Would you support an insurrection against your government?

[Nat Turner]

Just wondering what the numbers are.

 

[pomegranate]

Are you talking about a specific country, or just in any countries that people happen to be in?
Currently I wouldn't, but I might depending on what the circumstances were and what the objectives of the insurrection/motivations of the instigators were.

 

[Direwolf]

Nope. Unless they turn against their own citizens and start killing them purposefully, then theres not enough reason to go killing them.

 

[Bob_Marley]

That depends entirely upon the motivations for it. For example, if Solaris suddenly decided to have an armed uprising I can honestly say that him and his commie mates wouldnt have my support.

I personally dont like Mr. Blair and his cronies, but I'd rather get rid of them with the democratic process than knock 'em off.

However, if there were an uprising to place me as the undisputed head of the British isles, then it probubly would have my support (lets face it, who doesnt want to be the undisputed ruler of their own nation?)

 

[Nat Turner]

I just want anarchy and pure freedom, that's it. I would support any insurrection against any first world country. The people who are pussies and want a government to shield them their whole lives should go live on a prison island somewhere (like Britain).

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I would not support any attempt at insurrection in my country. The goals of that insurrection to large or too shallow, and whats worse, they're not prepared mentallity, physically, or with the numbers enough to charge that kind of a situation.

Oh, and lets skip the silly for a second. I like my government, and I like its democratic process. Dodging what many instances we've had were a statement like that would fall into ash and air, this country thus far has been pretty great. Besides, I'm voting democrat next election, and I don't want to vote anyone into office without the experience or dedication to this country, and its original values.

 

[Nat Turner]

I would not support any attempt at insurrection in my country. The goals of that insurrection to large or too shallow, and whats worse, they're not prepared mentallity, physically, or with the numbers enough to charge that kind of a situation.

Oh, and lets skip the silly for a second. I like my government, and I like its democratic process. Dodging what many instances we've had were a statement like that would fall into ash and air, this country thus far has been pretty great. Besides, I'm voting democrat next election, and I don't want to vote anyone into office without the experience or dedication to this country, and its original values.

The "democratic process" is just a tyranny of the majority. It's like saying "we're right, we're going to impose our laws on you, and you can't do anything about it".

 

[K e r b e r o s]

The "democratic process" is just a tyranny of the majority. It's like saying "we're right, we're going to impose our laws on you, and you can't do anything about it".

Suck me. Thats your opinion and I've had mine.

Oh, and lets think for a moment. Where would insurrection get you besides behind bars, killed, or in some governmental seat bathed in the blood of those you killed in order to get there?

Does'nt make you the high chair of morales now does it? Do you have the experience to take charge of more then 240 million people and lead them under the true values of Greek/Western Democratic thinking? Than hop to! You've got a revolution to lead!

 

[Nat Turner]

Suck me. Thats your opinion and I've had mine.

Oh, and lets think for a moment. Where would insurrection get you besides behind bars, killed, or in some governmental seat bathed in the blood of those you killed in order to get there?

Does'nt make you the high chair of morales now does it? Do you have the experience to take charge of more then 240 million people and lead them under the true values of Greek/Western Democratic thinking? Than hop to! You've got a revolution to lead!

Submit to society, forsake your freedoms, and live life as a slave OR die fighting. It's one or the other. Taking charge of 240 million isn't part of the picture; getting rid of the federal gov. is the only goal.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

*Mocking overture*: Submit to society, forsake your freedoms ... bleh! What do you think a socialism is?

What would you do? Live in the forest, without a home, amungst nature and natures laws? Need we remind you how cruel nature is, and the fact that we, no matter how advanced in technology are just as cruel?

Don't think I would'nt know about government sponsored oppressionist regime's, but I think right now what this country needs is a reality check. For the first time ever in world history has the countries of Great Britain, France, Germany, America, and so on, ever been this aware of Facism and one world governments.

We should employ that knowledge and make it heard in our congress, and not heard in our streets through gunfire and rage. Nobody here, not even me, would know how to start or were to start when it would come down to leading our government and our people don't the true paths of freedom.

But the best way to start is to use what you've got, and what we've got so far is a government (which is debatabley sucking or is doing good to some) and a country with citizens living in it. Destroying that, and we'd destroy our entire effort altogether.

 

[Nat Turner]

*Mocking overture*: Submit to society, forsake your freedoms ... bleh! What do you think a socialism is?

What would you do? Live in the forest, without a home, amungst nature and natures laws? Need we remind you how cruel nature is, and the fact that we, no matter how advanced in technology are just as cruel?

Don't think I would'nt know about government sponsored oppressionist regime's, but I think right now what this country needs is a reality check. For the first time ever in world history has the countries of Great Britain, France, Germany, America, and so on, ever been this aware of Facism and one world governments.

We should employ that knowledge and make it heard in our congress, and not heard in our streets through gunfire and rage. Nobody here, not even me, would know how to start or were to start when it would come down to leading our government and our people don't the true paths of freedom.

But the best way to start is to use what you've got, and what we've got so far is a government (which is debatabley sucking or is doing good to some) and a country with citizens living in it. Destroying that, and we'd destroy our entire effort altogether.

The entire effort led to a bloated government that regulates and restricts countless actions. It's not free by any means, and it's near impossible to risk. There's no hiding from the government, and you can't run away either.

No we wouldn't live in nature, we'd live in the exact same places - just without the overbearing federal government controlling everything. And sure it does good - to the weak people who don't want to help themselves and who enjoy being controlled because they fear self-autonomy.

Also the moment you start planning an insurrection or secessionist movement, the FBI will get you and arrest you under "conspiracy" charges. Even though you haven't committed a crime and have only exercised free speech!

 

[Ikerous]

I'm voting libertarian on tuesday.. does that count?

 

[Nat Turner]

I'm voting libertarian on tuesday.. does that count?

That's a step in the right direction... a libertarian society is the next best thing to freedom.

 

[pomegranate]

The individual is far less free, in terms of what they are able to do and what experiences are available to them, without the organisation and technology of the complicated modern society and attendent government. Society is both the prison and the liberator (there is a quote like that regarding cities, can't quite remember it, but the principle is the same).
So "living in exact same places...just without the overbearing federal government", simply wouldn't happen. It's nonsense. You'd just have individuals or small groups of individuals, bumping around achieving nothing, and unable to do anything interesting with their lives, and probably starving to death or dieing at an relatively early age because of the lack of medicine, which can only be researched for and paid for by national co-ordination. The same goes for any aspect of life which we regard as neccessary. No thanks.
If you really want to be totally free (by your definition) just become a hobo, nothing is stopping you. Nobody's likely going to interfere with you, unless you make a point of getting in people's way. See how well you survive, and how much you enjoy yourself, without the support and opportunities of organised society.

One other point - it is also nonsense to say that people shouldn't impose their values on one another - humans are a social species, we do not survive very well on our own (because of the complex survival techniques required for the human body to live), thus we need to band together in some way at least. For that to happen effectively, groups of people have to common principles and basic concepts of what should and should not be done (right and wrong), otherwise... we all die.

 

[Nat Turner]

The individual is far less free, in terms of what they are able to do and what experiences are available to them, without the organisation and technology of the complicated modern society and attendent government.

Nope, that's wrong. The government restricts them. Therefore the individual is less free by definition. I just proved it, don't even try to argue more or you'll make yourself out to be an idiot.

So "living in exact same places...just without the overbearing federal government", simply wouldn't happen. It's nonsense. You'd just have individuals or small groups of individuals, bumping around achieving nothing, and unable to do anything interesting with their lives, and probably starving to death or dieing at an relatively early age because of the lack of medicine, which can only be researched for and paid for by national organisation. The same goes for any aspect of life which we regard as neccessary. No thanks.

Did I say anything about state or local governments?? No, only federal. State govs can remain as long as they aren't overbearing and aren't capable of tracking you down across borders. Militias will serve to keep order everywhere after the collapse of the Feds.

 

[Ikerous]

That's a step in the right direction... a libertarian society is the next best thing to freedom.

I'd feel much more free in a libertarian society. The police force and certain laws prevent other people from violating my rights and keeps me much more free

 

[Nat Turner]

I'd feel much more free in a libertarian society. The police force and certain laws prevent other people from violating my rights and keeps me much more free

You have very valid concerns. State and local governments can achieve this, as well as militia. I myself am caught between libertarianism and anarchy (with a little socialism for special cases, like public roads for example).

 

[K e r b e r o s]

The entire effort led to a bloated government that regulates and restricts countless actions.

To quote Mel Gibson's character from the movie, 'the Patriot':

Why should I fear one Tyrant a thousand miles away, when I have one thousand Tyrants one mile away? An organized legislature can trample a mans rights just like any King can.

I follow this quote, and I try to keep aware of both. As for your accused 'effort' leading to failure, let me remind you that insurrection has never been physically efforted against our government. It led to nothing, because much like nothing, nothing is nothing. You can't say something has failed when it has'nt even begun.

It's not free by any means, and it's near impossible to risk. There's no hiding from the government, and you can't run away either.

I will write the following sentence:

Bush needs to be impeached, and the Conservative dictorial right needs to fall on they're heads, and go BOOM!

Now, where's the government? Where's my padded room?

I'm not running from the government, or hiding. Again, where is it? I dare it to arrest me for saying that ... *taptaptap* When it happens ... I'll post something on the forums.

No we wouldn't live in nature, we'd live in the exact same places - just without the overbearing federal government controlling everything.

It does'nt control when we sleep. It does not control who we ****. It won't control when I masterbate, or say a better leader should be in power ... it is not leading me, or my opinions. I decide by myself, for myself.

Some Federal Power's are also needed.

And sure it does good - to the weak people who don't want to help themselves and who enjoy being controlled because they fear self-autonomy.

Your attempt to say what I'am falls at the point your blindly generalizing over people in hopes to describe what you think I might feel. Me, I don't fear authority. I respect it, I honor it. At the sametime, I also respect myself and demand to be respected.

Terrorist or not, Big Brother or not, I choose what to fear and when to fear it. What I fear should not describe me as weak, for fear is not a weakness. It's a sign your instincts are working.

Also the moment you start planning an insurrection or secessionist movement, the FBI will get you and arrest you under "conspiracy" charges.

They would be right in doing so. Would'nt you arrest anyone who tried to lead an insurrection against your societal Utopia?

Even though you haven't committed a crime and have only exercised free speech!

Free Speech is the context which people both guard freedoms, and, the freedom to oppress them. What I'm saying is, defending a Ku Klux Klan's right to speech might help him organize a terrorist effort to kidnap or kill African Americans locale to his area.

That speech allows organization. Your not being arrested for what you said, but for what you tried to create. I'll even say this for you, in America ... right now, over the Internet.

I will lead an insurrection against my government in the name of baby powder and blue denim jeans. Where is the Police? This is a pure exercise of free speech, and unless it manifests a physical context that might threaten the lives or members of those in power, or those affiliated with government positions, than it won't be crushed.

Plus, there's also the fact I would never lead an insurrection. I believe in this principle: Red will loose today, but Blue will loose tomorrow.

 

[Ikerous]

You have very valid concerns. State and local governments can achieve this, as well as militia. I myself am caught between libertarianism and anarchy (with a little socialism for special cases).

Oh, i completely agrea. I see no need for a national government. Just A government.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Do you mean "RIGHT NOW" or like "would you in any situation"

I certainly would if tyranny threatened, but if you're asking if I will right now then no.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

^ Yep. It would be purposeless, bloody, and lead to nothing.

 

[Nat Turner]

Do you mean "RIGHT NOW" or like "would you in any situation"

I certainly would if tyranny threatened, but if you're asking if I will right now then no.

Well at what point would you say "enough is enough"? When we get mandatory RFID cards to carry around? When cameras are installed on every street corner and inside your house to "ensure safety"? When a large portion of your income has to go to the federal government to pay for all their BS? (Oh, wait...)

 

[Nat Turner]

^ Yep. It would be purposeless, bloody, and lead to nothing.

That's the same thing most slaves would say to eachother.

 

[Bob_Marley]

Just out of interest is this purely theoretcial or are you and you buddies planning a Coup?

 

[Nat Turner]

Just out of interest is this purely theoretcial or are you and you buddies planning a Coup?

purely theoretical

 

[DeusExMachina]

I support all revolutions and coups.

"The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution."

 

[Raeven0]

purely theoretical

I haven't heard about any planned coup, at any rate.

Let me quote a passage from my Statement of Principles:

- Anarchy sucks unless the people in the anarchist society are perfect.

I would support no insurrection unless I had the popular support to do it properly the first time. When 400 people who think like me are in Congress, then we'll talk. But if 400 people who thought like me were in Congress, would an insurrection really be necessary in the first place?

 

[Nat Turner]

I would support no insurrection unless I had the popular support to do it properly the first time. When 400 people who think like me are in Congress, then we'll talk. But if 400 people who think like me were in Congress, would an insurrection really be necessary in the first place?

Most people want to live in peace, and preserving the status quo is the easiest way to do that. Most people either don't know what's good for their future or don't care. Governments by nature are always seeking more power (as is proven by nearly every government), and the democratic process is unable to stop the trend. The vote is historically a weak check on government. Look at England - it's approaching the totalitarianism of China.

I don't support true anarchy, because it wouldn't work. Just lots of small-scale societies and governments that would only need to unite in a defensive war (although I doubt that would ever happen). Again, most people enjoy peace, especially those that are educated (like most people in the U.S.), so I doubt this would result in much more violence. Even if it did, it would still be worth it IMO.

 

[short recoil]

I would as long as i had the following equipment available at the time.

1. Volvo 740 2.3 turbo with full NBC combat filtration, armour plating around cockpit and vital engine components, drive flat tires with side plates, smoke dischargers, cow catcher ram on the front, flame thrower and 20mm cannon mounted under the hood and some furry dice.

2. mkIII full body kevlar armour and a 30mm laminated face shield kevlar helmet.

3. A .357 magnum revolver with 500 rounds of ammunition.

4. A pump action shotgun (remy 870 or simmilar) and 300 shells.

5. A barnett Panzer II crossbow with night vision scope.

6. A bag full of pipe bombs.

7. 10 British army 24hr ration packs.

8. 20 Litres of water and a water purifying station (stored in the volvo)

9. A 10" combat knife with survival kit in the handle.

10. A packet of KP prawn skips.

 

[Captain M4d]

Only with good reason.

 

[dream431ca]

I just want anarchy and pure freedom, that's it. I would support any insurrection against any first world country. The people who are pussies and want a government to shield them their whole lives should go live on a prison island somewhere (like Britain).

You will never get pure "freedom". If there was anarchy you would have death all the time, well...I'm not saying it's not true now, but you would have a lot more. We need a structure to accomplish things. Without that, we would get nowhere, and living would be pointless. But I do agree with the government thing, except a government depends on the leader. If you have a bad leader, bad government and vice versa.

 

[Nat Turner]

You will never get pure "freedom". If there was anarchy you would have death all the time, well...I'm not saying it's not true now, but you would have a lot more. We need a structure to accomplish things. Without that, we would get nowhere, and living would be pointless. But I do agree with the government thing, except a government depends on the leader. If you have a bad leader, bad government and vice versa.

You don't think a state or a city could exist without the help of the federal government???

 

[Mechagodzilla]

ANARCHY hell yes!

I've always wanted to start a back-alley surgery ward and clean drinking water can eat a dick for all I care.

I especially like "pure freedom" because it removes the laws preventing me from stabbing Nat Turner in the face.

 

[dream431ca]

You don't think a state or a city could exist without the help of the federal government???

Not just a federal goverment, ANY goverment. Without direction, there would be chaos and with chaos comes destruction, death, anarchy. I would like to here your explanation on how it would work without a government, because honestly, I cannot see it working. You forget that most humans have to be forced to do something. If there is no government there is no restricitons and without restrictions, then it's alright to kill an entire family, or to destroy a city. "Pure Freedom", is just that. "Pure Freedom" Lets you do whatever you want. So you can buy groceries and kill a baby at the same time and get away with it. That's pure freedom.

 

[Nat Turner]

Not just a federal goverment, ANY goverment. Without direction, there would be chaos and with chaos comes destruction, death, anarchy. I would like to here your explanation on how it would work without a government, because honestly, I cannot see it working. You forget that most humans have to be forced to do something. If there is no government there is no restricitons and without restrictions, then it's alright to kill an entire family, or to destroy a city. "Pure Freedom", is just that. "Pure Freedom" Lets you do whatever you want. So you can buy groceries and kill a baby at the same time and get away with it. That's pure freedom.

No, in pure freedom an angry mob would come after you for killing the baby and would restore the peace. Places have existed many times before without governments, and they've done just fine. You don't really understand what freedom is. There's still consequences if people hate you for what you do.

 

[dream431ca]

No, in pure freedom an angry mob would come after you for killing the baby and would restore the peace. Places have existed many times before without governments, and they've done just fine. You don't really understand what freedom is. There's still consequences if people hate you for what you do.

But Pure freedom is much different than just freedom. Sure, places did exist without governments, but each place had a leader, and that leader was to represent a small number of people. Now, with big countries, it's quite different, you see, if the government would just disappear in a country, what would happen is immediate civil war. After the war, the country would be divided up into sections or regions and each region would have a leader to lead that particular region. Each section has it's own beliefs on how people should be treated. To stop the violence in each region, they would have to have a direction for the people to follow. That would only be possible by forming a government for that particular region.

There are many outcomes of this situation but 2 of the situations are the most likely to occur:

1. The country stays in seperate regions with different views, and different governments.

2. The entire country destroys itself.

Pure freedom, is very different from just freedom. With just freedom, you have a bit of laws that prevent people from doing stupid things. With pure freedom, as the name suggests, means that people can do whatever they want whenever they want and hardly any law is put to use.

 

[Nat Turner]

But Pure freedom is much different than just freedom. Sure, places did exist without governments, but each place had a leader, and that leader was to represent a small number of people. Now, with big countries, it's quite different, you see, if the government would just disappear in a country, what would happen is immediate civil war. After the war, the country would be divided up into sections or regions and each region would have a leader to lead that particular region. Each section has it's own beliefs on how people should be treated. To stop the violence in each region, they would have to have a direction for the people to follow. That would only be possible by forming a government for that particular region.

There are many outcomes of this situation but 2 of the situations are the most likely to occur:

1. The country stays in seperate regions with different views, and different governments.

2. The entire country destroys itself.

Pure freedom, is very different from just freedom. With just freedom, you have a bit of laws that prevent people from doing stupid things. With pure freedom, as the name suggests, means that people can do whatever they want whenever they want and hardly any law is put to use.

#2 never happens and never will as a result of anarchy. The vast majority of people aren't homicidal maniacs, and most people will defend themselves against those maniacs through armed militia. A government is not necessary to keep everyone from killing eachother on any substantial scale. You really don't understand human nature, but are willing to defend an all-encompasing government anyways because of your fear of change.

 

[dream431ca]

#2 never happens and never will as a result of anarchy. The vast majority of people aren't homicidal maniacs, and most people will defend themselves against those maniacs through armed militia. A government is not necessary to keep everyone from killing eachother on any substantial scale. You really don't understand human nature, but are willing to defend an all-encompasing government anyways because of your fear of change.

Government is about change. That's why we have elections. I'm not defending the government at all. What I am stating is that, in order to control people you would need some sort of system. You even stated above, that people would have to defend themselves by armed militia or even arming themselves. So you would be in a constant state of chaos and never achieve freedom.

 

[Nat Turner]

Government is about change. That's why we have elections. I'm not defending the government at all. What I am stating is that, in order to control people you would need some sort of system. You even stated above, that people would have to defend themselves by armed militia or even arming themselves. So you would be in a constant state of chaos and never achieve freedom.

We are currently defended by armed police.

Also, a constant state of not being controlled is freedom. Governments on a small scale are close to that and are able to maintain order. The best thing about small governments is that if you don't like them, you can actually run away. You can't run from the Feds.

 

[dream431ca]

We are currently defended by armed police.

Also, a constant state of not being controlled is freedom. Governments on a small scale are close to that and are able to maintain order. The best thing about small governments is that if you don't like them, you can actually run away. You can't run from the Feds.

But you can never have a constant state of not being controlled. Sure it's freedom, but what you also get is chaos. Can you give an example of a small government? I'm having a hard time understanding what "small" means.