ObamaCare mandate ruled unconstitutional by AURaptor

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

There are probably many who would perceive Frem as mad.

I would put Frem in this category of people who view Frem this way. I view him as a friend as well, even when at times he may not view me this way, he has not always been able to keep his cool. Then again, neither have I.

You, Anthony, are so mild mannered that I find it impossible to be angry with you even when I find myself in complete disagreement. It's a characteristic worth cultivating.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

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

Thursday, August 25, 2011 1:51 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

You are kind to me, Dream. I should say that while I often disagree or even completely fail to understand you, I have never known you to be malicious. I consider this to be an exceedingly rare character trait.

I should also say that it is much easier to seem mild-mannered when you have time to write, consider, reconsider, and edit your statements before you make them.

When I am Live, I have every flaw and foible, including letting my communications be tainted by the poison of naked ire.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

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

Thursday, August 25, 2011 4:53 PM

Thank you.

I wish I took time to edit my posts. I'm usually doing this in fractional time between other things, but I'm sure I would do so with more pithy clarity than my muddled ramblings tend to come out.

The live dreamtrove should be more pithy as well. I try not to talk, rather to listen, but I'm frequently busy trying to get something done, and I get frustrated. I get more angry at situations than at people. I've always been thankful that I was not one of the human rights crowd that gets upset about everything that every country does wrong or I would think I would be very depressed. The environment though, is a catastrophe, and I can narrow my focus to specific issues, I can focus.

I tend to feel the way Frem does, that govt. serves no purpose that people would not automatically do on their own if it did not exist, and so I would just like it to go away, but I prefer to simply ignore its existence. Sometimes it does something that cannot be ignored.

I don't generally express anger at others in real life, but I can't say that I don't feel it. I found myself very distress at the ten or twelve pro-frackers at last night's meeting, and thinking that if I were running the tax code I would levy taxes on their lands for all the risk that they pose by leasing the lands to the gas companies.

I cannot get mad at a collective population, though. It has never made sense to me. The democratic and republican parties are led by small think tanks, and as organizations, I can be angry with them, but the voters are ordinary people, as are the progressives, tea partiers, and everyone else.

I've found that towards the end of reducing my ire, paying no attention to the mainstream media has helped a great deal. I think as an entity, it feeds negativity into our consciousness, in all forms.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

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

Thursday, August 25, 2011 5:08 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I tend to feel the way Frem does, that govt. serves no purpose that people would not automatically do on their own if it did not exist"

So, let's presume a society with no government. Company A decides to set up near the river. But, being a good citizen of its community, it sets up downstream of the town, so as not to foul the drinking water.

WHO REPRESENTS THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE IN THE TINY VILLAGE DOWNSTREAM WHO ARE DRINKING POLLUTED WATER?

There is a lot negative to be said of power structures (hierarchies) whether they are religions, govenrments or businesses - for one thing they tend to attract people who are attracted to power. For another they tend to self-perpetuate and aggregate.

OTOH, unlike emperors and kings and ruler-priests and corporate heads, in a democracy people can actually affect their rule. That makes democratic government different from any other power structure. And if people don't exercise their democratic power, then they have no one else to blame for the way things are.

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

Thursday, August 25, 2011 6:18 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

This is a place where I depart somewhat from Frem's philosophy. I have always believed that some government is necessary to ensure the Freedom we all crave- to keep the biggest bully from smashing everyone and getting things their way (whether by malicious intent or merely selfish self-interest.)

He has pointed out meanwhile that government itself has been used as a club to beat the people on behalf of the bullies.

But I would feel safer with a small government rather than no government... unless I lived next to Frem. ;-)

But alas, even that tricky bastard can't live forever, and then where would I be?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

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

Thursday, August 25, 2011 6:33 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

The problem is that other power structures, especially religions and businesses, run and grow without restriction - they are in an out-of-control positive feedback loop. Unless you create a structure more powerful than them, they will simply roll over whatever is in their path.

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

Thursday, August 25, 2011 7:37 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I think the trick is creating a system where such structures cannot control the government. That is a real challenge.

Creating a powerful government which is in turn fed and groomed by such institutions merely puts an indomitable army at their disposal.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

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

Friday, August 26, 2011 1:07 AM

Kiki - trick to that is removing the things with which they build up those power structures, primary among them being folk who are willing to agress upon others for no better reason than some "boss" told them to, that authority-submission reflex trained from birth into people and a natural unhappy consequence of a society that more or less amounts to a thin gloss of democracy over economic feudalism.

Myself, I make no distinction between "government" and any other power structure which inflicts itself upon folk unwanted, cause IMHO whatever name you give em, it's the same bloody thing, really.

And you can't win out on this with an escalating arms race of building bigger and bigger structures, it's ultimately doomed to failure, disastrously so - better to remove power to harm from those structures by removing the one thing that enables it... people willing to take orders from them.

Keypoint to that, in principle, is not pyschologically and emotionally mangling people to the point where they're so broken that they cannot function without taking orders from somewhere, or so hateful and malicious as a result that they're willing to take orders from anyone so long as is results in harm to groups they've been taught to blame.

In short, a saner society - something more than anything else that took me aback while reading Larssons books was just how comparatively sane the society he was writing about really was in comparison to ours, the thousand tiny differences that when present, mean the difference (metaphorically) between utopia and dystopia.

We're far, far from there yet, and in a recent theoretical, referencing what happened in Catalonia, and how an Anarchist society would be immediately aggressed on by every government in reach since their very existance is a threat to failed ideologies - because if your ideology cannot survive if there's ANY other alternative, it's a failed one, is it not ?
Well, in said theoretical I pointed out that AT THIS POINT IN TIME, were you to build an Anarchist society, you would, quite literally, have to build it around a nuclear weapon, because currently that seems the ONLY effective deterrent to the aggression of empires these days, and that would be an inherently unstable and unsustainable long term answer to the problem, so the only other options are either reducing existing power structures by shoving society down saner paths, or getting the hell out of range, the latter being one reason I am so fond of the idea of space travel, because once you get far ENOUGH away that sending in the jackboots is unfeasible, I feel it's absolutely inevitable that such communities will almost immediately cut ties - this was proven by a report they did way back when that seemed to indicate even if most of the colony was diehards or planted agents, they'd STILL rebel almost the moment they became self-sufficient.

Besides which, it's a damn bad idea to aggress on people outside your gravity well with large rocks and the ability to pitch them down it.

Anthony - I'm rather surprised you bit the hook there, you are of course familiar with the MMORPG concept of "Tanking", right ?

There's more to this than just me, and factually I ain't even in charge of it no more, there's plenty and more who believe the same currently carring the torch I passed on to Justin two years ago, but for most of the time there was a certain advantage in drawing all the ire and flak down on the one person, while others, all but unnoticed, did most of the work as their attention was elsewhere, classic tactics really...

That worked for the longest time even in a personal sense, but alas, these days it's generally assumed that any girl with me is where the actual threat lies while I pull your attention in the social equivalent of a stage magicians hand-fake, something which endlessly amuses the ninety-pound wonder (Wendy) when folks regard her with fear and suspicion - although unbeknownst to her or them I'm using that very perception in the OTHER direction at this time to protect her, since no one will mess with her if they think she's dangerous, meh.

*amused*, yanno, in retrospect that WAS kinda how we worked, me Tanking, Justin as Mezzer/Crowd Control, Alice as Cleric/Support, and the now-infamous "bullygirls" as DD/DPS wrecking crew - only on (mostly) a social-political level, and if you're familiar with the advanced concept, most of my bag of tricks was essentially blink-tanking anyhows, cause of all the obfuscation/misdirection tricks - primary among them the notion that it was EVER really a one-man gig, or that putting me out of commission would solve the problem of our interferance.

You really ever thought that for as many times as I mentioned how concentration of power can come back to bite someone after the fact, that I would not have prepared for that from the very start - that's WHY we use sandcastle heirarchy problem solving.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Friday, August 26, 2011 7:44 AM

Kiki,

Right now we have a case where corporations are polluting and the citizenry are up in arms to do anything within their power to stop it. The only thing preventing them from stopping it is the existence of govt.

So, yeah, the people would do more than that. They'd shut down said corporation in a heartbeat.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

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

Friday, August 26, 2011 8:58 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Kiki,

Right now we have a case where corporations are polluting and the citizenry are up in arms to do anything within their power to stop it. The only thing preventing them from stopping it is the existence of govt.

So, yeah, the people would do more than that. They'd shut down said corporation in a heartbeat.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

Don't be to sure about that, corporations are made up of people. Many of whom make a good bit of money. Plus there are plenty of people who think that the EPA should be done away with because it restricts businesses.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Friday, August 26, 2011 9:19 AM

Nick, regarding that particular issue, you might consider researching the Battle of Blair Mountain.

Note who was WINNING, right up till Government intervention, which has always, every single time in american history, come down on the side of the corporations no matter how wrong they were.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
Blair Mountain kinda settled it, unfortunately, a Union can fight a Corp, but they can NOT fight a Corp and the entire might of the US Military, and if they *could*, then might as well take over.

Were it not for the government always siding with the corps to a really offensive and immoral degree, the balance of power wouldn't be as skewed as it is.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Friday, August 26, 2011 9:51 AM

DALEK!

There have been a number of times the Government has helped workers unions.

I would disagree that the Unions were outright winning. That being said the situations have some key differences. One being that it is not the workers that are up in arms.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Friday, August 26, 2011 10:39 AM

I'm entirely in agreement with Frem, if I can, I will agree more strongly with Frem.

Also, let me add this:

Corporations in question don't have very many people, and I don't care how much money they have. If the govt. isn't backing them up, let them hire mercenary armies to fight on their behalf, as long as they can stand it. This is basically what they're doing here and now, and their mercenaries are way outnumbered.

See, the problem with hillbillies is that we grow our own food. We don't actually need money.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

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

Friday, August 26, 2011 2:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
There have been a number of times the Government has helped workers unions.

Name one.

When it came to cases and the guns came out, name ONE TIME, that the Gov came in on the workers side and defended them from Corporate goons, or even sanctioned a Corp in any meaningful way for that behavior...
EVEN ONE.

Here, I'll even help you out with a starter list..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strikes

Find ONE occurance of the Gov coming down on the workers side once weapons were drawn, go ahead and try.

-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Friday, August 26, 2011 4:41 PM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
There have been a number of times the Government has helped workers unions.

Name one.

When it came to cases and the guns came out, name ONE TIME, that the Gov came in on the workers side and defended them from Corporate goons, or even sanctioned a Corp in any meaningful way for that behavior...
EVEN ONE.

Here, I'll even help you out with a starter list..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strikes

Find ONE occurance of the Gov coming down on the workers side once weapons were drawn, go ahead and try.

-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.

Once weapons come out, none. Once that happens resorting order becomes the most important thing. Plus, before the 30s workers did not even have the right to form unions and prevent industries from operating.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Friday, August 26, 2011 4:52 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Plus, before the 30s workers did not even have the right to form unions and prevent industries from operating."

Hello,

I wonder what could have possibly prevented them from attempting to exercise such a right if they'd wanted to.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

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

Friday, August 26, 2011 4:52 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Once weapons come out, none. Once that happens resorting order becomes the most important thing."

Hello,

There is more than one way to skin a cat, and more than one way to restore order.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

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

Friday, August 26, 2011 5:02 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I wonder what could have possibly prevented them from attempting to exercise such a right if they'd wanted to."

Company goons. Living in a company town, shopping at the company store and getting paid in company script.

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

Friday, August 26, 2011 5:05 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"They'd shut down said corporation in a heartbeat."

How?

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

Friday, August 26, 2011 5:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"They'd shut down said corporation in a heartbeat."

How?

Oh, many ways. A pitchfork mob numbering in the millions, all armed, against a corporation with a total staff of 300 putting a half dozen men on the pad. Kinda hard to operate in hostile territory.

You just can't behave the way these corporatist companies that make their money on the govt. teat do without an army to back you up. And we the taxpayers pay for that army.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

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

Friday, August 26, 2011 6:06 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

What if they have machine guns, lots of ammo, and a large, well-paid 'security force'?

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

Friday, August 26, 2011 6:15 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
What if they have machine guns, lots of ammo, and a large, well-paid 'security force'?

Hello,

We have seen a lot of conflicts that suggest a motivated, poorly equipped force can prevail under such scenarios.

Not to mention that private armies cost a great deal of money. If making money is a goal, then you don't want to have to hire and maintain a private army just so you can do business.

Such pressures force compromise.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

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

Friday, August 26, 2011 6:31 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

We have seen a lot of conflicts that suggest a motivated, poorly equipped force can prevail under such scenarios.

Such as?

N Vietnam? China.
The US? France.
Afghanistan? The US funded-Taliban.
Libya? NATO.

I'm curious what your examples would be.

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

Friday, August 26, 2011 6:35 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

And to get back to my earlier example: so you have a company that really is benevolent to ITS community providing jobs, healthcare - the works - AND its community is in turn loyal to it - but the company is not so much benevolent to those downstream or downwind. What recourse do THOSE communities have?

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

Friday, August 26, 2011 7:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Once weapons come out, none. Once that happens resorting order becomes the most important thing. Plus, before the 30s workers did not even have the right to form unions and prevent industries from operating.

Horse shit.

They had that right, the Government simply refused to acknowledge it.
Same as how the corpies used to have the "right" to shoot wobblies on sight.
Human Rights are NOT what some government tells you they are - they exist with or without one, whether they are in fact honored or not.

As for "Restoring Order" that's in general a polite euphemism for "putting those peons in their place" cause they didn't come in and disarm both sides, no - they came in and HELPED the company goons beat down the strikers.

And don't give me no shit about how the corpies pay taxes and have some entitlement to government protection cause the striking employees paid taxes too, and what did they ever get for it but a fucking boot in the face.

Fer cryin out loud go have a look into how the USDOJ was founded and why the Anti-Pinkerton Act (which Blackwater, DynCorp and Triple Canopy are currently in violation of, not that anyone cares..) even exists.

Also worth pointing out at this point that I am NOT on the side of those employee-pacification, sellout bastards which pass for most unions these days and I feel that Sam Gompers ougta burn in hell for a million years, cause I happen to be a Wobbly, as in IWW, as in not bending over just cause the government tells me to - or didja ever notice that any union tactic that actually WORKED was outlawed, and enforced, while blackballing, blacklisting, union-busting and the like may be techically illegal, but just try getting anything DONE about it no matter how blatant it is, usually... and in the rare cases anything does get done it's generally cause it in some way deprives government of THEIR chunk of change if they don't act.

So do you actually have an argument here, or are you just shillin for the man ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Friday, August 26, 2011 8:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
And to get back to my earlier example: so you have a company that really is benevolent to ITS community providing jobs, healthcare - the works - AND its community is in turn loyal to it - but the company is not so much benevolent to those downstream or downwind. What recourse do THOSE communities have?

Problem with those kind of theoreticals Kiki, is that some of em require making assumptions which the very nature of the society would make invalid, and then proceeding from such - not that this was your intent, of course, but there are some folk who play that game...

Case in point, say I was making a theoretical about todays modern society, in america, that starts out -"So there you were, walking your slave coffle in the morning..." - which starts with certain assumptions not possible in that society, and attempting to proceed from there - the whole thing would be ridiculous.

Now, Anarchist society as a rule runs off a non-aggression principle, to most anarchists, even me, the idea of harming others for profit, gain, or amusement is completely repugnant, we're talkin on a moral level with infanticide or cannibalism here, hell I find it so even despite certain religious beliefs allowing or even encouraging it in specific cases.

On the other hand, anarchism isn't one of those ideologies which NEEDS to destroy all others on the assumption that if there's ANY other choice, people will flock to it, and as such your theoretical could possibly involve a NON-anarchist community upstream doing that, with the anarchist community downriver, sure.
And they would make it very, very difficult for those people in response, cutting them off from trade, sabotage, and all manner of ways that didn't need a direct confrontation if they didn't have the means to engage that way, and diplomacy had failed - without specifics of what I couldn't go into detailed tactics, but generally they'd make life pretty miserable for the folks upstream till they were willing to negotiate.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Saturday, August 27, 2011 4:47 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Well, I try to not deal in generalities. It's generalities that cause people to react emotionally to generalized words like freedom, rights, enemies etc and get them to wage war for the wealthy, instead of drilling-down into specifics, which would be far more helpful in our collective thinking processes.

Kodak/ Rochester and IBM/ Armonk come to mind as good local employers but bad larger-scale citizens.

BTW your earlier argument about government always stepping in in support of employers may or may not be true, I would have to look it up. But ****IF**** it is true, it's only true of the US, not of Europe. It's not a generalized conclusion you can draw about government and the wealthy elite and 'human nature'.

Also, I know you have spent many, many, many words and much time over the years arguing your version of a 'human nature' argument, but I don't credit that kind of argument, whether it comes from the right (it's human nature to be capitalistic), or anywhere else.

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

Saturday, August 27, 2011 5:47 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Once weapons come out, none. Once that happens resorting order becomes the most important thing. Plus, before the 30s workers did not even have the right to form unions and prevent industries from operating.

Horse shit.

They had that right, the Government simply refused to acknowledge it.
Same as how the corpies used to have the "right" to shoot wobblies on sight.
Human Rights are NOT what some government tells you they are - they exist with or without one, whether they are in fact honored or not.

As for "Restoring Order" that's in general a polite euphemism for "putting those peons in their place" cause they didn't come in and disarm both sides, no - they came in and HELPED the company goons beat down the strikers.

And don't give me no shit about how the corpies pay taxes and have some entitlement to government protection cause the striking employees paid taxes too, and what did they ever get for it but a fucking boot in the face.

Fer cryin out loud go have a look into how the USDOJ was founded and why the Anti-Pinkerton Act (which Blackwater, DynCorp and Triple Canopy are currently in violation of, not that anyone cares..) even exists.

Also worth pointing out at this point that I am NOT on the side of those employee-pacification, sellout bastards which pass for most unions these days and I feel that Sam Gompers ougta burn in hell for a million years, cause I happen to be a Wobbly, as in IWW, as in not bending over just cause the government tells me to - or didja ever notice that any union tactic that actually WORKED was outlawed, and enforced, while blackballing, blacklisting, union-busting and the like may be techically illegal, but just try getting anything DONE about it no matter how blatant it is, usually... and in the rare cases anything does get done it's generally cause it in some way deprives government of THEIR chunk of change if they don't act.

So do you actually have an argument here, or are you just shillin for the man ?

People have rights that are given to them or that they take for themselves. There are no ordained rights.

Many cases the company goons are local law enforcement. While that is wrong, on a few levels, the government is going to come in and disarm and or disband local officials.

Company's have just as much a right to run their business as people do to work and organize. When unions block companies from doing business, it affects the rest of the country, or they draw weapons they cross a line.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Saturday, August 27, 2011 5:50 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

On the other hand, anarchism isn't one of those ideologies which NEEDS to destroy all others on the assumption that if there's ANY other choice, people will flock to it, and as such your theoretical could possibly involve a NON-anarchist community upstream doing that, with the anarchist community downriver, sure.
And they would make it very, very difficult for those people in response, cutting them off from trade, sabotage, and all manner of ways that didn't need a direct confrontation if they didn't have the means to engage that way, and diplomacy had failed - without specifics of what I couldn't go into detailed tactics, but generally they'd make life pretty miserable for the folks upstream till they were willing to negotiate.

...or the folks upstream respond in a direct way, which they would be justified in doing.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Saturday, August 27, 2011 6:23 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Nick52- First you say...

There are no ordained rights

and then you say....

Company's have just as much a right to run their business as people do to work and organize

So, which is it?

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

Saturday, August 27, 2011 7:19 AM

KWICKO

"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:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:

People have rights that are given to them or that they take for themselves. There are no ordained rights.

Many cases the company goons are local law enforcement. While that is wrong, on a few levels, the government is going to come in and disarm and or disband local officials.

Company's have just as much a right to run their business as people do to work and organize. When unions block companies from doing business, it affects the rest of the country, or they draw weapons they cross a line.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

I know where citizens' rights are enumerated; what I can't find in the Constitution is anywhere that says that companies and corporations have those same rights.

Also, it seems that you're saying that the company's "right" to do business is greater than the workers' rights to strike and to NOT go to work for said company.

Which could be construed as you claiming that corporations have MORE rights than citizens.

Is this really what you're trying to get at?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

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

Saturday, August 27, 2011 11:16 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

We have seen a lot of conflicts that suggest a motivated, poorly equipped force can prevail under such scenarios.

Such as?

N Vietnam? China.
The US? France.
Afghanistan? The US funded-Taliban.
Libya? NATO.

I'm curious what your examples would be.

Hello,

Well, let's see. The scenario is, to quote you here:

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
What if they have machine guns, lots of ammo, and a large, well-paid 'security force'?

And I get: a motivated, poorly equipped force.

We are presuming that the target should be some kind of structure? Like a business office?

I must confess that my examples will not work for conspiracy-minded people. However, here are a pair:

11 Sep 2001 crashing of hijacked planes into World Trade Center, New York City, New York

In this instance, a handful of individuals with Box-Cutters not only defeated the security specific to the World Trade Center, but also Airport security, the U.S. military, and its combined intelligence branches. This example really isn't fair, because the target benefitted from massive government protection, though the motivated, poorly equipped force still managed to prevail and destroy the target. If this target had been a polluting bad-actor operating up-river, I think we can agree that the problem would have been suitably handled by a couple-dozen villagers downstream.

19 Apr 1995 truck bombing of federal building, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA

In this instance, for a grand investment of about 5 thousand dollars (per the bomber) and equipment commonly available, four individuals destroyed a large building that benefitted from the protection of multiple federal agencies as well as the local police force. This is again unfair, because the target is not supposed to have government assistance for the example. But in this case, the example was a government office, so I'll hope you'll forgive me.

In both cases, the offending structure was utterly ruined. The specific objectives set by the attackers were met. The resources were never beyond the reach of a small village down the river.

Asymmetric warfare and guerrilla tactics are how motivated groups tackle targets with superior resources. I am sure Sun Tzu has some lovely stanzas about attacking where you are strong and the enemy is weak.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

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

Saturday, August 27, 2011 11:33 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

You can damage a building and kill some people and still not bring an entity down. The federal government is still in operation, and the US is still in existence.

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

Saturday, August 27, 2011 11:37 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

We are not talking about the Federal government.

We are talking about a business. A bad-actor up-river polluting a water supply.

This is why corporations rely so heavily on the government to protect their interests. It is much cheaper to employ a public army than a private one. It is much cheaper to enjoy government bailouts when things go awry.

It's only profitable to be a bad actor if someone is backing your play.

Frem believes in no government. I believe in a small government designed to stop bad actors on behalf of the people.

Neither one of us is a fan of a big government acting on behalf of corporations.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

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

Sunday, August 28, 2011 5:54 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Nick52- First you say...

There are no ordained rights

and then you say....

Company's have just as much a right to run their business as people do to work and organize

So, which is it?

Ordained as given by some high power or authority then the government. So people do have rights, they are just given to them by what ever government they live under.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Sunday, August 28, 2011 6:01 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

I know where citizens' rights are enumerated; what I can't find in the Constitution is anywhere that says that companies and corporations have those same rights.

Also, it seems that you're saying that the company's "right" to do business is greater than the workers' rights to strike and to NOT go to work for said company.

Which could be construed as you claiming that corporations have MORE rights than citizens.

Is this really what you're trying to get at?

Business are owned and run by people. If you open a business I have no doubt you would want to run it in a certain way. Do you think it would be right for people to prevent you from doing that because they disagree with how you are running it?

Now I have no problem with workers striking. No one should be forced to work. I do have a problem when workers prevent people who want to work from working, or people who want to use that business from doing so.

I see people having a right to make a living, regardless of if that is a business owner or a worker.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Sunday, August 28, 2011 6:41 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Business are owned and run by people. If you open a business I have no doubt you would want to run it in a certain way. Do you think it would be right for people to prevent you from doing that because they disagree with how you are running it?

Hello,

That depends on why they disagree with how you are running it. You may be violating other people's rights in the course of running your business. In which case opposition is warranted.

Quote:

Now I have no problem with workers striking. No one should be forced to work. I do have a problem when workers prevent people who want to work from working, or people who want to use that business from doing so.

I see people having a right to make a living, regardless of if that is a business owner or a worker.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

Hello,

This second part is sensible. It goes into the freedom of choice and movement.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

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

Sunday, August 28, 2011 7:08 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

I know where citizens' rights are enumerated; what I can't find in the Constitution is anywhere that says that companies and corporations have those same rights.

Also, it seems that you're saying that the company's "right" to do business is greater than the workers' rights to strike and to NOT go to work for said company.

Which could be construed as you claiming that corporations have MORE rights than citizens.

Is this really what you're trying to get at?

Business are owned and run by people. If you open a business I have no doubt you would want to run it in a certain way. Do you think it would be right for people to prevent you from doing that because they disagree with how you are running it?

Governments are "owned" and run by people, too. Do you think the government should be able to prevent you from running your business your way if they disagree with how you are running it?

This is the crux of the matter we are discussing: Who has the power to tell businesses how to operate? Should ANYONE have such power?

Quote:

Now I have no problem with workers striking. No one should be forced to work. I do have a problem when workers prevent people who want to work from working, or people who want to use that business from doing so.

So do I. If someone wants to be a "scab", so be it. And if others want to frequent a place where the workers are so dissatisfied that they are willing to strike and picket the place, then they should absolutely have that right. We used to have a PetLand store here, and they were known for selling pets that came from "mills" - large-scale breeding farms for cats and dogs. They were protested every single weekend for years. They closed their doors last year. I refused to ever shop there, and I refused to sell my products to them, because I did not want to be associated with such a business in any way.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

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

Sunday, August 28, 2011 7:56 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Governments are "owned" and run by people, too. Do you think the government should be able to prevent you from running your business your way if they disagree with how you are running it?

This is the crux of the matter we are discussing: Who has the power to tell businesses how to operate? Should ANYONE have such power?

In some cases, yes. The key difference the way I see it is government has been setup by the people to do just those type of things. The governments job is to enforce laws and regulations. So if the people petitions the government to have businesses run in a certain way and laws are passed that is fine. That is far different than a few people making people making that decisions and trying to enforce it.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Sunday, August 28, 2011 8:00 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

That depends on why they disagree with how you are running it. You may be violating other people's rights in the course of running your business. In which case opposition is warranted.

Yes, but that opposition should be people resorting to violent means.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Sunday, August 28, 2011 10:02 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

That depends on why they disagree with how you are running it. You may be violating other people's rights in the course of running your business. In which case opposition is warranted.

Yes, but that opposition should be people resorting to violent means.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

Hello,

You probably meant 'shouldn't.' However, it's important to note that the threat of violence and the act of violence is the basis of all law enforcement.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

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

Sunday, August 28, 2011 10:13 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello,

You probably meant 'shouldn't.' However, it's important to note that the threat of violence and the act of violence is the basis of all law enforcement.

Yes, I meant shouldn't.

Yes you are right about law enforcement. The difference is law enforcement is given that warrant by the people through the government. It is the difference between law enforcement and vigilantes.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Sunday, August 28, 2011 10:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Ordained as given by some high power or authority then the government. So people do have rights, they are just given to them by what ever government they live under.

Obviously you either don't really understand the concept, or are being deliberately disingenious.

Here's a primer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Sunday, August 28, 2011 10:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Yes you are right about law enforcement. The difference is law enforcement is given that warrant by the people through the government. It is the difference between law enforcement and vigilantes.

There is one ?
Were they accountable to the people by any means short of violence in most cases, I would not challenge this assumption, but might I remind you that I reside next to a city that has more or less been at war with it's police dept, which has NOT served it's purpose, has preyed on and abused the communities to the point where they have hired or created their OWN law enforcement to do the job the blue suited thugs will not.

Hell, half the reason *WE* were hired by site three was to protect them FROM the abusive actions of the police force, although it didn't turn out that way since we used the one hook we still had to pound them into compliance via budget cuts in response to out of line behavior, and it's still an uneasy truce.

Government is violence, that's ALL it is, a big damn gun sitting in the middle of the table with folks fighting over who gets to hold the trigger and point it - remove the gun, reduce them to having to do it THEMSELVES instead of by proxy, a lot of the bullshit folks are so willing to do unto others goes away.

But no, for all their rhetoric almost nobody wants to REMOVE the gun from the table, they just wanna be the ones pointing it at someone else, but for my own I'd rather do without, make folks do their own goddamn dirty work and see if they're still willing, especially if they have to face actual and direct potential consequences for it.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Sunday, August 28, 2011 10:31 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Obviously you either don't really understand the concept, or are being deliberately disingenious.

Here's a primer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

As I said, I don't believe in natural rights.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Sunday, August 28, 2011 10:34 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

There is one ?
Were they accountable to the people by any means short of violence in most cases, I would not challenge this assumption, but might I remind you that I reside next to a city that has more or less been at war with it's police dept, which has NOT served it's purpose, has preyed on and abused the communities to the point where they have hired or created their OWN law enforcement to do the job the blue suited thugs will not.

Hell, half the reason *WE* were hired by site three was to protect them FROM the abusive actions of the police force, although it didn't turn out that way since we used the one hook we still had to pound them into compliance via budget cuts in response to out of line behavior, and it's still an uneasy truce.

Government is violence, that's ALL it is, a big damn gun sitting in the middle of the table with folks fighting over who gets to hold the trigger and point it - remove the gun, reduce them to having to do it THEMSELVES instead of by proxy, a lot of the bullshit folks are so willing to do unto others goes away.

But no, for all their rhetoric almost nobody wants to REMOVE the gun from the table, they just wanna be the ones pointing it at someone else, but for my own I'd rather do without, make folks do their own goddamn dirty work and see if they're still willing, especially if they have to face actual and direct potential consequences for it.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

No system is perfect, and as you point out the people are getting things in order via budget cuts.

The problem with removing the big gun that everyone has a chance at is the people that have their own guns will then win out right.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Sunday, August 28, 2011 10:53 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:

In some cases, yes. The key difference the way I see it is government has been setup by the people to do just those type of things. The governments job is to enforce laws and regulations. So if the people petitions the government to have businesses run in a certain way and laws are passed that is fine. That is far different than a few people making people making that decisions and trying to enforce it.

It's not THAT terribly different, really, is it? I mean, at present you have a handful of lobbyists telling 535 people how to write laws and how to regulate businesses and tell them how to run. I'm not really seeing that big a difference between 535 senators and representatives doing it and a union telling a company how they want it run.

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

Sunday, August 28, 2011 11:07 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

It's not THAT terribly different, really, is it? I mean, at present you have a handful of lobbyists telling 535 people how to write laws and how to regulate businesses and tell them how to run. I'm not really seeing that big a difference between 535 senators and representatives doing it and a union telling a company how they want it run.

The difference is the people elect those 535 people as there representatives.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Sunday, August 28, 2011 11:20 AM