[osiris]

geez, what the heck did this become, a full blown revolution of MacNN members vs MacNN members?

oh, I get it, Civil War.

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by maxelson:
I am thinking that you'll need to clarify this statement. I may be a dolt, but I have no clue where you are going with this.

I answered the question in another post. The AARP is extremely successful at getting politicians to hop to their tunes. They don't give any money to anybody. They just vote. It's an example of working within the system and being very successful. If people hate the way things are, they should vote.

As for the issue of violence and revolutions, it's nice to contemplate the latter without the former but if one is going to talk and think in these terms it's probably a good idea to be prepared for the possibility of unhappy consequences.

[denim]

Originally posted by The Dude:
How many of you out there think that the US is on it's way to some sort of revolution?

Not me. We're accellerating toward Big Brother and no one seems to be doing anything about it. The "two" political parties in power seem to not be unseatable. Environmental and privacy concerns fall by the wayside as soon as they become less convienient.

Children are being raised in schools where survailence, random searches, and drug testing are normal. They'll be used to all of that when they become adults. For their own good, of course. Ignore the fact that school shootings are incredibly rare, and that fixing the main issue: bullying and teasing, are impossible. Also that those things have always been a big issue, yet only now are we seeing "trouble". Makes me think that there's really something else at work here.

I see no real way to fix any of this.

And people wonder why I want off this planet??

[This message has been edited by denim (edited 03-08-2001).]

[Arty50]

Such a heated debate. I would expect no less from this topic.
---------
gwrjr33 is right about the AARP. For years Social Security has been called the 'third rail' of politics in the United States. This references the third rail on a subway, which carries the high current for the train. For years and years, no one could even mention Social Security reform because of the AARP and it's constituents. And all the while SS was going bankrupt, and young people like myself were involuntarily sending our hard earned money into this situation.

The outcome of the most recent Presidential election was a big shock. Why? Not because of the Florida debacle. But rather because George W. talked about reforming SS and was still elected. With SS only a few years away from insolvency, the amount of voters that wouldn't recieve a single SS check outnumbered the number of people that currently are receiving them or will be soon. So the AARP was finally defeated.

But to say the AARP is the only major influence on the federal government is terribly naive. There are many examples of how politicians have become beholden to lobbyists/corporations. Remember, upon entering office, these people take an oath to serve those who they represent. And this has ceased to happen even taking into account the AARP. How many people alive are over 65? How many are younger? Our politicians have neglected and/or ignored their inherent, sworn responsibility to us. I don't expect politicians to serve by referendum or mob rule. But I do expect them to serve us with long term goals. Not the short sighted thinking that we have today.

All this being said, we have only ourselves to blame. After all we elect these schmucks to public office. We accept the media fud that we should vote Democrat or Republican because otherwise we're wasting our vote. Remember, these parties have their own agendas and do not exist to serve the people. The founding fathers of the US realized this and warned against it. Not to say that all repulicrats are bad; but when they cast a vote merely because they want to follow party lines, they are not serving the people they represent. They are serving the party instead.

And in the case of the AARP, many of it's members vote based upon the organizations recommendations/endorsements. What sheep.

So if you want to change the government:
1. Vote - 50% of U.S. Citizens don't. But before you do, please.....

2. Investigate all of the candidates. You don't have to vote Democrat or Republican. There are other fine, upstanding, intelligent people out there.

3. Decide. Make an educated decision about who you want to vote for.

Now I know that many of us don't have time to research every single candidate considering that we vote for federal, state, and local officials. So you have to place a level of importance on each election, and apply your time accordingly.

So what's my point in all of this? Make your vote count. If you just walk into a polling place and punch out the Republican or Democratic candidate without even knowing anything about that person or the other candidates, then you've wasted your vote.

And to those that don't vote, don't complain. If you didn't vote because you don't like any of the candidates. I have no problem with that. But if you're going to complain then do something about it. Run yourself or help to find someone of character that will. And to those that don't vote because you don't think your vote matters, then I'm sorry. You merely facilitate the great wealth of ignorance that the lobbyists wish to exploit.

Arty50

[This message has been edited by Arty50 (edited 03-08-2001).]

[maxelson]

So. I vote. And am incredibly frustrated with the voting mechanisms we have. We are told our vote counts... except for the 2.5 million votes that were, for whatever reason, thrown out last election and are regularly thrown out. Still feel like you count? When was the last time you were involved in a massive campaign to get the attention of your senator? For me, it was a month back. When was the last time you sent a note to your senator? For me, it was yesterday. When was the last time you got an answer? For me it was... never. Oh, yes, the Republic works just great (careful choice of words. It ain't a Democracy). Example: RI is a hugely democratic state. They elected the son of an extremely popular deceased Senator. He recognized that he was voted in as a legacy and and promised to vote as he thinks the people of his state would have him vote. Ashcroft? Voted him in, despite what his constituents asked him to do. There's one example of how the Republic "works". And it is the rule, not the exception. Let's see how the House and Senate handle this tax cut proposal. Is this to be an event where the will of the people is execised? Or will it be used as a political weapon by both factions? Abortion? Stats show that 2/3rds of the country are moderate to staunch choice people (if required, I'll find the stats, but this ain't this issue and I am NOT going into a thread on that one). So. Why is it still an issue? Political weaponry. Clinton? C'mon. Like they are really taking the moral high ground in persuing this dead horse. Weaponry. To what end? To make damned sure history does not look kindly on Bubbuh. All weaponry. Is the country sick of all this partisan crap? I am fairly sure we are. Is the two party system likely to change? Huh. Oh, yes, I am the boss and I feel very powerful. I feel like I am heard. Like a heard of beef that needs corraling.

i think we are witnessing the combination of the perfect ingredients for a Revolution to occur(and in many ways it has already begun). The phrase "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer", seem to echo from the four corners of the globe. The ones who spare no expence are those who have the most to gain and a lot to loose, these are the few, the rulers, the wealthy, who have access to military, economy, buisness, etc.

The many who work as slave are the revolutionaries, you see them in Sounth American Countries(movies such as Romero show us this), and other third world countries where most of the 'work' is done.

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by Arty50:

But to say the AARP is the only major influence on the federal government is terribly naive.

Didn't say that. I only said that they are the most feared special interest.

[Arty50]

Maxelson, you've pointed out everything that's wrong. I agree with you for the most part, and that's why I said don't throw your vote away. To merely vote is pointless. One must investigate those they are voting for. The RI senator you mentioned is a perfect example. Stupid people voted him in merely because his father was a senator. There's genious for you. So is it really a surprise that he went against his constituency?

Not to say that every politician should vote according to the popular will. That can be quite dangerous also. From what I understand Ashcroft was once a well respected State Attorney General, and enforced the law despite his beliefs. The stupid media had a field day because the Democrats wanted to take on Shrub.

The bottom line is we must get out of this two party system, in fact one could argue for the elimination of political parties all together. Otherwise we are left with politicians that neither listen to their constituents nor make educated (even if unpopular) votes. Instead they merely vote according to their party line. This is an utter travesty, and I for one am outraged. I'm sick of these people getting into office. And even if I'm the only person in the world that casts a vote for Joe Independent, I'll feel good in knowing that I voted for a person with intelligence, character, and commitment to service.

------------------------

As far as thrown out ballots goes, take a statistics class. You'll understand why this is inevitable. Not to say there isn't foul play, but the vast majority of those ballots are not counted for perfectly legitimate reasons. Some people (Florida residents for example) just can't follow directions. I live in California, and the instructions on every single ballot I've punched out said to check the back of my card to make sure that all of the holes were fully and cleanly punched (aka, no hanging chads). I always have. If anyone else didn't then they didn't follow the simplest of instructions, and I say "doom on them." If people can't follow simple instructions, then how can they intelligently vote for the President of the United States. It saddens me.

[This message has been edited by Arty50 (edited 03-08-2001).]

[Arty50]

gwrjr33,

True, and I apologize. I was thinking of changing that, and I should have. I merely meant to reduce the emphasis that was placed on it as the thread progressed.

I need a dose of "Say what you mean, and mean what you say." Or conciseness if you know what I mean. (Oh no, now I've gotten corny.)

Arty

[This message has been edited by Arty50 (edited 03-08-2001).]

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by Arty50:

The bottom line is we must get out of this two party system, in fact one could argue for the elimination of political parties all together. Otherwise we are left with politicians that neither listen to their constituents nor make educated (even if unpopular) votes. Instead they merely vote according to their party line. This is an utter travesty, and I for one am outraged. I'm sick of these people getting into office. And even if I'm the only person in the world that casts a vote for Joe Independent, I'll feel good in knowing that I voted for a person with intelligence, character, and commitment to service.

Actually, the 2 parties are a lot weaker than they once were. Used to be the parties had a lot more patronage that they used as a reward for the people at the bottom of the political hierarchy. That was the secret to the strength of the political machines that once existed in the big cities. Chicago's Daley machine & Tammany Hall are examples. Those machines were corrupt but they were also a lot stronger than what we see today. And despite the corruption voting participation was a lot higher. The great party conventions were also a lot more wide open. Candidates didn't come to the conventions with the nomination all sewed up. They had to prevail at a convention filled with party regulars. It was not uncommon for nominations to require multiple ballots before a nominee would emerge.

The founders also thought that the development of political parties would not be good. But I really don't believe that a political order without the existence of political parties is possible.

(I used to be an independent but I live in a city with an 8 to 1 advantage to the Democrats in party affiliation. Being an independent feels like a stupid gesture in this kind of 1 party environment.)

[This message has been edited by gwrjr33 (edited 03-08-2001).]

[maxelson]

Originally posted by gwrjr33:
I answered the question in another post. The AARP is extremely successful at getting politicians to hop to their tunes. They don't give any money to anybody. They just vote. It's an example of working within the system and being very successful. If people hate the way things are, they should vote.

As for the issue of violence and revolutions, it's nice to contemplate the latter without the former but if one is going to talk and think in these terms it's probably a good idea to be prepared for the possibility of unhappy consequences.

AARP... right. As is evidenced by the fact that Medicare pays for 100% of perscription drugs. That Medicare is, in fact as effective and all encompassing as, say, BCBS. That care for the elderly is raelly all that it could be. Mandatory retirement. Yep, the elderly have got it MADE in this country. Go talk to your grandmother and then come back and tell me how successful the AARP is at maneuvering the government.
I re-reading this, I see that my tone is projecting as slightly more sarcastic than is needs to be. So, without actually re writing, please take the thought and disregard the tone.


[This message has been edited by maxelson (edited 03-09-2001).]

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by maxelson:

AARP... right. As is evidenced by the fact that Medicare pays for 100% of perscription drugs.

A prescription drug benefit will be passed. I predict that it will happen this year even. Do the elderly have it made? I'm sure there are a lot who don't. But compared to every other age group they do.

What's BCBS?

[maxelson]

Originally posted by gwrjr33:
A prescription drug benefit will be passed. I predict that it will happen this year even. Do the elderly have it made? I'm sure there are a lot who don't. But compared to every other age group they do.

What's BCBS?

I disagree (respectfully, of course). How long has this been an issue? Medicare? Quite some time. It is true that the elserly have a 95% voting population, and I see where you are headed with this, but I just disagree that there is that much power for that group. Seriously- do you have any elderly friends/ relatives of modest (and therefore average) means? Ask them. Medicare is the reason there is so much supplemental insurance and private medical plans. It actually goes to shore up my point: 95% voter turnout and a very powerful lobby STILL has done little to better the situation of that particular constituency. But they are more seen than the 18-30 crowd who are ignored fairly well, due to the fact that they do not vote all that much. So, there it be.

------------------
"never kiss a gun street girl..."

[jholmes]

Been away from the keys for a while due to my knee surgery. Much better now - though the pain killers may render my typing more ragged than usual.

The efforts must be more than just going to vote. Its a great start and the easiest way to make your voice heard but it's the total opposite end of the spectrum from revolution.

Cipher you asked what I meant and what I do towards that. Here's how I believe we must get involved to change the world.
Given that Governments and corporations hold so much sway, the best way to bring about change is from within those entities. Corporations don't squat without business plans and marketing directives. They live and die by the PR that drives their stock prices. Governments don't move without policy papers and position statements and all of these are created by people who are covering their asses.

One example (a small one but it's just me) I have a client who's 150 year old company is named after an Indian tribe. They have a very cartoony and insulting logo and no thought had ever been given to doing anything about it. Until the PR backlash got a little warm. I'm working to get the company and the tribal council to come to a means where the company gets to keep the 150 years of equity they have in the name and tradition in a manner that's more respectful and profitable to the tribe. The tribe will get a portion of product sales and a scholarship fund. The company will keep the name and a new more respectful image and benefit from the PR warmth.
Everybody will benefit.

As for political parties deal with the fact that there are two major parties in the free world. Liberals and Conservatives. Sure there's Greens and Reformers and Libertarians but if you want to create change in the world then change the courses of those two groups. If you are in a party that speaks only about the things you are passionate about who are you convincing? If environmental groups spent as much time working within the Republican party trying to changes minds internally oil drilling to the press or camping out in trees or hanging banners off public buildings. They might actually make some headway. As it is the majority of sheep who vote those straight party tickets watch these stunts and say "kooks"

Our leaders are talking heads. They speak from the party platform or the basis of a few position papers. Get inside and change those papers and you change the world.


edit -- whoa no more typing on Vicodin!! I sound like Ca$h on x

[This message has been edited by jholmes (edited 03-09-2001).]

[yoyo52]

John Lennon got it right--we all want to change the world. But what you (whoever you are) want to accomplish in the change will disagree completely with what I want to accomplish, and so on. Politics is the art of compromise, and revolution is the response of the bully to the compromises essential to politic life.

I went through one revolution, the Cuban one, and have been a student of other revolutions. My conclusion, for what it's worth: What revolutions produce is more of the same. What better king than Napoleon? What better tsar than Lenin? What better emperor than Mao? What better caudillo than Fidel? The American Revolution has never seemed to me particularly revolutionary--really an assertion of the rights and freedoms that British folk always claimed for themselves. The problem here in America in 1776 was that the colonists saw themselves as subjects of the crown, while George III's government saw them as subject to the crown. The point remains the same, though: the only thing that changed in Rip Van Winkle's home town was the name of the tavern, now the George Washington rather than the George III.

And what in any case would be the goal of a revolutionary change? I am passionately engaged in the politics of my home town, am on the board of trustees of local institutions, participate in electoral politics. I also know perfectly well that there's corruption everywhere. I work against it as much as I can. But I really have no illusions about changing things so drastically that everything is fixed. I suspect you're all tired of Shakespeare, but it might repay the effort to read Measure for Measure, where the idea of purging the corruption of a polity is one of the central schticks of the play. The result is not good, needless to say.

I agree with folks who've said that there's too much power in the hands of the rich and the few, and that that power has corrupted the government. But then I also wonder when that has not been true. We Americans have the illusion that it used to be better in the days of George Washington and the founding fathers. Well, tell that to the founding mothers, who got dissed despite Dolley Madison's eloquent pleas to her politician/lawyer husband. And tell that to the hundreds of thousands of slaves, each of whom were, constitutionally and legally speaking, defined as being three fifths of a person. Not exactly peak times for them either.

I have no doubt at all that we can screw the world over royally nowadays. But we can do that precisely because we have the power, technologically speaking, to keep nature at bay. That has always been the point of civilization. From that point of view, in fact, I would argue that these are absolutely the best of times. Think of any other historical period, anywhere in the world--and if you fancy that you want to live back then, when things were simpler and better, then you had better hope that you were born into an aristocratic family, 'cause only they had any chance of living much beyond their thirties.

You don't need to know Hobbes's Leviathan to know that life in the state of nature, as Hobbes says, or in a state close to nature, as humans have lived up to fairly recently, is "nasty, brutish, and short." I certainly don't want to return to that nastiness, and people who argue for a more brutish, rougher, tougher world do so from sheer ignorance of what such a state really is. If that seems attractive to someof us, it does so only because we are pretty protected by civilization, broadly conceived. Get rid of civilization and its protections and we're straight back where Hobbes describes us.

The power to destroy nature really does worry me. I do believe that that ability is something brand new in the human equation. But that power seems to me to be subject to political influence. I mean, after all, it's not just corporations and such that are destroying nature. Every time we do the convenient thing, like drive the half block in our SUV to the store where we accept the over-packaged, over-refined product to satisfy out most minor whim--every time we do that, we are responsible for the destruction. You can't legislate against such stupidity, and I'm not sure that you can educate it out of existence. But we have to hope that education will in fact work, cause otherwise the only solution is the consel of despair, the beginning of which is revolutionary violence.

[jholmes]

Well said.

[osiris]

Very well said. It is our responsibiity to be conscience of our environment, though I still feel the greater problem lies in the extreme, more severe abusesby Big Business/government.

One simple example, in NYC the recycling program actually consumes more energy and materials than what is benefitted from the actual recycling, meaning more resources - like fuel for sanitation trucks, energy to operate treatment plants, workers salaries, and those blue plastic bags are consumed to save (from a NY Times in Sept 1998, I think) But I still recycle, seperate and haul my garbage to the appropiate places. So what about military bases where environmental laws have no jurisdiction and million of tons per year of toxins are directly dumped onto our earth? What about states like Texas, the new NJ of environmental waste? (At least NJ finally gets a break!) Now GW wants to rape Alaska (also deregulating Coal Burning, Logging and Lord knows what else in Alaska for more oil)

Again, I agree that we need to do our part, but that is only the first step. How softly should we whisper or how loud shall we scream before our un-elected leaders listen?

BTW a new TV show "All About Bush" is due soon, hopefully enlightening through comedy the sheer stupidity of it all. http://www.comedycentral.com/bush/

God Bless America, please!

[yoyo52]

Not only scream, but rage against it. I do't believe that responsibility stops with educating ourselves--we have to educate others too, and that includes businesses that destroy our environment and governments that abet the destruction and take a hand in it. I guess I really wanted to emphasize that easy though it is to point fingers at the huge beam in the eye of big business, we also have to recognize the mote in our own eye.

[The Dude]

Well, time to take this thread out from the gutter.

I agree with the idea that we also need to educate the masses on the injustices that are commited by governments and corperations. I also agree with that we need to make sure that we ourselves don't waste and act as poor as the governments and corperations.

I want this thread to live on. I really enjoy the thoughts that everyone has contributed.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by yoyo52:
Not only scream, but rage against it. I do't believe that responsibility stops with educating ourselves--we have to educate others too, and that includes businesses that destroy our environment and governments that abet the destruction and take a hand in it. I guess I really wanted to emphasize that easy though it is to point fingers at the huge beam in the eye of big business, we also have to recognize the mote in our own eye.

Spoken like a true existentialist. In taking the ultimate responsibility for ourselves, we cannot but take responsibility for our fellows. And yet, if each man truly took reponsibility for their own existence, there would be no need to take reponsibility for everyone else. Gotta love a paradox.
ON thing in this thread is clear, we all have our own motes. We also have quite a few that are put there by others.
I've been thinking on this thread all weekend. On of our biggest issues is that we are a victimist society. We love to be made blameless of our own actions. I think it's one of the reasons religion is so big: the idea that there is one omnipotent, omniscient being which is responsible for our existence (I hain't gotten to the freewill part yet, so hold yer britches, there) is extremely appealing. Take a look at the courts: litigation upon litigation upon litigation- some frivolous, some not so much. THey mostly lean towards the victim getting some kind of recompence for the wrong (real or imagined) done him. So, this:What would happen if we simply refused to be victims? Obviously, this is not all encompassing. A mudered or raped person is truly a victim and that sentiment is deminished by the guy who sues his state because the prison does not afford him good peanut butter.I agree with whoever said it above: true revolution starts with oneself.Refuse to be a victim. Most of it is a mindset, anyway.

------------------
"never kiss a gun street girl..."

[Timo]

My post last week didn't make it, but as the thread has come back to "what is to be done", I'll post:

Originally posted by osiris:
So the answer is to motivate and organize people. Educate them. Cipher13's example of education is perfect.

So now what? Do we take these educated and enlightened people to Capital Hilll and protest? The last time that happened permits were denied - to the Bush protestors protesting the election. These protestors were forced back- far removed from making any valid media point because NO ONE COULD SEE THEM! (not that the media gave these people more than a minute of coverage) There is no freedom of speech anymore...or maybe just no one is listening or wants to.

Then do we become great leaders in taking followers down this seldom walked upon path-
only to be killed like the Kennedys? Or squashed like Martin Luther? How do we fight THAT?

Maybe I'm naive, but I put stock in that ole phrase "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Exposing lies and shadiness is part of the project. Exposing the hundred thousand censoring moves made by people in power over us (in all capacities: school, on the street, at work...not just the pols) is, I think, real work and real progress towards change. Exposing the connections between our consumer-driven society and that creeping feeling you've got that things generally suck is part of it.

I think you're right to smell a rat, but jholmes isn't off the mark either when he suggests we have met the enemy and the enemy is us. Lots of this stuff is internalized.

It seems to me that real power that is exerted to coerce is always masked. It is always legitimated by some external argument or custom. The example I'm thinking about is people who are tracked in school because test scores say they're shop kids (maxelson, I'm simplifying something complicated, I know). Actually, someone or a concert of someones decides they're shop kids and uses the test scores to back up these decisions. How do wealthy parents insure the economic status and privilege they enjoy is passed to their kids? They can't count on titles or peerage or the trappings of nobility as in the days of yore; so instead they invest in the prestige attached to school. Meanwhile the competitive schools attracting these students (these student's parents) insist that they are pinnacles of meritocracy, admiting the best and the brightest, rather than vehicles for perpetuating class distinctions. If that were true then class and university training wouldn't correlate as closely as they do.

OK, does that mean a university education is some kind "perpetuation of oppression" (as they were fond of ranting about in school )? No, it's not only that. Despite all this, education is the key to change. Better, education enables people to reach for the keys to change. It allows one to step out of the circle of being defined by school or TV or politics or whatever, and to take responsibility for who they are. To undo some of the victim mentality. And I mean education in the broad sense, not just the one legitimated by sheepskins.

There's always a reason for the stink, and the only way out of the rat maze is to up people's awareness and expose those hidden legitimazations. People aren't stupid, but they are being messed with.

[osiris]

Ahhh, university education... yes I believe that more expensive schools are molding
students to assume a position of higher authority in life - future CEOs, CFOs, ITOs, etc
while public state and county colleges target a more service oriented selection of jobs. I've attended both,
so I'm not trying to offend anyone here with this.

I've visited a bunch of schools on business/pleasure, including Duke U,
Cornell U, Pace U, Ulster C.C.C, SUNY New Paltz/Syracuse, Manhattan C.C.C.
and from my personal experiences in meeting students, I surmised:

the Expensive School's students defended the rich without moral conscience of the their actions/activities
to maintain their wealth, (Students who were poor, but in severe debt because of student loans, also felt this way)

The Less Expensive School's students defended the poor, with aspirations of success and hope for a better future.


If an Expensive education makes you the boss, who do you think is going to work for you? I sense
a hint of oppression here...


"C-I-L-L, the Landlord" - Eddie Murphy

[maxelson]

Originally posted by osiris:
Ahhh, university education... yes I believe that more expensive schools are molding
students to assume a position of higher authority in life - future CEOs, CFOs, ITOs, etc
while public state and county colleges target a more service oriented selection of jobs. I've attended both,
so I'm not trying to offend anyone here with this.

I've visited a bunch of schools on business/pleasure, including Duke U,
Cornell U, Pace U, Ulster C.C.C, SUNY New Paltz/Syracuse, Manhattan C.C.C.
and from my personal experiences in meeting students, I surmised:

the Expensive School's students defended the rich without moral conscience of the their actions/activities
to maintain their wealth, (Students who were poor, but in severe debt because of student loans, also felt this way)

The Less Expensive School's students defended the poor, with aspirations of success and hope for a better future.


If an Expensive education makes you the boss, who do you think is going to work for you? I sense
a hint of oppression here...


"C-I-L-L, the Landlord" - Eddie Murphy

All of which seems to go against the very point of education, don't you think? Universities, colleges, continuing ed, whatever, are supposed to hone the ability to think critically- not teach what to think, rather HOW.

[Timo]

Originally posted by maxelson:
All of which seems to go against the very point of education, don't you think? Universities, colleges, continuing ed, whatever, are supposed to hone the ability to think critically- not teach what to think, rather HOW.

That's what I was trying to get at. Even though universities et al. privilege their students and replicate class structures, nevertheless (and paradoxically) they also remain the key to changing this structure by teaching the ability to "think critically"...which ends up being a suprisingly difficult thing to do well, it seems to me.

[Robin Hood]

What the USA needs is anarchy. Anarchy is true democracy, because it is truly controlled the people. And do NOT confuse ANARCHY with CHOAS! Anarchy is not choas! Anarchy is the control of a small area by the COMMUNITY! Not by a large centralized government that oppresses the people. Anarchy is not wanton acts of violence, murder or rape. Anarchy is the freedom to do what ever you want as long as it does not hurt the rights of others. You should be able to go smoke a bowl, but you shouldn't be able to go rape someone becuase you feel like it. All to often the media portrays anarch and anarchists as a violent movement and violent people. This is simply not true. Educate yourself on the facts and you will see that what you believe is democracy is actually anarchy!

[Robin Hood]

What the USA needs is anarchy. Anarchy is true democracy, because it is truly controlled the people. And do NOT confuse ANARCHY with CHOAS! Anarchy is not choas! Anarchy is the control of a small area by the COMMUNITY! Not by a large centralized government that oppresses the people. Anarchy is not wanton acts of violence, murder or rape. Anarchy is the freedom to do what ever you want as long as it does not hurt the rights of others. You should be able to go smoke a bowl, but you shouldn't be able to go rape someone becuase you feel like it. All to often the media portrays anarch and anarchists as a violent movement and violent people. This is simply not true. Educate yourself on the facts and you will see that what you believe is democracy is actually anarchy!

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Robin Hood:
What the USA needs is anarchy. Anarchy is true democracy, because it is truly controlled the people. And do NOT confuse ANARCHY with CHOAS! Anarchy is not choas! Anarchy is the control of a small area by the COMMUNITY! Not by a large centralized government that oppresses the people. Anarchy is not wanton acts of violence, murder or rape. Anarchy is the freedom to do what ever you want as long as it does not hurt the rights of others. You should be able to go smoke a bowl, but you shouldn't be able to go rape someone becuase you feel like it. All to often the media portrays anarch and anarchists as a violent movement and violent people. This is simply not true. Educate yourself on the facts and you will see that what you believe is democracy is actually anarchy!

The sentiment is great. BUT (there always is, aint there) do you really think America could handle it? I'd have to say no. Compare what anarchy IS with what America IS (and what it is to be American) and see if it's compatible. Don't think it CAn work here as the average American ain't out to help the country, but himself.

[Robin Hood]

Because of the very nature of anarchy it would not be done at the scale of a nation. It would be on the scale of towns and regions. An entire state could not handle anarchy, but the counties within the state would be able to. Everybody feels this need for a large government to be in control, but in reality decisions that affect your life directly are usaully done at the local level anyway. This is how anarchu would work in the US.