one of of the reasons i am an atheist is because i am more <--- 1000 times xD---> free being an atheist, you decide for your self, you take responsibility for your acts, not like a christian who thinks that every thing is god's will.
so my question is, i hate religion and do not believe in it because it shrinks my freedom, and if you want to be free, you should separate your self from it, do you think we atheist, who, also like me want to be free should oppose the government, corporations, capitalism and every agent who takes our freedom??

ok many people disagree with me and abolishing the government with the argument "who will stop crime, the leeches?.
first of all crime, why people rob you today? maybe if you are poor you will try to rob food because you were hungry, an individual will do anything that it takes to survive ;), instead of making laws and having brutal policeman why don't we eliminate the need of people to steal to survive?
corporate crime, corporations and people rob you in any level the can to perpetuate their power in the system some thing similar like the first example =) one of my favorite examples is the bank-
let's say, a poor couple need money to pay their health bill, so they go to the bank to asks for a lone, of course they will pay interest, in an other part of the world a rich man buys some financial products of the bank and the bank will pay him with interest, with the money the poor couple paid of interest their lone, and all this mafia, low wages, banks , high health cost is to gain profit and maintain the establishment of cartels and sick corporations.
leechers, well not even me want to go to work, to school in this stupid system that its made to rob me and maintain their establishment.

Views: 78

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


it just DOESN'T. do you know JUST HOW MUCH our government does for us? how much ANY government does?

who would build our roads? who would teach our children? who would mediate disputes, or give us moral boundries?

we can talk about hte "perfect world" where everyone would work together and be happy, but WAKE UP. we don't live in that world!

we NEED boundries! and no, government is not perfect. of course it isn't! but a lack of governance is NOT the answer!

people tout anarchy like it is our savior. like it is the eden for all good thinking people, but it's not. for a number of reasons.

for one thing, the majority of people, when they say 'anarchy' what they really mean is 'complete democracy'. wha they really want is for each person to have a voice, and for each voice to be heard.

but aside from that. do you know what anarchy means?

it means there are no laws. and sure, there're always laws that some of us don't like. but some laws, MOST laws, are GOOD!

how could we ever get anything done without rules to guide us? yeah, sure, it'd be fun to not have to work, to just goof off all day, and not worry about things. but what happens when the FARMERS start goofing off, while their crops go to waste? what happens when the plumbers stop working? or the electricians? what happens when the factories shut down, and you can't get any more clothes?

"what if," you're bound to say "they didn't?" well, all right then. say the factory that makes your shoes stays running, because for some reason, the people who work there want to keep working.

their employer is under no obligation to pay them, in an anarchy. and none of them are required to adhere to any sort of standards. what if, instead of a shoe factory, it was a food processing unit?

has anyone ever read The Jungle? can you IMAGINE how shoddy the work would be?

now take a moment and think about your daily life. i'll generalize for the sake of time. you get up in the morning, out of a bed that is made to standards so that it doesn't fall apart beneath you. you take a shower and brush your teeth in water that is pumped to you in pipes layed down by men and women who are payed by the government (which really means YOU), in water that is cleaned by the government, again, to standards set so that it won't poison you.

then you eat breakfast, let's say, toast and eggs. many of us here are environmentally conscious, so let's take the eggs first. the chickens they come from are raised at farms which again, adhere to regulations so that we feel safe eating non-toxic, non-poisonous eggs, not to mention that the chickens are kept to a minimum standard of living (perhaps it's not perfect, but it's better than it could be). and the toast you eat? it came out of a toaster that is made AGAIN to adhere to standards so that it doesn't burn or electircute you. it's plugged into the wall, which is attached, as is the rest of your house, to the national power grid, which, HEY, is run and regulated BY THE GOVERNMENT.

the toothpaste you used earlier? that's made without things like lead, because the GOVERNMENT made a law saying that since lead is poisonous to us, we can't use it in stuff we use every day (like toys, and paint).

i can go on. how about the car you get a ride in to school? ever think about how safe that is? or why? what about the road? i'll bet it's pretty smooth. i'll bet it's got lines, and is repaired every few years. i'll bet if you live in a rural area, it's less well maintained, but when it gets really bad, who do you go to? that's right. your local government.

"government", especially in the US, has gotten such a bad rap over the last...decades, really. but it's not. if you have a beef with it, SPEAK UP. that's how the system works. there can be no change if we do not speak up.

and it DOES work. no, it's nto perfect. of course it's not!!! we live in a nation with MILLIONS of people. how can you POSSIBLY expect them all to be happy?

but look at the most recent election. the PEOPLE were ready for a change, and so, we have change. not just obama. but the house of representatives now has an unprecidented majority of democrats, and the senate has an almost filibuster proof majority of dems as well.

our government speaks for us. it is not evil, it is not bad. only when it begins to serve it's own self interest is it a thing to be hated.
for example the open source community:
the philosophy is, that you should be free to download software, re wrote it, re use it, and distribute it. and you should always make your software available to everybody, free of charge.
many people say that they don't like open source because you don't get paid (the same excuse for anarchy) , well you don't get paid for your software but you benefit the whole community by making it open source, and the community will benefit you with the software with in the community. =]
Intersubjective means intersubjective, and anarchy doesn't mean a thing.

I've become convinced that most anarchists are just playing ethics games, ignoring that there is no basis of ethical arguments, and the only impact ethics has on objective reality is through the subjective whims of the mob. You can cling to your "correct ethics", but it doesn't mean a damn thing.

Anarchy doesn't work for many reasons: for instance, say if one political entity got a hold of a nuke, what would keep them from using it? Other political entities might not have an effective deterrent. You need a larger system to regulate the behaviors of disparate political entities.

Also, geographic boundaries are NOT imaginary. Even apes have bounaries and in a world of limited resources, certain groups are inevitably going to organize around these resources. Then they make boundaries.

Say that we should share everything? Well, how are you going to share everything if you don't have a regulatory body making sure of this?
1 why would some body build a nuke? if no one is threatening their liberty ;)
2limited resources???? are you kidding, everything in this system is scared by cartels to make more profit out of it. an example: the petroleum industry, with its biiiiig profits will never ever research lets say about condensed solar antennas, instead they will lobby against clean energy research
You are not living in reality. It sounds great on paper sure, but in reality it just does not work like that.
i know, but that is the only way we can save our selves, always fighting for real and ultimate liberty.
1. Simple. They want something that someone else has, and plans to use the weapon (nuke, FAE, tank, etc) to extort that something via threat.

See, this is the problem I have with anarchists, the system being proposed requires a non-existent version of humanity, where greed and selfishness have disappeared. It's the same problem I have with communism, it requires a fundamental change in human nature in order to work.

Ideally, yes. A world where every human being was able to live together in harmony, without a government to enforce civilized behavior on those people who want to take advantage of others, where everyone contributes as best as they can simply because they enjoy doing it and freely trades on an individual level with others, coming together into larger groups for large projects just because it's of benefit to all, would be nice. Unfortunately, this is not that world, this is Earth.

While systems such as communism, anarchism, and the like may work on small scales, where it is possible for the sum of individuals to agree as a group, as the group gets larger, the odds of dissent and differences that cannot be reconciled increase, not to mention the odds of people slacking off and being 'carried' by the group.

One of the fundamental flaws of communism, for example, is its failure to account for basic human greed. And I do not mean greed in a bad way, but rather that humans have an innate desire for more. More resources usually means more change of successfully reproducing, so a desire for more has a strong selective advantage. This is why capitalism, which harnesses human greed rather than ignoring it, is so successful. Of course, capitalism has its own problems, such as a blindness to dishonesty, particularly in larger populations.

Anarchy assumes an element of human nature that is not in evidence, specifically that of universal honesty and trust. As Cara points out, not everyone is going to contribute. Not just equally, but at all. Some people will be happy to leech off of others. Some people will run scams. Some people will outright steal. And with no laws, who is going to stop them? A group of vigilantes? How would we know if the lynching party is going after someone who is actually guilty, rather than just unpopular?

And as for limited resources, yes, resources are limited. Assuming that resources are infinite is amazingly ignorant, if only because there is a limited amount of matter that can be accessed. The Earth is already beginning to run low on copper, and other materials, such as rare earths, are fairly scarce, too. Even if you assume that we are able to start mining the asteroid belt sometime in the next 50 years, resources are still finite. While computer code may be able to be copied indefinitely without loss (except of the electricity used to power the machines and a decrease in available hard drive space, both of which consume physical resources), material goods are not duplicable without using up some resources.

Even assuming that we are able to convert most of the planet to using solar energy (given solar cells and solar power generators that produce more energy, over their lifetimes, than it took to create the systems in the first place), all that would do is reduce our need for fossil fuels. It would do nothing to reduce our need for food, metals, water, or any of hundreds of other resources. In fact, abundant energy might actually increase those demands.
yes, resource are limited but in a big scale, the more limited the resource is, the more profit you gain, so why don't we stick to the limited resource and lobby to stop clean energy reforms?
Well Alex, I wouldn't say that open-source is Anarchy. It's more like... collaboration. What you're describing is, sort of, socialism. Sure, in the beginning, it's great: from each, according to their ability & to each, according to their need.

Sounds fair, but then we have to remember that there are a LOT of people who have very little ability. Are those who are extremely able required to carry the weight of those who simply cannot contribute in the same way? Well, maybe... until those who ARE able become resentful and start producing badly just so they can, in turn, work less and live off the work of those who are even more able.

Your system requires that everyone within it is honest and wants to contribute and not leech. There are a lot of leechers that do not seed (this can be observed on, for example). The only reason open-source works is because there's already a system in place which still requires those who produce software to produce it up to a certain standard. Right? If the people making said coveted software start getting screwed, they're going to stop producing.

Even though Sophie is a bit aggressive in her response, she's right and you might need to read over her response a bit more thoroughly.

Also... no, I'm not an Atheist simply because I want freedom. Although I do love my freedom, it comes with a price... like you said, personal responsibility. Not everyone has it though. It'd be pretty ridiculous to live in a society where people just ran around stabbing each other over disputes as opposed to having law enforcement that INSISTS we resolve things in a civil manner. YOU might handle something reasonably, but the fundies are a perfect example of those you'd be up against. Good luck getting them to come to logical conclusions!

I think you asked a great question though...
Science learns from both its successes and mistakes and changes according to the evidence. If government is going to survive it must do the same thing.

Winston Churchill once said 'Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried.'

So what's the next step? Maybe the open source community 'meme' and similar movements will play a part in the evolution of our current forms of governing.

Does open source really work because of Anarchy? Seems to me anarchy wouldn't be open source where everyone contributes to a particular program. It seems like anarchy is everyone doing their own thing and not necessarily working on programs at all. Libertarian would be closer to 'everyone working on their own program' and maybe in a libertarian environment an 'open source' project could find enough interest to thrive and prosper.
1we NEED boundaries**! and no, government is not perfect. of course it isn't! but a lack of governance is NOT the answer!, why do we need boundaries, umm well the only reason i can think of is immigration, so why will people want to immigrate ?? , well because there is no opportunities in their home land,why? well the united states of amerika to support it self as an empire, they need to have an hegemonic control over every other country, by destroying any chance of independence from their control, and their is a lot of examples, Guatemala, HONDURAS, and many others, but why do people want desperately control, because they are not free, when you don't have access to food for example, you are not free to stay healthy, so you have to fight for it, because is scarce, because some people or companies want profit for it. so my point is, lets say in an island there are 100 people, and need food, and they do elections for a law that guaranties food for every one, witch also guaranties their liberty to eat and stay healthy, ain't that anarchism?? anarchism: ideology that disproves authority , and fights for the ultimate freedom of an individual !
2'it means there are no laws. and sure, they're** always laws that some of us don't like. but some laws, MOST laws, are GOOD!' in this system we all live in, the laws are made to perpetuate the system and the establishment.

3"but look at the most recent election. the PEOPLE were ready for a change, and so, we have change. not just obama. but the house of representatives now has an unprecidented majority of democrats, and the senate has an almost filibuster proof majority of dems as well."
their is not a real opposition party in the usa, by the way, if their was one, it'll be corrupted

4our government speaks for us. it is not evil, it is not bad. only when it begins to serve it's own self interest is it a thing to be hated.
the government in this system will always represent the people with power
I would add something but the girls have hit the nail on the head.


© 2020   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service