I understand your opinion, but I don't totally agree. To me it's not government, that's the problem. To me it is the missing will of self responsibility. I don't have to demonstrate to tell my boss that I want to be egaly paid as a woman. To me the MAJOR problem is peoples minds. The more I don't want to stand for myself, the more I think others have got to do the job for me. It is not only about freedom. It's very much about being too comfortable to take things in my own hands with being fully responsible for that. The less I want to take that for myself, the more power I give to the government and other institutions. That's not the fault of the government. Voting for Trump and thinking that he is a great statesman... do you really think one could help people who don't want to help themselves because that's too uncomfortable? They don't want it any other way. By the way, I'm from Germany. I think our democracy is a bit better than yours. But here also the major problem is that people think "those up there have to care for me". That is not surpression. They just don't want to have an own will to stand for in their lives.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
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.
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.
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
The people are not the problem! Many people dont care and dont want to take responibility and that is 100% fine. Everyone has a right to not care about this or that. Its about people that want to care and their right to do it.
Over the human history we have again and again tried to tell people how to live their life, what to support, how to think... But there is only one person in the world that has a right to tell me about my life and that person is me alone.
Yes of corse. But with not being interested in what the government does or believing and not questioning their shit... and the big chance to change things would first be not voting the same parties over and over again. But I am from Germany. Honestly I don't know how many parties exist in USA. How much freedom of choice people have there. In Germany we have over 30 parties running in the government votings.
I agree, people could still vote change. The thing is many don't want change or they are not interested enough. We have to accept that (even though we can of course talk to them, promote our ideas and hope they will support them)
But people not caring about things is only a problem because we do have a democracy. They give a passive nod to the elites that rule us and legitimise their tyranny. If we move past democracy then we do no longer need a one size fits all solution. We can be happy if most people do not want to experiment and keep living the way they are used to and at the same time we are allowed to find better ways to organise human life.
And in the case we should be successful, the masses will come on their own interest. In Democracy you need to plan ahead and commit to one choice. Why not try multiple projects and see what works best?
Yes what about thinking about how these models could look like and what could work out best? So maybe we would find a model worth to vote for before trying something unorganized? I mean everything on our planet at some time started with anarchy? Maybe when we were apes or later. Okay I think we are still apes, but that's not the point now.^^
I think that the progressives are stuck since they can never mobilise 50% for some more experimental ideas. Most people are (not yet?) ready to risk their wealth and safety. And I think that is fine.
So my idea is to just let like-minded people to self organise and learn from it.
But the problem with this is: with not everyone wanting anarchy and I am absolutely sure it is impossible to reach that everybody wants it... you would have to do this by forcing people into it. At this point you take the freedom of from people. And when you not want other states to invade you... during the time without organization... that would mean, first everybody on this planet would have to be convinced of anarchy. Is that a short and simple way? I am afraid, there does no simple way exist. If we want something better, that will be hard and long work. And we should give that a try. There are many good points and ideas and ideals in it. We have to take and think this further. I think there is another problem in creating something new: we always think in categories and ideas other people had before. Anarchy is an old idea. In fact most of thinking about mankind and systems are old ideas. We always relate to them. Maybe we need something completely new? I don't know. Kind of "thinking out of the box for freedom".
I do agree! But the problem are not the anarchists. We have no problem if 95% want to continue to live in democracy.
Its just that these 95% may have real problems with us living in Anarchy, to the point where they, as you also mention it, could try to attack and kill us.
But what gives me hope is that these are not really the thought of the people. If I live somewhere minding my own business, a guy a few miles does not just wake up and think lets go there and steal his stuff and kill that stupid guy. It is just the people that are in power and that feel their power threatened should the 5% become 30% or 80%.
So we do not need force to make people live in anarchy, we only need force to guarantee that other people let us live in anarchy.