super-human rights and powers to keep us all in line--as long as the people believe that, they will be extorted, assaulted, controlled, enslaved and oppressed.

I actually do believe in all those things, like a servant government and elected representatives, all except for the part in blue. As I said above, there's no way around having some governing body, unless we want total chaos, however wasn't the whole idea of our forefathers to put as many checks and balances as possible to keep those powers from getting huge and super human? In theory, it's not about hoping our authorities will "choose" not to oppress us, it's about establishing a system that will prevent them from doing so. The founding fathers had no delusions about the nature of man and power, and just because our misinformed citizenry allowed this democracy to break down doesn't mean it couldn't have worked under different conditions. For example if we were to provide a more sophisticated system for ensuring the integrity of the public's information, maybe it could work.

And ultimately, for an author who derides everyone else's lack of viable solution, I'm still left hanging about what this individual is proposing for an alternative organizational structure. And if you say no structure at all then i'm sorry but that makes no sense to me. Are we all gonna run around like monkeys?

:P
A former member
Post #: 273
P-

why do we need a state in order to not behave like monkeys? if the government went away tonight, would you wake up tomorrow and lose your self-control and start tossing poop at people?

i'm just not seeing how government, who are merely a bunch of criminals themselves, are creating any kind of peaceful and prosperous society. whenever you take government out of the equation, things improve. without the criminals "running" the country, I contend that we would live in a far better society, not a chaotic one.

cheers,
K
A former member
Post #: 206
An interesting talk about this very subject with Howard Zinn the author of
'A People's History of the United States', which everyone should read! It inspires hope that ordinary, regular people can change the country and the world.

Howard Zinn: Anarchism Shouldn't Be a Dirty Word

"No doubt that anarchist ideas are frightening to those in power. People in power can tolerate liberal ideas. They can tolerate ideas that call for reforms, but they cannot tolerate the idea that there will be no state, no central authority. So it is very important for them to ridicule the idea of anarchism to create this impression of anarchism as violent and chaotic"

Interview By Ziga Vodovnik

http://www.informatio...­

Jaan
Laura
user 3294782
San Diego, CA
Post #: 331
My bottom line question about anarchism (or even the free market) is always this...

Is this a better why to protect our air, our water, our soil?

Grant it our current system is is not wildly successful at protecting the environment, but it seems like anarchism would create a truly "dirty" world. there's a lot of greed myopic behavior out there.
Peter H.
user 3471076
San Diego, CA
Post #: 270
I don't understand this concept of anarchy. Mind you, I haven't heard the Zinn interview yet, but to me the idea of removing governance from our lives doesn't make any sense, and it's not about throwing feces, so much as the basic needs required for organizing people in a society. For example, without some agreed upon authority, how would the traffic lights be coordinated? And what would stop people from going 100mph past an elementary school? And then who would decide what happened if that person struck and killed a child? Would they just drive off?

Help me out here, because even what we have now seems better than that. How is governance not a necessary facet of society? Sure our central authority has currently been hijacked by criminals, but aren't we here to restore the integrity of our authority, as opposed to removing all authority whatsoever?

Maybe i'm missing something because I feel like i'm making an obvious point here...
A former member
Post #: 274
I don't understand this concept of anarchy. Mind you, I haven't heard the Zinn interview yet, but to me the idea of removing governance from our lives doesn't make any sense, and it's not about throwing feces, so much as the basic needs required for organizing people in a society. For example, without some agreed upon authority, how would the traffic lights be coordinated? And what would stop people from going 100mph past an elementary school? And then who would decide what happened if that person struck and killed a child? Would they just drive off?

Help me out here, because even what we have now seems better than that. How is governance not a necessary facet of society? Sure our central authority has currently been hijacked by criminals, but aren't we here to restore the integrity of our authority, as opposed to removing all authority whatsoever?

Maybe i'm missing something because I feel like i'm making an obvious point here...

Peter (and Laura),

Anarchy or voluntaryism exists in our everyday lives. Human interactions are a perfect example of this. Government cannot control how people behave.

"Government" is simply a group of individuals who hold power over us through the threat of violence.

Would it be a good idea to have better masters, or, to be truly free?
In other words, if we are slaves now, shouldn't we be questioning the very idea of government, rather than merely trying to tweak it here or there and get the "right" people in office? How can we prevent these people from becoming corrupt, if we keep this corrupt institution of government we have alive? Clearly, the Constitution has failed us in this regard. The politicians do not work for the people, they rule over us and are themselves run by the corporations and special interests. One of the few things Bush was right about was when he said that the constitution is simply a "goddamn piece of paper".

If you can agree that government is nothing but services provided by the barrel of a gun, can you agree that there might be a better way to do things? As it stands right now, the government's only way of generating money is to steal it from us with the threat of violence (or worse, steal it from us by simply printing more dollars and devaluing our money). Is that how rational individuals should behave?

I think the discussion first needs to be, is the government good, or is it evil? If we can establish that is is evil, then we can get into how the private sector can handle everything the government currently provides, on a voluntary basis, and do a far better job.

An interesting debate on this topic can be found on this article: http://www.lewrockwel...­

Cheers,
Kevin
Peter H.
user 3471076
San Diego, CA
Post #: 272

"Government" is simply a group of individuals who hold power over us through the threat of violence.

If you can agree that government is nothing but services provided by the barrel of a gun...

As I explained above, I disagree with this characterization of all governments. In theory, a government is simply an institution established by the people to enforce their will. It doesn't have to be an US vs. THEM type of relationship. Sure, ours has become corrupt and does hold power over us through the threat of violence, but it didn't begin that way, and it doesn't have to be that way.

Would it be a good idea to have better masters, or, to be truly free?

I would argue this is an ill-posed question because if our representative government was healthy, it would be our servant, not our master. Also, what do you mean by truly free? What do we mean when we say freedom? Surely we don't mean the freedom to steal other peoples property? Or the freedom to go 100mph past a school? People may romanticize the idea of total freedom, but as I keep saying, a society with no rules would be total chaos and ultimately leave many of us in a much less "free" state. For example, if someone takes the liberty of stealing your car, now you're unable to travel around, and that's not very free.

I think the discussion first needs to be, is the government good, or is it evil? If we can establish that is is evil, then we can get into how the private sector can handle everything the government currently provides, on a voluntary basis, and do a far better job.

We have not established that all government is evil, which is why I submit that these are better discussion questions:
1. How can the integrity and health of a representative government be better protected? (my guess: better oversight of the media and economy)
2. How can we get there from where we are now? (my guess: utilizing new technology)

Although i'm curious Kevin. How exactly are you proposing the private sector replace the type of organizational needs I've mentioned? And what exactly do you mean by a "voluntary basis."? If we all agree to adhere to some private organization for our rules, aren't they now the same as a governement?

Basically, I'm still stuck on the question: How is government not a necessary facet of society?

:P
A former member
Post #: 275
In theory, a government is simply an institution established by the people to enforce their will. It doesn't have to be an US vs. THEM type of relationship. Sure, ours has become corrupt and does hold power over us through the threat of violence, but it didn't begin that way, and it doesn't have to be that way.


True, in theory. But can you name one instance in which a government does not hold power over people through the threat of violence? Since government uses violence to enforce its laws, how would this be possible?

Would it be a good idea to have better masters, or, to be truly free?


I would argue this is an ill-posed question because if our representative government was healthy, it would be our servant, not our master. Also, what do you mean by truly free? What do we mean when we say freedom? Surely we don't mean the freedom to steal other peoples property? Or the freedom to go 100mph past a school? People may romanticize the idea of total freedom, but as I keep saying, a society with no rules would be total chaos and ultimately leave many of us in a much less "free" state. For example, if someone takes the liberty of stealing your car, now you're unable to travel around, and that's not very free.

You mentioned freedom and stealing other people's property. Government steals our property via force by collecting taxes. In fact that is far worse of a problem for everyone than everyday citizens stealing property from them!

Let me pose a question to you. Let's say I withheld my income taxes being that I am against the war and can't morally keep sending in money to support it. Would you use violence against me to make me pay up?

We have not established that all government is evil

Is using violence against people not evil?

1. How can the integrity and health of a representative government be better protected? (my guess: better oversight of the media and economy)
2. How can we get there from where we are now? (my guess: utilizing new technology)

1. I don't see any integrity in government. In fact it is disingenuous by nature. They allegedly get elected to protect us, but all that gets protected are corporate interests and government themselves. So I don't think there's any hope in saving or turning around the government.
2. You're right about technology, it will help us expose the insanity of government everywhere. In fact I think that's where we should be devoting our time and resources.

Although i'm curious Kevin. How exactly are you proposing the private sector replace the type of organizational needs I've mentioned? And what exactly do you mean by a "voluntary basis."? If we all agree to adhere to some private organization for our rules, aren't they now the same as a governement?

Basically, I'm still stuck on the question: How is government not a necessary facet of society?

You're assuming these "rules" are responsible for a peaceful, prosperous society, and that we need some kind of group or organization to tell us what to do. Quite the opposite is true. Take away the enforcement, the regulation, the taxes, etc.- and you would be left with a booming economy and far more trust among people than if we have mommy & daddy government guiding our lives at every twist and turn.

Again, the question becomes: would you use force against me to accomplish what you would consider a necessary facet of society if I was not complying?

cheers,
K
Laura
user 3294782
San Diego, CA
Post #: 333
The question that Peter (and I) asked still has not been addressed.

That question is basically, how does an anarchist society provide public safety, basic civil infrastructure (sewer, roads, water), dispute resolution, etc... Do we just hand it all over to (other but less accountable) self appointed mobs and corrupt titans of industry (and probably at the barrel of a gun)?

And, while it is true that our current government is (and has been for quite some time) corrupt, that didn't happen because the system of government established in our Constitution is evil, but because you and I and millions of other Americans abdicated our responsibility in the system. We neglected to recognize that WE are the government and that those "in power" are simply REPRESENTING us. Through our own apathy and ignorance, we gave away our power and allowed ourselves to be enslaved. When we blame our enslavement on the government, aren't we really blaming ourselves?

Government is inherently neither good nor evil, but what we ask it or allow it to generate can certainly be good or evil. I think Anarchy has the potential to create as much corruption and evil as we have now. I think the solution to our predicament is simply responsibility.

So, basic question was ...public safety, sewer, roads, water, dispute resolution, etc... How does anarchy provide these things?
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy