Some fine quotes. Plenty, to be precise.

[Codz]

Originally Posted by Skybird

"Republic" is no holy grail, just a word with am meaning attached to it. When it is corrupted, then it is corrupted. When how it was meant is gone, then the meaning is gone. When you stay loyal to the eroded empty carcass of it, then you are under the spell of images from the past, and are a slave of the lack in the present. You get reigned, and not to your best benefit. You get reigned to the best benefit of those in command.

I fail to see how the current system in most modern republics is "hopelessly corrupt". Free speech is thoroughly kept and enforced. As are free religion, elections, and demonstration. I've never been arrested on false charges and neither has anyone I know. My internet/television/books have never been censored. Besides, any system that involves humans will always be at least somewhat corrupt. A society free from corruption can not exist while human nature is still intact.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Codz

I fail to see how the current system in most modern republics is "hopelessly corrupt". Free speech is thoroughly kept and enforced. As are free religion, elections, and demonstration. I've never been arrested on false charges and neither has anyone I know. My internet/television/books have never been censored. Besides, any system that involves humans will always be at least somewhat corrupt. A society free from corruption can not exist while human nature is still intact.

It's all a plutocracy or oligarchy. The establishment of industrial and business lobby lies in bed with politicians that you just cannot get rid off: vote for them, they are there, vote against them or vote for somebody else: they still are there pulling strings. Vote not at all, and they are there, still pulling strings again. You cannot get rid of them, since they made it their life'S prfession to be politicians. They hijacked the system and tailoured it so that its rules now are in support of their career and power interests. It'S a dense mesh between politics and private business lobbyism whereas the system you probably have in mind as something positive can only work if both are kept strictly separated and politics are not lobbied by and stay independent from business interests. Business bypasses voter'S votes by influencing pokltiics beside voting, by lobbyism. And politics influenc elegislation accordingly so this has become legal and fine.

No matter whether yoiu vote or not and for whom you vote: its still the same names playing the big cards. It is the same rich family clans being in control, staying well-interlinked, influencing thre whole by maintainign the right connections. IT's all a hijacked thing. It is neither demcratic, nor is it a fucntional republic, whcih should hjavbe become clear for both Europpean states and the Us especially in the past couple of years.

It's a corrupted oligarchy. Calling that "democracy" is just to appease the plebs and kleep them quite and obedient so that they do not disturb the system.

Good news is thnat this is unlikely to be maintainable another hundred years. Bad news is when this system breaks down, it will do so with a big, loud Bang.

Free speech becomes meaningless if peope are trained to liomit their thinlking and their freedom of mind according to agendas that we call poltical correctness, and are designed. Freedom is not so much a riught only, it is a skill that miust be leanred and maintained. If you canot make use of it becaseu you learned to stay within limits, then it is pretty much useless. In Eruope we have had several evenbts in recent years that illustrate how this public Zeitgeiust is killing freedom of speech in the nnanme of defending it, by group pressure and withc hunbts agaiunst people usin freedom of mind to thiunk thoiughts that are not in line of what officially is wanted. Reason does not taken care of, aeguments does not get taken care of, evidence does not get talken care of - the mere fact that some people think at directions and come to conclusions that are in violation of the officially wanted dogma of what the public is wanted to thuink is enough to cause aq witch hunt and bring the subject to the - metaphorical - stake. In Germany, such a with hunt for example relates to Thilo Sarrazin, but also to certain criticisms of widespread Green and environmentalist believes, and socialist ideas of what European citizen should be, as humans. Or, or course, Islam and failed Muslim integration. The polarised trench warfare and political deadlock between Dems and Reps in the US shows that such fronts are being fought along in the US as well.

There also is the issue of overrepresentation of millionaires in senate and rich upperclass in the House, which sees comparable problems in Western parliaments as well. A certain group and type of people time and again make it through the parties' hierarchies, this type and no other. It'S more about being wellconnected and playing the game by its rules, than about areugment, competence, or interests of state'S reason. That'S why by today'S standards you can say that from some level in the hierarchy on every politician is an egocentric cheater and liar - else he wouldn't have made it to where he is.

To hell with them all, and their oligarchic system as well. To hell with it all. In the EU and with party having ruoined state'S fiannces systenmtically, we can see how werll it works. And the US: had more debts than anyone else int he world, obviously that system has fundamental design flaws as well. And these flaws are no minor issues. At worst they could bring a new world war as a consequence of the last agony when it all collpases.

[Codz]

Yeah, I don't agree with any of that. That all sounds like conspiracy theories and fear mongering. Besides, in the US very few Presidents have been directly related and anyone can run for public office. Calling it "oligarchy" is absurd. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Skybird]

In US senate, two thirds are members of the millionaires club. In Congress, almost one half is member of the millionaires club. In the democratic party, almost nothing goes against the resistence of the Kennedies. In the Republican party almost nothing goes against the will of the Bushs. Without the support - network, announcement, money of these dynasties - anyone trying to make it throug the hierarchy has no good chances. Congress and senate have been called by some the most lobbied institutions in the world. I disagree, I think they are second and third place only, the Brussel headquarter of the EU is worse, I think. And the military-industrial-complex already has been warned of in the farewell speech by Eisenhower.

Fear-mongering. Conspiracy theory. Well. Sure. There also is total equality of chances between black and white.

On paper.

[Codz]

The power of the Kennedies and Bush's is overrated. The Bushs don't have any family members active in politics anymore. The two that served as President can never hold that office again, as per term limits.


The Kennedies also have no members active in politics. All of the extremely notable ones are either dead or retired. They were powerful in the 60's and 70's but not today.

[Penguin]

Can't say that I knew too much about this guy before, gotta check out the Monkey Wrench book some time.

I am a big fan of Thoreau though, unfortunately his works are quite unknown in Europe. We have no true 19th century counterpart here on his thoughts about individual liberty - Stirner, for example, is quite different from him.

Good that you discovered him, Skybird. Maybe it helps to reevaluate your position on banning books and thoughts.
Demanding freedom for oneself while denying others the same is no freedom at all.

Originally Posted by Codz

Sorry, but I can't take an anarchist seriously, though some of his quotes are interesting. For one, anarchism isn't sustainable. Eventually whoever has the most guns will "unofficially" rule. It's a policy were the rule of the gun overcomes the rule of law.

You follow the common misconception with the equation anarchy = abstinence of law or jungle law. The same, when for example the press writes about Somalia. They have an absence of government there, yes, but also an absence of rights and liberties. The guy with the biggest gun gets the biggest bread means power over others.
An ideal society, in a anarchist sense, would mean that individuals would not get the chance to get absolute power.

[Codz]

Originally Posted by Penguin

You follow the common misconception with the equation anarchy = abstinence of law or jungle law. The same, when for example the press writes about Somalia. They have an absence of government there, yes, but also an absence of rights and liberties. The guy with the biggest gun gets the biggest bread means power over others.
An ideal society, in a anarchist sense, would mean that individuals would not get the chance to get absolute power.

If true, then anarchy has the same flaw as communism. It requires you to fundamentally change human nature. Like it or not, society is too interwoven for it to ever truely work. I prefer the realistic balance we have now to utopian ideals destined to fail.

[August]

Originally Posted by Penguin

An ideal society, in a anarchist sense, would mean that individuals would not get the chance to get absolute power.

An ideal society, in an equally unrealistic sense (as anarchism), would mean we would all be able to fly like birds and swim like fishes.

I don't mean to be sarcastic but Codz is right. Anarchism is just not sustainable, at least among human beings. Rights and liberties must be defended or they will soon be lost. There must be some organization to defend them and that is called government.

[Codz]

Originally Posted by August

An ideal society, in an equally unrealistic sense (as anarchism), would mean we would all be able to fly like birds and swim like fishes.

I don't mean to be sarcastic but Codz is right. Anarchism is just not sustainable, at least among human beings. Rights and liberties must be defended or they will soon be lost. There must be some organization to defend them and that is called government.

No need for violent revolutions when we've already got as good a government as human nature will allow. We've just got to work and vote to keep it that way.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Codz

If true, then anarchy has the same flaw as communism. It requires you to fundamentally change human nature. Like it or not, society is too interwoven for it to ever truely work. I prefer the realistic balance we have now to utopian ideals destined to fail.

I agree in democracy there is still enough contradicting interests or views to keep some sort of balance in overall...that is if every one plays the game by the rules and the rules are guarded by constitution or courts.
There are always the unhappy people and of course the politicians that should be watched closely.

[Catfish]

I am still of the opinion to vote directly for big business and industry bosses.

That way they will push anything like they always did, but minus lobbies and politicians, and having to pay them = big win for all.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Codz

If true, then anarchy has the same flaw as communism. It requires you to fundamentally change human nature. Like it or not, society is too interwoven for it to ever truely work. I prefer the realistic balance we have now to utopian ideals destined to fail.

In the "final" stage, a communistic society and anarchy would not differ so much. Remember guys: I am still speaking of the ideal, the utopia. However an anarchist ideal is the rejection of collectivism - that's why for example the efforts to build a libertarian society in modern times, like in Ukraine and Spain, were always attacked by both Commies and fascists.

Speaking of ideals: I do not think that man is inherently good - or evil. That's why all the efforts to doctor the "ideal human" failed, they all were the attempts to put something in top of the people which they are not.
I also think that humans have a natural relation to things like possessions. Things we can see and hold in your hands. That's why for example people take more care of their own car than a public bus. This effect can also be seen in work life: when people have a say they feel attached, they produce much better results in the economic sense, but also feel themselves personally much better - a part of the team, not a work drone.

The same attachment to "the things you have" can be seen when you take a look at society. People care first for their own, the little units they can see, feel and understand - Family, friends, their own local surrounding. This is where self organization starts.
This is the reason why federalism is in principle a good idea. The understanding, that the smaller entities should be recognized and have a say. And this is how a just society should be organized, from down to top, not vice versa.

That's why I think that the ideal of an anarchist society would reflect human nature. In this ideal people would still have a home, a piece of land. Where I differ with the right wing libertarians (in the US meaning) is that I think that key stuff, which affects all people (e.g. health care, energy, etc.) should be under control of all people.

How to get a just society, where individual freedom is guaranteed and how to get a just economic system where productivity and protection from exploitation is guaranteed: I have no brilliant idea, all I know it would take billions of tiny steps rather than a snip. I even have no clue how my stance is called. I'm just anti-everything

Originally Posted by August

Rights and liberties must be defended or they will soon be lost. There must be some organization to defend them and that is called government.

I 100% agree with your first sentence, but I think government has a natural tendency to make governing as easy as possible - it's always easier to control sheep without rights than people who have a say. This is the reason why any government should be watched with vigilant eyes, all the time.

[August]

Originally Posted by Penguin

I 100% agree with your first sentence, but I think government has a natural tendency to make governing as easy as possible - it's always easier to control sheep without rights than people who have a say. This is the reason why any government should be watched with vigilant eyes, all the time.

No doubt Brother. I guess you could say that Government is the ultimate "necessary evil".