"Extremism"

[infoterror]

An extremist, in the current parlance, is someone who disagrees with "modern society": the combination of industrial capitalism and personal liberty in democratic systems that defines the progressive West. All of Europe and North America and most of their allies have some variation on this type of system. Even further, it is upheld as the reason to support the West in its crusades: we bring you "freedom" and a nifty product-oriented lifestyle.

However, such modern society is by definition very popular, because it tells everyone they are liable only to themselves and their own interests, and that there is need for no other social involvement. Do what benefits you personally, both materially and in social status. Most people do not understand why anyone would oppose this, thus "extremists" tend to work through that form of guerrilla warfare native to our time, sometimes called "terrorism."

What is Extremism and Why It's Our Only Hope

 

[Seditious]

An extremist, in the current parlance, is someone who disagrees with "modern society" the combination of industrial capitalism and personal liberty in democratic systems that defines the progressive West.

I'm not sure if you can say an Extremist is anyone who disagrees with modern society. Extremism seems to have more to do with actions one's willing to take against that which they disagree rather than just their view itself (after all, there is a legal process for changing that which we don't like in our democratic societies), as there are plenty of fundamentalists who don't act as Extremists as, most notabley, some fundamentalist Muslims have done recently.

there are a lot of people who don't like personal liberties like abortion or research on animals or possession of guns and the like, and I for one don't agree with everything about capitalism yet though some animal rights activists and such groups may take extremist actions, all people who share their disagreement with something of modern society aren't necessarily extremists too.

After all, when you are outnumbered not one hundred to and not a thousand to one but more likely a million to one, your methods become extreme by definition and therefore there is little point in not striking decisively by any means necessary.

http://www.corrupt.org/articles/extremism/

a poor way of trying to justify brutality. Indeed the criminal is outnumbered by both the law abiding and the law enforcing, that gives him no right to be savage in obtaining his goal. An elite commando force of the US by no means has their "methods become extreme by definition" when they infiltrate outnumbered one hundred to one.


I'll comment on the rest of this article later, got a few errands to run.

 

[Silver Incubus]

I'm not sure if you can say an Extremist is anyone who disagrees with modern society. Extremism seems to have more to do with actions one's willing to take against that which they disagree rather than just their view itself (after all, there is a legal process for changing that which we don't like in our democratic societies), as there are plenty of fundamentalists who don't act as Extremists as, most notabley, some fundamentalist Muslims have done recently.

there are a lot of people who don't like personal liberties like abortion or research on animals or possession of guns and the like, and I for one don't agree with everything about capitalism yet though some animal rights activists and such groups may take extremist actions, all people who share their disagreement with something of modern society aren't necessarily extremists too.




a poor way of trying to justify brutality. Indeed the criminal is outnumbered by both the law abiding and the law enforcing, that gives him no right to be savage in obtaining his goal. An elite commando force of the US by no means has their "methods become extreme by definition" when they infiltrate outnumbered one hundred to one.

Criminal is such a complex thing. Who can get away with crime is not a criminal. Laws usually find their way in affecting normal, underlings of the rich. Most multi national corporations, have the the odds always stacked in their favor. They can get away with many illegal things, and the more corrupt a government is, the more things the rich can get away with, and the harsher the punishment for the worker class.

So who really benefits the most from the law? the Police and the private detention facillities.
If they make more laws, then there are more crimes, and more crimes mean more fines and more people in jail. The real question then becomes who is in the jail and for what. Some people who exercise freedom, without hurting other people can go to jail, while the white collar imbezzler can get off from a technicality.
Governments have always tried to dominate their people, and it is only the extremists that finally act, sometimes not in the best interest of the few, but in the idea of defiance to a system they see as self destructive or harmful to those they care for.
People used to fend for themselves, they used to own guns, and took protecting their families from exploitation of gangs, mafia, or the governments tyrannical arms. This is what Freedom is suppose to be about.

The government has become to involved with people's everyday lives, invading peoples privacy by tapping phones, keeping records of peaceful protesters(who mostly don't help anything anyways but that isn't really the point). The government is dictation what you should think and act like without much opposition. You can not like your race more then others because that is racist, especially if you are caucasian. You can not talk about anything anywhere without lawsuits for sexual harrasment, or defamation, or offensive everything.

 

[Seditious]

Criminal is such a complex thing. Who can get away with crime is not a criminal.

it's a strange idea to say it's not a crime if you don't get caught. I'm sure if you were raping a 5 year old you'd know you were a criminal even if you got away with it just by the fact you know what you're doing and you know what the law currently is just as you're a law abider if you dont break any laws whether or not someone else is there to acknowledge what you know is true about your behavior in your society.

So who really benefits the most from the law? the Police and the private detention facillities.

I don't know who benefits 'most' from most things, but I know we all benefit from the law, all of us who value personal safety or personal property and have it thus protected or we at least have the right to punish anyone who harms us or takes our property, I'm not sure how you can measure that benefit against the benefit of a corperation who could just as easily be you as an intelligent member of the working adults in a capitalist society.

If they make more laws, then there are more crimes, and more crimes mean more fines and more people in jail.

if you don't like the laws a. move to a country you like, or b. protest to have the law reconsidered. if most of the country like the laws of their country why should they change it when you can just leave if you're the one who doesn't like it?

Governments have always tried to dominate their people, and it is only the extremists that finally act, sometimes not in the best interest of the few, but in the idea of defiance to a system they see as self destructive or harmful to those they care for.

but since when was an Extremist the absolute decider of right and wrong, whose place it is to tell us what is good for us? surely if something is harmful or self-destructive it's our own choice if we choose to put up with it or not, not somebody elses. We have alcohol and cigarettes -- should extremists run around imposing self-discipline on people and make them eat their vegetables since they have no right to be self-harmful? Those extremists sound harmful, shouldnt one of the extremists be attacking them for their being harmful? It just seems to go nowhere.

People used to fend for themselves, they used to own guns, and took protecting their families from exploitation of gangs, mafia, or the governments tyrannical arms. This is what Freedom is suppose to be about.

sounds more like what anarchy is supposed to be about, and I guess that's the point. If you want total freedom, wicked, I hope someone sets up an Anarchist country (a country with no government), but democracy is a great deal of freedom, and then restrictions most people accept which are imposed for their safety.

I think a lot of people would love a tribal 'do as you please' 'no man-made rules', 'law of the jungle' type land to exist in, but that's not what democracy can ever be, so an extremist trying to attack a democracy to obtain the world he wants will of course be opposed by the democracy and all those who value their security and substantial freedom as they have no right to tell the rest of the people how much freedom they should want (just as people often say about America deciding other countries aren't quite free enough for their liking and thus destroying their way of life like a virus taking away from the organism to replicate more and more of itself.)

The government has become to involved with people's everyday lives, invading peoples privacy by tapping phones, keeping records of peaceful protesters(who mostly don't help anything anyways but that isn't really the point). The government is dictation what you should think and act like without much opposition..

I'm not in America, we have no patriot act here, so the points you said there aren't true about all 'government' or all democracy even, but I'm sure if Americans value their privacy more than their security they should protest to have such invasions outlawed, and if their majority are happy to give up privacies in hopes of increased security (whether or not they get it) then it doesn't matter that they've lost their privacy, they were happy to lose it. and if you want yours, move. If I want guns, I'll move to USA. if I want weed, I'll move to Amsterdam. If I want a legal gay union, well, I'll stay in my country cos it's legal in New Zealand. point being if I have no chance of changing something in my country because the rest of my country don't think alike, I shouldnt ruin their society in spite of their wishes to get what I want when I can just leave.

You can not like your race more then others because that is racist, especially if you are caucasian. You can not talk about anything anywhere without lawsuits for sexual harrasment, or defamation, or offensive everything.

sure hypersensitivity is an asshole of a problem especially in such a conservative country as USA, but you can like your own race more, it's only hate speech which you're not allowed (I'm not saying hate speech isn't a gross loophole to free speech, just that you can 'prefer your own race')



I think, going back to an earlier point to end, wouldn't it be a great idea if say, in America, since it's so large, they set off a preservation for anarchy. Just as they have nature preservations for animals, they could have a small country in there, a country without any law other than that of nature, if you leave that country you're stuck with USA laws, but within there, if that's where you choose to be, anything goes. That way there could be no excuse, since it seems there is really no where for most individuals to find utter freedom to live as an animal rather than under the thumb over another man.

(of course, what's interesting is since there are no laws, it wouldn't be illegal for tourists to hunt men just like animals out in the wild (the point of no government is that no one can tell you what to do right?), so perhaps this garden of edan utopia wouldn't be so nice as it sounds.)

 

[Norsemaiden]

"Extremists" are a minority, who wish to achieve a particular aim. All major changes in societies are instigated by extremists. Women getting the right to vote came about through extremism. Civil rights are brought about through minorities vociferously pushing their agenda onto the majority (who are not organised against it). That is the way changes happen. Simply going and voting is passive and not proactive.

A lot of Muslims in Britain are keen to see the introduction of Sharia Law in parts of the country. They are extremists. Once the extremists get what they want, it is no longer considered extreme. (Our present radically pro multicutural government is no longer considered extreme. Gay rights is no longer extreme - infact it is extreme to oppose these things now).
It is widely predicted that the Muslims will get their way.

Islamic law is used in large parts of the Middle East, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, and is enforced by religious police. Special courts can hand down harsh punishments which can include stoning and amputation.

Forty per cent of the British Muslims surveyed said they backed introducing sharia in parts of Britain, while 41 per cent opposed it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml

That is why you are seeing areas which are now almost totally Muslim. The next step will be pushing the Government to recognise sharia law for Muslim communities - which will be backed up by the claim that it is "racist" or "Islamophobic" or "violating the rights of Muslims" to deny them sharia law.

There's already a Sharia Law Council for the UK. The Government has already started making concessions: it has changed the law so that there are sharia-compliant mortgages and sharia pensions.

http://www.stephenpollard.net/002482.html

In about 25 years all women in the UK will be wearing scarves over their faces. It will be extremist not to - and very dangerous.

Which is more extreme - not having children or having a huge number?
They are both extreme, but one is a winning strategy and the other isn't.

Research by the Office for National Statistics recently said Britain's ethnic minorities were growing at 15 times the rate of the white population. Data collected between 1992-1994 and 1997-1999 showed that the number of people from minority ethnic groups grew by 15 per cent compared with one per cent for white people.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/19/nbirth19.xml

"Attack is the best form of defense". The only way to beat the extremism and prevent it from becoming normality - is to be an extremist!

 

[Seditious]

"Extremists" are a minority, who wish to achieve a particular aim. All major changes in societies are instigated by extremists. Women getting the right to vote came about through extremism.

d'you have any links suggesting this?

I don't recall any extremism behind it and my country was the first to give women the vote so surely they would have mentioned it in history

http://www.elections.org.nz/study/history/votes-for-women.html


if you're right that after my country gave women the vote other countries went through extremist action to bring about the womans right to vote then in any case this major change had already occured in society without being instigated by extremism, which obviously proves it's not a prerequisite of social change.

Gays are allowed union here, and they're allowed marriage in Spain, and again, major social change and no extremism. Sure someone could sit in america and say 'hell it looks like nothing will change if we dont do something major', it's easy to understand someone thinking that way, but clearly it's not true.

 

[cryosteel]

I'm not sure if you can say an Extremist is anyone who disagrees with modern society.

I'm not sure about that either. Extremists disagree with modern society on a fundamental or philisophical level which affects views on a holistic scale, not simply dissent against one or another selected popular issues. Abortion, moron rights, war on *****, war on terror are select, temporary, single issue disputes that do not affect the whole of civilization. The real difference is that most people are struggling against the output effects of a broken society. The rare extremist seeks to reprogram society at the root so that erroneous output ceases.

 

[Silver Incubus]

it's a strange idea to say it's not a crime if you don't get caught. I'm sure if you were raping a 5 year old you'd know you were a criminal even if you got away with it just by the fact you know what you're doing and you know what the law currently is just as you're a law abider if you dont break any laws whether or not someone else is there to acknowledge what you know is true about your behavior in your society.

there are some very powerful people and companies such as Dyncorp, that are involved in child prostitiution rings. I once read a report about it a while back. I have also seen a documentry that wasn't aired on the discovory channel about higher ups abusing childern, and these are people who lobby the congress to change laws, and I'm sure they know all about it, but because they control the law enforcement, they don't get in trouble, unless they get found out, then they always have a scapegoat to take the fall.

I don't know who benefits 'most' from most things, but I know we all benefit from the law, all of us who value personal safety or personal property and have it thus protected or we at least have the right to punish anyone who harms us or takes our property, I'm not sure how you can measure that benefit against the benefit of a corperation who could just as easily be you as an intelligent member of the working adults in a capitalist society.

As much as I'd like to beleieve in that veiw of the police, I cannot. I know that the police would respond to someone breaking into a large corporation then your house. When you get robbed on the street, they aren't going to look for that guy. So they never really do anything to protect you. Many police forces are corrupt, with few good police still around. They would rather sit around trying to catch speeders (because it is money) then break up gangs, or patrol the streets. Criminals get away with too much, and the ones who do get caught are usually the lower econominc ring of people. Hell I live outside a small town and almost every car in the little strip of houses were robbed, and the cops can't do anything about that, and they wouldn't waste their time with it. But yet I have been pulled over for no reason and had my car searched, all because they claim that another person in my car looked suspicious.

if you don't like the laws a. move to a country you like, or b. protest to have the law reconsidered. if most of the country like the laws of their country why should they change it when you can just leave if you're the one who doesn't like it?

Well, its really because the people don't make the law, it is rich aristocrats who have no formal touch with reality and the people they are suppose to be serving

but since when was an Extremist the absolute decider of right and wrong, whose place it is to tell us what is good for us? surely if something is harmful or self-destructive it's our own choice if we choose to put up with it or not, not somebody elses. We have alcohol and cigarettes -- should extremists run around imposing self-discipline on people and make them eat their vegetables since they have no right to be self-harmful? Those extremists sound harmful, shouldnt one of the extremists be attacking them for their being harmful? It just seems to go nowhere.

That is actually the opposite of what I am getting at. I want more freedom from the imposing will of the government and less laws telling me how to live act and breath.

sounds more like what anarchy is supposed to be about, and I guess that's the point. If you want total freedom, wicked, I hope someone sets up an Anarchist country (a country with no government), but democracy is a great deal of freedom, and then restrictions most people accept which are imposed for their safety.

Its not so much total freedom, as I would like to see laws that reflect how the people want to live and not how they should live determined by those rich aristocrats who have nothing as a goal then lining their pockets through deals with companies. Hell in Canada, people have been lobbying for the legalization of Marijuana, and the government simply refuses. Why should sometihng that could stop the destruction of forests, and can be used in producing an amazing about of materials be outlawed? It is a plant that is illegal, dispite the fact that millions of people in canada smoke it, and want it legalized.

I think a lot of people would love a tribal 'do as you please' 'no man-made rules', 'law of the jungle' type land to exist in, but that's not what democracy can ever be, so an extremist trying to attack a democracy to obtain the world he wants will of course be opposed by the democracy and all those who value their security and substantial freedom as they have no right to tell the rest of the people how much freedom they should want (just as people often say about America deciding other countries aren't quite free enough for their liking and thus destroying their way of life like a virus taking away from the organism to replicate more and more of itself.)

Although, I do see the importance of some form of government, I think that at first democracy worked, to the extent that when NA was being settled, the government didn't interfere with peoples lives, and the police forces were of people from that community who understood the people and where most like chosen because of their vitues and stong moral character. This no longer exists in the police forces today.
just watch this protest video
http://www.youtube.com/p.swf?video_...DPFc/2.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskK1pL4rGyEgpgpb3Jz6TQPj

I'm not in America, we have no patriot act here, so the points you said there aren't true about all 'government' or all democracy even, but I'm sure if Americans value their privacy more than their security they should protest to have such invasions outlawed, and if their majority are happy to give up privacies in hopes of increased security (whether or not they get it) then it doesn't matter that they've lost their privacy, they were happy to lose it. and if you want yours, move. If I want guns, I'll move to USA. if I want weed, I'll move to Amsterdam. If I want a legal gay union, well, I'll stay in my country cos it's legal in New Zealand. point being if I have no chance of changing something in my country because the rest of my country don't think alike, I shouldnt ruin their society in spite of their wishes to get what I want when I can just leave.

People who watch the news and believe the lies, because they trust that the information is real, they are fooled into thinking that they need all this safety for their protection, to save their freedom, but they loose all freedom and live in tyranny at that point. I mean soon enough, because of the fear propagated by the media, it will become like Nazi germany, with secret police breaking into your home without a warrent to search your house even if you aren't their, because they suspect you may be subversive.... oh wait, that is already happening. Giving up arms, freedom, and privacy for protecting is an invitation to tyrrany and its has been proven time and time again throughout history. Some people turn a blind eye, some are too stupid, and most are distracted my celebrity gossip, and useless crap that pop culture shoves down their throat. In a democratic society, all you have to do is create apathy in the majority, and you have your way with anytihng you want.

sure hypersensitivity is an asshole of a problem especially in such a conservative country as USA, but you can like your own race more, it's only hate speech which you're not allowed (I'm not saying hate speech isn't a gross loophole to free speech, just that you can 'prefer your own race')

No you can't, that is called discrimination and it will get you put in jail or fined. Say you have 10 black guys 15 mexicans and 2 white people applying for the job, and you want to hire only a white guy becaue you like your race and want to promote and garuntee the sucess of your race, that becomes illegal. What if the personalities and culture of those other races are not the type of attitude that you want in your company, is that also racist?

I think, going back to an earlier point to end, wouldn't it be a great idea if say, in America, since it's so large, they set off a preservation for anarchy. Just as they have nature preservations for animals, they could have a small country in there, a country without any law other than that of nature, if you leave that country you're stuck with USA laws, but within there, if that's where you choose to be, anything goes. That way there could be no excuse, since it seems there is really no where for most individuals to find utter freedom to live as an animal rather than under the thumb over another man.

Well I still value that some laws are need in the social contract between people, but they should be very clear, and very limited to the effects.

(of course, what's interesting is since there are no laws, it wouldn't be illegal for tourists to hunt men just like animals out in the wild (the point of no government is that no one can tell you what to do right?), so perhaps this garden of edan utopia wouldn't be so nice as it sounds.)

Well anarchy, isn't chaos, it is just no government, it doesn't mean that people cannot agree on a set of laws to live by whereas they must always adhere to few laws or face exile or death.

 

[Horus]

There's a quote in speed's sig, that says "The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom". Although I don't exactly live by it, I do understand the reasoning behind it, and I agree with it... to a degree. There's one thing that nobody should ever have an excess amount of, and that's Faith. Faith in anything. Your religion, yourself, your government, it doesn't matter.
The reason I mention that quote is because the way I see it, Extremism comes out of an excess amount of Faith in one's own beliefs. For example, Muslim Extremism stems from too much faith in Allah, and Faith in the belief that they'll recieve 72 Virgins in the Afterlife if they die in their Jihad. And the idea of Jihad comes out of having too much Faith in their own religion, that they think that everyone else is so wrong that they deserve to die. And the same applies to all the other religions with extremists. Because they had too much faith in their own God, they began to take their beliefs and wildly exaggerate them, BECAUSE they felt so strongly about them.

 

[A Dying Breed]

I mean soon enough, because of the fear propagated by the media, it will become like Nazi germany, with secret police breaking into your home without a warrent to search your house even if you aren't their, because they suspect you may be subversive.... oh wait, that is already happening.

It only happens to Muslims. You're not Muslim are you? Besides, this is peaches and cream compared to what Japanese-Americans went through during WWII.

Oh, you're Canadian. Do you guys even have a Guantanamo?

 

[speed]

There's a quote in speed's sig, that says "The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom". Although I don't exactly live by it, I do understand the reasoning behind it, and I agree with it... to a degree. There's one thing that nobody should ever have an excess amount of, and that's Faith. Faith in anything. Your religion, yourself, your government, it doesn't matter.
The reason I mention that quote is because the way I see it, Extremism comes out of an excess amount of Faith in one's own beliefs. For example, Muslim Extremism stems from too much faith in Allah, and Faith in the belief that they'll recieve 72 Virgins in the Afterlife if they die in their Jihad. And the idea of Jihad comes out of having too much Faith in their own religion, that they think that everyone else is so wrong that they deserve to die. And the same applies to all the other religions with extremists. Because they had too much faith in their own God, they began to take their beliefs and wildly exaggerate them, BECAUSE they felt so strongly about them.

Yes, I agree with you; however if one was to find such faith, then one would be in essence free--or I suppose totally enraptured with something larger than themselves. So, in many ways, I am jealous and yet frightened of such faith

 

[Norsemaiden]

d'you have any links suggesting this?

I don't recall any extremism behind it and my country was the first to give women the vote so surely they would have mentioned it in history

http://www.elections.org.nz/study/history/votes-for-women.html


if you're right that after my country gave women the vote other countries went through extremist action to bring about the womans right to vote then in any case this major change had already occured in society without being instigated by extremism, which obviously proves it's not a prerequisite of social change.

Gays are allowed union here, and they're allowed marriage in Spain, and again, major social change and no extremism. Sure someone could sit in america and say 'hell it looks like nothing will change if we dont do something major', it's easy to understand someone thinking that way, but clearly it's not true.

I quote the gay rights activist Peter Tatchell's site:

No movement for social justice has won human rights without being confrontational. The suffragettes proved that, and they are OutRage!'s inspiration. Although now hailed as heroines, the suffragettes used to be reviled as "extremists", as some people today revile OutRage!. But their militancy put women's suffrage on the political agenda. If they had confined themselves to lobbying parliament, they would have been ignored. It would have taken women much longer to win the vote.

http://www.petertatchell.net/outing/out only homophobes.htm

Extremism doesn't have to be violent. Really it is just taking a radical stance and making it into an accepted normality. That happened with women's suffrage in New Zealand, which was never a forgone conclusion, and took years of concerted effort by dedicated adherents to the cause. Just being a passive voter is giving up ground, not taking it. And if you don't watch out, someone else will take it in a direction you don't like.

 

[Seditious]

there are some very powerful people and companies such as Dyncorp, that are involved in child prostitiution rings. I once read a report about it a while back. I have also seen a documentry that wasn't aired on the discovory channel about higher ups abusing childern, and these are people who lobby the congress to change laws, and I'm sure they know all about it, but because they control the law enforcement, they don't get in trouble, unless they get found out, then they always have a scapegoat to take the fall.

I've seen that documentary also, I forget the name, but I guess you can make those claims about anyone and we just have to rely on the justice system. A lone serial killer can get away with it just as well as the corperate elite, I don't see any lobbying to have their illegal actions legalised so their power seems to have little to do with that matter.

That is actually the opposite of what I am getting at. I want more freedom from the imposing will of the government and less laws telling me how to live act and breath.

what if we picture your ideal here, a greatly liberal government. Now, an extremist wants to act in "defiance to a system they see as self destructive or harmful to those they care for" to get ***** / alcohol / homosexuality / all their holy sins outlawed since that sinning is damning them for eternity -- could you say extremism isn't a crime because crime is complex, or it is the only way to make change, or it's the right thing to do, or anything like that, would you support that and see that extremism as a good thing?

People who watch the news and believe the lies, because they trust that the information is real, they are fooled into thinking that they need all this safety for their protection, to save their freedom, but they loose all freedom and live in tyranny at that point. I mean soon enough, because of the fear propagated by the media, it will become like Nazi germany, with secret police breaking into your home without a warrent to search your house even if you aren't their, because they suspect you may be subversive.... oh wait, that is already happening.

but just because you want privacy doesn't mean everyone does, and such is the democracy that is most poeple would rather gamble on security, then its their choice if they lose their privacy.

In a democratic society, all you have to do is create apathy in the majority, and you have your way with anytihng you want.

have to agree with that, but you're responsible for your own apathy, you're the only choosing to watch the new and believe all the rubbish and take that information as real and a reason to become apathetic.

What if the personalities and culture of those other races are not the type of attitude that you want in your company, is that also racist?

then you're best to say it's that individuals personality that isn't right for the job, rather than saying 'all people with these genetics are determined to have this personality and be wrong for this job.'

(of course, what's interesting is since there are no laws, it wouldn't be illegal for tourists to hunt men just like animals out in the wild (the point of no government is that no one can tell you what to do right?), so perhaps this garden of edan utopia wouldn't be so nice as it sounds.)

Well anarchy, isn't chaos, it is just no government, it doesn't mean that people cannot agree on a set of laws to live by whereas they must always adhere to few laws or face exile or death.

right (I tried to make sure to explain I wasn't using the word anarchy to mean chaos as some use it), but my point there is that just because people agree on a set of laws to live by doesnt mean everyone else will -- so if there is no government to enforce the laws you anarchists in your freedom decide to live by, there's no reason someone shouldn't come along and hunt you for sport since it's not illegal, so you wouldn't have chaos any more than nature has chaos in its homeostasis of preditor and prey, but you wouldn't have any assurance of utopia either.

but if you decide to have a set of rules and enforce them you essentially have a government and if a single person comes to your terratory and doesnt like them but has no lobbying power to change them to suit himself we have the exact problem you have today and it's nothing to do with the size of the government or corperations or media manipulation or apathy or anything, it's just democracy.

 

[Silver Incubus]

I've seen that documentary also, I forget the name, but I guess you can make those claims about anyone and we just have to rely on the justice system. A lone serial killer can get away with it just as well as the corperate elite, I don't see any lobbying to have their illegal actions legalised so their power seems to have little to do with that matter.

Well the point is that money is the determining factor in when and who gets caught or framed. Serial killers usually are very unbalance in the brain and tend to beleive their hallucinations as reality.

what if we picture your ideal here, a greatly liberal government. Now, an extremist wants to act in "defiance to a system they see as self destructive or harmful to those they care for" to get ***** / alcohol / homosexuality / all their holy sins outlawed since that sinning is damning them for eternity -- could you say extremism isn't a crime because crime is complex, or it is the only way to make change, or it's the right thing to do, or anything like that, would you support that and see that extremism as a good thing?

Well, I am not a liberal by any means. But if I could I would kill any and all of those people who claim to know the word of any God, and that they have devine reasons for doing something. Those people are just as stupid and manipulated as people who are 'trend' followers. It is because of factors like these that democrazy doesn't really work. There are too many people who have been persuaded to think that they have found some sort of answer to questions and situations that do not exist or effect the real world in any way, shape or form. But I do understand the point you are making. It comes down to what people beleive, and that should never be a reason for anything political that effects people that do not, or will not believe propaganda from religious institutions.

but just because you want privacy doesn't mean everyone does, and such is the democracy that is most poeple would rather gamble on security, then its their choice if they lose their privacy.

I think if you ask most people, they will say they want to live in peace. Hell I bet if you told most people that the government has no laws to force you to pay income tax, they would want to stop paying it. If you really think about it, the government is no better then the mafia extortion. You pay them to protect you.
But as I said in my previous post, the media, and PR that is put out by the government, tells people to be scared, that they need this protection from the evil terrorists. (this may be going into conspiracy stuff) I know for a proven fact that some of the terroists they had said flew planes on 9/11 are still alive and living in their respective countries. That certian terrorist plots that pop up on the news tend to blow over because there are little or no proof of anything. Liek there was a terroist plot in Canada, but now, there is nothing about it, because it was nothing more then exagerated stoies to incite fear into people so they would want more 'security' from phantom terrorists, that may or may not even exist in the first place.

have to agree with that, but you're responsible for your own apathy, you're the only choosing to watch the news and believe all the rubbish and take that information as real and a reason to become apathetic.

Well I actually watch the news and laugh at all the lies they propigate. I have studies Neuro Linguistic Programming techniques about how to read the inconsistances of peoples body language and all the suble things people do that become incongruent with what is being said, and let me tell you this, it is more often then you may even realize.

then you're best to say it's that individuals personality that isn't right for the job, rather than saying 'all people with these genetics are determined to have this personality and be wrong for this job.'

Until of course, they claim discrimination when you higher the white guy or girl....

right (I tried to make sure to explain I wasn't using the word anarchy to mean chaos as some use it), but my point there is that just because people agree on a set of laws to live by doesnt mean everyone else will -- so if there is no government to enforce the laws you anarchists in your freedom decide to live by, there's no reason someone shouldn't come along and hunt you for sport since it's not illegal, so you wouldn't have chaos any more than nature has chaos in its homeostasis of preditor and prey, but you wouldn't have any assurance of utopia either.

In this situation, the laws would be enforced by everyone, and therefore everyone in the nation(lets say) are responsible and apt at defending others from such canibalistic sociopaths. Such laws such as, no killing the unwilling to die would obviously enforced. Therefore giving people who wish to fight for honor or revenge with a agreeing party still could be accomplished if desired. IN a sense the law would be, no harm to others, unless they agree to be harmed.

but if you decide to have a set of rules and enforce them you essentially have a government and if a single person comes to your terratory and doesnt like them but has no lobbying power to change them to suit himself we have the exact problem you have today and it's nothing to do with the size of the government or corperations or media manipulation or apathy or anything, it's just democracy.

If it is a government, it would be akin to the final stages of communism, that there is no government but only rule by people who, have no class or social status, and are only as good as they can be within the limits of their abilities. There is no equality, because that is unreasonable, but there is no class, because such things only create problems. It is simply human beings, living harmoniously with other human beings for the survival of the species in a homeostatis within nature. So having too many children that you cannot feed, would be considerd harmful, and thus against the rules.
There is more then enough in this world for everyone to live happily, but its because of the greed and spite from the rich aristocrats, that believe in social darwinism, that keep the expoitation of the people lining their pockets with money.