But I'd never want to hear the word "rights" again. That shit gets left at the door, and only comes out where structure has been established to support whatever philosophy is deemed appropriate by the superior force in whatever territory it manages to sustain.
Isn't this is the mental trap that structure can only exist in a certain way?
I don't think civilization is going to end, and I also don't think government is sustainable.
I think the world kinda works like this:
You have no rights. In an anarchy where you actually have No Rights, its all up to whoever rules the territory. You can get as philosophical as you want, but it all comes down to power. If you managed to find a nice orderly village in, say, Vermont... maybe the prevailing atmosphere would be conducive to a polite society, with a benevolent loose-knit voluntary structure of Libertarian-esque law. You'd probly be happy there, and all the people are open minded, and think whatever they want. Right? There, you would have rights because the society wills it. Or you could opt-out, and live on the fringe, and just sort of co-exist with parts of it.
But maybe you get snagged in Arizona. Economical reasons, you can't pay the toll
out of Arizona. There, they hate Catholicism, and you're Catholic. Kinda like the nazi's hated Jews. So you
really have absolutely
no rights to practice Catholicism. In fact, they'll kill you for it.
Only when the climate is suitable for certain things do you have the "right" to do it. You could whisper it under the covers, I guess. But thats not rights. Rights come from power. They are granted to you.
In our present society, we actually live on the
fringe of rights. They can be taken away, but people raise a stink over it when it hits the mainstream. We watch each others backs, and even among the statists, most judges are basically - kinda- watching out for you. They're careful, at least, to not shit all over your rights completely - like the Guantanimo situation. They'd catch major hell for trying that - at least, right now, maybe in the future they won't.
Rights are very fluid and dynamic. They're arguable, and supposed to be inarguable. Thats the thing that fucks 'em up the most. Philosophical hucksters play word games - which is why I fucking
HATE playing semantics debates with people who make me want to rip their fucking eyeballs out. Eventually it becomes so droning and boring that people get lost in the goddamn words, and it all becomes meaningless.
Watch... Guns. I can own them.
Unless blabbedy blah bla bla blah... forever. That right is now officially up for all sorts of interpretation, which means its useless, fucked, and pretty much a
privilege which is NOT a right.
So, you're right, civilization will not come to an end. But it may be different in ways you definitely do not like. I would suggest you BT the Ross Kemp
Gangs documentaries, and check out how disorderly some places are. Brazil, for example. In Rio, the tourist area is nice, all touristy. Up in the hills, its a fuckin' murder spree. The government has black-ops running 24/7 killing the street gangs, and they're killing them back. Their prisons are stacked like 100 per cell, which are supposed to hold maybe four prisoners. Its just crazy. And Brazil has a constitution, and society exists, and all that shit. If the government just threw its hands up and said "fuckit" who knows what would happen. But I think its very likely, Brazil would fall apart, nobody would visit on vacation, their economy would fall to pieces, their banks would be looted, their economy would turn to shambles. It would collapse. People would leave in droves, and the gangs would organize, fill the vacuum, and become the government.
And you have to ask yourself, in that situation, don't you kinda feel sorry for the millions of average dopes who would get crushed in the wave of insanity as everyone chopped up turf, looted everything, and the ensuing civil war between the two most prominent factions that would arise? I know I would feel some pity for that old fart that lives across the street from me, getting his house burned down, or his car jacked. He's just a fuckin old dork who worked all his life for a two-bedroom chunk of house, raised his kids, and mows the lawn.
Not everybody is like you, you know. And that sorta what this flag is supposed to represent, people in varying stages of their lives, with a "good guy" watching their back, silently preserving a normalcy, and preventing a weird craziness that children, young moms, and old folks aren't supposed to concern themselves with.
I'm not saying I'm all gung-ho for this incarnation, because its very broken. But the concept is legitimate and sound, even if its actual practice is terribly mismanaged. Our purpose as dissenters is to raise awareness and try to prevent it from becoming
more fucked up. Pull it back from the brink, and re-capture rights and privileges that are becoming more bureaucratically obscured, before they slide into oblivion. My argument with the pure anarchists is they think the oblivion is the path, from which will spring a healthier society. And I completely disagree with that. It would take decades, and millions of lives, if it were pushed over the brink tomorrow. We would never live to see the new "better" society that would theoretically grow from god-knows how many civil wars, and an incalculable amount of chaos that would arise in all the major cities, generations of hostile MadMax civilization. It'd be fuckin' awful, man. For all we know, our own govt would apply surgical nuke strikes to certain zones, to restore control and then just re-invent itself in a propaganda blitz, blame it on the NK's or something. Government's hardcore, dude.