If we deny the hadiths, how do we know that the Quran we are holding in our hand
-
You want to create a hierarchy with tax and government then Makaveli, you do not have a leader in an anarchic community, and do not need one. Democracy is not anarchic either, it is as a jury full consensus, and you cannot impose anything onto any community member, even if you think it is a good idea, once you impose you create division. There is no compulsion.
Without hierarch thing function considerably better, including manufacturing, you do not need a leader you need community, and community must always be limited in size, as you cannot have a community of strangers, which if you consider the pineal gland as the guide, would be around 1500 people before the community splits into two distinct communities, this also applies to bonded cooperatives, the maximum number before the cell divides is 15.
Peace Good logic,
Are you talking about the hierarchical systems, presently their is no alternative to the imposed and extorting hierarchies installed around the globe, people are invested in these and through their investment make it life threreatening to attempt to refuse their extortions. However an alternative should be created which is my focus, if an alternative is created then the excuse of having no choice is lost.
-
You want to create a hierarchy with tax and government then Makaveli, you do not have a leader in an anarchic community, and do not need one. Democracy is not anarchic either, it is as a jury full consensus, and you cannot impose anything onto any community member, even if you think it is a good idea, once you impose you create division. There is no compulsion.
I don't want to establish anything, not sure where you take that from. I just point out obvious flaws of your ideas merely by reading what you have to say. I yet have to read your theory in full, I wish you'd actually post it one day, right now you only talk about anarchic communities in your every post and there is always something I can always come up with to disprove it as I can see it wouldn't work in real life. Anarchy does not mean everyone minds his own business. What you talk about is a mad max, that is where everyone would mind his/her own business, but that is not a community. Community is a collective of individuals united under common cause and under common discourse (guidance so to speak). Discourse can be spiritual, religious or ideological.
From what you say I can merely think of Mad Max, where nomads just wander around in the post-apocalyptic world and sometimes meet together to discuss territorial agenda, but otherwise they are on their own, but that is not a community. I suggest you stay with a few other people isolated at night, preferably in some extreme circumstances such as the forest without mobile communication and limited resources. See how you won't require a leader when everyone thinks of him/herself as an invididual who only uses his/her own mind for him/herself and does not need guidance or common understanding, considering how everyone sees situation differently.
Demoracy is a wide definition, I am talking about its early manifestations, such as during antiquity. Community does not need hierarchy to have a leader. There is no hierarchy when I can come to the leader and straight forward ask him questions and I don't need to wait another ten years before I can elect another one in case a community believes that current is harmful to the community.
-
Rekkd,
If you are genuine and logical (as you claim), make your own thread with the 5 strongest objections to The Quran that you can possibly fathom. Not any old 5, the strongest possible you can come up with after all your research/thinking.I noticed you came up with 3. I'm still waiting for the last 2.
If you cant come up with the last 2 then please state the 3 objections you did cite are the strongest you can think of, then I will reply (in a separate thread).
-
Peace Man of faith, yes you are right we are invested in the perception of the body, and all the related natures of that perception.
Evil is a consciously (intentional) morally corrupt action, but my point was not about good or evil, it was about the practice of innate virtues, these are no longer commonly pursued, and they would be fundamental to good without any concern to ponder or deliberate, in virtue you are made innocent, you need not trouble about any thing in action you do, if you have developed the practice of virtues.
People seem to be struggling to over come the animal nature as you say, that is because they have not developed the practice of virtues and they are not within a community, being in an anarchic community makes mastery of the self easy, although you couldn?t have any other type of true community, as community means common unity, and dichotomously you have hierarchical society which means division into ranks, you can therefore not have hierarchical community as their is no common unity you?re divided, one is unity the other division.
Strangely no one is ever interested to know what innate virtues are?
You can grow in any kind of community, it only takes creating a distance to the daily grind and conformity to things which sponsor the bodily system.
An anarchy only works under perfect circumstances, it is a utopia, just like communism is. The nature of man and susceptibility to the instinct makes it hard to uphold such systems without exploitation. Probably, a country attempting to become an anarchy ends up with local chieftains who terrorize the lands.
Even if you live in a standard community with alleged democracy, you can refrain from seeking a hierarchical position in it nor take excitation from it.
Be well
Qarael Amenuel -
I did not state it was not possible I said within anarchic community it is easy, while it is much harder outside of that, utopia means nowhere, so I am actually heading out of utopia into anarchy with luck, I notice people pass judgment on anarchic community without any grasp of its structures, odd, and they make unfounded claims of problems that have no basis in reason like a need for exploitation, you do not have countries in an anarchic model, countries are feudal boundaries created as reference to the local dominating mafia.
If you look at the methods of the feudal psychopaths it is to remove the system of accountability first, then terrorize the populations, then genocide, then repopulation with slaves brought up in hierarchy, with the survivors being a slave class below all others.
-
They are not unfounded claims. The group which attempts to implement anarchy will be overrun by another group which does not comply with the choice of no governance. As long as instinctive, weak-minded human exists, there will be no peace. If you have a solution to all the instinctive humans in search for dominion, materialism and hierarchy then your idea may work.
The kind of societies we have is a mess, but we would not want anything even worse.
I know about anarchy and I have had anarchist friends, but even if we dream of the perfect world, it has to be realistic under given premises.
The biggest problem in itself is not the governing systems of the developed world, but the exploitative people in it.
Using a monetary system, individual ownership of property, are both parts of the community which leads to exploited people. The underlying issue is the instinct, that people are territorial, self-preserving and in search of social status (hierarchy) and domination of others.
Be well
Qarael Amenuel -
There is nothing to over run "man of faith" there is no hierarchy to take over, and the model does not require compulsion, it is a free choice, it works on advantage.
you do not know anarchy, i have not seen these models applied since they were end by the vatican a 1000 years ago, so what you think is anarchy is not.
-
There is nothing to over run "man of faith" there is no hierarchy to take over, and the model does not require compulsion, it is a free choice, it works on advantage.
you do not know anarchy, i have not seen these models applied since they were end by the vatican a 1000 years ago, so what you think is anarchy is not.
At what point of history did these 'anarchic' models exist, who (which nation or tribe) enjoyed them and how do you know about it, if Vatican destroyed it? Is there any recorded evidence of these systems at work or at least hints that indicate that these models ever worked? And why Vatican? Why not Persian Empire or the Rome (Eastern Roman Empire or Babylon)? Or Chinese Empire? You seem to form your theories on the fly, without any plausibility. You can't just say it worked because it worked. Such explanation will only attract slaves or religious people, and slaves DO need rulers and hierarchy, but what they don't need is explanation. You can't teach men fishing because they will come back and bring you a pack of fish for protection or worship.
-
These models existed from at least 758 in Albien, after the meteor hit the north sea in 652 and lay the population low, it seems they took up the Islamic models or they simply developed them, Albien after the genocide of the Vatican around a 1000 years ago was named Angle land after the German tribe that had previous to the genocide resided in the southern regions on and off.
However only the advantages of the models are really the relevant factor.
I can also say it worked as it makes reasoned and logical sense, and the advantages are self evident.
It seems you are struggling to grasp a system without hierarchy, and keep thinking as if some hierarchy were there to contaminate the model.
-
These models existed from at least 758 in Albien, after the meteor hit the north sea in 652 and lay the population low, it seems they took up the Islamic models or they simply developed them, Albien after the genocide of the Vatican around a 1000 years ago was named Angle land after the German tribe that had previous to the genocide resided in the southern regions on and off.
However only the advantages of the models are really the relevant factor.
I can also say it worked as it makes reasoned and logical sense, and the advantages are self evident.
It seems you are struggling to grasp a system without hierarchy, and keep thinking as if some hierarchy were there to contaminate the model.
Albien as England (because there is the only place mentioned like it centuries ago, as my brief search shows). Map of Britain was split into tribes for centuries before it could be united under the single language and the Queen. There is no indication that these people lived under alternative system when in fact the saxons fought each other their whole history.
I don't care about social systems any more. I don't hire workers, do not exploit anyone and I refuse to serve in the army in my own country, and you probably fail to understand my core worldview. But I am realistic. So your conclusion is wrong.
-
The history of Britain is a fabrication almost entirely before the 13th century; it was written by the priests of the Vatican, they have expunged the evidence of the true history as much as they may over the past 1000 years. But the old systems are still known, and do not allow the Vatican history to be accepted in any way.
If you wish to believe the Vatican history it's your choice, as I say the models are self evidently advantageous on their own merit.
My conclusion is not from knowing you but purely from your posted comments. Re-read what you have written.
You are also mistaking the people of Albien for the Germans, the Angles and Saxons are German tribes men not the indigenous of Albien.
-
But the old systems are still known, and do not allow the Vatican history to be accepted in any way.
If you wish to believe the Vatican history it's your choice, as I say the models are self evidently advantageous on their own merit.
There is no textual evidence, if there are present them.
My conclusion is not from knowing you but purely from your posted comments. Re-read what you have written.
And which posts of mine exactly indicate that I support hierarchic models or that I am too hirarchy-centric?
You are also mistaking the people of Albien for the Germans, the Angles and Saxons are German tribes men not the indigenous of Albien.
So did Angles' tribes.
-
Look there is no point discussing the model if you keep claiming things without any support, have you read the history books, have you read the oxford land law book, have you read anything on the subject at all? Yet for some unknown reason you are a world expert, do you want to learn the model?s or do you want to repeatedly state nonsense, what is the issue with these models existing in the past to you? Why is it such a big issue that they existed, so much so you feel a compulsion to repeatedly state they did not, if they did not, why did they use anarchic models, in any case, circular arguments have zero benefit.
I have better things to do with my time if this is the attitude. I wasted time giving a seminar I am not open to wasting my time further with repetitive circular arguing.
-
If you do not understand ownership you cannot understand the allodial, you would be confused, you claim to know and refute that what i say is correct, then explain ownership, if you are going to argue that you know, then explain ownership. i will wait.
-
If you do not understand ownership you cannot understand the allodial, you would be confused, you claim to know and refute that what i say is correct, then explain ownership, if you are going to argue that you know, then explain ownership. i will wait.
You're pathetic at presentations, sorry. I wonder if your presentation failed because you simply can't present it in a logical and respectful manner without saying that people don't understand anything and calling them out based on plausible theories.
I know what ownership is, it is non-existent, you do not own anything which you think belongs to you. It is an illusion based on fear and false belief of belonging.
But I don't care as long as I am mature enough to not pursue utopian ideas, I know how the world works, but it is a temporary platform and I know there is nothing you can propose (outside of your questions and calling people out based on lack of integrity of your own personal belief) to change it.
-
you cannot pursue any ideas, as you are a glass already full, you clearly do not want to learn the anarchic, and instead argue as if you were informed, you clearly do not know what ownership is, and now claim i am a poor presenter, I however do know what ownership is and can explain it clearly, if you want to pretend to be informed, get informed first.
-
you cannot pursue any ideas, as you are a glass already full
Then I guess your best bet is to propagate your ideas among the 5 year old. These are not yet too brainwashed, are not skeptical, and will be probably willing to learn new concepts since they barely know their present situation either.
