Who you voting for?

[kılıç_mehmet]

Wow..your government model sucks donkey dick...its nothing but the upper rich elite running the system. Clearly your government would become corrupt the very minute of its conception. Sounds like every kind of dictatorship typically known throughout the middle east.

I would necessarily be an enemy of this fictional government of yours, mind you, as this governemtn would obviously be holding down the common persons freedom of speech and assembly and religion, etc...

P.S. - America is not "mob rule", and if you think it is, then you do not know shit about American govt.

And your government isn't already ruled by the "rich" elite?
Nearly every damn government that walked this earth has been elitist and rich.
Even in your anarchist dream of a world, the rich will still subjugate poor people under their rule, and probably form another government.

Besides, you won't be living under my government, since you are not even my kin to live under the flag of that country.
Besides, every type of democracy is the kind of selfish mob rule that everyone desires.
Western democracy gives nothing to people.What we need is a strict and strong set of laws, and a powerful and centralized government to enact these laws, unafraid of losing their positions, and solely dedicated to the wellbeing of the people. Not to getting the votes of the people.
Like we have this system based on western democracy, that has just appointed some asshole Turk hating historical revisionist to the head of the language and history institution. If I'd see that guy on the streets, I'd break his legs, but I have to be content with the fact that he has been put on there by people who managed to get the votes of the uneducated poor, and the leisurely rich, the ones you detest.
I however do not detest neither the poor, nor the rich, for in my system, both are unable to dictate policies.

[reverendjeremiah]

Wow..your government model sucks donkey dick...its nothing but the upper rich elite running the system. Clearly your government would become corrupt the very minute of its conception. Sounds like every kind of dictatorship typically known throughout the middle east.

I would necessarily be an enemy of this fictional government of yours, mind you, as this governemtn would obviously be holding down the common persons freedom of speech and assembly and religion, etc...

P.S. - America is not "mob rule", and if you think it is, then you do not know shit about American govt.

And your government isn't already ruled by the "rich" elite?
Nearly every damn government that walked this earth has been elitist and rich.
Even in your anarchist dream of a world, the rich will still subjugate poor people under their rule, and probably form another government.

Besides, you won't be living under my government, since you are not even my kin to live under the flag of that country.
Besides, every type of democracy is the kind of selfish mob rule that everyone desires.
Western democracy gives nothing to people.What we need is a strict and strong set of laws, and a powerful and centralized government to enact these laws, unafraid of losing their positions, and solely dedicated to the wellbeing of the people. Not to getting the votes of the people.
Like we have this system based on western democracy, that has just appointed some asshole Turk hating historical revisionist to the head of the language and history institution. If I'd see that guy on the streets, I'd break his legs, but I have to be content with the fact that he has been put on there by people who managed to get the votes of the uneducated poor, and the leisurely rich, the ones you detest.
I however do not detest neither the poor, nor the rich, for in my system, both are unable to dictate policies.

Yes, for the most part our country is ruled by the rich, but at least we poor have a chance of making it to public office. Your system is tyranical and the doors are shut to everyone BUT the rich..which is a big difference.

Also, you stil dont understand anarchism. Why not? You have a computer in front of you. Are you to lazy to look it up? Anarchists want to abolish money. How the FUCK can anyone be rich in that scenero? Anarchist want the state to be abolished, therefore no aparatus for any subjugation of the masses. And finally, no anarchist would ever accept a "rulership" or authority over other people, nor would they want to create a government, much less a side government.

Its not my fault that you are ignorant to basic definitions such as "anarchy". Do your homework or deserve your scoffing.

Besides, you won't be living under my government, since you are not even my kin to live under the flag of that country.

A little bit of racism seeping out again is it not? As far as I am concerned we are equals, and as much as I disrespect G-C I would not deny the man food, water, or medical attention. Everyone deserves food, water, shelter, equality and good health regardles of wether you think they deserve it or not. This is non-negotiable with me. If you oppose this then you are rightly an enemy of the people and a possible tyrant in my eyes. You call it selfish mob rule. I call it welfare of the people.
Western democracy, for all of its failings, is no way what you describe it. It DOES give back to the people. Not as much as I would like it, but it does have its benefits. Our problem is with the oligarchy.

Anarchist, on the other hand, prefer direct democracy without a centralized government. In fact, centralized power is one of the biggest things they fight against.

If I'd see that guy on the streets, I'd break his legs

Wow...the farthest I would go is smashing your banks the fuck up. You, on the other hand, feel fine about breaking bones. Becareful. Once you cross that line, you may find yourself in a situation where you become the gimp.

Dictatorships are not possible in an anarchist system. No government, no state, no money, property is commonly owned, and most people are well armed to protect their freedoms.

As far as dictating policies, everyone is capable of doing such a thing. That is why anarchists do not have positions of power. If we MUST have such a thing, it is temporary and revolving. And when I mean temporary, I mean TEMPORARY, as in one job to do representing something for the moment. In situations like that, I support a random system. Everyone who is willing to be temporary representative tosses their lot in. It is stirred and the name drawn is the one elected.

[houseofcantor]

And your government isn't already ruled by the "rich" elite?
Nearly every damn government that walked this earth has been elitist and rich.
Even in your anarchist dream of a world, the rich will still subjugate poor people under their rule, and probably form another government.

Not with zero-state morality. From the perspective of I, everything changed with vector atheism. The problem is that vector atheism is religion, which inevitably evolves into religious nonsense. The solution seems to be viral anti-meme. On it.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Yes, for the most part our country is ruled by the rich, but at least we poor have a chance of making it to public office. Your system is tyranical and the doors are shut to everyone BUT the rich..which is a big difference.

Nope. They are open to the learned people. Why would a poor uneducated person be allowed to run anything?
IF anything, they would be given a job, education and etc. if he/she wants to study, of course. Some do, some don't.
Not everyone is destined to rule something, not everyone can overcome the huge burden, whereas most rulers are just there for personal profit, not in order to provide good governance. The fact that there is a "chance" or better say, an illusion to making it to a public office does not mean that they will. Here too, even the poorest peasant has that chance. But without money, you cannot get elected.
In my system, if you are believed to be a useful person, you will be recruited into the system.
Your personal wealth will have no influence on your position within the government.

How the FUCK can anyone be rich in that scenero?

You want to abolish *money* but you cannot abolish the monetary system.
People will always have need to barter, pay or wrangle eachother for something they need.

And finally, no anarchist would ever accept a "rulership" or authority over other people, nor would they want to create a government, much less a side government.

That is why they are lazy, and never up to the responsibility.

Its not my fault that you are ignorant to basic definitions such as "anarchy". Do your homework or deserve your scoffing.

Really, reading 10+ definitions from any dictionaries in any language out there won't change my mind about an unrealistic and impossible system without a system.

A little bit of racism seeping out again is it not?

You yourself told me that you will be the enemy of that government.
Why would you really live under it anyways? Besides, it's a state based on worldwide ethnolinguistical collaboration, so yes, citizenship will mainly be admitted to those who this state is for, and the minorities that live under our rule.

Everyone deserves food, water, shelter, equality and good health regardles of wether you think they deserve it or not.

I agree with you. And in this system, they will get it. However, those who try to leech off of the system, may they be rich(and the rich do it even more than the poor), or poor, will receive what they deserve.
Honest people, who try to live a dignified life will receive what they deserve.

If you oppose this then you are rightly an enemy of the people and a possible tyrant in my eyes. You call it selfish mob rule. I call it welfare of the people.

I care for the welbeing of my people. This is the first, utmost priority of our way of thinking. We believe in an idealist way of life. And we extend this to our ways of conducting business, and government-people relations.
Public welfare will be a cornerstone of this system, with even the most malicious having access to it, but they will be restricted to having any kind of power within the system, like for example, some fucktard from a slum rising up to become a minister, just because he is a far relative of the president, or one of his ministers, will not be possible in this system, just like a rich guy blackmailing/bribing governmental officials to obtain political power will not happen in this country.

Anarchist, on the other hand, prefer direct democracy without a centralized government. In fact, centralized power is one of the biggest things they fight against.

Which is the reason why they fail. Without a centralized government, there would be no country, and no need to have a "democracy", except for in very primitive cases, in wich they'll probably vote on whether to paint their wartruck red(fasta) or yellow(shooty).

Wow...the farthest I would go is smashing your banks the fuck up. You, on the other hand, feel fine about breaking bones. Becareful. Once you cross that line, you may find yourself in a situation where you become the gimp.

I don't really care. I've been beaten up and have fought others due to my ideals. If someone wants to break my legs, let them come. I'm not afraid.
Besides, I have people in whom I find security and friendship in. That guy has no one, no one besides the people who clap behind him and his every misdeed, and we know who those cowards are. Those who mock the people with such words will all get what they deserve.

Dictatorships are not possible in an anarchist system. No government, no state, no money, property is commonly owned, and most people are well armed to protect their freedoms.

Well, your system would work under the circumstances of a system like the Venus project, which is, imo, a quite intrguing system that we could adopt for our own people, like automatisation, computers and etc..
However, until the day where full automatisation and world hunger problems are solved, I'm not sure that anarchy is applicable in any way.
I think that a place without laws does not stand a chance for survival, even if you make property common, it needs to be in such an abundance as for the people to regard it as worthless, like air, for example.

As far as dictating policies, everyone is capable of doing such a thing.

I'm sure that everyone is able to sign pieces of papers.
But that's not what I'm talking about.

Not with zero-state morality. From the perspective of I, everything changed with vector atheism. The problem is that vector atheism is religion, which inevitably evolves into religious nonsense. The solution seems to be viral anti-meme. On it

Indeed, that will be the main point of my system. It will be founded on ideals, not on public demand, and shape the public to fit that ideal, in which our people will live a life of relative peace and prosperity.
This won't be done by force, no. It will be done by education and the provision of quality goods and services to the people.

[houseofcantor]

Not with zero-state morality. From the perspective of I, everything changed with vector atheism. The problem is that vector atheism is religion, which inevitably evolves into religious nonsense. The solution seems to be viral anti-meme. On it

Indeed, that will be the main point of my system. It will be founded on ideals, not on public demand, and shape the public to fit that ideal, in which our people will live a life of relative peace and prosperity.
This won't be done by force, no. It will be done by education and the provision of quality goods and services to the people.

Me and the Rev are on the same page with anarchy; what I see that he may not is fractal virtual representation. I backed into technocratic anarchy after trying to be "defined" as a conservative republican. Epic fail. I am not responsible for them people.

What I came up with may be the global solution, as the way I envision it; localities form whatever governance is feasible to the communities. I consider that every human has a certain responsibility to the group identity - humanity. What to we owe each other but love, peace, and happiness? What to we owe our future but a present state to be proud of? There we go - a 4. I'm good with fours.

Since it's my system, of course I'm world administrator - what, I'm gonna be vice-president? - but I don't see a problem with you and your sultanate. I know people who crave that kind of security; you could be the kind of charismatic leader such that the sultanate of California grows to include Nevada and Arizona.

Am I worried about you threatening my power base in Ithaca? Hell, no. This is because governance is yet another form of identity; throughout history, people have been one thing more than any other - anarchists. Not in the letter of the term but the spirit; people tire of their group identity and toss it. There has always been the association of power with leadership; in my experience this association leads to more negatives than positives. Look at this fucking place. I call it a theocratic oligarchy, but anybody who doesn't see America as a corpocracy paying mere lip service to democracy simply ain't aware of their surroundings. This country is on the threshold of a descent into madness; I don't trust in the "leaders" here, but rather the "Spirit of America:" we're a nation of anarchists that just don't now it yet. The flag of this nation once read, "Don't Tread on Me;" and that, now, makes a fine motto for humanity.

If there's anything "we" must do, as a global community, is stop stepping on people. I'm not a traditional anarchist; I'm a big-picture realist. Anarchy is a system of people; everything else comes from people, that's the way I see it.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Since it's my system, of course I'm world administrator - what, I'm gonna be vice-president? - but I don't see a problem with you and your sultanate. I know people who crave that kind of security; you could be the kind of charismatic leader such that the sultanate of California grows to include Nevada and Arizona.

It's going to be a Khanate, not a Sultanate.
Besides, we do not seek "security", we seek our sovereignity, and our own destiny within this hostile world.

I don't trust in the "leaders" here, but rather the "Spirit of America:" we're a nation of anarchists that just don't now it yet. The flag of this nation once read, "Don't Tread on Me;" and that, now, makes a fine motto for humanity.

Really, how exactly are you a nation of "anarchists"?
The reason why you're a nation is your state.

[5thHorseman]

'Yes, for the most part our country is ruled by the rich, but at least we poor have a chance of making it to public office'

Obama being the obvious person representative of this. Mixed race from a broken family. We don't get that in the UK, we get David Cameron an Eton or Tony Blair from Fettes.

[houseofcantor]

Really, how exactly are you a nation of "anarchists"?
The reason why you're a nation is your state.

1. History
2. Foot patrol

I'm native born Irish American. I've been on foot, on the streets of half this country; I've seen every type in this place, we're not "Americans" we're the country of fucking "I".

I do not hold to being Irish nor American; all that is, is classification. There's valid stereotypes involved. Like being white, and how drinking and poetry seem to go together; and how shit can get crucial in an instant's drunk. That last is how "my people" get themselves killed.

Fifth generation of a refugee from the potato famine, what's my place in the world's only "superpower?" Beats the fuck outta me. I'm blue collar laborer stock, never expected to be discussing political idealism to the global community; but here I am. The Irish overcame the persecution of the majority by shutting the fuck up, doing the fucking job, and becoming the fucking majority; that's what I know about Irish in America. And there's still plenty of places where I've been, that being a mick wasn't cool, and it ended up being assholes and elbows. I'm still an asshole.

America got to be top dog as a result of the convergence of the emergence. It began with "we the people" and it ain't nothing but "we the people;" Now we got all this "religious right" bullshit; this middle east adventurism? This is fucking nonsense. Tell you what I know about the Arabian mindset - it ain't the Western mindset, period - if that's the kind of America that is oppressing your sovereignty, you ain't got no argument from me.

[reverendjeremiah]

It's going to be a Khanate, not a Sultanate.
Besides, we do not seek "security", we seek our sovereignity, and our own destiny within this hostile world.

sounds like a train wreck waiting to happen. Sounds to me if you get your dream you would actually make the world a MORE hostile place.