Are you anti-government?

Post Reply New Topic

Where? On YOUTUBE?

For the Record, I am not anti-government / governor / governess / governance , or any other "authoritative body" : being purposefully opposed to something that Pervasive is a recipe for Communication Disorders of all shapes & sizes ... may it never be, by merit of Everyone getting involved rather than being made felt to sit on the sidelines to watch in horror. 💜

BS. Monsanto, the FDA and Federal Reserve harm people.
I can't believe some of the things I've read in this thread, after all the US government has done and been caught doing.. It should be fairly obvious by now, 'murica is the land of the ignorant.

The government is an institution like any other. It responds to a variety of complicated incentives, and also performs acts that are harmful or beneficial depending on the circumstances.

I don't know what uwmonkdm is responding to. The FDA generally tries to protect people, as the incentives for it are generally strongly to prevent public outrage and so anything that slips past their net to cause severe issues creates a lot of problems for those bureaucrats.(Not to say it works perfectly at all) and the Federal Reserve is also pretty good as institutions go. Not perfect, but it has largely succeeded at its task of providing monetary stability, as can be seen with comparisons before and after the Reserve existed in terms of the variance of value in the currency. The gold standard shows high variance, and the Federal Reserve shows a variance that is a lot lower.

I used to think all Americans were ignorant sheep, too, but at some point I took a step back and realized that I was only getting information from sources I ideologically agreed with, was quick to pass things off as a coverup, and didn't believe anyone would seek an authoritative position without the intending to be evil. When I learned to investigate things more critically and objectively, I found that I was more ignorant than a lot of people I passed off as such. Personal anecdote. Anyways...

If you believe that it is the blatant intention of the FDA to do people harm, or that the Federal Reserve either serves no purpose, or an agenda driven one throughout multiple administrations, then perhaps you're only focusing on the negatives, of which I don't think anybody deny exists. Much of the Federal Reserve's problems came from Alan Greenspan, the Fed chair from 87 to 2006. Opposition to the Federal Reserve primarily comes from economic libertarians and Objectivists, of which he is both. His model failed, because the principles he enacted were flawed. Those principles were largely based on unfettered, laissez faire capitalism, which would be the byproduct of severely limited government. It is a legitimate ideology, but foolish, and dare I say ignorant, to think people would somehow not suffer under it.

No stored in that mandatory anal implant you have as objectionable material

Not a fan of any form of authority that deals with rules and regulations that don't directly harm another human being.

I am not saying that all government programs are bad for the average citizen. I am saying that one can tell if a policy will be implmented by knowing if it will benefit the elite. Similarly, slave owners cared about the health of their slaves because a sick slave did less work.
Unfortunately, for us our owners have realized that we will put up with far more then they originally thought. Now 400 individual Americans own half of the country's wealth. The days of that well known commie (sarcasm ) Eisenhower are long over.
With almost total control over the media, the international corporations can make us believe any nonsense they want. That the poor created the financial mess we are in. The OWS movement were lazy criminals (actually most were middle class ). That we need more deregulation of Wall Street (the deregulation of Wall Street caused our current mess). And a ton of BS that I am amazed that even a sheeple can believe!

Even the tea party started as a reaction to Wall Street's crimes and government facilitating the elites plans. Then the Koch brothers took it over and it became for less regulation of Wall Street!
I voted for Obama twice. But only because he was the lesser of two evils. However, when he had the power he concentrated on bailing out banks, Wall Street and international corporations. He backed down on all his social programs.
Dems are like "good cop"". Repubs are like "bad cop". Both are against us. However, I will continue to vote for "good cop". At least he throws us a bone now and then.

Even your insults are ...

I'm not really pro-government or anti-government, but I am anti-imperialist and in favor balance of power. If it was up to me, all of the world's most powerful countries would be fragmented into many pieces. There would be no global superpowers. Many more checks and balances between countries would occur because of this. Corporations would have a harder time abusing the populations of countries because there wouldn't be any super powerful governments to enable them. In a world where no government has the upper hand, the people would ultimately decide the direction that the world takes. The significance of belonging to a country would be diminished, and the people of the world would be more united because of it.

The over the top assertion of the OP aside, I am for limited government. Government is a necessary evil but in being evil, or at least corrupt by nature, it should be kept small enough to minimize the damage.

I am anti government. Because I don't see why someone else has the right to take my stuff from me or prevent me from doing what I like with my own property, my body included.

That said, I'm not an anarchist. I'm borderline, but not quite there. I'd say I'm a near-anarchist, believing in a decentralised network of courts which enforce justice and monitor each other for signs of corruption, paid for and run by volunteers (it could be done - the UK spends ~£600/person*year on policing, courts and prisons, and it would be much cheaper when it's not being wasted on petty laws about drugs and taxation). If a court gets corrupted, it will be soon shut down by the ones around it, and if the corruption has managed to spread further, it would simply elicit an escalating response in turn. Think of it as a more decentralised version of the system that they used in medieval Iceland. I'm not sure about whether the policing would be private, but I would certainly have a lot of volunteer militias from the various areas form the military. If you want to make your own, go ahead, but be warned that if you try anything funny like trying to conquer the area, you're going to be facing all the others...

Anyway, where was I... oh yeah. I'm anti-government, but not anti-nation-states. Just coercive ones. If I had my way, they'd be replaced with volunteer micronations, which would provide their citizens with a safety net, a sense of belonging etc. Maybe with their own military and civil claims courts.

I would say so, I hate the way the current government works. Also I would prefer a classless society, but since that is unlikely because as many wont fail to point out is people are mean and greedy...I would at the very least like a more accountable goverment that actually works for the people not just the ones with ridiculous amounts of money.

As long as some people are smarter than others, stronger than others, more ambitious than others, more focused than others there will be a hierarchy of accomplishment with some kind of status to go with it. A classless society is a society of equalized mediocrities.

ruveyn

Yeah, and you're basically informing me of what I already said in different words because? If its supposed to make me like or agree with hierarchy its not working.

Though I think a lack of heirarchy would work even if people had different skills/abilities while lacking others, but so long as someone wants more than the next person just so they can be superior it wont happen and good luck with all humans getting rid of their addiction for power and material things.