A lot of research to do on your examples before I am qualified to respond. Just want to thank you for giving me the examples to begin my study.
Preliminarily, while I think some form of "government" is necessary, I mean by that a structure whereby people in agreement organize their lives around such a structure. I don't tend to view the concept of anarchy quite as you do. My current view of anarchy is a sort of Hobbesian free for all, or a Mad Maxian dystopia. Perhaps my view is incorrect and I will check out your examples. An example of my own would be the Navajo, highly ritualistic but any "leader" who tried to control the populace would soon be displaced as leader. (not today where Navajo council members are elected for predetermined terms). The leaders were as bound as anyone to the structure, primarily built around an advanced ritualism. On the other hand, anyone was free to abandon the structure and not participate---but the community would at that time disassociate themselves from the individual.
So I guess my mind questioning of your position is perhaps a failure to understand if anarchy is unstructured free for all, and must lack any principles of organization; or do you see all structuring as government, which is, I guess, the way I tend to view it. I may not think our current structure is optimal for freedom, but I still tend to view the concept of government with the concept of a structured organization, so what is your view on that? Am I misinterpreting the concepts of government and anarchy via my view that one is a structure and the other the abandonment of all structuralism?
I keep trying to think of new words and new definitions for words that can adequately reflect these new ideas. They will be new, because it's us doing them now, which has never been done before. We have never been in this NOW.
And there are other factors at play that have never happened before. What we're engaged in presently is a Master Source Event. Just as big and important as it sounds. The last one was the birth of the religions. That gives us an idea.
That's one good point Nancy but the key is he did so much for his people and took them from the poorest country in the world to a similar standard of living as southern Europe and the Libyan People managed most things directly.
Exactly Chris. It is amazing what he accomplished.
I had Italian friends in Italy whose families lived in Libya, as it had been an Italian Colony, and they were the business owners, vineyard and farm owners etc. Qaddafi took power from a UK/US appointed King and it was the poorest and least literate country in the world. Qaddafi told the Italian colonizers they had 48 hours to leave with 2 suitcases per person. They did and no one was harmed. The colonizers had to give up what they colonized but no revenge was taken.
It may seem very radical but Qaddafi's Libya was the most beneficial to the most people of Libya for the longest period of time in modern times. Ran mostly by the people with his intelligent guidance and foresight. He then was preparing to do it across Africa with an African Currency and the Western terrorists destroyed him and Libya. Please research it without getting trapped by the Rothschild Central Bank propaganda against Qaddafi.
Iceland from about 930AD would be another example.
A lot of research to do on your examples before I am qualified to respond. Just want to thank you for giving me the examples to begin my study.
Preliminarily, while I think some form of "government" is necessary, I mean by that a structure whereby people in agreement organize their lives around such a structure. I don't tend to view the concept of anarchy quite as you do. My current view of anarchy is a sort of Hobbesian free for all, or a Mad Maxian dystopia. Perhaps my view is incorrect and I will check out your examples. An example of my own would be the Navajo, highly ritualistic but any "leader" who tried to control the populace would soon be displaced as leader. (not today where Navajo council members are elected for predetermined terms). The leaders were as bound as anyone to the structure, primarily built around an advanced ritualism. On the other hand, anyone was free to abandon the structure and not participate---but the community would at that time disassociate themselves from the individual.
So I guess my mind questioning of your position is perhaps a failure to understand if anarchy is unstructured free for all, and must lack any principles of organization; or do you see all structuring as government, which is, I guess, the way I tend to view it. I may not think our current structure is optimal for freedom, but I still tend to view the concept of government with the concept of a structured organization, so what is your view on that? Am I misinterpreting the concepts of government and anarchy via my view that one is a structure and the other the abandonment of all structuralism?
Stellar!
I keep trying to think of new words and new definitions for words that can adequately reflect these new ideas. They will be new, because it's us doing them now, which has never been done before. We have never been in this NOW.
And there are other factors at play that have never happened before. What we're engaged in presently is a Master Source Event. Just as big and important as it sounds. The last one was the birth of the religions. That gives us an idea.
That's one good point Nancy but the key is he did so much for his people and took them from the poorest country in the world to a similar standard of living as southern Europe and the Libyan People managed most things directly.
That movie "Captain Phillips" was probably made to distract us from the truth, even though I'm totally ignorant about Somalia.
Exactly. Imagine that scenario with virtually all the regimes today including America.
Exactly Chris. It is amazing what he accomplished.
I had Italian friends in Italy whose families lived in Libya, as it had been an Italian Colony, and they were the business owners, vineyard and farm owners etc. Qaddafi took power from a UK/US appointed King and it was the poorest and least literate country in the world. Qaddafi told the Italian colonizers they had 48 hours to leave with 2 suitcases per person. They did and no one was harmed. The colonizers had to give up what they colonized but no revenge was taken.
It may seem very radical but Qaddafi's Libya was the most beneficial to the most people of Libya for the longest period of time in modern times. Ran mostly by the people with his intelligent guidance and foresight. He then was preparing to do it across Africa with an African Currency and the Western terrorists destroyed him and Libya. Please research it without getting trapped by the Rothschild Central Bank propaganda against Qaddafi.
Wonderful article and support information. I'm still reflecting and researching.
"no form of involuntary governance is morally permissible."
yes
yep
uhuh
well said - really concise
~
a perfect wizards circle,
now that i am looking at it - perhaps a slight adjustment
somthing like
~
within this bound
give not but the sound
of invitation
-let go all forms of
involuntary mutations
~
well, still needs work
anyway!
nice <3