Perfect time for alter-government

Don't know if this has already been started - but haven't seen one on this topic.

I'm not sure why many people feel that they should try and physically fight for freedom from a system "owned" by others. It is owned by those who create the currency to keep us subservient. Essentially, all transactions that use "their" bills/notes/currency, is something that we are forced to report to government so that they can collect taxes to govern.

I thought about it for some time... The only way to have an alternate "system", anything close to what we have now, is to have a group of people who both have access to raw materials (eg:bauxite for aluminium, or iron ore, oil etc..), and to the people who have the knowledge of how to convert such materials to useable materials etc... That requires such organisation that is near impossible to achieve - especially, if you are trying to create a parallel modern system, independent of the current one, also keeping in mind that you have little to no money to do it with (that is the current issue) - and most such resources are already owned.

The fact remains that governments cannot stay in business, unless they can collect enough taxes. Governments control considerable resources, necessary for the system to stay collectively glued. Eventually, when people run out of money, their survival is no longer an issue to those who print money or to the governments who collect printed money.

Neither do large scale corporations find it easy to remain geographically well spread and simultaneously chasing after smaller and smaller pieces of the pie - they shut down too (along with more jobs).

Both these systems are necessary to keep the modern world going. If there are banksters running around with money, or even large scale producers/owners/business people who are debt free with loads of money (eg: Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Ross Perot, Donald Trump, Jerry Seinfeld etc), in order to keep governments going, they would be forced to pay greater amounts of their hard earned money to keep government relatively well distributed geographically for their safety, transportation, regulation, paying off government debt (we're all technically in debt and owe all the money ever printed -since debt IS the only source of money). We hear about Warren Buffet being willing to pay more taxes, which may become a necessity.

Instead of fighting a physical fight with government, if people just "play along", and instead try living on manual farms (not sure if the Amish live entirely independent of the modern world), until everything gets put back in order (if it ever does).

If a significant enough portion of the population actually fell out of the modern financial picture (essentially critical mass), then this will cyclically result in the system shutting down.

I'm not sure why anyone thinks that bankers purchasing all the real-estate for cents on the dollar makes a difference - since the value in aquiring such real estate only exists if there are enough people with paying jobs to re-purchase those homes, which will otherwise grow all kinds of things without maintenance, and in colder areas require heating + paying municipal taxes (to maintain roads/schools/etc.).

During the real-estate melt-down in the US, I remember Donald Trump mentioning that people should fight for their houses (not physically, but to go and re-negotiate with their lending institutions), because the lending institutions don't want to be saddled with so much worthless real-estate.

What I am trying to say, is that it is as much the prerogative of these bankers/govt/businesses to keep this thing running as it is an average person's prerogative.

But, instead of physically fighting, simply leaving and working in a system that allows people to survive (eg: manual farming with barter) for long periods of time, would in fact take the world over.

We go out and fight believing it is "our" system, and really, if voting doesn't achieve the change we want, aside from creating highly educated well versed groups of individuals believing the same ideas that work - and then have these people make demands to fix the ailing system - there is no "fix" from our end.

Judging from the comments on this website (and there are numerous well-educated (no not college/university necessarily) posts here), we cannot easily come to consensus as to what EXACTLY, needs to be done.

If you are willing to fight, then it would seem worthwhile not to go fighting with the system directly, but to defend your right to live in a "working" system eg: manual labour farms. Otherwise, you are just creating external damage to a system already dragged down by monopolization of currency. That is what is occuring whether you talk of banking or multinational corporations funded by banking.

I could easily see a system of manual labour farming being a co-operative type institution - where everyone pays in and receives in proportion to their efforts and investment.

I'm not saying that we could simply wake up one fine day, and there the farm would be. It takes some research to figure out how to get everything perfectly independent of "modern" mankinds inventions and self-sustainable, but this is potentially a discussable topic for those who wished to help with their contributions on a suitable bulletin board? Some of the troubles one might face - how to find drinkable water, how to live in close quarters with others of like mind, how to remain mobile for dangerous situations, how to make steel implements or stone implements, how to create clothing, shoes, how to live during winter, how to live if crops are destroyed by bad weather, how to live undetected by those who wouldnot have peace, how to make sure bandits aren't interested in the females/wealth, how to make home-made remedies for sickness, how to ensure safe sexual practices when in non-modern surroundings, etc..

There is power in numbers, and power can be taken up by groups of people who have appropriate leadership (read trustworthy, and sensitive to these issues). Loosely grouped people don't always come to a common conclusion that is conducive to the greater good - and video game style shoot-em-up situations doesn't necessarily leave the most useful people alive (although possibly only the ones who are good at shooting and simultaneously avoiding bullets).

Highly armed people in gangs, are also threats to existing systems (I recall the Texas ranch... don't recall the name) - and so they may get "taken out" - so it is important to show resistance to using extreme means of fighting (ie use escalation very carefully).

Don't get me wrong... I don't object to occupy wallst... just not sure the results are going to be all that great - though I hope I'm wrong.

If war should break out between the big countries, essentially it is my belief that we will be sent back to the stone ages in the blink of an eye. Short of destroying infrastructure and human effort - I don't think war will be a problem solver. Even if you inject money at that time, there is the issue of the work force - it takes approximately 20 years to create a useable modern college graduate - with these people on the decline, because of their inability to make ends meet, good luck re-setting the modern world.

I also feel that this could be done without massive numbers of people required. But that cookie cutting is much easier once a model of independent living can be created - and it can still be collectively owned.