I'm gonna protest.. the world!

It seems now that people are protesting the American Government, and their own government, the choices made, and the choices just generally made about the current wars. There's so much wrong in the world right now, and as a Christian- heck- as any religion it's hard to cope. I had a debate today about how God would let a War and a Tsunami happen so soon, and kill so many people. There were some major protests in my class as to this discussion. The teacher played "the devil's advocate" as a person who slammed Christianity, and it was pretty heated. It seems nowdays people are protesting their Religion as well as others too. Then there are people protesting all the money going into the tsunami victim's government, when twice that many people die every month in africa. Now we have protests to abortion, the presedent, and our government as well as the war in general. So here's my question. If it was your world-- your supernation, what would you do to change it? I dont really know what I'd do- so many things TO do. Where would you start? Ever since sin enterd the world its been one screwed up place...

A very difficult proposition, if one takes it seriously.

It's far easier to destroy an old system than to create a new one.

If it were my nation, I'd have to ensure it stays a small nation since societal problems occur when societies become too large. I would have every single person treated absolutely the same, good or ill, no matter what, so long as they remain productive in some form or another. The only discriminating factor that should be used in differentiating people is the work they do. Everybody does different amounts of work, at different paces and different kinds, but so long as they work, they shouldn't be treated any different than anybody else. If one person gains more money, they will not be viewed as any better than anybody else. Should they become disabled, then they'll need to find another kind of work. No matter the disability, so long as one can speak or make basic movements, something can be accomplished.

so that's my nation. It'd be small, and it'd be impossible. It's unethical to enforce population controls. and it's unethical to force somebody to do something they don't wanna do. Like taxes. very unethical practice. :D

If I would tell you what I'd do...

I would try making a international fundraiser to help make schools throughtout the world, better equipment, supplies etc. to these schools. So in particular regions like the Middle East, and North Africa people get proper and best education instead of going to terrorist training camps. Like what John Kennedy once said:Let us think of education as the means of developing our greatest abilities, because in each of us there is a private hope and dream which, fulfilled, can be translated into benefit for everyone and greater strength for our nation.


I would tighten up are borders, put machine robots with heat sensors shooting any moving thing that comes close to are borders. And there will be a 1 mile radius with a warning. (haha, so fantasytistic jk)

Have cameras out in public, like at stop lights. etc. If people are so concerned about their rights, they shouldn't feel any bad because for one they shouldnt feel guilty for having surveillance cameras out in public because : you arnt committing a crime, why feel bad? Then their is a thing about rights, rights, rights, yeah so why not do this to limit the rights of people commiting crimes?

yup. about eight million holes in that theory. What if someone has an on the job accident and is now a vegetable? pull the plug cuz he can't work anymore?

What if someone decides they don't want to work anymore, or gets pregnant ten times in a row and doesn't work for years? that's gonna piss off a few construction workers pulling 12 hours a day. And assuming that you assign jobs, how do you keep people that get assigned as minimum wage garbage men from throwing a tizzy at the CEO's? then they'd revolt and you'd have trash all over your sparkly streets of gold.
(don't think i'm being harsh, i actually created that same thing for a school project a few years ago and got a new arse-hole torn in me for my efforts.)

Now, my idea would be to take the Ayn Rand Philosophy. Complete, Unfettered Capitalism. With a totally unrestricted capitalist society the best of the best, the crem de la creme rise to the top, therefore you have natural managers being immediately brought up to high positions. With the proper managers in place, they would not perform the "job handouts to friends" system and so you would have no dead wieght in the company to worry about. The people who did not succeed and were poor or homeless have absolutely no one to blame except themselves for not being talented enough to succeed, and they wold end up taking govt. jobs as a service to the people a non competitive nature.

In it's very essence, read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. It makes an almost insane amount of sense. and phil? Insanely good topic. thank you for having a brain. *give Phil some chocolate*

Lots of people die all the time. I try not to die. Religion and government has nothing to do with it.

If terrorists want to kill us, then we retaliate, assuming it is our objective in life to continue to live. Some disease, Tsunamies, earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanic explosions, snipers, gangs, hate groups - Those are all out of our control.

AIDS killed more people in the past month than that tsunami and it has been doing so for quite a while now. That's really the only thing that I can think of that could possibly be under control if we made an effort to keep it under our control.

The big solution is education and the elimination of dire needs.
But you know that, I know that, we all know that, and we all know that nobody is going to let this happen. We're too selfish and too greedy to actually solve problems.

I'd establish a massive worldwide education system to teach people to make food so hunger is no longer a problem.

Once people can eat, then there's no more worries. The "will work for food" thing is destroyed. All criminals can then be defined as such. I'd let capitalism dominate, let the weak die (Help them die if they'd like), and make the human race flourish.
Oh yeah, life would suck for inferior people, but I don't care about inferior people.

Wouldn't you martyr yourself for the betterment of humanity? If not, then why are you here? Wouldn't you agree that a parasite is best dead than alive?
When a world is as big as ours, and since we have learned from thousands of years of practice that humans have not evolved well enough to live peacefully in a society together, there can be no "self."
If you are broken, if you are weak, if you are dumb, if you simply aren't as "good" as anybody else, then your life is forfeited to the system. That's all there is to it.

ya george bush is the hero of america he is killing the terrerists! if u dont like george bush u can move or die with the terrerists to becuz ur prolly helping them! i hate when ppl say he is bad how is he bad he is fighting osama who blew up the trade centers that is good if u ask me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil

There's so much wrong in the world right now

---

*Agreeds*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil

Ever since sin enterd the world its been one screwed up place...

---

The world have always been a pretty screwed up place. It's just getting more or less screwed up at times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil

If it was your world-- your supernation, what would you do to change it?

---

It's far from a simple task and I have no idea what I would be able to do.

*Agreeds with Martyr*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SePhYsBlAdE666

ya george bush is the hero of america he is killing the terrerists! if u dont like george bush u can move or die with the terrerists to becuz ur prolly helping them! i hate when ppl say he is bad how is he bad he is fighting osama who blew up the trade centers that is good if u ask me

---

*moves or dies with the "terrerists"*

Quote:

---

The world have always been a pretty screwed up place. It's just getting more or less screwed up at times.

---

I just want to throw in there that Phil was talking of the Garden of Eden that Adam and Eve lived in. Christian belief says the wrold was perfect before they ate the forbidden fuit. It was after that when sin entered the world that the world became a screwed up place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theundeadhero

I just want to throw in there that Phil was talking of the Garden of Eden that Adam and Eve lived in. Christian belief says the wrold was perfect before they ate the forbidden fuit. It was after that when sin entered the world that the world became a screwed up place.

---

Ok, sorry. Didn't get that. :p Oh, well... I have no idea exactly how the world have been before... it may as well have been perfect... but ever since civilization entered the world it's been a screwed up place. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theundeadhero

I just want to throw in there that Phil was talking of the Garden of Eden that Adam and Eve lived in. Christian belief says the wrold was perfect before they ate the forbidden fuit. It was after that when sin entered the world that the world became a screwed up place.

---

Right, when people had to start working for food.
Eden will return when we have all the food we want.

Eden will never return. And judging by how people are, never existed to begin with. All the world's problems can be reduced to one factor: greed. The sad part is that greed is an innate sense in human nature. It is not taught. Even the most selfless, thinks-about-others-first goody-goody is greedy in some way, even if s/he tries to repress it, blah blah.

I believe that anything is possible. That even if the probability of something happens is a few dodecadrillion decimal places to one, that it still could happen. However I cannot see this happening with humanity in about a thousand lifetimes. Everybody would have to simultaneously throw down their greed and desire. Everyone being: the CEOs, the politicians, monarchs, and other assorted criminals, as well as normal people.

It just can't happen.

greed's a broad term i think. the desire for self betterment is probably a better term. people don't actually sit back and think "I want to screw over EVERYONE i can and take all of their things" they just think "I would be so much better off if _________"

this falls right in with the belief in Eden. Eve didn't eat the apple thinking "wow, i've just screwed up everything i possibly could, brought the concepts of sin death and labor into existence and ruined life for every one of our species after me!" she was thinking that she could become better than she was by eating the fruit (as per satans little speech)

we all have this drive and it's about the sharpest double edged sword in existence because if you DON'T use this drive, you die. if you do, you inevitably run over countless people in your pursuit of something better. In plain english, to accomplish a totally altruistic goal, you'd have to kill yourself, because otherwise you've taken from someone else in order to gain the resources to help another. Altruism DOESN"T EXIST.

Well, the first thing I'd do is stop blaming man for his virtues. Greed, selfishness... these things are what the world desperately needs right now, not selflessness and an orgy of self-sacrifice.

I'd establish a totally capitalistic society based on the gold standard. I'd abolish all forms of control on the people except for the one obvious one: the right to one's rights, i.e. I would make illegal that which is a destruction of rights. (Murder, for example, because it is an individual taking away another's right to life.) I would, after settling in my own country of freedom, throw open my borders and allow free immigration to all.

No war needed in a self-sustained society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Temple Knight

I would, after settling in my own country of freedom, throw open my borders and allow free immigration to all.

---

I wouldn't open immigration to anybody. All immigrants would get shot on site.
Living in the US has taught me that it's far better to hate people from other cultures in other countries than it is to hate people from other cultures who live next door.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martyr

I wouldn't open immigration to anybody. All immigrants would get shot on site.
Living in the US has taught me that it's far better to hate people from other cultures in other countries than it is to hate people from other cultures who live next door.

---

What happened?

Cubans.

And it isn't exactly their fault, but the way they came in and dominated Miami has caused more racial tension, between everybody, than I ever care to know.
I won't go into details. Maybe I'll write a novel someday. First, I want to see who wins.

I'd press reset.

And in the new world, I'd just abolish private property from the start. And the State. Love and anarchy :D

Quote:

---

All immigrants would get shot on site.

---

Woooooooo!!! Freedom and justice for all!!!

lol i have tons of friends who were once illegal aliens man it really dosnt bother them that the majority population hates them.I know ilegal aleins and immigrants who come from Turkey to immigrants from asia.Yeah they should make it harder for them to become a citizen but Martryr you just sound like a biggot if nto then you probaly are one and proud of it i bet.

I don't think he was making the point that Immigrants are bad people. how can i put this...

You and a few friends start a commune, okay? You work like dogs to provide for yourself and the others, and pretty soon you start making enough to export from your commune. you get a little bit of cash flow, word gets out, you get more cash flow and more word of mouht adverstising. all of a sudden, you guys are living clean and free and making a flippin fortune. You're living of yourselves, your customers are happy, and you have enough cash to build yourself a nice palatial estate on your land (lets just say you have a fairly good chunk of land, with plenty of unused space between you are and your communal brethren) all of a sudden, your customers families start hearing about how sweet you've got it. Their thinking "well damn, i could go live with them, and since they've got it going good already, i could pretty much coast. everything will be cherry if i can just set up a tent next to joe johnsons house there in the commune and collect some extra product and cashola! he coasts in, maybe even works as hard as you do. but that doesn't mean the next guy will. or the next. or the next. cuz once other people see taht they can cruise in without your permission, and give you a puppy face and a sob story about what life was like otuside your commune, you'll cave and they'll be in the clear. Now, you keep allowing this because you don't want to look greedy and offend your needed customers (you've been trading for long enough that you NEED things from them now. gas, fertilizer, new seeds, technology, etc.) pretty soon, the ratio of sweetness to slackers camped out on your lawn mooching off the estate is pretty hefty, and your little commune isn't looking so sweet anymore. it's in debt because you're trying to be nice and PC and support all those poor helpless folks.

doesn't sound so nice for you anymore, does it? thats the point i believe he was trying to get across, albight quite drastically.

and, um.... yeah. Anarchy? *cracks up* Unfettered capitalism is one thing. Anarchy is quite another. with anarchy, if i decided not to work, i could get together a nice little gang and cap you in your hippy loven buttocks. and their would be no police to say Nay unto me, and the only challenge would be keeping me gang of roving profit killers large enough to stomp down any smarmy town folk. Basically, you're looking at Waterworld. Anarchy is bad homes, very bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SocietyzAntidote

and, um.... yeah. Anarchy? *cracks up* Unfettered capitalism is one thing. Anarchy is quite another. with anarchy, if i decided not to work, i could get together a nice little gang and cap you in your hippy loven buttocks. and their would be no police to say Nay unto me, and the only challenge would be keeping me gang of roving profit killers large enough to stomp down any smarmy town folk. Basically, you're looking at Waterworld. Anarchy is bad homes, very bad.

---

You know that anarchy is a very complex idea you can not possibly attempt to summarise in such a ridiculous paragraph, don't you?

yup, and yet i did!

Yeah i get that it's a fairly broad idea, and that "Anarchy" as the idea rests today doesn't mean lack of government altogether. But unfortunately, i don't have the time, drive, or energy to type out all the different variations and agendas involved with real world anarchy, so i stripped it to it's roots and wrote out that "ridiculous paragraph" to summarize my beliefs on the subject. Have a nice day!

In a simple paragraph: Anarchy is the lack of any system. Lacking any type of system is a system in itself. Therefore, anarchy can never be achieved.

YAY, SLC Punk!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theundeadhero

In a simple paragraph: Anarchy is the lack of any system. Lacking any type of system is a system in itself. Therefore, anarchy can never be achieved.

YAY, SLC Punk!

---

No, anarchy is a system, but without the concept of state, goverment of private property. Similar to communism in it's end, but with some different contrasts on some issues.

I don't know if it's possible or not, but it does get annoying when people attempt to make suppositions about it out of complete ignorance. I dunno, it's like fascism, suppose I start defining it like...well, it's a state with a powerful guy on top and it's about killing Jews. No, it's not. Fascism is a system constructed on a series of theories and ideas. I may not agree with it, in fact it's totally opposed to my believes, but I don't think speaking silly popular generalizations about it, and about how evil it is because they have told me so, is going to make me have any serious point.

from the World Book Encyclopedia dictionary:

An-ar-chy (anerki) 1. The absence of a system of government or law. 2. Disorder, confusion, lawlessness. 3. Anarchism syn: Chaos


From Dictionary.com
an·ar·chy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies
Absence of any form of political authority.
Political disorder and confusion.
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

The root of the word, anarchy:
From the Latin, which was taken from the greek anarkhos. An; Without. Arkhos; Ruler. An-Arkhos; Without ruler.


WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
anarchy

n : a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government) [syn: lawlessness]

A leading modern dictionary, Webster's Third International Dictionary, defines anarchism briefly but accurately as, "a political theory opposed to all forms of government and governmental restraint and advocating voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups in order to satisfy their needs." Other dictionaries describe anarchism with similar definitions. The Britannica-Webster dictionary defines the word anarchism as, "a political theory that holds all government authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocates a society based on voluntary cooperation of individuals and groups." Shorter dictionaries, such as the New Webster Handy College Dictionary, define anarchism as, "the political doctrine that all governments should be abolished."

------------------------------------------------------------------
now obviously you've decided to refuse to respect a short blurb on the system, so i'm gonna go a bit more indepth here and see if that will satiate your opinion of me as a person "attempt(ing) to make suppositions about it out of complete ignorance."

Anarchic theory, as political idea rather than a reality, which existed throughout a good portion of ancient history, was first set forth in Political Justice, a book by William Godwin in 1793. He was recognized for a bit, but overshadowed when Proudhon came along with "what is Property?" Which set the idea that property shoudl not be owned by the individual, but rather used peacefully by the collective masses. It also figured Key into the introduction of communist and socialist theory later on, obviously.
You're now going to end up with contemporary theorists; Bakunin, then Kropotkin, the tolstoy. Now everyone likes to scream Tolstoy and Chomsky on the subject of anarchy, but you need to go back to your roots to get to the essence of it.
Tolstoy was helpful in addressing a number of ideas, one of which was that idea of violence in an anarchic system. according to Tolstoy, Any Violence that occured in an anarchic system could not be greater than that which would be caused BY the current system. That's obviously debateable. I take the example of Charles Manson. Let say Charles Manson lived in an anarchic society. He goes around with his followers killing all these folk and people start to realize, Hey! theres a WHOLE lot of nasty looking murders about. Now explain to me, how they would catch and stop him? because he, while in an anarchic state, is not quite getting the "no infringment on my personal rights" thing. now, you can't institute a volunteer police force, because without authority to push past some peoples rights they can't investigate. obviously if they show up at someones house while manson's followers are killing them, they aren't going to be too keen on letting you in the house. what are the police to do? they are anarchist police, they can't infringe on their rights, that would make them *gasp* AUTHORITY! so, the police angle doesn't work. you're stuck with a bunch of scared citizens with no way to stop the madman. he can go around all he wants doing exactly what he wants because there's no authority to stop him, and the only way he COULD be stopped is if someone else decides to violate the treatise of Anarchy, and form some form of order imposed on the masses, thus elminating anarchy in that time and place.
Now, you've got that famous "Haymarket eight" murders in Chicago. This got word out alot in america, and spawned a whole number of different american anrachist philosophers and supporters. You've got Cleyre, Parson's, and Goldman following after that, Goldman in particular getting some new blood by way of Anarchist Feminism that she helped found. Paris Commune and Zappata in the Spanish Revolution in 1936.....
and together with a number of other major movements in recent history (the largest as far as teh media is concerned being the huge Punk movement in the 70's and 80's, though a number of Punk groupings favored either socialims or Communism as well) have brought anarchy to be one fo the biggest "rebel teen" philosophy's on earth.

Now then. I will repeat my argument and hopefully it will nto be cast aside due to my "ignorance" of the subject. In an anarchist system, consisting of NO ASSIGNED GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY, there would be no way to keep defectors in check. through use of violence of intimidation, Anarchy would be quickly eliminated as a state of existence, because roving gangs or terrorist groupings would be established as a new, and more devious government. They would be so, because within the citizens groupings, assuming anarchist philosophy is maintained, and collective group to combat them could never be formed becasue it would require the use of authority to function. Anarchist philosophy, in order to succeed, would require complete and total one-ness opf mind by the entire population of an area, a fact that will never come to be in large4 groupings. THUS, outside of a hippy commune growing carrots in west virginia, you will never see anarchy in action.

Man, it should not have taken that much effort to get a point across withoutbeing called "ignorant."

See, now that makes sense. I take back the past statement.
*applause*

Anyway, you point makes sense, except in the fact you mentioned anarchist police, and as far as I know, the anarchist society does not take the idea of police, but of organizations to develop a counter-measure to any problem such as...well, Charles Manson. See, it's not the same as the police, it would not fall into the jerarquized (whatever the word in English is) organization held today, and it would be faced to problems in particular, but without the need to make it as general because, in theory, such problems would not be as generalized under anarchism.

This happens because, well, it is held that violence in a society depends directly of the violence in the system. Basically, anarchism is meant to be the maximmum peak of social evolution, and as such, most acts of violence- if not all- are not bound to happen. Not like I agree with that, it may be possible to get rid of the state, the goverment and so on, but not of idiocy. However, I do not believe anarchy would be the people-burning-cars-and-robbing-shops often imagined in bad Hollywood movies, and yet, I frankly don't think it would be about puppies and flowers either, at least not on a large scale.

First off, let that be a bit of a lesson to you about prejudging people, ESPECIALLY in forums about their knowledge on a subject. you don't know ignorance from intelligence summed up in a brief statement, you shouldn't throw around "ignorant" or "Ridiculous" just because something is short and in lamens terms.

onto the actual point, anarchic society. You say that violence would not be rampant. I sort of agree with you on that, on some level. Assuming you had very decent people, that you SOMEHOW had managed to evolve past the type of personality that would be inclined to run such a gang as I mentioned, you would still have emotional people. Now, lets say you had some bad dealings with a particular person. This person has managed to offend you to a deep and violent place through whatever means this may take (I don't know you well enough to assume, but he could hav gone after your family, signifigant other, anything.) without a governmental system in place to punish you for an offense, if you found yourself near him at the peak of your rage, what is going to keep you in check, keep you from pounding this guys face into the cement? and I you hold "ethics" or the "good of society" accountable for keeping this from happening, then i dare you to make the statement that it will keep the majority of others from such a thing. yaeh, anarchy would give people freedom to operate how they want, live how they want, earn money how they want. Ultimate and total freedom. It also give people the ability to operate how they want (with Malice), Live how they want (by oppressing anyone they can to get their way), and earn money how they want (by beating and robbing old ladies on the street). Are you telling me that there will be so active and friendly a community, and so few of these incidents to form little "organizations to develop a counter-measure to any problem" (when, unless I've misinterpreted, just sounds like "volunteer police with no real authority") I don't buy that. put a bunch of pissed off people in a room, and get the guard to turn around for a second? one or two people might be brave enough to take a swing. put a bunch of pissed of people in a room, and lock the door with no guard in sight? whew.