Getting scarier and scarier... TONYT- for you. Signy by Niki2

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Tony, I'll have to get back with you later. Your post brings up a number of points which will take a lot of time to respond to. Thanks for the reply though.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 8:06 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Signey,

When you do reply, be sure to address this one additional point-

Corporations have no inherent powers. All powers exercised by corporations and other businesses are powers extended to the corporations by government via laws.

Any unsavory shaft that any business is able to insert into our unlubricated rectum is not a function of corporate power, but of government power.

Now, we may agree that some of these laws are worthwhile for protecting property rights. But the fewer laws, the better, because the fewer laws, the fewer people who are subject to collective will at the point of a gun.

Again, we ought to determine the fewest laws we can get along with, and those laws should be aimed at protecting people while infringing on their freedoms as little as possible.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 8:26 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Roger that, Tony!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 9:15 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

We gonna pay for it, then it should belong to US, all of us, something that is no more "socialist" than public school, which FOR THE BASICS, doesn't do that bad of a job, it's just been badly neglected and abused by folk with political reason to do so - and by taking back such things as the dominion and property of the people collectively, we can then apply ourselves to it to improve it if we wish, or not.

Thanks for that, Frem - I know you're not crazy about public schools (and with good damn reason, too), but my point has always been that just because something isn't perfect, is no reason to scrap it altogether. That we need to do a better job of educating our kids is - pardon the pun - a no-brainer. But that we're not doing it well enough is certainly not a justification for quitting outright.

What I'd like to see from our tax money is for public schools to be treated not as "cheaper than a babysitter", but as temples of knowledge, cathedrals of learning. Way I see it, giving every child in this country an absolute first class education in no way hurts us as a nation. How many countries did you ever hear of that failed because their people were too smart or knew history and human nature too well?

Wulf wanted a show of hands from everyone who wants to pay for someone else's health care. Well, I'll raise my hand. I want to pay for their education, too. That's right - I'm volunteering to have MY taxes raised to pay for far better public schools, even though I have no personal stake in them at all; I have no children who will benefit, but I still see this as an investment in the future of all of us, of an entire nation.

As I've mentioned before, there's a definite pattern to be seen in the way things are done in this country. First you loudly proclaim your undying devotion to a particular thing, in the most patriotic terms possible ("No child left behind!" "Support our troops!"). Then, you cut funding for that particular patriotic ideal (cutting education budgets, slashing funds for Walter Reed, outsourcing prisons, schools, and defense to your friends in the private sector for fun and profit). Then you declare that it's broken, and broken so badly that it must be trashed, because it simply doesn't work. Social Security was robbed blind, and then Bush claimed it was going broke because it was a bad program. It had been fine up until its money was rolled into the general fund and blown on bigger, badder bombs. For years, the national parks were slowly starved, and then people like Reagan and Bush wanted to either auction them off outright, or sell the rights to exploit whatever natural resources might be found there. It's passive-aggressive behavior at its worst; you must first BREAK the thing so that you can trash it and replace it with the one you always wanted in the first place.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 9:19 AM

Quote:
Posted by BDN:

Signy,
Just my opinion, mind you.

Only Bush followers were authoritarians.

EUREKA! A breakthrough!

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 9:21 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

DT

Just quickly on Gardasil and vaccination:

The type of antibody found on mucosal surfaces is IgA. It's a difficult antibody to elicit (or at least, no one has found the magic key to get it to work reliably), and roughly 10% of the population has very little or none, due to autoimmunity to IgA. (If that's intelligent design, I'd like to see the IQ of the designer ... ... anyway ... what I was saying ...)

I would like to see more work done on IgA-stimulating vaccines nevertheless. I suspect that IgA-focused vaccines would be easier to administer, at the same time, they would probably require more vaccinations to get a good result.

I've always wanted to see research on different schema of vaccination injections. I would like to see vaccinations done step-wise - at first with a low level of a few highly purified key components of whatever you are vaccinating against, going to more complex mixtures, and finally to killed whole stuff. I think this may get a better and more focused immune response than a larger single dose.

Obviously this is labor intensive and probably not suitable for places where resources are low and you may only have one chance to vaccinate against serious illness like polio or (with any luck) malaria or sleeping sickness.

HPV, like herpes, HIV, HTLV and chicken pox, is one of those incurable permanent infections for which vaccines are eminently appropriate. It's not too far off the mark to say that one day it could be eradicated, like smallpox already has been. It has no natural reservoir and it requires human to human contact to transmit. Given the limited ways you can get it, a vaccination program with a GOOD vaccine could remove yet another scourge from humanity. I see that as a good thing.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 9:29 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Byte:

Quote:
The good news, Kwicko, or perhaps the bad news, Pizmobeach, is that no government lasts forever. And I think the decay in ours has been showing for a long time.

The way I see it, is that our government has been willing to allow giant corporate conglomerates to grow, that have such a stake in the market (and control over the government) that if they fail, they take our economy with it.

I agree, and have for a long time. Tho' maybe I don't want to see it as ending the way you do, I've long said the "American Empire", like all empires, is on the wane. All the signs have been there for a long time, in the arts, finances, and on and on. Our empire has been based more on financial "conquest" than the physical conquest of other empires, but as you said, empires only last so long.

Quote:
Out of curiosity, have you ever voted for someone who was not elected, or even, in the case of primaries, not nominated?

Speaking for myself: yes. I voted for Edwards...as we vote by mail, I was obviously left out of the loop by nomination time. I'm glad he wasn't nominated, as it turned out, given what showed up. But did anyone notice that most of the things Edwards talked about are now what everyone else is talking about/suggesting/debating? I don't think enough people got to hear him, because once they did, they were sold.

I asked my optometrist back then who she was voting for (Clinton) and when I said Edwards she replied "American's not ready for an Edwards". I guess she was right. Whether another will ever come along (sans the baggage) or not, who knows?

Sygny:

Quote:
"Your only option is to choose your constraints." Hello, You mostly named the constraints people DON'T choose. I can't choose to not be thirsty, or hungry, or tired, or whatever. Not unless I blow my brains out. But I can choose government. That's what we're talking about. Choosing government and choosing what you're willing to give them, or let them take. Choosing what your line is, and where you draw it.Or whether you even draw it at all.

I'm afraid I agree. "Freedom" is limited by our need to survive. We can choose what we want governing us (sometimes!) in order to survive within society, but unless we move to the mountains and grow our own food, that's about all the "freedom of choice" we have. Except that even there, how the water, land, air is polluted affects our freedom, too.

Wulf:

Quote:
For the most part, I think everyone here believes in the power of the individual. The power of one person to run their own life. To protect, feed, and care for themselves and others.

Am I wrong?

Most of us just disagree on whether or not we should be forced to care for strangers.

Sygn replied in part for me:

Quote:
The question revolves around not whether we can survive as INDIVIDUALS (we can't) but HOW coordination is engendered: by cooperation, by force, or a combinaiton.

For me it goes beyond that. I believe in helping others, but don't consider them "strangers"--I guess kind of a more world view, that I was born into comfort (my mom imigrated from France, but could have come from Ethopia), and that puts a moral obligation on me to at least do something to help others less fortunate; could have been me, after all. Beyond that, I want a government that will do the same, to at least a degree; use my taxes to provide safety nets for those less fortunate than I.

I in no way buy that one can take care of oneself under all circumstances, and I view paying taxes as more than paying for roads, schools, etc., but as paying a government to take care of all its citizens (as best as any government actually DOES).

Quote:
Everybody that ever came before you, you owe for your ability to even be born into this country. Everybody who comes after you, you owe a debt to leave them a better place in which to live.

Oh, Mike, if only more believed that way! It's certaily how I believe--I have no children, and part of that decision was made at 16 because I was serious about ZPG, but it was reinforced in all the years that followed, and I expected all the things that are just showing their heads now: global warming, over fishing, pollution. There's no way in conscience I could leave a child to face what I fear is coming, because I don't believe in man's ability to do what is right for coming generations. We think in the short term, in the "me"--the only problem is that we're so numerous nowadays that there's nowhere else for the coming generations to get away from our mentality.

Quote:
And while you're putting away your millions to take care of your kids, make sure NOT to take any kind of deductions off your taxes, because that is money that the government is taking from me and giving to you for the dubious honor of littering the planet with your worthless seed, and I don't believe in giving charity to those who are too stupid to pull out or wear a condom.

Rather unkindly put, but: me, too.

Quote:
But, NOW, Im expected to not only feed and house and clothe these monsters, these filth... but even to pay for their healthcare? Are you serious?

While the new filth may be the slaves of the rich, arrogant, elitist pigs... its up to us to pay for their well being?

Wow. I don't even know how to take that in. They're all monsters, eh? In other words, the guy next door who's worked all his life, taken care of himself and his "spawn", put away as much as he could, who then loses his job, his house, everything because some corporation got so big it couldn't sustain itself and dumped him instead of its inflated-salary CEO, is a monster too?

Can't go there, I'm sorry. Too scary a mentality for me.

Cavalier:

Quote:
That elephant would be gender--specifically, the default gender of those who voice certain aggressively antisocial opinions. No sane woman could ever agree with your rants.

I'm not sure about "any sane woman", but yeah, we're far less LIKELY to have such opinions. And yeah, those who voice them might find they need us down the line somewhere...like to come out of their "freedom" caves to propagate or something, y'know?

Quote:
these sound like the same failed arguments that the 70's hippies used when they started (and ultimatly ABANDONED) their communes

Just FYI, there are many communes still doing quite well; those that didn't make it generally were because the people couldn't get along, in other words couldn't find a way of "governing" themselves that worked.

And Byte got it:

Quote:
a sense of family, friendship, and community, so that people who choose to settle near each other do actually care about each other.

Those are the ones which still survive.

Think I'd better buy out of this discussion...you certainly DO get heated around here, this is the first time I've seen it; and it's the first time I've seen one person gone after by more than one other...interestingly, in the opposite direction than what I experienced. I don't like it, but at the same time it's hard not to agree with them; what you express, Wulf, is so vile and incomprehensible that it's hard NOT to. I'll have to see how I feel when someone more sensible is ganged up on (if that even happens here). Hmmmmm....

Ahhh,but there's a couple that makes me feel good:

Quote:
'Til then, I think we ought to try to not reinforce his beliefs through sheer negativity

and

Quote:
You seem to have no problem with demonizing your opponent as long as they are in the "wrong".

It's the negativity I'm referring to. I've been on the end of it, and what I found is it made me respond in kind, "fight fire with fire", and definitely feel backed into a corner. Now, I was as you can tell arguing the opposing view of Wulf's, but that's irrelevant in tellling you that denegrating into what this thread has is exactly what landed me here.

Not trying to preach, speaking of the fact that no debate goes anywhere when it becomes personal name-calling, and debate is GREAT, whether we changes each others' minds or not. I was thrilled the first time I read "agree to disagree" on this site; I said it so many times in trying to give up on a circular debate, and was called a coward. But it's true; when it becomes obvious that someone is being backed into a corner and reaching them is impossible, getting nasty results in no better, and makes for "sides" and "enemies" and bad feelings. Blah, blah, blah, no doubt repeating what's been said here many times, just felt the need to speak up, as one who's been backed into corners myownself.

I haven't noticed who different comments from, but whether name calling or snideness, there's been a lot of "backing into corners" in this thread, so I'm blaming nobody, mentioning it to everyone. No argument is "effective" which contains negativity as opposed to rationality.

Signy, you asked for specifics.

Quote:
That's the plan, dumbo....Oh, grow up, you simpleton....quite frankly I can't imagine you having any friends....does she know that she's your healthcare plan?

Not "demonizing", but certainly snide...and, respectfully, yes, you are quite good at pushing buttons. NOT that you are alone, by any means, the above was just responding to your request for specifics.

Arguments get away from us; we're human. I fell victim to writing otherwise than I would like to believe of myself as well, so I'm just sharing my own experience, not condemning anyone for anything.

That's just my two cents' worth.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 9:35 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I'm particularly good at snide.

Sometimes I feel that a smack upside the head will do some good. Seems to me that peeps who grew up in rough circumstances don't "get" nuance.

But I'm prolly wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 9:47 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

BTW, when someone tries to push my buttons - I ENJOY pushing back.

"We think in the short term ..."

Human memory only works well for about 7 years. Even then it's constrained by what we notice, by our emotional state at the time, by the means we use to encode it, and by its fragility to post-fact editing.

The fact that our world is now less abundant, less clean, more crowded, and more fraught than when I was child (I am older than most here) is a blurry perception - partly b/c it involves comparing a faded hazy many decades-old memory to the present. On top of that, if I were to tell some youngster about how nice it was back when I was a kid, it wouldn't take. Even if that child believed me and didn't write off what I was saying as old-person maundering, my words are not going to do the same job as direct experience.

Regrettably, humans are geared to noticing short-term crises. Large-scale long-term changes are outside of direct human perception. So, if you don't notice them, how can you expect a rational response ? The fact that some people do notice is b/c these things CAN be appreciated intellectually. But it is a reasoned perception (like a globe-shaped earth) not an immediate one (it's FLAT ! I tell you !).

As for response - something like 90% of the world's population lives on less than $2 a day. Having been poor (though not that poor), I understand how small your focus can become when you are simply trying to keep above water.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 10:58 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Sadly, rue, I agree with everything you just wrote. VERY sadly...

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 11:01 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Re: FLDS

Despite the salvos back and forth, the final post of this thread does detail what happened in the aftermath, a much needed housecleaning still in progress and we *are* bagging these assholes up, by the book, without penalizing or traumatizing the victims - unfortunately these creeps ain't goin upriver for near as long as I'd like, but getting them OUT of that society in combination with those they exploited so effectively realizing the level of that exploitation has definitely improved matters.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=39243

I still don't care for their beliefs or their culture, but so long as it is consentual and they obey the law, it's not anyone elses business, really.

Mikey

Quote:
Thanks for that, Frem - I know you're not crazy about public schools (and with good damn reason, too), but my point has always been that just because something isn't perfect, is no reason to scrap it altogether. That we need to do a better job of educating our kids is - pardon the pun - a no-brainer. But that we're not doing it well enough is certainly not a justification for quitting outright.

That's why my opinion is that we oughta base any national healthcare offa the medicare infrastructure - sure, it's inefficient and it sucks, but it's THERE, and building a new one which would be a needless duplication of effort especially given that it's likely to be inefficient and suck AND not be shaken down into place by years of actual use, so you'd have the flaws and mistakes of a break-in period as well.

Better to concentrate on repairing and upgrading what we have rather than trying to scrap and rebuild, plus broadening the scope would offer substantial employment opportunities - which combined with my whole GI Bill for medical specialists concept, could be implemented productively in six weeks, rather than the decade it'd take em to get their shit together from scratch.

Rue

Quote:
I've always wanted to see research on different schema of vaccination injections. I would like to see vaccinations done step-wise - at first with a low level of a few highly purified key components of whatever you are vaccinating against, going to more complex mixtures, and finally to killed whole stuff. I think this may get a better and more focused immune response than a larger single dose.

I think you might be onto something there, especially if we could isolate and identify the folks who ARE likely to drop dead or suffer neurological damage from a conventional vaccine, that may very well work as an effective alternative and thus would not need to be deployed wholesale.

For all my hostility towards the medical establishment, my issue with vaccines is that they are not safe *enough* if it's going to kill or damage a certain percentage of the population - that has GOT to be fixed, posthaste, or trust in the whole concept is gonna go south in a hurry, especially with obvious chicanery and corruption like Baxter going on.

I'd say an independant investigation and boot-to-the-ass marathon at the FDA would be worthwhile as well.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 11:02 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Seems to me that peeps who grew up in rough circumstances don't "get" nuance.

Unfortunately, you may well be right often. As well as some who DIDN'T grow up that way.

Was just sayin'. People can post as they wish, of COURSE, just giving out my "humble" opinion.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 12:50 PM

Quote:
Wulf wanted a show of hands from everyone who wants to pay for someone else's health care. Well, I'll raise my hand. I want to pay for their education, too. That's right - I'm volunteering to have MY taxes raised to pay for far better public schools, even though I have no personal stake in them at all; I have no children who will benefit, but I still see this as an investment in the future of all of us, of an entire nation.

That's something that I didn't understand about Wulf's question. If you say you support a policy, and obviously that policy must take some cut of your taxes or raise your taxes, isn't it IMPLIED that you're willing to pay for that policy? Isn't there already a necessary element in saying you support a policy, and putting your money where your mouth is?

So far, I've spent $120 dollars over this summer trying to help promote the public option.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 4:00 PM

Agreed on the IgA, but my point on the immunization would be the hyperactive response that Frem was upset about comes from a direct injection into the blood. The fact is that IgA response is fine in efficiency, it's just that the mucosal response is very slow due to the low immune reponse there. The hyper-allergenic reaction that causes the auto-immune and anaphylactic shock imho a result of the high blood dose, and a mucosal application of the synthetic protein given a month would generate a safer effective response, no?

Correct me if I'm wrong: HPV and HIV are nowhere near the same kettle of fish. HPV is only 8 genes long, and is thoroughly understood. The reason it attacks epithelial tissues is that it would not survive a second in the blood stream. (fortunate for us or people would drop left and right.) Still, this creates the problem, but I see this as much easier to fix, potentially. Though I will grant a stem cell antibody immunity could block HIV easier, even though the virus itself is a lot tougher to deal with.

I'd put herpes somewhere in the middle, but these are the critical things to be eliminated, as they are things that humans get from casual contact, hence, everyone will get them eventually. It does little good to stop the aging process if we all die of common ailments anyway.

Mike,

I'm probably less of a fan of the public schools

Frem

couple things. 'these bastards' is ambiguous, when people are on multiple sides of an issue.

next, the synthetic vaccine is *always* going to be safer than the conventional. It's more of a question if it's more effective, but it's effective enough.

Medicare yes, but maybe also the VA. I'm not a fan of big govt. programs, but the private vs. public provider might work as a competition. Single payer is going to lead to the payee gaining control of the payer to justify any price scheme.

Niki, global warming and overfishing have virtually nothing to do with the population, and everything to do with organization. Remember, the world's deserts, the Sahara et al, were decimated by a relatively small number of humans engaged in bad ag. I est. the earth could support 40 billion people with zero ecological impact and no technology. With technology, it could be more.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 6:08 PM

PLAINJAYNE

Personally, I can't believe we're even still having this discussion (well, I'm not...nobody's talking to me). My head hurts way too much to think about it, and reading most of the previous conversation didn't really help. What the fuck?! Is the Wulfster the only person who lives in the real world around here? I know it's all supposed to be fun and games, folks, but damn....
I'm going back to my bunk. Call me if anybody interesting shows up.

Day late an'a dollar short...Story of my ruttin' life!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 6:20 PM

See this? Hackles.

If we are ignoring you, perhaps if you were to state what your specific argument you have against the viewpoints of everyone (except Wulf) in this thread are the reason behind your disgust with the continuence of this thread, we might have something to talk about.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 8:37 PM

Quote:

Medicare yes, but maybe also the VA. I'm not a fan of big govt. programs, but the private vs. public provider might work as a competition. Single payer is going to lead to the payee gaining control of the payer to justify any price scheme.

Which is really at the crux of the proposals I've been hearing about - but you WON'T hear that from the right or from the loudly shouting town hall shills.

Instead, what you'll hear is that (1) the public option, single-payer part of it will drive for-profit private healthcare out of business, and that (2) the massive inefficiencies of the government-run plan will lead to huge debt loads that will drown us all.

In truth, I would imagine the reality of the situation is somewhere in the middle - the inefficiencies spoken of, if they in fact manifest themselves at all, will offset the not-for-profit aspect of the government-run part of things, and the for-profit private companies will have to learn to work for something less than 35% profits.

Of course, it's that last part that has the insurance industry running so scared - the idea of letting go of (or having control wrested from their money-grubbing hands) those usurious profit margins, and actually having to make an honest buck for once in their wretched lives.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 8:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by PlainJayne:

What the fuck?! Is the Wulfster the only person who lives in the real world around here? I know it's all supposed to be fun and games, folks, but damn....

What was it that Wulfie said that you particularly agreed with? The part about not having been paying attention to the world around him up until right now?

Quote:
Posted by Wulfie:
Sorry that Im late to the party. But hey, at least now I'm paying attention to whats going on.

Look, truth be told, Bush did some heinous sh*t and should have been made to pay for it. But, noone was paying attention. Now we are.

That's rather like coming along in 1946 and saying, "Okay, I get it now - Hitler was a bad guy, but I wasn't paying attention, and I kinda thought he was decent, but now I'm not so sure, and now I'm not too sure about this Marshall guy either - I think he might be going too far in his plans to rebuild Europe. He's worse than Hitler! Look at the power he wields!"

I have to ask: What was it, specifically, that made you decide to start paying attention NOW? Why did you suddenly decide to wake up and grace us all with your vast and worldly knowledge at this particular moment in history? Is it because Obama's a Democrat? Is it because he's a man? Is it because he's not a Muslim? I *KNOW* it can't possibly have ANYTHING to do with the fact that he's a black man, right?

Right?

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 23, 2009 4:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Okay Tony... time to address your post. First of all, you're judging government and corporations by far, FAR different standards. The bias is so deeply rooted in your viewpoint, I don't even know where to start...

First of all, you're comparing "a" corporation (a singular one) to "government". So, you may be able to escape the clutches of "a" corporation, but you can no more escape "corporations" than you can escape "government". And you're trying to do different things on either case.

So apples to apples comparison: If you don't like THIS government, leave. If you don't like THAT corporation, leave. But try changing a corporation... or even one of its bylaws... and you will find that its' even LESS possible than changing a law. Try escaping "corporations" (their goods and services, their effect on wage structure, their advertising, and their increasing intrusion into YOUR privacy and right to a public opinion) and you will find it is even LESS possible than escaping "government".

You reflexively assume that government is an artificial entity which should be responsive to public opinion- which is why you are so disappointed in it- but you also so reflexively assume that corporations, corporatism, and capitalism are such a natural, immutable phenomenon that the only way you "can" react to it is like reacting to the weather. Your view of our current economic system is very much a primitive's view of the jungle: You think that you are "free" to make your way in this system of resources and exchanges because you can choose among the options offered to you, without realizing that YOU CAN CHANGE THE OPTIONS OFFERED TO YOU. Case in point

Quote:
I can get a corporation to stop 'taking care of me' tomorrow. This is because they aren't 'taking care of me.' We are exchanging goods. My time and effort for their money.

Yes, you can change your relationship with "a" corporation, but you have no control over the terms of the exchange any more than you have control of the weather, and you assume that you shouldn't. That is very different from your view of government, which you assume you SHOULD be able to change.

Quote:
Changing a job is not comperable to changing even a single law

You're absolutely right, and it is an utterly unfair comparison. Changing a job is like moving from city to city. Changing a LAW is like changing a corporation's charter. Changing a tax is like changing a corporation's profit rate. You're basically a bird who assumes that it's cage is "natural".

So, when you're ready to discuss government and corporations on equal bases, I will be ready to continue this conversation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 23, 2009 6:09 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Signy,

What's amusing to me is that I didn't want to discuss corporations and governments on equal basis. I wanted to discuss surrending as little of your freedoms as possible to the government.

Someone else (was it you, Signy? I can't remember) suggested that, well, governments aren't the only things you're stuck with. You're stuck with corporations too. Which has nothing to do with the price of tea in china, but extending a what the hell, I mentioned that I can switch from Dell to Compaq much easier than I can change a single thing about my government, or move to a whole different country.

And now I am the one being accused of making unfair comparisons between corps and government, when it's not ABOUT corps in government. It's about some yahoo who wanted to say that corps ARE just like government, in order to sidestep the simple gorram truth I was speaking:

The more of your rights you give to government, the less you have for yourself. And the bait they use for the hook is that they're gonna make you safe, sir. Just like the cage for the proverbial bird that it can't see- to use your analogy.

So, I really don't care about corps=government, as my singular point on that standard was that I can work for the circle K easier than I can move to Russia (though lord knows why I'd want to.)

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 23, 2009 6:31 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

You're not ready to examine your assumptions, are you? You just want me to go along with them and take it from there?

I propose that unless you're willing to examine your assumptions, you really don't know what you're thinking. That unexamined assumptions are greatest barrier between you and "simple truth" because they blind you to reality. That the more basic and automatic the assumption the harder it is to perceive, and that discovering such assumptions (paradigms, memes) is the greatest service that one can perform for humankind.

So.

Again, where to start?

You assume that the only power is threat of violence, no matter how indirect. So let me pose you two scenarios:

You're in prison. The prison is a paradigm for government. Someone holds a shiv to your ribs and says "Suck my cock". You have a choice: you can and live, or not and die.

You're dying of thirst in the desert. The desert is a paradigm for the corporate world. Someone holds a bag of water out and says "Suck my cock". You can and live, or not and die.

What's the difference?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 23, 2009 6:45 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"You assume that the only power is threat of violence, no matter how indirect. So let me pose you two scenarios:

You're in prison. The prison is a paradigm for government. Someone holds a shiv to your ribs and says "Suck my cock". You have a choice: you can and live, or not and die.

You're dying of thirst in the desert. The desert is a paradigm for the corporate world. Someone holds a bag of water out and says "Suck my cock". You can and live, or not and die.

What's the difference?"

There really isn't a difference in scenarios...but the answer is the same.

In the prison scenario..You take YOUR shiv, and kill the inmate first...

In the desert scenario... You take YOUR shiv, stab the bastard who would hold water from you, then drink the water.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 23, 2009 6:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, that's your answer. But that's assuming you have enough strength left in you, since you're dying of thirst. So maybe it works in a Riddick movie, but...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 23, 2009 6:54 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

You are creating constructs that don't match my reality.

The corporate world, as you put it (which, you know, I guess is meant to represent all business in the world, corporate or private or partnership or whatever) is like being stuck in the desert, dying of thirst, and having a hundred guys with water canteens.

One of them wants me to suck his cock, which ain't amenable to me, really. A second one wants a handjob. A third wants his anus licked. A fourth wants his back scratched. A fifth wants his pubes waxed. A sixth wants my kidney. A seventh-

Hey, wait a minute. Guy number four? I can scratch your back. I don't mind scratching your back. I'll scratch your back.

So I go to guy number four, and scratch his back, and get my water. Now that I'm not dying, I can shop around some more. Find other jobs I don't mind doing, and my negotiation position is just a little stronger than before.

That's business, Signy. A bunch of guys with a bunch of needs and a bunch of rewards. Maybe you imagine them all the same? Maybe it's because you see them all witholding something from you that you need?

So let me tell you about government. Government is an arabian knight on a noble steed, watching over all the water vendors and all the thirsty people to make sure nobody hurts anyone else. After you get your water, the arabian knight takes it, drinks half, and gives the rest back. The arabian knight and his horse can ride far. Farther than you can walk, so he'll always take half of your water. You can't tell the arabian knight that you'd rather take care of yourself and keep your water. He doesn't take no for an answer. You're not sure how the arabian knight got there, but it probably was a bunch of people some time ago who agreed that he was necessary.

Now you have to work twice as hard to get enough water to quench your thirst and the knight's thirst. You have to do this even though you don't want the knight's services.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 23, 2009 7:03 AM

Mike,

Given who is holding the actual power, I suspect the resulting plan, should there be any, on this, the 80th anniversary of the start of this debate, it will end out being a massive handout to industry, probably insurance cos. 1st, drug companies 2nd, and all paid for by borrowing from the FED at a high rate of interest for which we will all be taxed to death. Since that will be the end result of any plan, it might as well generate healthcare, rather than bombs, even if the healthcare is pathetically dangerous, and kills over a million a year, it is sometimes useful.

Ah, you can see my wide eyed audacity of hope, shining down like a beacon of "INCOMING!"

Did anyone else notice that it always takes people on star trek just a little too long to say "Shields!" ?

How about the ST movie, "Oh, lets wait for the imminent collapse of a galactic black hole and say nyah nyah to a dead romulan, because we know that the writers would never kill us off, they'll just do the spaceship equivalent of the 1930s "dishevelled hair" attack.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 23, 2009 7:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Maybe it's because you see them all witholding something from you that you need?

Because they are. In a world where people need houses, food, clean water, health care and education, and where we desperately need to remediate the damage we have done... why do we have unemployment? Why do 500 people own half of the world's resources? YOUR reality is a cozy little cage. Not rich, but not barren. It's fine the way it is, for you. But it's not freedom.

Quote:
Government is an arabian knight on a noble steed, watching over all the water vendors and all the thirsty people to make sure nobody hurts anyone else. The knight makes sure you get half the water. He takes 10% of the remainder and uses it to to help people build a well, and educate about well-digging and water cleanliness, which Messrs Waterbags have no interest in.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 23, 2009 7:12 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Gotta go. TTUL

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 23, 2009 7:36 AM

Quote:
And now I am the one being accused of making unfair comparisons between corps and government, when it's not ABOUT corps in government. It's about some yahoo who wanted to say that corps ARE just like government, in order to sidestep the simple gorram truth I was speaking:

Guilty!

Someone just explained to me about the "TPTB" acronym. I will use discretion in the future.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 23, 2009 8:18 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Signy,

"Government is an arabian knight on a noble steed, watching over all the water vendors and all the thirsty people to make sure nobody hurts anyone else. The knight makes sure you get half the water. He takes 10% of the remainder and uses it to to help people build a well, and educate about well-digging and water cleanliness, which Messrs Waterbags have no interest in."

Oh, so the arabian knight steals half of everyone's water to give it to the other half?

Well hell's bells, I coulda done that myself if the arabian knight wasn't there.

But of course, the arabian knight isn't helping anyone to dig a well. We already established the arabian knight controls all water distribution, by stealing from those that have it and giving to those that don't.

The arabian knight might let me dig a well, and show me how, but he won't let me keep the water. There's a precedent that says he takes half my water.

So, like, I won't be digging any wells, thank you very much, since I'm getting half the water anyway.

Now what does your knight do? Stick a sword in my back and say, "Suck my cock" aka "dig my well?"

And who do I turn to if my answer is "no?"

Suddenly instead of dealing with a hundred selfish bastards, I'm dealing with one, and he's got all the marbles.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 23, 2009 8:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
We already established

No. You have stated what you think government is, but you haven't established it. That's one of your assumptions. If you're going to establish that as true, you'll have to find a different way of doing it than just saying so.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 23, 2009 9:08 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

AnthonyT - If you don't mind... can we deal with real world specifics instead of analogies and theories?
What gov. services do you want to do without?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 23, 2009 9:24 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Your solution to the intial problem is first, disingenuous, and second, fallacious on it's face.

Quote:
In the prison scenario..You take YOUR shiv, and kill the inmate first...

In the desert scenario... You take YOUR shiv, stab the bastard who would hold water from you, then drink the water.

The idea is someone has the power over you; to say "well, I just take that power" is saying you have the ability to take that power. It completely ignores the concept, assumes you have a shiv and assumes you're strong enough to overpower either one.

Quote:
The arabian knight and his horse can ride far. Farther than you can walk, so he'll always take half of your water. You can't tell the arabian knight that you'd rather take care of yourself and keep your water. He doesn't take no for an answer.

Again fallacious. By virtue of his position, EITHER knight fits that description.

Either one COULD say "You don't like the deal? Go dig your own well". Maybe you're strong enough to dig a well all by yourself, but what happens when you're too old or break a leg? You die of thirst.

The (government) knight was put in his position by the group to protect the group, fight off those who would take over the water, and care for those unable to care for themselves, in some cases until they are strong enough to work again.

The other knight takes care of only HIS family, sits in his tent, and kicks out those too old or injured, or if they don't dig fast enough. His motivation is PURELY selfish; the first one's is selfish too, but knows that if he doesn't do his job, the group will get someone else.

Your answers aren't "answers" and your description of government "knights" fits both. It's way more complex than that, of course, and I agree that simplistic hypotheses don't work. I agree with Pizmo, give us specifics:

Quote:
What gov. services do you want to do without?

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 23, 2009 10:56 AM

FREMDFIRMA

I have little enough to add here, but imma add it.

There *are* corps with a de-facto monopoly you know.

While admittedly more common now, still, try finding an office to work in that is not dependent on microsoft products for their productivity and recordkeeping ?

Or better, in most cities, try finding an electrical or water service provider other than the established one.

S'why I make so little distinction between Governments and Corporations, cause in the US, in this day and age, they're just different tentacles of the same octopus.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 23, 2009 11:10 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I'd probably cut our Navy and Air Force in half. I'd recall all of our standing armies that babysit other people's countries.

I'd do away with government programs that give money to failing corporations. I'd cancel programs that pay people like farmers to produce nothing.

I'd drop all embargoes.

I'd discontinue Social Security, since it's become a well where government goes to drink, and it's been mismanaged so badly. The proceeds from military reduction can go to paying people back everything that they put in.

I'd discontinue all forms of government support to any kind of club that allows discrimination (like the boy scouts) or any religious school with a philosophy of limiting who can work there.

I'd eliminate 90% of the IRS and institute a flat tax with a yearly form that enumerates major government agencies and lets you prioritize them from 1 to 10 (or 12, or however many there are) so that the government programs you like get the highest percentage of your tax dollars. Then government would be forced to budget based on taxpayer preferences.

I'd dismantle ATF, and all specialized drug enforcement. The limited crime of selling to minors without parental consent can be handled by non-specialized police agencies.

I'd dismantle any portions of government agencies tasked with routine domestic surveillance, and require that each incident of domestic surveillance have a corresponding court order obtained by standard channels of justice.

These are a few government reductions and eliminations off the very top of my head.

--Anthony

Edited to add: I forgot foreign aid. I'd stop all foreign aid. To Israel, to Africa, to anywhere. I'd maintain disaster relief programs, but that's as far as I'll go. If people want to help Africa or Israel, they can bloody well do so. But they can't make ME do so.

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 23, 2009 1:56 PM

Quote:

Guilty!

Someone just explained to me about the "TPTB" acronym. I will use discretion in the future.

Byte, have you not seen "Angel"? The Powers That Be play quite a large role in that series.

Oh, and I think I was one of the ones asking Tony about the chains of corporatism, too.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 23, 2009 2:56 PM

Haven't seen Buffy or Angel, not a big fan of vampires or anything that has them in it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 23, 2009 3:03 PM

Hmmmm... Waddaya know? A rare nugget of agreement between Mr. T and me. (Yes, BDN - not grammatically correct; should have been "Mr. T and *I*", but that didn't seem to flow quite a mellifluously off the palate.)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I'd probably cut our Navy and Air Force in half. I'd recall all of our standing armies that babysit other people's countries.

Right with ya. I'd trim also trim our nuclear arsenal down severely. Just the act of having them sitting around unused costs us billions every year, because we have to build facilities to put them in, keep them up, guard them, test them, run drills on them, update them, classify them, keep them off GoogleMaps™, etc. Lose about 95% of them; that still leaves us plenty to wipe countries off the map should the need arise or the feelinv overtake us...

Quote:

I'd do away with government programs that give money to failing corporations. I'd cancel programs that pay people like farmers to produce nothing.

I'm fine with that, but it's going to be "tough love" in the extreme. Many, many companies and farms are going to fail, and many, many families are going to starve. But hey, everybody complains about overpopulation anyway, so if we're going to do it, let's bloody well start already.

Quote:

I'd drop all embargoes.

I'd drop all embargoes against those who don't have them in place against us. I don't feel the need to trade with those who refuse to reciprocate.

Quote:

I'd discontinue Social Security, since it's become a well where government goes to drink, and it's been mismanaged so badly. The proceeds from military reduction can go to paying people back everything that they put in.

I'd probably take a different tack, and put Social Security's funding out of reach of the rest of the government. I'd also raise the retirement age from 65 to 72, and thereafter increase it up to a maximum (for now) of 77. Used to be 65 because people didn't last that long. If you DID happen to make it that far, you were basically told to relax, you won the lottery and didn't have to work for the rest of your life. I'd try to get us back to that - Social Security for the very oldest among us, the ones who've lived beyond the median age. And you get it whether you retire or not; retirement is NOT mandatory at 72, it's optional. You can continue to work as long as you're able to do so, if that's what you enjoy (or if you just need the money).

Quote:

I'd discontinue all forms of government support to any kind of club that allows discrimination (like the boy scouts) or any religious school with a philosophy of limiting who can work there.

Right there with ya.

Quote:

I'd eliminate 90% of the IRS and institute a flat tax with a yearly form that enumerates major government agencies and lets you prioritize them from 1 to 10 (or 12, or however many there are) so that the government programs you like get the highest percentage of your tax dollars. Then government would be forced to budget based on taxpayer preferences.

I like it.

Quote:

I'd dismantle ATF, and all specialized drug enforcement. The limited crime of selling to minors without parental consent can be handled by non-specialized police agencies.

I'd dismantle any portions of government agencies tasked with routine domestic surveillance, and require that each incident of domestic surveillance have a corresponding court order obtained by standard channels of justice.

Yes, yes, YES!

Quote:

Edited to add: I forgot foreign aid. I'd stop all foreign aid. To Israel, to Africa, to anywhere. I'd maintain disaster relief programs, but that's as far as I'll go. If people want to help Africa or Israel, they can bloody well do so. But they can't make ME do so.

I could probably live with that.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 3:41 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I'd probably cut our Navy and Air Force in half. I'd recall all of our standing armies that babysit other people's countries.

I'd do away with government programs that give money to failing corporations. I'd cancel programs that pay people like farmers to produce nothing.

I'd drop all embargoes.

I'd discontinue Social Security, since it's become a well where government goes to drink, and it's been mismanaged so badly. The proceeds from military reduction can go to paying people back everything that they put in.

I'd discontinue all forms of government support to any kind of club that allows discrimination (like the boy scouts) or any religious school with a philosophy of limiting who can work there.

I'd eliminate 90% of the IRS and institute a flat tax with a yearly form that enumerates major government agencies and lets you prioritize them from 1 to 10 (or 12, or however many there are) so that the government programs you like get the highest percentage of your tax dollars. Then government would be forced to budget based on taxpayer preferences.

I'd dismantle ATF, and all specialized drug enforcement. The limited crime of selling to minors without parental consent can be handled by non-specialized police agencies.

I'd dismantle any portions of government agencies tasked with routine domestic surveillance, and require that each incident of domestic surveillance have a corresponding court order obtained by standard channels of justice.

These are a few government reductions and eliminations off the very top of my head.

--Anthony

Edited to add: I forgot foreign aid. I'd stop all foreign aid. To Israel, to Africa, to anywhere. I'd maintain disaster relief programs, but that's as far as I'll go. If people want to help Africa or Israel, they can bloody well do so. But they can't make ME do so.

Thx Anthony - that's quite a list, not much gray, certainly more fantastical and "if wishes were hosres" than possible- if I were a skeptic I'd say it almost seems designed to encourage no response.

The across-the-board response could be - "well if they were run better they'd all be better."

I like you flat tax idea the most.

Overall, depending on your sincere level of anger toward the items on the list, the word "Canada" comes to mind. I love Toronto - it's very progressive and international. If it weren't so bloody cold and they didn't hate Americans

I'd spend more time there. Vancouver - I hear great things about it as well. I don't know about their gun laws though - that might be a sticking point for you.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 5:34 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

TONY:

Quote:
Corporations have no inherent power

Izzat so? The situation is- A man owns wells many wells. He owns the shovels. By dint of being so rich, he even owns knights. You're dying of thirst. The deal he makes with you is: Lift up three gallons of water and I'll let you keep a pint.

The man thinks this is fair, because he thinks that he may onw a well some day. Or that well ownership is somehow equivalent to him owning a loincloth.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 6:06 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I get to keep 13% of the products of my labor?

SOLD!

Now sign me up for a gold mine job.

Seriously, Signy, frame this how you want. There is only 1 situation where your only choice is to deal with a single entity for your needs:

When that entity IS the government.

Now, maybe your suggestion is that some corps become so powerful that they ARE the de-facto government.

Cool beans. Then you agree, as I do, that we should limit the powers we surrender to government, whoever they happen to be.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 6:15 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Heres an idea that I've been kicking around.

The federal government should only be in charge of regulating corporations, protecting the environment, and (should the need arise) organizing states armies to fight off invaders...

The rest (taxes whatnot) can be handled by individual states...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 6:22 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I disagree. The Feds also have to guarantee all civil liberties, else individual states could violate them.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 7:25 AM

The feds exist to take away those rights. there was a charter that existed in this country before there was a federal govt. adopted shortly after the introduction of the Bill of Rights in 1689. Currently, states are enacting amendments to their own constitutions to protect those. The so called "stupidity" of governors who refuse obama hand outs is really that said govs can't legally accept the money because it comes with strings attached that violated the bill of rights, see tenth amendment cases.

After their battle to defeat the bill of rights and strike it from the second constitution, after the articles of confederation, the federalists were concerned that the states might adopt the bill of rights in a redundant manner, and so created the supreme court to prevent states from adopting and interpreting the bill of rights.

Curious that the Constitution became law on March 4, 1789, was on the 100th anniversary of the presentation of said bill, which was first issued on February 13, 1689. Most Americans are of the deluded opinion that the Constitution was created for the people and bestowed upon them certain rights. Of course this is nonsense, the people already had these guaranteed to them by various agreements of the confederations of states. It was this above all else that led to the Federalists (who neatly renamed themselves to cling to the latin foederis, and the popularity of the concept, see articles of confederation)

Frem will correct me if I'm wrong, it's not really my field and I didn't check any of it before posting, but I think this does effectively kill the above pro-fed argument.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 7:45 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Dreamtrove,

We are defining here our ideal roles for government. In my ideal version of government, Maine couldn't start violating rights to privacy, Utah couldn't start enslaving people from Wisconsin, and Florida couldn't decide to arbitrarily arrest all Chinese people.

The primary purpose of government should be to safeguard freedoms, and that means that one of the very few roles of a Federal government should be to enforce civil liberties. Throughout all territories of the union.

Sadly, in our real world government, the Feds are voted most likely to violate privacy and arrest a particular nationality. But that's not how I believe it should be.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 11:08 AM

Tony,

I still disagree. Europe has gotten along for 1/2 a century before the EU started telling countries what they could or couldn't do.

The thing which kept the peace was a united defense. This is all states need. Yugoslavia was outside of that united defense, hence the lone disaster, but europe, second 1/2 of the 20th c. is a good model for a confederation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 11:15 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Dream,

Sorry I disagree in the other direction. We've already had a country where this group were slaves, that group were subhuman, and the third group couldn't sit down next to proper folks, or in front of them.

I'm not interested in returning to it. I don't want any local majorities deciding by popular decision that some people's civil liberties don't matter. It would be a sad country where you cross a state border and have to drink from the colored fountain.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 2:22 PM

Tony

... and exceedingly unlikely. We were far from the only society to ever have that. But wake up: We now live in a society where there are only three classes: those who are rich, powerful and above the law, those who keep their heads so low that no one even knows they're there, and the the rest of the population, who, in one form or another, are slaves. You guys with your mortgages, car loans, and jobs that just pay interest on your debt (and half goes to pay interest on someone else's debt) Yeah. It's a gilded cage, sure, but it's still a cage.

My point is simple: At the end of Bush, the debt was 8 trillion. By the end of this year, 11 trillion, by the end of Obama's 1st term, probably 20 trillion. And not one penny if it went for social security or medicare, those are self contained systems. The national debt is to pay for wars, someone else's wars, that you, legally, are required to fight if something calling itself "your country" calls upon you.

Well, news flash. It's not your country. It's an independent nanostate of the Mall, in DC, it is granted sovereignty by our govt., that claims to be our govt, though no law grants it that power, and that claims the right to levy taxes, though no law gives it that power, and claims the right to conscript its citizens, though no law gives it that power. It's just like the british colonial govt., a usurper.

What we get for being part of this union is the right to slave away for wars. Wars planned by thugs, ordered by thugs, and paid for with money borrowed from thugs, and we are expected to pay it back.

The nightmare dystopia you see is simply never going to happen. If it did, you would see it all over Europe.

Here's what would happen if the federal govt. and all of its agencies were abolished:

Nothing. A few minor things. States would have to take over soc. sec. and medicare. some would do it better than others, but a careful transition could avoid that problem. Some states would have gay marriage. Some might not have abortion. I think there the differences would end.

No one is going to start rounding up and enslaving minorities in Alabama any more than they are in Holland. Actually, racial tensions are quite high in holland compared with Alabama. So high that if we're not careful, someone might print a cartoon.

This imagined disaster is just another boogeyman to keep you loyal to tPTB, but there's a very reall threat and it's right on your doorstep and I'm not sure you even see that it's there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 3:01 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

In France, there's a law that women can't wear certain clothes. It's not a law against wearing too little clothing. It's a law against wearing too much clothing. Of the wrong style. It's a law against Muslims, actually. Not against the religion, not precisely. But against the religion's typical style of dress.

The United States is not France, but I can easily see a state deciding to enact such a piece of legislation. Perhaps under the guise of women's rights. I know that here in the states, we see municipalities banning baggy pants and other such nonsense. Human beings aren't any different now than they were when lash marks decorated the backs of black men and women. They aren't any different now than when Japanese families were rounded up into concentration camps.

The Federal government we currently have is not the one I want. The Federal government we have is just as likely to purpetrate these violations as protect against them. State governments, too, by the way. They aren't any purer. They are merely closer to the people they represent, and there is, believe it or not, a special danger there. The smaller you shrink a government, the easier it is for discriminatory practices to pass. Democracy in action means that if there's only 1 Chinese man and 99 Spaniards, it's a lot easier to pass an anti-Chinaman bill. Or maybe it's not a Chinese man. Maybe it's a muslim. Or a catholic. Or a witch. Or the owner of a Porn shop. Or any minority subject to hatred or fear.

Civil liberties need to be intrinsic to government and applied broadly and evenly across the landscape. Government isn't trustworthy, not on a large scale, not on a small scale. I have no idea why you trust 50 states with 50 sets of varying ideals and majority/minority makeups to protect civil liberties adequately well. It's hard enough to keep 1 government in line.

The Federal government we have is not the one I want. But I do want one, and I want it to protect my freedoms in every state of the union.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 3:48 PM