Anarchy (Ethical, Moral, Spiritual Progression) - Page 6

I was quite struck by the family name change of the queen of England tbh, since - it was Frau Saxe-Coburgotha - we had a prime minister with the same family, short history -> we were monarchy @ early 20th century, we got a german king - obv same dinasty, however that dinasty also governed Spain too afaik, pretty much England, Spain & Bulgaria were ran by the same family - just an odd fact.

Anyway Romm3l thats exactly a thing we should rethink about our species. If we're motivated just so we can be able to tell to the other guy "Ha! I'm better " then, you might be better at a certain thing, but you definitely fail at being a decent human being. The thing is the titles themselves are not the problem, the problem is in our heads. It's easy to give them non existent value, because they imply certain deeds & struggles one has to go through to obtain them, while they certainly mean that "person X " has specific knowledge of something that does not mean he should have any authority upon anyone else just because of it. I'd say its a mind-trap and again that can be dealt with. On the other hand there are so many titles these days you can just buy its ridiculous, for example "Lord" title in UK is the most pathetic thing ever, there are like 128739128936392847 lords already.

And again i disagree about royal family. First of all I have never heard of anyone going to the UK so they can see the queen or some shit like that. The country has many other things to offer that actually have value. And no one deserves that much just cause the were born luckily, otherwise people like Hilton,Warren Buffet & Bill Gates wouldn't strip away their children of almost all of their inheritance ( Buffet case its absolutely everything I think ).Gates will leave some millions, but thats understandable. After all every parent wants their children to have some sort of a stability, but its nowhere near his billions and such amount of money are enough for them to try and do things they love and even if they fail a couple of times to be able to re-start and actually bring value to the world. Plus a child is the main concern of a parent so going something as extreme as leaving no inheritance at all is hardcore, at least to me, but quite understandable especially in Hilton's case

man what i said about royal family tourist revenue is not my opinion, it's reported by the british tourism agency (pls use google and check facts instead of 'disagreeing' based on your rigorous statistical survey of people you know)

people are born with very different natural talent as well and some really talented people can get ridic rich with combination of their hard work and genetic gifts in a way that average people never could no matter how hard they work. where do you draw the line on what people 'deserve' based on birth advantages, financial or otherwise?

On January 05 2015 07:50 Romm3l wrote: Show nested quote + On January 04 2015 17:21 RiKD wrote:   On January 02 2015 18:55 Baalim wrote: BTW since the mods arent doing their job banning Gnarly im going to ignore and never reply to him again and I encourage everyone else in this thread to do the same. Is there a way to formally click an "ignore" button that essentially makes a poster no longer exist? If not there should be. Either way, beyond asking that question I am def on the same page. Beyond that: I have been reading Russell Brand's "Revolution." I can definitely see how some of his spiritual tangents could turn some people off but I have found a lot of good stuff in there. One small thing we can do which I found pretty awesome and thought provoking: Disregard titles. Be respectful, yet firm. The Queen, who did nothing to become the queen besides pop out of the right vagina, should now be referred to as Mrs. Windsor or taking it a step further: Frau (whatever her family's German name was before they changed it to positively brand and distance themselves from Nazi Germany). Not, your Majesty, your Highness, etc. Everyone is a Mr., Mrs., Ms. Doctors, presidents, congressmen, judges, royalty appointed sirs and dames, etc etc etc are all Mr., Mrs., or Ms. Beyond some of the awesome stuff in this thread so far and other literature and ideas I just thought I would add that as it is something easy that anyone could start doing immediately. I have already started and it can cause some interesting moments but we have to start somewhere. Doctors, presidents, congressmen, judges, royalty appointed sirs and dames have all done great things to deserve their honorifics. Since humans are motivated in part by wanting recognition and esteem, why not have devices such as titles that incentivise people doing great things? Whatever you have to do to become a Sir is surely better for the world than many other ways people might gain recognition, e.g. making as much money as possible and balling out of control, or beating up/killing other people. Even the British royal family is +++ev for the world - they cost the british taxpayer nothing compared to what they bring in in tourism revenue, and if people are willing to pay for royal family related tourism, then that reveals they value it. Maybe a family creating an estimated 3/4billion usd/year in indirect tourism revenue deserves their title and lifestyle after all. This post is mainly to show ideal solutions based on normative principles can end up being net worse in practice. One might accept pragmatism is better than idealism in the same way that one might accept capitalism is better than communism (or that anarchy would be terrible, lol)

Doing great things? who has done a great thing to gain a sir title? Do you think the Beatles wrote songs to be sirs? come on, people who truly work hard for something never do it for some ridiculous meaningless title, they do it because they want to, its the passion, their calling or however you want to call it, not to gain the approval of some delusional ridiculous rich clown with a crown. Also the UK is one of the few countries who give those ridiculous titles, in the rest of the world that is seen as some medieval shit.

Also could you please cite sources of that revenue directly linked to royalty please? that sounds to me very hard to believe, and even if it were its one of the saddest justifications to have a monarchy in the 21st century.

Also I dont know how many times I have to repeat this, in order to keep saying things like its idealistic and not pragmatic you first have to say why stop just statings uninformed opinions as facts without even backing them up.

So why do you think Anarchy is idealistic and not pragmatical?

Anarchy has absolutely nothing to do with equality, I dont know why I have to say this thing so many freaking times, why is hard to comprehend that Anarchy is about a stateless society, not about utopian communism, which is obv awful.


People have different talents and they will perform and therefore earn different in a free market society, people will still be born in privilege and there will be company managers and toilet scrubbers just without the parasitic presence of the state in our society.

I have been an active anarchist for several years in the past and I have to say that I've never met an anarcho capitalist in person. In fact every single anarchist I've met was hostile to the idea, so I haven't seen the idea presented extensively.

The other forms of anarchism I've seen, discussed or read do clash with pragmatism though. Without getting into it extensively for the time being, for me an easy indication of that would be the fact that anarchists rarely bother discussing details of an anarchist society and the obvious problems that arise while trying to establish it, there's no extensive literature or heated debates etc. I'd say that the majority of people (at least here in Greece) who call themselves anarchists are in essence anti authoritarians and have idealistic and psychological motivations behind their actions, something far from what even Chomsky stands for in his books (he also carefully tries not to call himself an anarchist, I presume for the same reason)
Of course anarchists around here usually don't like anarcho syndicalists too, for the same idealistic reasons; in civil war spain CNT got into the government to deal with big threats and generally worked through representation, which is morally repulsive for the anti authoritarians
Which reminds me of the title and OP (I don't even know what spiritual progression means after moral and ethical btw)
The morality of anarchism is generally very similar to christianity, Nietzsche wrote extensively of this in "antichrist"; for people who denounce god this certainly made me (even back then) raise an eyebrow. Of course it doesn't necessarily have to be this way and I'm certain a lot of anarchists are far from that morality and set of mannerisms, what I personally saw happening around me for a while in the movement in Greece confirmed this view though.
Stirner's anarchism that puts the individual above the herd is much more preferable to my own taste but seems to be lacking in pragmatism too and the old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions again seems fitting

I could get into more details after Baal personally attacks me for no reason lol

get into details, that is all ive been asking, I want people to stop saying shit like "oh it cannot work" and not say why, thats an idiotic way to argue.

Chomsky doesnt quickly label himself an anarchist (he has said it before tho) because its one of the most tainted and hijacked words in our vocabulary and this thread is proof of it, when people hear the word they think of huts, chaos and no-authority when it has nothing to do with that

of course anarchy has something to do with anti-authority. imo that's the by far most positive thing the political theory has got going for it.. In fact just like lebowski, I've hung around quite a bit with anarchists, but never anarcho capitalists, they've all been leftists, and usually the anarchist inside them is not really concerned with the economical side of it, but rather the social one, like a, "I should be allowed to do whatever I want as long as nobody is hurt by it". But I've never heard any of them talk about taxation.

Historically anarchists have been fighting fascists - which clearly makes it an anti-authoritarian movement as being pro-authority is the cornerstone of fascism. Anarchists fighting Franco in the Spanish civil war weren't fighting for their society to be governed by austrian economics, they were fighting against fascism, and they were allied with communists. During Spain's anarchist period they reorganized companies so they would have no bosses, and while Soviet wanted to support them with arms, there were significant problems relating to Stalin's (pro-authoritarian) demands.

Basically my impression of anarchist seems to be completely in line with lebowski's. I'm not equating it with chaos - although I think it'd be a likely outcome - but I have absolutely no support for baal's anarchy and I don't think any self-identifying anarchist I know would, either.

I just copy pasted this from wikipedia - seems like that backs up me and lebowski, and it also seems like anarchy has far too many strands for you to bombastically claim that it is only one thing and not the other.

"Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.[10] Strains of anarchism have often been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications.[21][22] Anarchism is usually considered a radical left-wing ideology,[23][24] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, or participatory economics.[25]

The central tendency of anarchism as a social movement has been represented by anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism, with individualist anarchism being primarily a literary phenomenon[26] which nevertheless did have an impact on the bigger currents[27] and individualists have also participated in large anarchist organisations.[28][29] Many anarchists oppose all forms of aggression, supporting self-defense or non-violence (anarcho-pacifism),[30][31] while others have supported the use of some coercive measures, including violent revolution and propaganda of the deed as means to achieve anarchist ends.[32] "

On January 05 2015 17:12 Romm3l wrote: man what i said about royal family tourist revenue is not my opinion, it's reported by the british tourism agency (pls use google and check facts instead of 'disagreeing' based on your rigorous statistical survey of people you know)

You're right 2013 survey :

But some British republicans -- those who want to abolish the monarchy -- say the actual cost is much higher, once you factor in things like security detail and the cost of preparing for royal visits. Their figure is about 200 million pounds, or $307 million.

Then :

The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds, or about $767 million, every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace. The country's tourism agency says that of the 30 million foreign visitors who came to Britain in 2010, 5.8 million visited a castle .

I wonder if these numbers will drop significantly if there were no royal family, they surely will, but significantly? They have to drop by 40% in order for the royal family to be worth it. Thats basically their only argument, that people visit historical royal places. I wonder why people go to Egypt, there s no pharaoh, no use to go check the pyramids meh... I think you get my point.

Agree with the other part of your post though, but we re both wrong to some extend, its just another topic to be discussed. And I agree with Baal, I should probably widen my perspective more

On January 06 2015 02:40 Baalim wrote: get into details, that is all ive been asking, I want people to stop saying shit like "oh it cannot work" and not say why, thats an idiotic way to argue.

The point was that the main body of anarchists today as well as historically doesn't share this vision of a stateless capitalism, so doubts/criticism here in lp no matter how vague are probably directed at multiple and more mainstream versions of anarchism; ones that I assume you reject too. I think that when you support a fraction of an already unpopular political view the most effective way to communicate would be to immediately focus on what makes said fraction different and better from what people will assume you refer to, instead of speaking up for the entire spectrum as if it were cohesive.

By focusing on what separates your version of anarchy from the ones that you too find non pragmatic those who challenge your view would find it easier to get into detail (and be convinced if you're right)

Using statistics for arguments is too easy on both sides because you can always find a stat backing you up if you dig deep enough. You have to argue from principle to get anywhere imo. Is it right for one human to use force against another human? At what point does it become justifiable?

Remember a government isn't a real thing. Know that and it will be easier to dissect if it is necessary. It's just a made up word for people with guns and people without guns. As far as practical solutions to people all following a set of guidelines I have heard of one essay for how it could work but before I present it I'd like to mention that in a competitive free market asking the question "how should we govern ourselves without force?" We will get a much more efficient answer than one person's idea of a possible free society.

The Stateless Society: an examination of alternatives by: Stefan Molyneaux
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/10/st...ciety-an-examination-of-alternatives/

Brief summary of the Dispute resolution organizations he suggests could work here:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization

Also RE: people will come in and take over. Takeovers of countries are usually for resources and tax livestock. If there isn't already a structured tax system/police in place to enforce your threats then what are you taking over? If guns/etc are randomly distributed throughout the area you are attempting to take over then how impossible is that task? The cost will outweigh the benefits of taking over a free society.

i've been an anarchist for 3 years. Although, i think that if i knew about the political ideal when i was 10 i would have adopted it.


I do not think many anarcho-capitalists realize the consequences of their political ideals. What they are in fact advocating is that private power should rule the world. Now what follows from anarcho capitalism is the privitizing of all assets, getting rid of labour laws, ect. So roads would be privitized, people would soon start renting out their roads for people to use them, no one would get anywhere in a car. Then people would hire mercenaries to protect their roads..ect. And what would happen in a 'free' labour market? The laws which were put in place in the early 1800's that raised the working age to 12 years old would be abolished, (These laws at the time were understood to be an intervention in the free labour market, and industrial capitalists whined about it a lot.) corporations would exploit children from age 5 up until they die at 17, which was the average life expectancy of a worker in manchester in 1820. The fact of the matter is people are not really 'free' when their choices are limited to either starvation or exploitation. But anarcho capitalism would never happen, both the richest capitalists and the worlds population would find it intolerable. In our society as it exists at the moment, both want the state to intervene in some way.

Also, a lot of the political theorists you read about in school who are in the right and proclaim to either be anarcho-capitalists or 'libertarians' say they base their beleifs on the value system of classical liberalism. I spent this summer working my way through all the classical liberal texts and the political theorists you read about misrepresent them. First of all kant, wilhelm von humboldt, and adam smith to pick 3 of the classical liberals, were all developing their theories when capitalism was in its early stages.

kant for example in his political writings pointed out the difference between a passive and an active citizen. He said a passive citizen can be a person who creates something deliberately for someone else to buy. And a passive citizen should have no right to vote because of this, because they are a mere tool or a machine. Kant saw this as a person being used for a means to an end and hated this. On the other hand, he saw an active citizen as someone that was an artisan. Someone who created things out of their own creativity and enjoyment, but then could sell that creation later on.

Willhelm von Humboldt stated in his book 'limits of state action' that someone who creates something is the true owner of that creation than some voluptury who enjoys the fruits of that labour.

Adam Smith was the most anti-capitalist of them all, specifically stating 'division of labour turning people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it possible for them to be.'

Early writings of Karl Marx expressed similar sentiment to Adam Smith in his theories of alienation.

What the anarcho capitalists and libertarians of the modern period like Friedman, Hayek, Nozick..ect, have done is deeply misrepresent the classical liberals. The thing they did represent them correctly on is that states should have limited power.

from my own interpretation classical liberalism was anti-capitalist, and that anarcho syndacalism grows out of this, along with a combination of labour movements in the early 19th century which grew into socialism, which then grew into french syndaclism in the early 1900's. These theories amalgamated into anarcho syndacalism which culminated in a social revolution in 1936 spain which is what liquid drone pointed out.

Although i am an Anarchist, i understand that some people who would want to use social democracy as a stepping stone towards anarchism have a very valid point. And in fact expansion of the state in a 'social-democrat' way could be a path towards anarchism. The anarchist party Syriza in Greece seem to be taking this path. And a society cannot just 'instantly' become anarchist, it needs education, activism, and many years of work before that can happen.

Anarchism these days has a broad spectrum of thought because its been tried in many different ways. For example Gandhi practiced it in ways he learnt from tolstoy, (they wrote letters to each other). Today most anarchists are involved in the global justice movement, opposing the world trade organization, international monetary fund, world bank and the so called 'free trade imperalism'. plus Austerity

On January 02 2015 22:04 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On January 02 2015 15:53 Romm3l wrote: the problem is suggesting anarchy as a viable improvement of the status quo when history suggests otherwise I'd say the problem is we think there is a problem. In order to work anarchy has to come close to utopia and for that to happen we d have to drop nowadays perception of what utopia is, cause it sure as hell isn't bling-blings,bitches & fast cars( well explained shallowly at least ) . The biggest problem however is that the masses are easily controlled by the media and considering corporations control the media, you cant really promote an idea that would fuck corporations. Propaganda is far more deadly than any other weapon. A bit of off-topic, but quite the interesting read considering how we're practically in an extended Cold War situation : http://chomsky.info/articles/20140805.htm Considering I've not read everything Chomsky has published what are you suggesting he s wrong about?

Theres a really good book on anarchism called: anarchism: Theory and Practice, by Rudolf Rocker.

He thinks, and i agree with him, that anarchy is not a fixed, enclosed social system, but a definite trend in human history. That structures of illegitimate power throughout history have been overcome through realizing and whitling away at their illegitimacy.

My own view on utopia is that in many ways we are already living in one. For example womens rights are utopian compared to 150 years ago. And from this view i disagree with Romm3l. It is in fact anarchism that has shown itself not only viable and possible but very desirable when someone looks at history. In fact, part of the propaganda system has been to eliminate hope with the view pointed out by raegan and thatcher that 'there is no alternative'. So Baal when he says things will change when we are hopeless is wrong, and a terrible mistake to make. On the contrary, things will change when people realize how much liberty they have and how much they can do to change the world and make it a better place. Afterall, we face no threat of torture in the rich countries. And we can go around teaching people about anarchism and state violence, ect., just as people went around teaching others about the injustices of women as property 150 years ago. Many don't listen at first, but the numbers of listeners grows over time.

On December 30 2014 15:57 Baalim wrote: Also every culture around the world is rooted in religion and it doesnt make the concept of a god any less idiotic, governments exist because people have fought and risen to power in history and society trends to maintain the status quo

This is so fucking true. Think about the first people in the world to ever be "governed". Do you think they wanted it? Surely not. little groups of people got conquered and assimilated by other groups. i.e. Rome invading Nomadic territories. However over time, once these governments are initially established, people are born into them rather than truly free. It becomes standard and accepted because it is all that everyone has known their whole lives and from a young age taught is the optimal if not only way.

I'm using the court system of the state to work at quashing some grossly mismanaging, investor capital wasting insiders

one advantage for some state power..

Greetings awesome people,

I recently found this amazing non-profit:

https://www.adbusters.org/

https://www.adbusters.org/about/adbusters

I now have a subscription in print and PDF. If anyone is interested I could send them the PDFs or post them to my blog if that is cool.

What I would like to share and discuss today is this:

Spark

Join Us!

Suddenly a hundred million of us start playing the corpo-killcap game!

Draw the line:

Exxon, BP, Chevron, McDondalds, Monsanto, Pfizer, Coca Cola, Dove, Nestle, Kraft, Kellog, Nike, Pepsico, Starbucks, Kimberley Clark, Proctor and Gamble, Johnson and Johnson, General Mills, Mattel, Bank of America

[yellow caution] Show some self discipline:

Malls, Supermarkets, Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Yahoo, Target, Chapters, Barnes and Noble, Microsoft, Car Co-ops, Tom's, American Apparel, Nature's Path [/yellow caution]

You know what to do:

Indie Shops, Coffee Houses and Bookstores, Farmer's Markets, Community-Supported Agriculture, Libraries, Co-op Housing, Sole Rebels, Fab Labs, Co-op Banks, Craigslist, Bitcoin, Airbnb, Tor Network, Open-Source, Kickstarter, Powell's Books, Bike Pirates, Intelligentsa Coffee, Trade School, Vegetarianism

Thoughts? Insights? Information?

How many of you are using Tor Network? Co-op banks? Bitcoin? (I currently do not and am looking to trial it out).

Experiences, Strength, and Hope?!

Love,

RiKD

On February 10 2015 19:09 RiKD wrote: Draw the line: Exxon, BP, Chevron, McDondalds, Monsanto, Pfizer, Coca Cola, Dove, Nestle, Kraft, Kellog, Nike, Pepsico, Starbucks, Kimberley Clark, Proctor and Gamble, Johnson and Johnson, General Mills, Mattel, Bank of America Malls, Supermarkets, Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Yahoo, Target, Chapters, Barnes and Noble, Microsoft, Car Co-ops, Tom's, American Apparel, Nature's Path Indie Shops, Coffee Houses and Bookstores, Farmer's Markets, Community-Supported Agriculture, Libraries, Co-op Housing, Sole Rebels, Fab Labs, Co-op Banks, Craigslist, Bitcoin, Airbnb, Tor Network, Open-Source, Kickstarter, Powell's Books, Bike Pirates, Intelligentsa Coffee, Trade School, Vegetarianism

On January 06 2015 06:01 Liquid`Drone wrote: of course anarchy has something to do with anti-authority. imo that's the by far most positive thing the political theory has got going for it.. In fact just like lebowski, I've hung around quite a bit with anarchists, but never anarcho capitalists, they've all been leftists, and usually the anarchist inside them is not really concerned with the economical side of it, but rather the social one, like a, "I should be allowed to do whatever I want as long as nobody is hurt by it". But I've never heard any of them talk about taxation. Basically my impression of anarchist seems to be completely in line with lebowski's. I'm not equating it with chaos - although I think it'd be a likely outcome - but I have absolutely no support for baal's anarchy and I don't think any self-identifying anarchist I know would, either.

Anarcho capitalism and anarcho-socialism are actually more similar to what you seem to grasp, we both recognize the State as the initiator of violence we just have different opinions on how to handle private property.

If you havent heard about taxation then you probably didnt have long talks with your anarchist friends or they have no idea what they are talking about, taxation is the first initiation of violence towards the individual and exactly how the government survives, no taxation, no government.

I know way more Rothbardians (anarcho capitalists) than socialist ones, usually the socialist ones simply watched the second Zeitgeist movie too many times.

On January 06 2015 09:51 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On January 06 2015 02:40 Baalim wrote: get into details, that is all ive been asking, I want people to stop saying shit like "oh it cannot work" and not say why, thats an idiotic way to argue. The point was that the main body of anarchists today as well as historically doesn't share this vision of a stateless capitalism, so doubts/criticism here in lp no matter how vague are probably directed at multiple and more mainstream versions of anarchism; ones that I assume you reject too. I think that when you support a fraction of an already unpopular political view the most effective way to communicate would be to immediately focus on what makes said fraction different and better from what people will assume you refer to, instead of speaking up for the entire spectrum as if it were cohesive. By focusing on what separates your version of anarchy from the ones that you too find non pragmatic those who challenge your view would find it easier to get into detail (and be convinced if you're right)

Well first of all people should recognize that the government is immoral, and the "how" its actually secondary.


If you were living in USA 200 years ago and saw slavery you would want to abolish it.... and people would tell you "but how will the crops survive, our economy depends on slavery!" and they would be right... but hopefully you would say Ï dont give a fuck, we will figure it out, but this is immoral and it has to stop"

You are born somewhere and for the state you at the moment of birth signed a "social contract" which means that you will give a big chunk of your income to the government so they can spend it however they see fit, for example... bombing the shit out of brown people in the middle east, you cant refuse to participate even if you dont plan on using the government resources, if you refuse the government will send armed men to put you in a cage, if you fight those men you will be killed.

Ding!

Just off the top of my head these are some things that a part of my income goes to support without any real say:

-Kidnapping and torturing brown people
-Using testimony from tortured brown people to justify wars.
-Mass murdering brown people with drones without any real accountability
-Bailing out robbing, deceiving cunt bankers (I typically do not like using the word cunt but there is really no better word to describe a lot of those fuckers)
-Subsidizing high fructose corn syrup, soybean oil, McDonald's, Coca Cola, General Mills, Monsanto, et al
-Subsidizing Boeing, National Defense, Halliburton, et al giving the State incentive to go to wars and keep weapon sales/consumption up

I could go on.

As Baal said:

The ways in which the laws are written:

I was in my mother's vagina. Then I was breathing in a hospital in what is deemed the United States of America. The instant I took my first breath a contract was signed for me with out my consent in which I owe the United States of America a given percent of my income. If I do not consent to that contract they use coercion through fear, force, violence, and torture. That is unethical and immoral, period.

Myself and most anarchists I speak with are not saying we can just get rid of the government and live in utopia tomorrow. The changes actually have to happen very gradually or else the next most violent and aggressive institutions will force themselves into power. It has to come from communities. It has to start on smaller, local scales. It really has to start with each individual and branch out. As the Dick Cheneys and Rupert Murdochs and Donald Sterlings start to die off and more and more people start to realize the truth through the internet and truthful and ethical information and education things will progress. No human being can ever be a saint. It is progression, not perfection. There are a lot of extremely complicated and entrenched issues that we all have to coexist with but if anyone would like to argue that progressing to a more fair, truthful, good place is not the right thing to do that is what this thread is for.

There are examples that States do not like to be brought up:

Portugal's legalization of drugs
Iceland not bailing out the banks
The revolution in Catalonia in the 1930s

I found them all fascinating and awesome if one has some time to do some research.