The US is far from perfect, but we select our leaders by universal suffrage, and so by definition we are "self-governed." Maybe you don't know what the term "self" means or perhaps you don't know what the word "definition" means but either way that statement is absurd. We select our leaders, therefore we govern ourselves? No. Some people that choose to participate in a sham system vote for choice a or choice b, and we are thereby governed by a very small amount of people that have been allowed to run under one of two party names and chosen by people that buy into that nonsense. I do not govern myself, as far as the United States law is concerned anyhow, so by "definition" I am not "self"-governed. I am governed by a bunch of nonsense put together by a few of histories idiots, long before I, my parents, or grand-parents, were born, and forced upon me by a violent institution determined that everyone thereafter would have no choice in there freedom.
Nice lecture about fuedalism however when I said "reinvigorate feudalism for the 19th and 20th century" I didn't just say feudalism. No I quite well understand the meaning of fuedalism, however I also understand the historical context through which capitalism came from feudalism and why it is still incredibly class based, and always will be. Perhaps something you should look further into. By any means capitalism was a transition for a failing system (feudalism) to create similar power-structures with a similar capacity to exploit. Yes I can travel, but only by permission, as everything was purchased by wealthy families long before the transition to capitalism was complete. So though I am taught that I am free, I am in fact born in debt, unless I am born to a certain class of people that doesn't have to work (i.e. the wealthy). Perhaps I can choose my capitalist-lord however more likely I petition them and they choose me, as most work in the post-industrial society is entirely useless I am only employed as a control mechanism, not as a necessary to keep people fed or housed or healthy. Only the rich are allowed idle hands without destitution because only people so invested in such a system would not, with such time on their hands, want to eliminate it.
(Also as side note: one doesn't have to experience something to understand it I can give you limitless examples of this but you probably get my point.)
I honestly don't care if or how you work, chances are what you do doesn't feed, clothe, house, or heal anyone, I doubt it even lightens anyones life even a little. Likely you are among the most common class of people stuck in a meaningless job and staying there, so what does it matter work or not? In a healthy society everyone does what is best to support their community. In american society almost no one does what's good to support their community, the workers often least of all, as their time is bought up by one capitalist feudal-lord (i.e. corporation), and the earnings are spent with another, in a hectic, consumption dominated existence, a life which by all accounts is entirely pointless and inconceivably dull, so the remainder of their time is spent seeking escapes in T.V., Video Games, maybe even drugs. So essentially, your work is lazy. What you do means nothing to me or my community (or you or your community) so you might as well not do it. In fact I could (were I inclined to write many pages here), and have, easily argued that to work in such a society makes one complicit in the destruction of their peers and thus makes them culpable for the social devastation that is currently taking place in their neighborhoods and communities. Simply put, those who work, do ill; thieves lead more ethical lives than I think most working-americans do, and that probably includes you. Most especially if your work is contributing to the continual bloat of patent-plagued software.
Actually self-governance and anarchism are exactly the same, and, not to spin your head around, but the term "libertarian" (not capital L as in the party) comes from a nineteenth-century anarcho-communist Joseph Dejacque to describe his anarchist beliefs. The word libertarian is still synonymous with anarchism throughout most of the world outside of the United States. The use of the term within the United States was hijacked by laissez-faire capitalists to describe their party because it sounded better, but is in-fact a very inaccurate description of their beliefs.
I'm not certain of what you mean by "self-governance" but I would not describe the United States as a having a system of self-governance. Rather I would define it as an oligarchic-plutocracy. Whether or not the system is failing is perspective based. I would say that it failed from day one to deliver any sort of freedom or liberty. However if you want a system of economic domination, a reinvigorated-feudalism for the 19th and 20th century I'd say that it has succeeded. It'll probably collapse like all over-bloated power-hungry empires do and hopefully something better will emerge from it's corpse.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice lecture about fuedalism however when I said "reinvigorate feudalism for the 19th and 20th century" I didn't just say feudalism. No I quite well understand the meaning of fuedalism, however I also understand the historical context through which capitalism came from feudalism and why it is still incredibly class based, and always will be. Perhaps something you should look further into. By any means capitalism was a transition for a failing system (feudalism) to create similar power-structures with a similar capacity to exploit. Yes I can travel, but only by permission, as everything was purchased by wealthy families long before the transition to capitalism was complete. So though I am taught that I am free, I am in fact born in debt, unless I am born to a certain class of people that doesn't have to work (i.e. the wealthy). Perhaps I can choose my capitalist-lord however more likely I petition them and they choose me, as most work in the post-industrial society is entirely useless I am only employed as a control mechanism, not as a necessary to keep people fed or housed or healthy. Only the rich are allowed idle hands without destitution because only people so invested in such a system would not, with such time on their hands, want to eliminate it.
(Also as side note: one doesn't have to experience something to understand it I can give you limitless examples of this but you probably get my point.)
I honestly don't care if or how you work, chances are what you do doesn't feed, clothe, house, or heal anyone, I doubt it even lightens anyones life even a little. Likely you are among the most common class of people stuck in a meaningless job and staying there, so what does it matter work or not? In a healthy society everyone does what is best to support their community. In american society almost no one does what's good to support their community, the workers often least of all, as their time is bought up by one capitalist feudal-lord (i.e. corporation), and the earnings are spent with another, in a hectic, consumption dominated existence, a life which by all accounts is entirely pointless and inconceivably dull, so the remainder of their time is spent seeking escapes in T.V., Video Games, maybe even drugs. So essentially, your work is lazy. What you do means nothing to me or my community (or you or your community) so you might as well not do it. In fact I could (were I inclined to write many pages here), and have, easily argued that to work in such a society makes one complicit in the destruction of their peers and thus makes them culpable for the social devastation that is currently taking place in their neighborhoods and communities. Simply put, those who work, do ill; thieves lead more ethical lives than I think most working-americans do, and that probably includes you. Most especially if your work is contributing to the continual bloat of patent-plagued software.
Actually self-governance and anarchism are exactly the same, and, not to spin your head around, but the term "libertarian" (not capital L as in the party) comes from a nineteenth-century anarcho-communist Joseph Dejacque to describe his anarchist beliefs. The word libertarian is still synonymous with anarchism throughout most of the world outside of the United States. The use of the term within the United States was hijacked by laissez-faire capitalists to describe their party because it sounded better, but is in-fact a very inaccurate description of their beliefs.
I'm not certain of what you mean by "self-governance" but I would not describe the United States as a having a system of self-governance. Rather I would define it as an oligarchic-plutocracy. Whether or not the system is failing is perspective based. I would say that it failed from day one to deliver any sort of freedom or liberty. However if you want a system of economic domination, a reinvigorated-feudalism for the 19th and 20th century I'd say that it has succeeded. It'll probably collapse like all over-bloated power-hungry empires do and hopefully something better will emerge from it's corpse.