Sasan Sadat-Sharifi wrote: > > > The Constitution is a failure because the concept of limited, > self-regulating power is FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED. You can tweak the > Constitution all you like, but the outcome will always be the same.
You can wish for anarchy all you like, but the results is always the same, whenever you add more people (from one, which is the truest form of anarchy) and the results increase in likelihood as you add more people, that the results will either be war (as in some committing crime against others, unless those doing the war are the defenders, defending) or governments (cooperation and / or peace, and thus freedom). Anarchy is nothing more than saying a government of one. As said, whenever you add more people, you are thus much more likely to get cooperation (which is then a government of more then one) or war (death and slavery) or peace (the non open hostility between two governments). The question isn't one of government or no government, the question is one of governments (cooperation or peace, which lead to freedom) and that of war (death and slavery). There are only two human agendas, freedom (peace or cooperation, cooperation being the government of two working for the same goals, and peace, being the lack of open hostilities towards two governments, whether the governments be whole nations or two people), and everything else (war and its daughters, death and slavery). What we call government, isn't ours, it is another waging war on us, and we refuse to organize another to counter it. The results is of course, death or slavery, of that choice, when you choose to be a government of one in the face of another overwhelming "government" of criminals, that has declared war on you. Personally, I think this whole no government argument was formulated and promoted by those who wage war on us, to make sure they have their way with us, and repeated by those who have no way to discern it as such. Goat . > > >> What is your alternative? Everyone becoming a libertarian saint? How > can >> you guarantee that? > > > Why does freedom require that everyone become a "libertarian saint"? > Doesn't freedom also include the ability to defend yourself against > aggressors? Why couldn't a community VOLUNTARILY come together to > defend each other? Besides, as I have stated before, Government > CREATES far more criminals than it could ever protect you from. Yet what you say we should do is a government. Would you consider your neighbors and yourself criminals when you organize to defend yourself? That in fact is exactly what Jon said our system was designed to be, not criminal, but a governing body to come together to achieve its own protection. > > > > Nothing turns people against each other more quickly than the > territorial nature of Government. Yet in the above statement next up, you said you approved of that. What after all is your body of people coming together to protect itself, but a government that is protecting its territory? >> > > The instability that you speak of is a direct result of attempting to > control things that cannot and should not be controlled. Traditional > Authority brings out the worst in humans, and Freedom brings about a > natural equilibrium that, if disturbed, is easily restored. > > There is one thing that separates us from the "wasteland" of previous > generations, and that is technology. Your previous posts have vilified > technology as a force for destruction and enslavement, but the motives > to develop these evil technologies come almost exclusively from > Government. As technology improves, so does the Human Condition. If > enough people can learn to reject Authority then I see no reason why > things cannot get better in time. Actually, all those techs came mostly from a body of people acting as government of more then one, you would prefer to call a business, which sold them to another government for lots of money, to use to control the slaves, because they have already declared war on the rest of us, and we couldn't be bothered to show up for it. There is no reason, nor does history show that there is any reason, to expect that this still wouldn't be the case if you didn't call government, government, except you would have no say in a government when it became big enough to kill or make you a slave, just like now, though now it still may not be to late to change the enemy government back into our government, because power always seeks to fill the void. The question then is how do you keep the power form becoming absolute? And that is what the FFs tried to do, and it was the closest thing workable that we ever came and it still wasn't good enough. The solution isn't to throw the baby out with bath water, but to figure out why we should throw out the water. I tend to doubt this "government" can be saved, because people will not organize (or govern themselves to do it), and we will have no choice to fight, or be dead or slaves (though some will say that is already the case). Your solution should we win, is to replace it with no control whatsoever so that it may grow at a rate or pace even greater then it did this time, instead of figuring out what made it go wrong, though my vote is clearly on the institutionalization of fictional money. Survival is not mandatory or even expected of you, by the enemy. Goat