U.S : A FAILED SYSTEM
-
Salaam
democracy is indication of a failed system.
and what exactly is your idea of successful system?
regards -
Salaam
democracy is indication of a failed system.
and what exactly is your idea of successful system?
regardsthere are no such thing as a succesful system. It is an illusion entirely. The only "system" that will ever work is natural anarchism. its 100% based on personal responsability and understanding, not words of law with ministers and capitols. You walk the law, not just talk the law. And if you need to hear the law spoken, it implies that you have some serious issues to deal with.
democracy is something that will work on a small farm with 50 hippies. As soon as it becomes bigger it becomes a faceless tyrant without guilt. Wich is pretty much our condition in the western world atm. but we are so well fed and entertained that freedom doesnt matter.
peace
-
salaam
there are no such thing as a succesful system. It is an illusion entirely. The only "system" that will ever work is natural anarchism. its 100% based on personal responsability and understanding, not words of law with ministers and capitols. You walk the law, not just talk the law. And if you need to hear the law spoken, it implies that you have some serious issues to deal with.
Good luck. Ptrobably makes sese to you and your friends who have no issues to deal with. Rest of us imperfect beingswill make do with less than 100% perfect systems.
regards -
salaam
there are no such thing as a succesful system. It is an illusion entirely. The only "system" that will ever work is natural anarchism. its 100% based on personal responsability and understanding, not words of law with ministers and capitols. You walk the law, not just talk the law. And if you need to hear the law spoken, it implies that you have some serious issues to deal with.
Good luck. Ptrobably makes sese to you and your friends who have no issues to deal with. Rest of us imperfect beingswill make do with less than 100% perfect systems.
regardsthat is all fine with me, if you by that mean that i can go my ways and do as i please without your system preventing me from being a sovereign nation on my own. Furthermore i dont really understand what you think is so unrealistic about what im saying, all it takes is efford. Allow me to elaborate
do you kill people? if not, why? is it because a book tells you? would you be killing people if there was no law against it to be found?
peace
-
peace
i think anarchism is too idealistic. You can't put that much trust in people.
we have to have laws and people to enforce those laws.no we dont, because it always become a tool of abuse. we have no other choice unless we want the current system to loop over again. Look around you, we are living in babylon, in rome, in soddom and gomoreh all at once!
democracy is 24 white guys hanging a black guy. thats democracy. -
Peace magi and all. Magi; I have a great deal of agreement with your posts in this thread...and previously i was an advocate of 'anarchy',which on paper,is a brilliant system...However i have taken stock of the world i see,and the 'practicality' of 'anarchy' on a wide scale...I do not see it working large-scale,as many people have little idea of practical morality,or how to deal with others in a civilised manner...One short journey to my local pub,park or city centre at night time,more than illustrates my point...The behaviour of some,when left to their own devices, results in carnage,chaos and mayhem...Anarchy could work in small scale communities,with 'enlightened unified values and behaviour,and a unified method for 'peacefully' solving disputes...
I agree democracy can sometimes lead to faceless tyranny,exploitaion,incompetence and abuse...But thats why we need ideas from guys like you,phoenix and others to make it better...
I will give you an example of a potentially great,practical system of political system,...in my opinion....'The well run nuclear family'...
I need personal morality to keep me in check with my wife (and vice versa .) ,my children build on their 'in-built' morality with advice from me,my wife,extended family,and society...This is like a situation of 'beneficial' 'anarchy'...But every once in a while i can get out of line ,or discipline/rules/boundaries are needed somewhere to counter-act a 'negative situation/behaviour'...Now i agree some enlightened,experienced members of the human race can 'solve'these 'disputes'(in some situations.) naturally,and without formal law....but what about the man who 'beats' his wife,or the wife who wrongfully denies her husband access to the children after divorce?...The unrepentant thief,extremist etc,etc.?..
What i fail to see fully dealt with (if anarchy were to be a viable,large-scale practical political system.) in the versions of anarchy i have read,is how to deal with different versions of morality,disputes and truely 'criminal behaviour'...
I welcome your comments and ideas in trying to come up with a viable,practical,moral political system...Take it easy.
Peace all. -
Peace
Magi
I highly agree with you on your critical view of democracy. The biggest problem here is probably that democracy is just a label with not much practicability.
There is this theory of the sovereign of the people ... but in reality we all know how things go.
Do e.g. the actual needs of the people really count more in the politics of European nations than the influence of financially potent capitalistic fraternities?
Surely not, this is quite observable.Furthermore, majority rulings don?t give a guarantee on a right decision. Majorities are, by their nature, highly manipulable.
Just do a poll on capital punishment by a death sentence .... you will always have a different answer in different circumstances.
During public antiamerican debates the majority in Europe would vote against death sentences but during a public treatment of a case of someone sexually abusing and then brutally murdering several children a much larger number would vote for it .... .
majority votes fluctuate from one extreme to the other, depending on climate, media influence, social and financial situation, national security etc..I?ve been for a time interested in anarchist political theory. It is a fascinating analysis of political possibilities and I feel sympathetic for the people proposing it.
However, acording to my humble opinion, as with most leftist theories anarchism unfortunately lacks to see some crucial elements of the basic human nature.
The ummah of humanity is not self organizing like a fungus. It works much more like a pack of wolves or a hive of bees.
Humans organize through looking up to people who take an initiative that means something to them.
This can sometimes go horribly wrong (as in the cases of some dictators) but it can also go pretty good ( as e.g. in the cases of the messengers of God).
It can also turn out as outright silly (like with idolization of football stars, boygroups etc.).
But the basic fact always stays the same and can not be taken from human hearts
People want to relate to an example that they can emulate and that they can look up to.
A kind of living focus of social organization.Even when one will be able to organize an anarchist domain, leaders will emerge and leaders will be followed. Specialists will emerge and specialists will be trusted etc.
Furthermore, human beings have essential rights. Executing laws is first of all about protecting the rights of others. I do have a right of protection of my basic essential needs. Only when this is aknowledged people will be able to live in peace.
From a quranic point of view laws are made for us. For our own benefit. God is al Ghaniy, he does not need anything.
But we need a system that guarantees respect for our personal rights to be able to develop, both personally and socially.
Children have a right that society organizes in a way that people can not get away with sexually abusing and murdering them, woman have a right that society organizes in a way that they are not treated as of no account by men, the poor have a right that society organizes in a way that capitalistic exploiters can?t get away with their personal fun etc. etc. etc..bye,
Leyla
P.S. Sorry for that lengthy post. I try to keep it simple, as it is preferred by some here, but I think some extra words are always needed if one really wants to clarify ones position.
-
Salaam all
The initial article implied that there is more poverty in the USA than Nigeria.
A simple deduction from this would that poorest in USA would want to migrate to Nigeria-I have not read the reply from the original author to this question.that is all fine with me, if you by that mean that i can go my ways and do as i please without your system preventing me from being a sovereign nation on my own. Furthermore i dont really understand what you think is so unrealistic about what im saying, all it takes is efford. Allow me to elaborate
Of course you can be soverign nation by yourself (good luck). However soon as you interact with another human your actions effect them hence we require rules and regulation to try to minimise the negative impact your action might have.
You cannot do as yo please if it has consequences for other people
As for your elaborationdo you kill people? if not, why? is it because a book tells you? would you be killing people if there was no law against it to be found?
I am not sure that you can even vaguely comprehend human nature. So do you think that if we had no laws against killing then people would not kill-otherwise I fail to see what point you are trying to make.
regards -
I generally lean towards Libertarian values, however the problem with hardcore Libertarianism/Anarchy is that it does not protect the weak. I believe an unlimited Libertarian system will bring out the worst in human nature, and the combination of evil and power will overwhelm many. I'm all for laws preventing people from infringing on the rights of others, but the problem is people take it too far. As far as I'm concerned, your rights end when they begin to infringe on other individual personal liberties.
Oh and btw, the US is not a democracy in the purest sense. And there will ALWAYS be winners and losers, we have to recognize this.
-
Myr writes
Salam Maasadi, all,
I think you are among those who consider the "government studies" to be the bible. That's the problem with these reports. they are completely disconnected from the reality. We see all kinds of "studies" done by bureaucrates who are most of the time unaware of what is done on the field. My experience is not the only experience, I have been working with doctors, nurses, and social workers on the field who had the same observation and went through a same experience, food is NOT the issue in this country. You wrote "Obesity is not related to caloric intake"? so if I follow your logic we should all be obese given the stress amount to which most of people are subject nowadays. Seriously, I'd like to see those "reports". Obesity is a life style before anything else and is directly linked to the calories people swallow everyday, I wonder therefore why most of them have to go through a surgery to reduce the size of their stomach if it is not related to the amount of food. Someone has to be really naive to believe in these "reports" if I can call them "reports". But anyway, I think I said what I have to say because I feel we have to be fair when we report an issue. It is not Quranic to point to a country for shortcomings while the reality is completely different. Peace. Myr.
Walikum salam
Deriving conclusions from your personal experience is restricted to the narrow non-randomly selected group you have had experience with. Generalizing from that is unscientific and quite erroneous. The studies that I quote have been replicated. You can also arrive at a similar conclusion using living wage analysis. Denying that is denying fact. The article does not conclude that there is worse poverty in the US compared to Nigeria, it does conclude however that as a factor of GNI the US poverty figures far outnumber that of Nigeria and show a system that has failed and is quite inhumane where wealth makes a circuit only among the rich. Unless you can challenge this assertion scientifically, giving personal experience stories is no proof just like the personal experience that Christians present as proof for their theology.
-
I am not sure that you can even vaguely comprehend human nature. So do you think that if we had no laws against killing then people would not kill-otherwise I fail to see what point you are trying to make.
peace yall
No you are turning it upside down. People dont kill people because a strong feeling inside tells you its not ok. Not because a law says so. If you miss that basic feeling of "not ok" then no law can prevent you from killing anyway.
Enquirer and Layla I hear your points and obviously agree a long way down the line. I have just personally come to the realisation that i dont need anybody but God and myself, and basically i want other people to leave me alone if they do not come in peace or good intentions. I dont want nobody to tell me what to do, not even my mother, as none of them will be responbsible for what i chose in front of God. I do listen to advices tho
As layla pointed out, we are a tribe race. And when the tribe becomes to big, we all become isolated within it. When we become isolated, we become easy targets of predators. wich we are.
thus the whole devide and conquer cheme played at us (fucking again!!!) serves just this, that we have a hard time sticking together as unities. Why do you think the powers that be are hell bend on "globalisation"?? not because it will strengthen the nation, but because it will weaken the individuals and their tribe nature, because who is my tribe in a tribe that covers everybody?
It comes down to this for me. STAY THE FUCK OUT OF MY BUSINESS and i will provide the same for you. Take you business to my house, e.g by stealing, and now it is my business and i will act accordingly, even if the cost is my own life. Wich is a small price for justice.
Lay down to die in the street in front of my house from poverty, and now it is my business, as i cannot allow another human to suffer knowingly. THe world is not my problem, but my neighbour is. WHAT he does is still none of my business as long as it does not limit me.Anarchism is the only structure that will allow for the rights of minorities, simply because people with good intentions will soon band together in tribes. as they do allready, tho limited by a demoncracism.
But as i have stated before, each group in their own has to be a militia. All members must be trained in, first the way of peace, then the way of arms. because that is, always was, and always will be the price of freedom. Even "founding father" Thomas Jefferson said that any people should riot every 20 year, otherwise the system would turn on them. guess what happened??? it turned on them!
In a peacefull nation the government is afraid of its people, in a corrupt system it is the other way around.
-
Peace
Magi, some very good points you made. )
Still, I?d have some objections/questions to you with regards to this.
People dont kill people because a strong feeling inside tells you its not ok. Not because a law says so. If you miss that basic feeling of "not ok" then no law can prevent you from killing anyway.
Yes, I agree to a certain extent.
But I would say that most people murdering other people actually know that it is not ok in a very basic form but then they come up with excuses or they subdue to certain circumstances to ignore that knowledge.I mean, we don?t even need to take this to murder. Just consider smaller antisocial behaviour, like adultery.
People doing that know that they do something that would hurt their partner and they know that they would not like it if their partner would do this to them.
Or lying. The same applies.
Still people do it.You?re right. People should act right out of selfresponsibility and not because they are forced to do so. But actually I think that all people, unless totally retarded, know their responsibility, they just simply try to ignore it.
A communal law can be as a reminder here and it protects a certain agreed upon space.Edit
Ad I?d like to ad that there needs to be someone who makes sure that this reminder and this protection works.
Someone to whom people can look up to as an example of the best practice of common values and who holds that authority through this best example.
Without such a leadership communal law becomes arbitrary.I have just personally come to the realisation that i dont need anybody but God and myself, and basically i want other people to leave me alone if they do not come in peace or good intentions.
Good attitude.
I just think that the same that you want for yourself as an individual can, and should, also be agreed upon by a community.I have to note though
A big anonymous state apparatus is to me not a community anymore. That?s just the rule of a pharao.
Community requires organic interaction and an organic connection to its leadersship
(like al-qur'?n puts it s well, that the prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves and that his wifes are their mothers).It comes down to this for me. STAY THE **** OUT OF MY BUSINESS and i will provide the same for you. Take you business to my house, e.g by stealing, and now it is my business and i will act accordingly, even if the cost is my own life. Wich is a small price for justice.
Again, agreed.
But how will you decide on "acting accordingly"?
Ok, you seem to be a decent human being and also someone who takes inspiration from al-qur'?n.
So, I guess you won?t kill someone because he stole an apple from your garden, right?
You have certain firm principles that you think of as working.In an organic community this would be when laws and penalties come into play. Firm principles that the community is based upon, trned into dynamics by the leadership.
THe world is not my problem, but my neighbour is. WHAT he does is still none of my business as long as it does not limit me.
Right.
My theory is that this is what communal laws of al-qur'?n are all about. They seem to be about personal space (including non material rights) and the protection of that space.
Chapter 24 is a good example for this.
The same chapter that in its beginning deals with the punishment of public adultery then elaborates extensively on how we have no right to peek into other?s private affairs, spying on them, spreading rumours, how we should better care about our own moral than about other people?s morals an think the best about the members of our community etc..
These two parts of chapter 24 are integral and complementary to each other.But as i have stated before, each group in their own has to be a militia. All members must be trained in, first the way of peace, then the way of arms. because that is, always was, and always will be the price of freedom.
In a world of pharaos, unfortunately, yes.
But please keep the training in that order
First the way of peace, then the way of arms!
Everything else would be bound to doom as well.
And arms may include a wide variety of things but none that are unethical (like the atomic bomb).Bye,
Leyla
-
Yes, I agree to a certain extent....
peace
well thus far we agree completely
Edit the edit. its wasnt mine
A communal law can be as a reminder here and it protects a certain agreed upon space.
It just has a tendency to grow nuts. Here is why i think that. Lets say, "you shall not steal", is a pretty streight forward commandment to me. IN my mind it turns into, you shall not take what is not yours Noah, and you certainly have no right to cheat people out of what is theirs, even by flowery words that would make them think they made the choice. To other people it means, you shall not steal when you can get caught. So, suddenly there is a need to make dfinitions of what stealing actually is. Is telemarketin stealing? i certainly think it is, as i know for a fact that they are trained in outright lying to make people say yes and accept crap deals. I mean every single commandment carries a lot of information in it, but only if you have it by heart. Otherwise you end up drowning in -at the time- well meant laws.
it altso becomes a beucratic burden all of a sudden, and only the elect few will in the end be able to understand it, and when this happens, you have allready passed the point of no return for a society, it WILL become tyrant when these mullahs interpretate their own hadeeth. The western relegion of mammon, has temples in wich a saturnelian priesthood is educated, they are called lawyers, they have a s*** load of hadith material aswell-.... apparently
Good attitude.
I just think that the same that you want for yourself as an individual can, and should, also be agreed upon by a community.this is called democracy, we have been there, done that, and failed miserably. I belive in it in very small local communites (the kebutz model), wich strangely enough is excactly what i belive the Quran is telling me.
I have to note though
A big anonymous state apparatus is to me not a community anymore. That?s just the rule of a pharao.
Community requires organic interaction and an organic connection to its leadersship
(like al-qur'?n puts it s well, that the prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves and that his wifes are their mothers).excactly! I will only add, that in smaller groups leaders often stand out and become leaders merely by being themself. Some are fit for leading and naturally takes this role. People who arent fit, will fight aggresively to play that part. Its easy to spot. A natural leader is afraid of power, and will most likely refuse to officially take such a possition untill pressed enough by his peers. A bad leader will tell everyone how great a leader he is. but again, this can ONLY work in a place where you personally know the people in question.
Again, agreed.
But how will you decide on "acting accordingly"?
Ok, you seem to be a decent human being and also someone who takes inspiration from al-qur'?n.
So, I guess you won?t kill someone because he stole an apple from your garden, right?
You have certain firm principles that you think of as working.The Quran is pretty streight forward on this, and as with most in it, it lines up excactly with proper and sound reasoning. If a man takes an apple from your garden you are going to do nothing, because that tree is not yours, you are just lucky it is placed so close to your dwelling place. If you planted that tree youself, you could tell the man that you dont like it, because you have other plans with them. If its anything you made, or that has value to you, you demand it back obviously. If its sold for exchange value items, he can repay them in rates. Its not really that hard
In an organic community this would be when laws and penalties come into play. Firm principles that the community is based upon, trned into dynamics by the leadership.
If i see someone on his way trough my windows neighbour that isnt my neighbour, i will be all over him like ugly on an ape and yell to the other neighbours. And i can leave my house unlocked because i know that whomever neighbour is home in my community would do the same, otherwise he has no place there. When we are dealing with 1st degree murder, the murderer will be handed to the relatives of the victum for judgement. Harsh i know, but it is truely preventive. Remember that this family altso has the power of mercy in their hands now, and that excommunication from the community is an option too. What ever you think would impress God more, yes?
Right.
My theory is that this is what communal laws of al-qur'?n are all about. They seem to be about personal space (including non material rights) and the protection of that space.
Chapter 24 is a good example for this.
The same chapter that in its beginning deals with the punishment of public adultery then elaborates extensively on how we have no right to peek into other?s private affairs, spying on them, spreading rumours, how we should better care about our own moral than about other people?s morals an think the best about the members of our community etc..
These two parts of chapter 24 are integral and complementary to each other.i agree.
In a world of pharaos, unfortunately, yes.
But please keep the training in that order
First the way of peace, then the way of arms!
Everything else would be bound to doom as well.Obviously. ;D
And arms may include a wide variety of things but none that are unethical (like the atomic bomb).
We have a problem in our times, as i belive the Quran forbids bomb entirely. There is no right to destroy the soil, plants or the dwelling places etc.
peace
-
Peace Magi, all
Magi, we seem to be not too far from each other here so I don?t want to do nitpicking.
Just some points that I deem to be importantthis is called democracy, we have been there, done that, and failed miserably.
Not, it?s not democracy. I don?t believe in democracy. I only believe in the rulership of God and the authority of his messenger and the message he brings.
When refering to "agreed upon" I did not mean plebiscital votes. I just simply meant that, of course, people will have to agree to live in that community and abide by its rules.
You may be able to force people out of the community (and this may even be necessary at times) but you can?t force them in.Yes, communal laws have a tendency to grow nuts. I agree. But this is averted when you have a leader who is a leader by his exemplary following of the principles and who has an organic connection to those who follow him.
Since when talking about a perfect community I am talking about a quranic community the problem of definition does not arise.
The qur'?n gives the definitions and both the leadership and the general community are bound to it.I belive in it in very small local communites (the kebutz model), wich strangely enough is excactly what i belive the Quran is telling me
Partly, yes.
Al-qur'?n says that the majority of mankind does not amana (have conviction, security, give conviction, give security, have no faithfullness).
That probably means in effect that a community bound to true principles will never be composed of a lot of people.
Also, the community will maybe not live long. It can only persist if people look up to a leadership which gives a good and honest example and is connected to the others.
As soon as people will start looking up to other examples the community will fall appart .... .I agree that a quranic leader will stand out naturally. He will be the one who takes the initiative and who puts the dynamics into teh community.
To true believers he will naturally be the best example.I am not sure if in a case of murder the murderer will be handed out to the relatives. The text itself says "his waliy". This has often been read as the one in charge in the family of the victim.
I think it refers to the one in charge in the community of the victim, to the leader.
Blood ties do play a role but in the end a common cause is the stronger bond.Yep, I agree that most of modern weapons are actually not compatible with any quranic way of fighting.
You can not throw bombs from a plane without risking to hurt innocents.
The argument that otherwise one would easily be overpowered does not count.bye,
Leyla
-
peace
let's say US is a failed system, then what is the better alternative?