Thread: Government Is Limiting Human Potential

I do think that as far as drugs go, our government is fucked up.However, we do need some form of government to help society manage itself. Anarchy would not be an ideal state for anyone.

i totally agree with you, anarcy is not good for society either, but if it doesn't get its morals straight soon, civilizations death will be by its own hands

Its called freedom and no the government doesn't need to "manage" society. The government is there to protect people, if no one is being harmed they need to butt out.

Our government appears corrupt to me. All the politicians seem to be in it for themselves and for their political party. No one cares about the people anymore.

although our government's drug policy is fucked up, government is ABSOLUTELY necessary.

i do, however, like the idea of no government throughout the world. If nobody had government, there would be no REAL wars.

I like the idea of having "tribes". We could chill in an area of the world where there were people like us. As a small group of people, communism would work. A paradise. Tribes could intertrade. All drugs would be legal, and because there would be no currency, drugs would not promote crime.

Personally, i would go to a remote island near Hawaii (where weed is easily grown), and have a group of like 50 people there. Our own little country.


HEY!!!!!!!!!&# 33;!!!!!!!!! i have a good fucking idea (although it probably wont happen)

EVERYONE on dreamviews.com should chip in some cash so we could buy an island. Then, we could cecede form the patron country and become our own country. A country of lucid dreaming, diversity, and acceptance. Weed is legal. No drinking age. No foreign policy or government bullshit. Just a relaxing environment with no REAL work (except for gathering food and supplies), where lucid dreaming would thrive.

So, what do you think of my plan. We just need a couple of rich old men to help buy the island.

Yeah one of the best things about the netherlands is that we made cannabis legal. To bad that this clear proof that legalising it works great (way less addicts in the netherlands then in france for instance, way less hard drugs here), that it didn't leed to other countries getting smart.

Mostly becouse convervative factions in the countries that actually are all influenced by the government, it's a downward spiral in a way.

On alot of points the government should STFU. However people in large groups need systems, otherwise we will all fall victem to the human nature of greed and hate. A few things that can hold it in order are a political or religious system. However I like to think that eventually when we have all elevated our morals to a better level we can all live and respect each other without the factor of a government-like controlling factor. That can allways lead to bad things itself (police brutality, corrupt government, religious or patriotistic fanatics, ect.)

Originally Posted by Neruo

However people in large groups need systems, otherwise we will all fall victem to the human nature of greed and hate. A few things that can hold it in order are a political or religious system.[/b]

I find it funny that the only thing holding it in place is us, the people, who obey and follow the rules. A government's power is dependent on support, obviously, but if we just decided to take it away they'd be screwed. Of course, everyone would have to withdraw their support including the military and police. Anyone read The Politics of Obedience - The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude by Etienne de la Boétie? Written in 1550! Er, sorry if I'm going off-topic.

i think the reason marijuana is still illegal is because the government has no way of taxing it. at least thats what i've heard. (don't quote me on that)

I think the purpose of government got totally lost over its time of development.
Now the basic thought of avoiding the idiotic idea of anarchy and any other extreme kind of power is good - for the living of everybody; it at least seems to be the best compromise.
But see .. it's not just stupid drug restrictions ... an example: a friend started studying over here in October last year.
There is the possibility of asking for financial support during those years. It's a general thing everybody can ask for.
Now he started to study and NEEDED the money, otherwise he wouldn't have asked for it, right? They didn't tell him until December that he will get support, and it took until the END of january until he received his first bucks ...
Now first they come and tell you "Hey everybody can study .. doesn't matter which social status ... we'll help ya out ...." and then they be like "Wait up ... we can't pay so many new students right at the start of the semester ... we need to pay our employee's etc. too.."

But when I have to pay them something, it has to happen right away, otherwise I have to pay the fee for not paying right away ...

but I could go on and on and on .....

Theres a huge middle ground between no government and the government butting into your life at every possible point. Right now we are way into huge government in everything side. Go to a smaller goverment isn't the same thing as getting rid of it.

I don't have a problem with government, I just don't want it controling my life.

I don't know about the drugs, but government is bad. VERY bad.

When making critical objections about the governing parties of your country, we often make the mistake of thinking that they are maliciously attacking and manipulating the popularity for their own selfish gain.

This is a gross mistake especially when considering a democratic (or at least, a presidential figure publicly voted in) because they then represent the mass. Of course, there are many leaders in this system that will take advantage and manipulate the system, however, we have to consider that there are more than just the central figure head involved.

Consider that the health division does not publicly elect their leaders and that a majority of their decisions are based upon their own research and opinon. Most of us will find it difficult to simply trust our leaders and governing oligarchy in how to direct our lives. This brings me to my most important point:

As many of you that have a problem with a law that has been established, there are (most likely, if not definitely) double the amount of people who oppose your belief. Consider gay marriages; they are a minority which leaves support for their right for gay marriage in those equal minds within the majority (the straight). Contrasting this to marijuana, those who smoke it and those who don't, we see that within the party that do not smoke, there is an obvious larger party who believes and votes against legalisation.

This is where I would like to point out that I think it would be fine to legalise marijuana as I believe most will consider my rebuttle as incentive to assume that I am against marijuana lagalisation.

And thusly, we see that the government actually obey's the people's demands and criteria. Social psychology and sociology would argue that the government is simply the elective affinity with the populus - that they adapt and feed their needs while only essentially manipulating the cultural implications to the majority. It's an odd cycle, but I think we need to define who really decides social morality. I don't have a standpoint, but I believe this is where many of our issues lay.

So, when you consider attacking the government for not letting you smoke, or that you think that they are malicious and selfless jerks whom are simply after manipulating the poplus - consider that this is probably the psychological projection of how you feel with your parents - alienated and unloved.

Anyways, hope I stirred the pot!

(And that I have been enlightening).

~