Friend arrested for carrying a article

[logain721]

So, what is your question?

My question still remains, can you be Legally arrested for possessing an article such as the one I posted at the beginning of this thread.

 

[CdwJava]

No. You cannot be arrested for simply possessing "an article" like the one you posted ... maybe for trying to sing it, but not for possessing it.

he didn't try to ram it down someone's throat, did he?

- Carl

 

[Veronica1228]

Okay, am I the only one who thinks this guy was probably arrested for a darn good reason? Cops don't just walk up to people on the street and decide to frisk them for an article. It would seem to me, considering that your friend is an anarchist, and has been in trouble for protesting and who knows what else, the local police have probably been contacted by other agencies and sent a discription of him with a warning to watch for any suspicious activity.

I really don't care how you or your friend feel about our government. What I care about is that your local police are doing a great job making sure that the public is protected. I'm sure you disagree, and now people are going to jump out of the word work yelling First Amendment rights at me, but your friend doesn't believe in the government, so he shouldn't hide behind the Constitution.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

He was held 3 days, it was possibly a psych hold No doubt he was doing something, it wasn't for the article.

 

[logain721]

He was held 3 days, it was possibly a psych hold No doubt he was doing something, it wasn't for the article.

Your getting two separate events mixed up. One took place in Florida the other in Indiana. One was for protesting. There was alot of fear going around and anger towards the cops and visa versa toward the protesters. What happened in Indiana had no probable cause for the arrest and he was only held for 24 hours.

 

[logain721]

Okay, am I the only one who thinks this guy was probably arrested for a darn good reason? Cops don't just walk up to people on the street and decide to frisk them for an article. It would seem to me, considering that your friend is an anarchist, and has been in trouble for protesting and who knows what else, the local police have probably been contacted by other agencies and sent a discription of him with a warning to watch for any suspicious activity.

I really don't care how you or your friend feel about our government. What I care about is that your local police are doing a great job making sure that the public is protected. I'm sure you disagree, and now people are going to jump out of the word work yelling First Amendment rights at me, but your friend doesn't believe in the government, so he shouldn't hide behind the Constitution.

He doesn't hide behind the Constitution and as far as I know never has.


And to get things straight I am not an anarchist, I believe in anarchy to a point but I’m a socialist.

 

[CdwJava]

He doesn't hide behind the Constitution and as far as I know never has.


And to get things straight I am not an anarchist, I believe in anarchy to a point but I’m a socialist.

Wonderful ... so much better.

- Carl

 

[Veronica1228]

Wonderful ... so much better.

- Carl

Aw shoot! You beat me to it.

BTW, how is possible to believe in both anarchy and socialism? Don't they contridict each other to a point?

You know what, forget I asked. The last thing we need is some zealot rhetoric right now.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Aw shoot! You beat me to it.

BTW, how is possible to believe in both anarchy and socialism? Don't they contridict each other to a point?

You know what, forget I asked. The last thing we need is some zealot rhetoric right now.

Ranch or blue cheese with buffalo wings?

 

[logain721]

Aw shoot! You beat me to it.

BTW, how is possible to believe in both anarchy and socialism? Don't they contridict each other to a point?

You know what, forget I asked. The last thing we need is some zealot rhetoric right now.

First off, I am in no way a Zealot, but maybe rhetoric. I think it was a bit rude to call me that without completely understanding what I am saying, but that is your opinion towards me and I accept that.


Now as far as your question goes, I am going to answer it even though you may not want to know.


In a socialist society the means of production are owned by the workers rather than by a rich minority of capitalists or functionaries. Such a system of ownership is both collective and individual in nature.

It is collective because society can control production unlike the economic anarchy of capitalism and because production is for the common good rather than for individual profit.

At the same time it is individual because workers are no longer a 'collective' mob of alienated non-owners employed by a minority of owners. Work becomes a free and self-affirming activity for each worker and they receive the full fruits of their labor. The capitalists and their servants no longer control production nor grow rich from other's toil. Everybody is an owner. Socialism is genuine free enterprise.

The personally empowering and cooperative nature of socialist ownership underpins similar changes in other aspects of life. Socialism means far healthier individuals and human relationships. It means full participation by each individual in the intellectual, cultural and political life of society.

Socialism requires a revolution with three main stages: firstly the emergence of a workers' movement committed to socialist revolution, secondly the achievement of political power and the expropriation of the capitalists and thirdly a period during which workers learn how to be owners and rulers and cast off the psychological and ideological dross of the past.


Yes they do conflict in a sense but that depends on what type of anarchy you are referring to. Most anarchist would much rather live in a socialist society as opposed to the democracy that we supposedly live in now, which is nothing more than a hidden dictatorship or hierarchy. Both also would require a revolt, or the fall of civilization sense just changing the current government would not do. They both also would require that the people change there mind set and are willing to do so freely, if people don’t do so freely both anarchy and socialism would end in catastrophe sense there would still be that abnormal urge that feels so normal in are current society to surpass, dominate, change everyone and everything around us to suit are supposed needs.

 

[CdwJava]

Okay ... NOW we're way off track ... (I must resist ... must resist replying to backwards thinking fools ... must resist ...)

Okay - I resisted.

On to the next thread. This one is done.

- Carl

 

[Florid-aise]

Good question, from my interpretations of his believes (anarchy), he cares to change it to stop the destruction of the world we live in today

Here’s some example which he has showed me:

Over 200 unique species go extinct every single day. This means that every night we go to sleep in a civilized world, 200 unique, amazing forms of live are gone forever.

DDT, one of the world's most deadly pesticides/poisons is present in every single living thing and body of water on earth, including the most remote parts of Antarctica.

An average of 27 tons of waste is produced during the manufacture of one car.

28 million people in the United States are on anti-depressant medication.

25,000 people die from starvation every day.

In the year 2000, malignant tumors were responsible for 12 percent of the nearly 56 million deaths worldwide from all causes. In many countries, more than a quarter of deaths are attributable to cancer.

Suicide is the 11th leading cause of death in America.

According to the World Health Organization "450 million people worldwide are affected by mental, neurological or behavioral problems at any given time. These problems are expected to increase considerably in the years to come".

As far as the government believing in him, I don’t see how. Unless you mean the government believing they can change the way he thinks.


And in reguards to his charges, He said he obtained no info from them and I believe him.

Boy o boy are you gonna love this. Gonna catch your right between the eyes I'm telling you. Hits you where you live. Stops you cold. And irrefutably destroys your argument and your position....each, every, and at all times. Now, and forever into the future.

The first thing that happens when an anarchist succeeds in his anarchy, is to restore order.

The anarchisht then therefor becomes the target for anarchy.

 

[logain721]

Boy o boy are you gonna love this. Gonna catch your right between the eyes I'm telling you. Hits you where you live. Stops you cold. And irrefutably destroys your argument and your position....each, every, and at all times. Now, and forever into the future.

The first thing that happens when an anarchist succeeds in his anarchy, is to restore order.

The anarchisht then therefor becomes the target for anarchy.

Yes you are correct, sense most of the anarchist in history where leftist.

 

[Florid-aise]

Yes you are correct, sense most of the anarchist in history where leftist.

My question to YOU is this. If you and I are the product of the leftist anarchists of the past, why then are you forcing me to wait for this country's next evolution and/or revolution? Why not just get it underway?

 

[logain721]

My question to YOU is this. If you and I are the product of the leftist anarchists of the past, why then are you forcing me to wait for this country's next evolution and/or revolution? Why not just get it underway?

The answer to this question is Fear my friend. Governments have grown a lot stronger and more stable than they where 1000 years ago or even as early as 20 years ago. There is so much fear of the consequences of even the slightest action or hint towards the government of a possible revolution and to fight the government would me suicide in this modern world. You tell me what do you think 200,000 people can do against a government the size of ours? If anything it would just cause chaos, mainly in a secluded area, and probably would hurt more people than the good of the outcome (the outcome probably being fear).

The goals between Anarchist and socialist may differ but we both agree that fear by no means is a healthy way to support our causes. We want to change the world, and the way the world thinks and fear is just not the grounds that we or anyone for that matter should want to base there society
from. It would just lead us right back to where we are today, which is a world based around fear. What do you think stops you from doing what you may really want to do? The answer is fear. Fear is control, fear is Power, and with fear comes constraints in our life’s. I believe that the reason there is so much crime in modern civilization is due to the constraints people have, and its those constraints that erupt ambition to do some of things that these so called criminals have done. Its that rush you get knowing that you are going against society, doing something society sees as not morale, or just wrong.


Without constraints set fourth by the government what reason would these people have to do what they used to do? The answer is none. Unless of course we still lived in an uneven capitalist society where money plays such a major role in everyone’s life, and money, your true friend neither distributes itself evenly or is around when you absolutely need it. Do you like this world you are living in now. A world based off material things? A world where you are placed in a class of people solely by your income?? Why can't we all earn the same income?? If capital is even needed??


The answer to this is simple. We have been told for so long that this is the way to live that we begin to believe it ourselves. If you believe in the theory of adaptation you will see where I am coming from. We all adapt to suit are environment no matter how unsuitable, harmful or unlivable that environment may be. Eventually we come to a conclusion that this is really the only way! I know I have gotten a bit off track from your question but it all fits in.


Why is it that we feel that we can go into someone else’s land and take it over In other countries this happens all the time, industries tell people that have been living on a land for hundreds of years that they no longer can live there because the state has sold the property. This is just wrong but to them it is justified because there may be oil under this land, or its a great place for agriculture purposes. Right now we are taking more from the environment than it can produce. We are slowly running out of the resources that we need, well believe we need every day. What do you think will happen when there are no more lands to farm, no more oil to obtain, no more fish in the seas to feed us? If we continue in this manor it will mean doom, and I don’t see how we can continue to live in this dead end society that we are living in now? Can you tell me how?