RE: World-Altering SHOCKER: Why Government Can't EVER "Shut Down"
I agree we need to take back our responsibility. The problem though is also government. Theres an interesting new trend I have experienced and its from a government employer. I found they were trying to change my contract without consultation, they just said 'you have to do this now' I explained I did not and quoted my employment contract which specifically stated my terms were the opposite of what they said. What they were asking was a breach of contract.
I fought that for 4 months whilst all they did was answer my questions with totally different answers or ignored the questions completely. I had to go up and up the chain eventually to the managing director where he just told those lower down to get it sorted. They conceded in the end by changing only what they could change, with promise of a change of contract if they decided to go further. Later I found they have put the same demands on others in the same job with threat of loss of payment if they do not comply, Now they know this is a breach of contract, we have just been through all that but because we work out 'on the road' they think others wont hear of this. And this is a Government run building (not anything to do with enforcement)! It may come to class action, but they are clever, only threatening some doing the job until they have the majority complying.
So, approaching the 'boss' (government) is fine when they want to listen.
You can stand up for your rights, but they can make it very hard to get heard, and whilst you can resign from a job (they win anyway- hire new people with a new contract), it seems you cant resign from having the government control.
When it does not suit them they just ignore you (see marching in the street).
If you win they may say they can change it later anyway and start to threaten others until they can point at enough to say ' well they don't have a problem with the changes' .
Okay I have to say Yes on that. Ignoring people on streets is also common government behaviour in Europe. It's kind of both. In Germany you often here "they don't care about us". But people keep voting the same parties again and again. And we have lots of parties. Okay... when you think of 80 million people... there are about something over 30 parties in the votings for government. To me the main responsibility here in Germany is up to the people. They can vote different, but they don't. Because before voting different, you have got to inform yourself and read what the parties want. Most of the people are satisfied with TV Duells between 3 or 4 parties. Now they did vote a LITTLE different than before and it's a catastrophe in the media. In USA you have Republicans and Democrats. Was anything else in the government lately? How many parties do you have? I'm really interested in that and I know so little. So my questions are honest. I have never had the chance to speek to people from USA about that. In my opinion every revolution has to be made by the people. And it begins with thinking about who you want to vote. When you say government is the problem... why the heck do people vote these idiots, when they have another choice? Or don't they in USA?
Ha Ha, Funny isnt it? I'm not in the states either, but we all have the same problems! I cant tell you about their politics either.
You are still right, if everyone had a solid foundation of responsibility to themselves and others... a sort of 'do unto others' or ' always treat others better that you would expect to be treated' (as well as a 'dont suffer fools')we would have a much better world with the only government being ourselves.
The whole idea of 'democracy' as being able to chose between a handful of idiots who are going to ruin our lives for the next few years is laughable.
Absolutely. But with knowing this... it's changing peoples minds first. Not governments. When you change governments first... people will take this as violence. So I am serious about it. But yeah it's also kind of laughing about the whole thing. But are we willing to change peoples minds? That's our task!^^
Ahhhh, very true. Problem is Governments arn't going to let us just change our minds, which leads us back around. I guess its a chicken and egg thing.
You know, digressing slightly, I would actually like new land to be found or created (seasteading?) in the ocean because there is a lot of it to tame. Then, perhaps, we could have the very thing you propose and we all want, a land of pioneers again that have no rulers, but hopefully enough respect for each other to start afresh and be the envy of the world.
"But with knowing this... it's changing peoples minds first. Not governments. When you change governments first... people will take this as violence. So I am serious about it. But yeah it's also kind of laughing about the whole thing. But are we willing to change peoples minds? That's our task!^^"
This in fact, is the very task many of us have taken on. Each in our own measure according to our voice/position. I have been watching Brian (@highimpactflix) for a long time now. I have never seen him advocate the "over throwing" of any government institution. But rather what he, myself, @leftamessage, and many others are trying to do is break the "Shackles of the Mind" that the Government indoctrination has placed upon us from childhood.
As @highimpactflix aptly points out Government when broken down.
Govern= "To control the actions or behavior of"
ment= derived from the Latin Mentis: "mind, reason, intellect, judgment"
This is, and always has been their primary asset. Aside from this, what tools does the government have?
Answer: The "legal(albeit unethical) use of force."
Once the mind is freed from the shackles. The government shows their true colors. "They are a one trick pony."
Without the illusion planted within minds of the masses, force alone could not bridle a nation. This is why we strive to free the minds of the people. Not to rise up against but rather to deny their authority and and live as free men and women.
I would never advocate the use of violence against another (including the Government) unless it was in self defense, defense of property, or the defense of another. I just wish that the Government would play by the same rules.
The thing is, I often see the word Anarchy being used here on Steemit. And I am very sceptic about that idea. I can't imagine that things would work without any kind of government. Things need to be organized in some way. Streets have to be repaired etc... let's say people will organize that by themselves then... and we would have some sort of "Organization Commettee": wouldn't that just be another government? Or imagine one state declares: "We have Anarchy now. No government. No military. No police." What would other states do? This would be an invitation of taking over this rudderless ship. I am absolutely your opinion in all the other points. But I don't think that having absolutely no kind of government is a good idea yet. We maybe just need better ones. So I can take it as an far away goal that probably will never be achieved by mankind. I watched what happened to @adamkokesh lately. Using this term of Anarchy is dangerous. It means "no government". So what will a government do, when someone who wants Anarchy declares he wants to be president of the government? We just saw that. Unfortunately what happened is absolutely logical. They see him as a state enemy. How couldn't they?
I for one have never used the term anarchist in describing myself. That being said they have some VERY VALID POINTS. I would probably fall more along the lines of a Libertarian.
I personally have no issue with a "government" assuming that it is a voluntary system.
If one wants to opt into the system and pay taxes great, here is X benefit and the right to vote.
If one opts out great they do not get X benefit, they will have no vote, but they can not be harassed, penalized, or punished in any way for opting out.
Government can in no way infringe on an individuals personal liberty.
I have no issue with "Police" assuming that they do not infringe on personal liberty. After all a crime must have a victim. If one has not initiated violence against another or their property, or by means of fraud acquired another's property the police can do nothing to said person.
I have no issue with a standing Military. As long as it is used solely for the defense of the homeland. No nation building, no world policing.
I think this would result in a productive and equitable society.
Okay I guess we have very similar opinions.^^
I think so as well. I hope that I did not come off as harsh. I try to be as gentle as a dove with my words but, at times I can get excited/passionate about things. Thank you very much for the dialog, unfortunately I come across few people who are willing to hash out these sort of things.
LOL, you edited the post as I was composing my reply. (don't worry I edit far to often) I would like to respond to the @adamkokesh thing. In fact this is a great example of the abuse of power that the government has became drunk on.
What did he do?
He possessed a plant...
He is a member of a religious organization that even the US government has agreed has the right possess said plant.
They don't even abide by their own fabricated unethical rules.
This is the systemic problem.
We all are familiar with the phrase "Power Corrupts, Absolute power Corrupts Absolutely"
Well it's here folks... an Absolutely Corrupt ruling class.
This is why I can't call it democracy. I absolutely like the idea of democracy. But we have no good one on our planet. Democracy should not be about voting a ruler. It should be about everybody rules. And this plant thing... I also absolutely don't believe that this is the real reason for imprisonating him. That's ridiculous. They are ruining him before he could do something as a candidate. "Look at him, he was catched an hour after that with a plant and imprisoned. You can't vote for him, he is a criminal." I think that is their intention.
You are correct, They lie, They cheat, and they steal. They refuse to play by their own rules and this is why so many people favor seemingly "extreme" ideas as Anarchy. This is the Fruit of their own labors. It's so sad. But I digress.
The starting simple idea for anarchy is to make only one small change to our current system. Let people be free to change their citizenship and be subject to a different jurisdiction.
Most people want legal safety and security so there is no reason to believe that they would choose governments that do not deliver on these topics.
The legitimacy of the government is always given by its citizens, so if many people choose to live under a certain jurisdiction there is no reason why there should be any more chaos than now
I understand. (By the way, many thanks you are so interested in discussing about that). But I am not so sure about that. There are also many people willing to violently overtake power. I understand anarchy as there will also be no more military or police. Good chance for bad people coming up to rule (even worse than now). And I think that's a fear of many people. I am a fan of democracy. But my opinion is that democracy should not be about voting a ruler. As it is now. It should be about everybody rules. In my eyes there is no real democracy existing on our planet. I think it would be easier to convince people of a better way of democracy than of anarchy. And you would not have the problem @adamkokesh is now dealing with. Of corse they see him as a state enemy. He wants anarchy, so he wants no government. They can't see it in a different way. Being for a better kind of democracy... they can't make you a state enemy.
I was on the idea to improve democracy for a couple of years. The best I came up with was to randomly choose order of 100 people from the population to make each decision. That would be somewhat similar to a jury based legal system. It could in theory avoid corruption to some extend and represent the population.
But whenever you have democracy you have the dilema that you force a certain idea on the people. If everyone else decides that I should go to war, does that give them a moral right to decide for me?