I asked Drewmandan, and he said he's an anarchist.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Printable View
I asked Drewmandan, and he said he's an anarchist.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Then I was wrong :P.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grod
'Anarchy' in the academic meaning of the word, not the dictionary meaning, of course.
Aka you're not some 13 year old that says he/she hates the government because some kid at school makes fun of him/her :P.Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
Most however are though. In society's eyes, they (anarchists) lie somewhere between emo-goths and satanists.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Which is unfortunate. Anarchists (the ones that support the almost utopian definition and not the whole "lets have no laws and kill everyone" kind of thing) are good in my book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff777
It's only utopian in the sense that people are too stupid and/or brainwashed to see a better way to do things. It is not utopian in concept by a long shot. Unlike things like Project Venus, which require people to be 100% good all the time, anarchy has even more leeway than our current system for non-social behaviour.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Well considering the last of the Bush family is about to leave the office with no more offspring to carry on such a legacy plan. And the fact that the government has a system of checks and balances to ensure one branch cannot overthrow another branch of the government.
Interesting theory, but very highly unlikely.
The offspring part is true, unless Jenna or Barbara run for President.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Heat
The government doesn't seem like it has checks/balances, considering it's grown in power substantially over the past years.
Drewmandan: I called it Utopian because people will never accept it as a suitable form of government, which you explained already lol.
A) Jenna could easily be president. She is about as qualified as W was, and we are primed for the first woman president in the next 4 to 16 years.
B) There are other Bush's; Jeb, his sons George and John and daughter, Neil and his kids Lauren, Pierce and Ashley, and then Pauline, Marvin and Dorothy. I tried to list them roughly in the order of likelyhood to be president.
C) I don't think the Bush's need their name to be in office for them and their friends to take over. The Bush family is connected through marriage to a host of other political families, and through friendship to a hole cornucopia of other power elites.
D) When Prescott planned his coup, he wasn't even really near the white house, and was only a senator.
Most of the checks and balances you refer to have pretty much gone out the window over the last few years. Here's a short list of executive orders that should change your mind about any checks and balances you might think are there to protect you.
Ever play the Deus Ex games? Their idea of FEMA taking over was about spot on and still entirely possible.
Stop talking about anarchism in this thread unless you are able to explain to me why an anarchic society wouldn't almost immediately become a feudal society.
Well as far as anarchy goes, it's something that take at least 50 years to set up in my opinion. Probably more like 200-300, but I like to be optimistic(and this is after things start to move in that direction, currently they seem stagnant). If it was done correctly, I don't think it would become a feudal society.
In order to have a functioning anarchist society, you have to first create a society wich functions well while only having a few laws. Right now the system is chock full of bullshit so it wouldn't work. We need to first do away with drug prohibiton. Secondly we need to reform the justice system so that people get help rather than punishment. Third we need to reform the education system. If we were to teach people that they have to make moral decisions for themselsves they might be able to grasp the idea of a stateless society. The education system is a big problem right now. The entire curriculum and way that it is taught needs to be reformed. But I won't get too far into the details, I'm no expert on education.
Basically what I'm saying is that if you work slowly towards anarchy, It doesn't really change society that much. But I'm more about the kind of reforms I talked about. I see anarchy as just something to work toward. We'd have to make a society with a stonger base. Modern society is very unstable, this is exactly what the government feeds on. If we establish a strong base with strong communities and families, then get rid of laws, I don't think that it would change to a feudal society. But none of this shit really matters right now. Things are fucked right now, and until the shit breaks and drug prohibition ends, nothing can really get started. Weed being illegal fundamentally shows that the people in charge don't know what they are doing and that it is time for change(and fuck obama for defiling that word like he did).
When do you think the bushes might try this, and under what circumstances? I think If we go to war with Iran, there might be some kind of terror incedent that could be used to set up a police state. But I don't think it's that likely. Another thing I'm more worried about is if the CIA assasinates Obama to start race riots. The only thing is that they couldn't make a lasting police state with this. But they'd sure have a good reason to make some more laws in the name of safety.
I'm personally more worried about the green party. With all the support from global warming propaganda, I think it could bring a large degree of socialism to the states. Everyone likes this idea of green, clean stuff. I don't think anything drastic is gonna happen unless it's a positive change. They're just gonna keep pushing the shit until we stop buying it.
They don't need a coup, really. Their power is secure. They wont be losing their money. I seriously doubt a coup would, or even could, take place in America.