entrangermercenary1 wrote:
*repeats mantra to self "i shall not bitch slap anyone today, i shall not bitch slap anyone today"* ah, fuck it
^ only because i really dont wanna get into a debate with anyone today

as to your last question... i'd like to try pissing into the wind, unfortunately i dont come with the right equipment to really do that
and one does not need to change the world, they only need to change themselves...we're all connected on some level, unfortunately...we change ourselves, we change our outlook, we change the resonance and imprint we leave on others (kinda like the feeling of my hand upside the back of your head )

StarsChildren wrote:
Im always open to a bitch slap as long as you have the heels on a nazi armband and riding whip

merc, you are a perv

n itd b a likely chance you'd catch me with a nazi armband because the symbol is a hindu/buddhist one and has a completely diff meaning than what most people know, hitler and his groupies only copied it, its a very old symbol that means the complete opposite of what it is associate with. but as far as the heels, you'll have to call prince harry up for that because i'd break my neck if i put heels on.

StarsChildren wrote:
Somebody else close to me also calls me a perv

entrangermercenary1 wrote:
I agree with this, its why I just can't buy the whole 'anarchist' thing.

Sorry, but no form of government at all just wouldn't work in reality. To believe that it would is, in my opinion, naive.

Self government or be governed by the biggest gun holder.

Depends what you mean by 'self government' really...

diamondgeezer wrote:
Internal forces rather than external ones.

oioioi wrote:
So lets clarify....are you advocating absolutely no form of external government whatsoever? Just the individual governing him/herself and nothing else?

diamondgeezer wrote:
Almost but not quite. Certain societal influences will doubtless be exerted. If they are for the good of the society and not for individual gain then the individual would take on board these influences as his/her own.

oioioi wrote:
I too would advocate that form of government (the vast majority of people would) - if of course it would work in reality, which ofc is questionable..

But my point is, even such an admirable form of government as that would be, still, a form of government.

diamondgeezer wrote:
Anarchists aren't opposed to control, they're not chaos freaks , anarchists are opposed to hierarchy, not rules.

oioioi wrote:
Fair enough.

So who makes the rules, and who is in control?

diamondgeezer wrote:
Everyone & everyone... has to be this way otherwise 'someone' may seek to use the control and rule making for personal advantage.

Vunerability challenge.

Ask yourself this question, where from 1 to 10 are you in the skills dept at making the things you need to save spending your money or killing those who have some, in order to survive for say six months.

What do you need to be more independant of the droughts that are being created by others by feeding the beast we are all living within. Thrse are the questions people should be asking themselves.

Now take a good look into your childrens eyes, as if they were the ones suffering because of this current paradigm, and work out how long it will be before they are called upon to keep the illusion going.

Everything we talk about is adults zooming other adults, not who will eventually pay for the violence of their ancestors, the ones with higher IQ's, the makers of all things, weapons included.

When we are kings but for one day, one would soon realise, non are fit to be king at any time, the spice of life, the dodgy genes are recognised yet so irresistable, not to use as a weapon.

1 to 10, the childrens need the answers sooner than later so they might live in harmony by learning to gather the skills we ignore at our peril.

diamondgeezer wrote:
Preferably a ridiculously transparent system with entire societal involvement.
The idea is to automate the mundane and remove the necessity for 90% of governance from the get go.
The rest people get to make a much more direct and 'true' democratic influence upon with no elite governing class.
The technology is available now to make such direct democracy a reality actually.

oioioi wrote:
But that's where we come back to the questions of reality and naivety....because in reality that form of governance couldn't work. In my opinion.

In your opinion it would, but has it ever yet, throughout all the history of man? No it hasn't...and there is a reason why...

andyh wrote:
There must be articifers, ellected by those who need goods and materials moving to and froe, ellected by the system but not for profit, but cared for by the system.

andyh wrote:
Sounds great

How would one describe that? A kind of 'socialist libertarian democracy' perhaps? Whatever you call it, its a form of government...

diamondgeezer wrote:
Yes, people with a vested interest in the current system (and big guns) won't ever let it work.