The every man (woman) for him/her self society.

It will be like once upon a time in the west, where size strength or wealth did not rule and where a little man with a big gun could live well and where those that got "It" soon gonna lose it.

Where the farmer is king cause he has the foods to eat, at least until somebody comes and takes them from him.

It could happen here.

180

Police = property enforcers (those with the most property have their will enforced), and work to fill Lockheed prisons with urban youth

That's the way it is now.

I was thinking how the deteriorating US situation is actually a logical and appropriate extension of longstanding cultural values expressed in medical treatment as commercial commodity, the popularity of the "why should I pay to feed them if their parents can't," and thinking of how many people in the last few years who have left, or making plans to leave - the ones with the resources to do so, naturally. The poor will be left to their fate.

The greatest change in the reality of the life of the US poor will be longer lines, as their numbers increase.

This is not to minimalize the importance of the good done to even those few who are helped at all by the token "social programs," but in terms of the larger society, their elimination will go largely unnoticed.

"Every man for himself" is what is meant by the expression "you can't get ahead, so you try to get over," it is the reason that the most functional societies have been so because of the existence of a large and thriving middle class, and a public will to enlarge it.

Again, without minimalizing the very real appeal of politicians who promise a chance that maybe you will be lucky enough to be one of the lucky few who are spared the descent into poverty, like the token social programs, it does not impede the transition to a single-industry, fedual state.

The remarkable thing is the enthusiasm with which the populace cheerfully fastens the chains round its own ankles.

most DUers.

Compassion is dead.

Kanary

when the Evil Hag Thatcher and her cronies set out to make everyone think only of themselves and ignore others ("There's no such thing as Society..." and other similar bullshit). Everyone was urged to get rich and let those who couldn't fall by the wayside. Of course not everyone could get rich but many people fell for the crap, bought up public housing, started buting shares in recently privatised public companies... I hated those right wing bastard politicians.

The "I've got mine, the hell with the rest of you and I intend to get more and more no matter whom I kick around to get it" is how we are living today.

It's what I'm seeing around me. :shrug:

Anarchist response? Too bad that the word has been demoralized in the popular lexicon so that it tend to equate with mere chaos.

In a black and white scenario, the "selfish" motive is seen as an insult and threat to the Elite government control system. It is difficult for people to imagine themselves as actual "corporations" as opposed to fictitious entities designed to focus and direct economic and social power.

Corporations are sociopathic in most every sense when you study their behavior. A society that is motivated primarily by the corporate ideal is bound to have nothing but commercial choices for freedoms and sacrifice compassion and other unprofitable ethical and moral notions.

We can easily disabuse ourselves of the idea that one's own self-interest is antithetical to the rule of conglomerate coercion using the idea of Capitalism itself, as a basis. That is my notion of a modern Anarchistic approach.

An example would be conscription. Within the principles of profit and growth-oriented Capitalism, how do you logically expect free agents, (the people) to be compelled to serve a Military Industrial complex when corporations are clearly seen as benefactors in a conflict and their interests can even be a modus operandi for aggression?

If you were to apply the same rights and privileges afforded to a corporate entity to the People themselves, you would logically be looking at a less than classical version of Democracy. The labels and ideologies transform and mutate over time.

So, self-interest, when intelligently applied, (that is, systematically applied via education and culture) is not the morally repugnant road to chaos that the system would like it to be seen as. It is merely an ideological micro-application of a larger concept.

As with the Kibbutzim in Israel, and the Spanish Revolution in '36, Anarchy is not merely an idol speculation or an impossible contrast. Especially when you apply it in a way that encourages the populace to at least consider themselves free agents who SHOULD be concerned with their own self-interests, and who are then presented with the problems of having to function in a playing field of other free agents.

What ever you call it, (Anarchy is still a taboo political idea) it is almost a fight fire with fire approach. Corporations will continue to allow us to believe we have freedom while they act with greater impunity under cover. When we transform our own self-image to be as individual corporations, in essence, we create a more Democratic playing field. The people as corporations versus the larger entities is far more relevant than Democracy versus Political Oligarchy.