User Controls
How to efficiently overthrow government?
-
2018-03-27 at 1:57 AM UTCYou'd need battalions. Heavy infantry. Flame throwers in the first wave, burn them out of their hidey-holes, and then heavy mortars to smash the ones dug in. Follow up with a flank on both sides of bulldozers and armored tanks. Plant flags, fortify captured territory, commandeer local railroads for resupply routes in.
-
2018-03-27 at 2:29 AM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL You'd need battalions. Heavy infantry. Flame throwers in the first wave, burn them out of their hidey-holes, and then heavy mortars to smash the ones dug in. Follow up with a flank on both sides of bulldozers and armored tanks. Plant flags, fortify captured territory, commandeer local railroads for resupply routes in.
Okay, but what if I don't have any of that shit? -
2018-03-27 at 2:49 AM UTC
-
2018-03-27 at 3:47 AM UTC
Originally posted by BigLuigi the panel is a solar world SWA 345XL, manufactured in Hillsboro, Oregon.
the trojan T105 is made in the USA, as are most ( all? ) of their other products. all of the best flooded lead batteries are made in the USA.
asian batteries and panels are inferior
OP's scenario is the complete and permanent collapse of power structures - it's only possible to manufacture solar panels, advanced batteries and modern guns (specifically primers and propellants) through those structures. If those structures were done away with, production of new equipment and even maintenance would become impossible -
2018-03-27 at 3:49 AM UTCBecome a Bane-tier terrorist.
-
2018-03-27 at 3:53 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-03-27 at 3:54 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra OP's scenario is the complete and permanent collapse of power structures - it's only possible to manufacture solar panels, advanced batteries and modern guns (specifically primers and propellants) through those structures. If those structures were done away with, production of new equipment and even maintenance would become impossible
info darwinism.
if they arent smart enough to know it, they shouldnt. -
2018-03-27 at 3:58 AM UTCPeople are drawn to powerful social structures to fulfil their base needs and desires, knowing full well they're going to be exploited, in the hope that someday they'll be the exploiters.
Is it really morally wrong to take advantage of them, knowing they've implicitly given consent? -
2018-03-27 at 4:10 AM UTCPS this is not me being edgy; I've always found exploitation and manipulation to be morally reprehensible. For the most part though, the exploited would rapidly become the exploiters given the opportunity... In the end, what do you win for not being garbage?
-
2018-03-27 at 4:10 AM UTCI would do the opposite of efficiently overthrowing the government. I'd assemble a team of libertarian attorneys and bury every civil servant whose name appears on public record in lawsuits until they were smothered to death by motions. The first target would be the Secretary of Defense and his department, hoping that I can occupy the army with bureaucracy. Then I would spam the National Guard to death with more letters. The army would be powerless to stop our advance. Marching on Washington would be the easy part.
-
2018-03-27 at 4:12 AM UTC
-
2018-03-27 at 4:15 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick I would do the opposite of efficiently overthrowing the government. I'd assemble a team of libertarian attorneys and bury every civil servant whose name appears on public record in lawsuits until they were smothered to death by motions. The first target would be the Secretary of Defense and his department, hoping that I can occupy the army with bureaucracy. Then I would spam the National Guard to death with more letters. The army would be powerless to stop our advance. Marching on Washington would be the easy part.
you cant even convince any of us that eating meat is immoral i doubt youll ever get to sway any legal professionals.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-27 at 10:33 AM UTCAs much as I love the idea of an anarchist society, I think we as a species have become so profoundly retarded and dependent on technology and other people that it would never work, other than in small cities and settlements where everybody has their own specialty/job. But once those get bigger, a power structure will always form
But I've never been outside the US, maybe it could work elsewhere -
2018-03-28 at 1:43 AM UTCits never worked, anywhere. even when it came close (spain...late '30s) it was an abject and pathetic joke of a failure
-
2018-03-28 at 1:44 AM UTC
Originally posted by Juicebox As much as I love the idea of an anarchist society, I think we as a species have become so profoundly retarded and dependent on technology and other people that it would never work, other than in small cities and settlements where everybody has their own specialty/job. But once those get bigger, a power structure will always form
But I've never been outside the US, maybe it could work elsewhere
What does "never work" mean? If 90% of the global population died as a result, is that really much of a loss? they werent strong enough to handle real reality. -
2018-03-28 at 4:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick I would do the opposite of efficiently overthrowing the government. I'd assemble a team of libertarian attorneys and bury every civil servant whose name appears on public record in lawsuits until they were smothered to death by motions. The first target would be the Secretary of Defense and his department, hoping that I can occupy the army with bureaucracy. Then I would spam the National Guard to death with more letters. The army would be powerless to stop our advance. Marching on Washington would be the easy part.
That's basically how the jedis took over. -
2018-04-01 at 12:47 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra PS this is not me being edgy; I've always found exploitation and manipulation to be morally reprehensible. For the most part though, the exploited would rapidly become the exploiters given the opportunity… In the end, what do you win for not being garbage?
You win the satisfaction of not engaging in morally reprehensible behaviors.
I mean what do you give up by not being garbage? In typical capitalistic societies quite a lot, of course, since most elements of society rely on exploitionary structures and opting out moves you from first world civilization to sustenance farming. But material wealth is a spectrum, sure you probably will never be able to live like Trump and own tremendous amounts of things without exploiting people, but then you probably will never get that anway. And if there's anything modern consumer capitalism has demonstrated it's that increased affluence is not making people happier. Yes, not dying at 30 from an infection and not having to worry about starvation does make people happier, but there's a vast gulf between that and what our societies set us up to aim for, and "being garbage" to get there doesn't really isn't even rewarding in a personal sense.
Wouldn't you give up some portion of your material wealth if meant living in a society you didn't feel disgusted by? -
2018-04-01 at 1:10 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Wouldn't you give up some portion of your material wealth if meant living in a society you didn't feel disgusted by?
The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social or moral ideology that may pretend to guide the system. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity.
Of course the system does satisfy many human needs, but generally speaking it does this only to the extent that it is to the advantage of the system to do it. It is the needs of the system that are paramount, not those of the human being. For example, the system provides people with food because the system couldn’t function if everyone starved; it attends to people’s psychological needs whenever it can CONVENIENTLY do so, because it couldn’t function if too many people became depressed or rebellious. But the system, for good, solid, practical reasons, must exert constant pressure on people to mold their behavior to the needs of the system.
To much waste accumulating? The government, the media, the educational system, environmentalists, everyone inundates us with a mass of propaganda about recycling. Need more technical personnel? A chorus of voices exhorts kids to study science. No one stops to ask whether it is inhumane to force adolescents to spend the bulk of their time studying subjects most of them hate. When skilled workers are put out of a job by technical advances and have to undergo “retraining,” no one asks whether it is humiliating for them to be pushed around in this way. It is simply taken for granted that everyone must bow to technical necessity. and for good reason: If human needs were put before technical necessity there would be economic problems, unemployment, shortages or worse.
The concept of “mental health” in our society is defined largely by the extent to which an individual behaves in accord with the needs of the system and does so without showing signs of stress. -
2018-04-01 at 2:28 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-04-01 at 2:59 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system.
the fact that algorithms and analytics has been all the rage these days is FACT that this manifesto was wrong.
as facebooks and targeted ads had shown .... the system can and will be tuned to sastify human needs and the only thing that stood in the way is technology.
iphone was so successful becos it wrapped itself around out lives instead of making us wrapping around its.
