Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Mello_

Anarchy vs Security

45 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Mello_
1 minute ago, spartan max2 said:

? Lol.

It's a thing governments do as well. I think you missed my overarching point though.

Not government. Mob. We have many examples where ruling elite of scientists not some aristorats want to introduce some sort of new regulation or law and mob start to be loud. To the point of molotov cocktails to the referendums. And its rule of the mob. If those poor stupid 9 peeps want something they will get it. No matter that one person is Einstein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
and then
3 hours ago, XenoFish said:

By that definition, it seems to be less a "system" and more a Rorschach test.  It covers quite a spectrum and the central idea seems to be to reject authority of any kind except what the individual wants.  Rules are anathema to most people but we have learned through much bloodshed and struggle to compromise enough to form societies with common rules and have agreed to give a state limited control over us.  Where we are always mindful of the creping desire of government to grow in power and are willing to fight against that we have been successful.  I'd say the West's worst problem today is that we became TOO secure and comfortable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coil
28 minutes ago, Mello_ said:

Yes. On the trace of Machiavellianism...first of all arm yourself and stuff. It would lead to more chaos. I dont belive that people are in nature good and kind. Every person trough his life goes trough turmoils...inside battle. In economics its different. Anarchism could work and did work in social experimwnts. But in the question of law, medicine...oh boy what a disaster would that be.

Usually, under anarchy, a person understands disorder and is afraid of it because it is something that can lead to the destruction of the whole society because it is assumed that there are no laws and a clear governance structure, but the aphorism above says that it can only lead to the devil in the middle.

But at a high level of consciousness, man has become Knowing who stands above laws, rules, social institutions even above physical and generally all laws because the spirit of man is above any law. Because the law appears when a person loses intuitively correct behavior and action within himself, therefore, he needs laws, parliaments and rulers but when a person opens the mind of Truth, he does not need laws and external constraints-leaders.
Therefore, it turns out that the true order is without order (transcendence of all earthly order and law)
 
Evolution will lead to the emergence of a society in which all individuals, being in Divine Love and in Unity-Consciousness, will submit not to public authority but to Divinity itself, and they will all be one. And any resistance to this Order, based on Divine Harmony and Unity, or its violation will become simply impossible.
 
Edited by Coil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
32 minutes ago, Mello_ said:

Im aware of it. Democratic rule is ok. Just want to point out that even that ok rule have holes. Also many parts of work is left to ngos. 

But capitalism have errors close to any ruling system before.

I said:  

 

4 hours ago, joc said:

Capitalism has always been good.  More good than bad...put it that way.  Every human civilized system has it's pluses and minuses.

Capitalism engaged as a free enterprise is a win/win.  I don't think you have a basic grip really on what you are even attempting to talk about. No disrespect meant.  I just don't think you know what you are really talking about. Could be a language barrier thing, I don't know.

Edited by joc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mello_

What do you think I dont understand? That Capitalism is awfull? I think I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
12 minutes ago, Mello_ said:

What do you think I dont understand? That Capitalism is awfull? I think I do.

Now I know you don't understand much except what you've learned from a bunch of Socialists.  Capitalism isn't awful.  Why on Earth would you think that? Rhetorical question by the way...I know why you think that...because you have been indoctrinated by Socialists.  But I loathe redundancy almost as much as I do the Left.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

For some reason this has a familiar feel to it....

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

Anarchists are basically people who feel they have nothing to lose by a collapse of the social order. The best antidote is to encourage people to be, and act, like stakeholders. A lot of crime is committed by those who feel they have little or nothing to lose, or by the mentally ill, who are not cognizant of what they have to lose..

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mello_
1 hour ago, joc said:

Now I know you don't understand much except what you've learned from a bunch of Socialists.  Capitalism isn't awful.  Why on Earth would you think that? Rhetorical question by the way...I know why you think that...because you have been indoctrinated by Socialists.  But I loathe redundancy almost as much as I do the Left.

Dude Im not left or right. Im apolitical. Idiot. Because in ancient greece term idiot would desrcibed person who is not interested in politics. But capitalism is economics system. Why I think that...tommorow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
3 minutes ago, Mello_ said:

Dude Im not left or right. Im apolitical. Idiot. Because in ancient greece term idiot would desrcibed person who is not interested in politics. But capitalism is economics system. Why I think that...tommorow.

If you were talking face to face with someone would you call them "idiot" twice in one runon sentence?  Calling names indicates immaturity and does not add anything to the conversation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mello_
1 minute ago, Desertrat56 said:

If you were talking face to face with someone would you call them "idiot" twice in one runon sentence?  Calling names indicates immaturity and does not add anything to the conversation.

I said Im idiot. Because Im apolitical. Since word idiot describe person not interested in politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will do

 

Don't be an idiot.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
XenoFish

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/idiot

The word idiot originated in the 1300s, from the Old French word idiote, which meant "person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning." Today, though, idiot describes anyone who does foolish things, especially things that inconvenience others. If you put the Thanksgiving turkey in the oven but forget to turn it on, in four hours, you'll have a cold turkey and a bunch of relatives calling you an idiot.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
16 minutes ago, Mello_ said:

Because in ancient greece term idiot would desrcibed person who is not interested in politics. But capitalism is economics system. Why I think that...tommorow.

Yeah.....read the post above. Number 38. It's not greek it's French. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mello_
7 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Yeah.....read the post above. Number 38. It's not greek it's French. 

No. From greek to latin. From latin to french.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
2 minutes ago, Mello_ said:

No. From greek to latin. From latin to french.

I know that politics has a greek origin, Idiot in regards to greek basically means 'common man', latin it regards uneducated common folk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot

However as it is currently used, it means a fool or imbecile. So it might be best to not use it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mello_
1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

I know that politics has a greek origin, Idiot in regards to greek basically means 'common man', latin it regards uneducated common folk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot

However as it is currently used, it means a fool or imbecile. So it might be best to not use it. 

No. Ignorant. Uneducated. Uninterested in politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
1 minute ago, Mello_ said:

No. Ignorant. Uneducated. Uninterested in politics.

Don't bring it up. Easy answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
43 minutes ago, Mello_ said:

I said Im idiot. Because Im apolitical. Since word idiot describe person not interested in politics.

Oh, well it doesn't mean that in english.  I apologize for misunderstanding you.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mello_

All good. Language barriers. Good night. Im sleepy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.