Browncoats... good guys or not? by Ghoulman

^^^ Interesting. But my guess is that the Reavers are more reputation than actual culture. That is, I suspect they are a myth maintained by someone with an agenda. Assuming there's a good reason to make people afraid of going too deep into 'the Black'.

Zoe's speach about getting raped to death struck me as legend, not fact.

But I digress..., regarding the Browncoats again: I noticed the posts getting deep into the history of the historical Rebel Army and thier actions, etc. (all great to read!) and I remembered one of the most important rules of Westerns - historically accurate westerns are always failures. The American desire to romantisize that period is as strong as the French making on that medieval knights were not murderous tyrants. They were!

So, I have to throw out that Firefly presents the Browncoats/rebels rather like every other western since John Wayne put on a dress - as romantic anti-heros.

Sure, I get annoyed when history is re-written by yet another American myth. Well, at least Firefly doesn't try to present the real thing (such as a Clint Eastwood movie like Josey Wales) but keeps the romance.

I'd be giving Joss big kudos should he manage to present the Browncoats as dastardly as the Alliance ever could be. Maybe worse. You know, I'm of the belief that Mal needs his pat and fragile beliefs kicked out of him once more. Mal may have lost a few delusions but he's got a looooong way to go before he finds real Serenity.

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

Tuesday, February 10, 2004 10:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
Good post, however, I would like to offer a bit of counterpoint.

A man with a gun in your face is a more pressing problem than a congress critter back at the capitol. A man with a gun and a badge is even more problematic, whether what the man with the badge is doing is legal or not.

All the cops we've seen to date, with the exception of the sheriff in "Train Job" were detached from their regular commands, and operating independently. How much of their actions were sanctioned, we don't know.

Your points are well made.
but they bring to my mind the question: What kind of people does the Alliance hire to enforce their "author-i-tye," and how much slack do they give them? Could be the sheriff in "Train Job" was sent to a remote outpost that has a serious health problem because he wasn't heavy handed enough. In short, perhaps he was "exiled."

These are very intersting topics.

I also have an attitude which should give you an insight into my own perspective. And that is my antagonism toward government ... any government! Someone said it once: "Government always grows to the maximum level the people can tolerate." Or as a friend of mine put it: "Freedom good ... Government Bad, Bad, Bad, Bad, Bad!"

Quote:

Whether Dobson was there to bring River back, because it was his job, or if he were freelancing for the Blue Hand Crew, again, insufficient data. Heck if you think about it, we have no idea what Dobson was going to do after he caught River. Whether he was just going to pack her back to the lab, or take her somewhere else and use her as a material witness to bring down the BHC.

I think Dobsons statement that River was a valuable property eliminates the possibility that she was going anywhere but back to be experimented upon. Makes me kinda wonder about any government -- or other entity for that matter -- which treats human beings as property.

Quote:

The problem with ruling the world, or the universe, is that there is a lot of stuff that can fall through the cracks. While you are worrying about trade quotas between Ariel and Shinon, someone is going around setting postal clerks on fire. That is a problem with any kind of centralized government that tries to rule too large a territory.

To me, that's a problem with any government ... period. Especially one that tries to "rule!" Whether it is a galaxy, or a country, or a state, county, or city, the result is the same. As Princess Lea put in Star Wars IV, "The more you tighten your grip, the more they slip through your fingers."

Quote:

So what I am saying is that we really don't know if the Alliance is as bad as all that, or if because of travel distance, it has too many loose cannons wandering around, making it look badder than it is.

I view government the same way government today views us ... guilty until proven innocent.

Load and make ready!

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

Tuesday, February 10, 2004 12:00 PM

Quote:
LoadAndMakeReady wrote:

Slightly off topic: What difference was there between the Colonists who seceeded from the British Empire, and the Confederates who tried to seceed from the United States? I'm really curious. Because as I see, it the Federal Government was doing exactly the same thing to the Southern States as Britain was doing to the Colonies.

Quote:
Browncoat1 replied:
Depends on who you ask really. Ask most people, especially those from the North, they will say there is no comparison. They will cite abolishing slavery as the reason for their invasion of the South. Ask someone from the South, they will tell you they were fighting for states rights, independence, and to protect their homes from what they saw as an invading army. Matter of perception, what they were taught, and what they believe.

As far as the Civil War is concerned, slavery was NOT the issue. There were 15 slave states, only 11 of them seceeded. Washington DC was slave. In fact the capitol building -- which was being built at the time -- was built with slave labor. The war started in 1861, the emancipetion proclamation was issued in 1863, and only "freed" the slaves in states that were still in secession. Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and the District of Columbia itself were still "slave" -- until the thirteenth amendment in 1865.

By the way, tens of thousands of Union Soldiers deserted when they heard of the Emancipation Proclamation -- they believed they were fighting for the Union, not to free slaves.

The primary reason the Southern States seceeded was the Morrill Tarriff, which doubled existing tarriffs at the time. Tarriffs were the primary source of revenue for the "federal" government at the time, and they were collected almost exclusively from the southern states -- and spent in the north.

In short, the Federal government was doing to the south exactly the same thing that England was doing to the colonies. They wanted to keep them as a cheap source of raw materials, and a captive market for expensive finished goods. The Southerners -- and the Colonists -- wanted to trade on the world market, at world market prices. (Little known fact: John Hancock was a "smuggler!")

Quote:

As far as the comparisons of the Alliance, I have always seen them as a sort of central, expansionist government gone amok. They remind me somewhat of an occupying army when you see soldiers on the street in episodes. They watch everyone, seem to be suspicious of everyone, and the display of military arms seems meant to intimidate the populace into compliance.

A central, expansionist government IS a government gone amok!

Quote:

I feel the Alliance is meant to portray the all powerful, corrupt government that many people fear could happen in our day and time.

Looking at "Homeland Security," and the "Patriot Act," I think it has already happened!

Quote:

The way the Alliance is shown as a military/peace keeping force and their heavy handed tactics in enforcing the will of the government is what the forefathers of our country feared and why they were anti-Federalists.

After the Colonies seceeded, most Americans wanted a "Federation" -- thirteen "free and independent States," united under a sort of mini-UN.
Those who wanted a strong central government -- the British system, without Britain -- called themselves "Federalists" in order to label those who actually wanted a Federation as "Anti-Federalists. Seems to have worked!

Quote:

The original colonies broke away from England because they saw that an all powerful, central government did not work for the people, but rather exploited them.

It was never intended to work for the people. Ultimately, the end purpose of government, is government!

Quote:

The Browncoats are meant to represent the common men and women who lived out in the remote areas of Alliance controlled space. The people of these remote colonies were neglected by the Alliance, left without food, technology, support, or medicines. Feeling abandoned by the government, they decided they wanted freedom instead of paying taxes and swearing allegiance to a government that did not assist them.

The Browncoats don't even need to have been "remote." They could have been ordinary people you find everywhere who are sick of being taxed for someone elses benefit, and manipulated for the glorification of the State! Although the more remote you are, the less need you can see for supporting a government that does nothing but meddle in your life. I think we are both saying that it is rural areas which rebel first.

Quote:

The comparisons to the Civil War are there, but I ask if the 'verse Joss created for Firefly could not as easily apply to the American Revolution. Could this not be a version of what might have been if the Colonials had not won their independence?

Yes! And of what actually happened when the South lost.

Quote:

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

I love that quote!
load and make ready

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

Tuesday, February 10, 2004 12:12 PM

Quote:

How about quarantine?

Even today, quarantine is more an excuse than a reason for restrictions. The posibility that this would be a problem in the 25th Century is in my mind, negligable. YMMV

loadandmakeready

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

Tuesday, February 10, 2004 12:52 PM

Quote:

Several points -

1) People smuggle all the time, for a million different reasons - the most noteable are to move illegal cargo and to avoid goverment interference through such things as taxes. The prescence of smuggling does not an authoritarian government make. Heck - how many people go through US customs and just 'forget' to declare everything they've bought, because they don't want to PAY? Technically, that's smuggling. Throw in a few cows, and it's the same thing on a larger scale. Make the good stolen, and you're doing it to avoid a fine or jail sentence.

A: Why is the cargo illegal? Usually to "protect" the profits of a politically connected business interest.
B: To avoid taxes? All taxation is theft!
C: Stolen from whom? In one sense, you can't steal from a government, because the government got whatever it did with money that was stolen from you!

Quote:

2) I think it's been made pretty clear that it was Blue Sun doing those experiments, and that most of the Alliance had NO IDEA what they wanted River for. Witness the men killed just for speaking to her in Ariel. Witness the officer who doesn't even know if they want her alive or dead, and so orders them to shoot first (Bushwacked, I /think/.) Again, the horrific actions of a few does not make the entirity evil. I tend to think that's Blue Sun's control of the Alliance at work there, not the Alliance itself.

"Society in any state is a blessing, government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil, in its worst state, an intolerable one..."
Thomas Paine

It is government which created Corporations -- if the Corporations are out of "control," then who is to blame? To me, it all boils down to government enforcing the desires of certain politically-connected special interests. Ultimately, government is still the problem.
"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure."

Quote:

3)Accusing the postal clerk.. um. Ok. Recall how that lawman was working a tad illegally, chasing down some precious cargo he himself was smuggling? I hardly think we can use him as a shining example of a typical Alliance lawman. As a matter of fact, I never ever in the watching of the episode bought him as a legitimate one, for that exact reason - he uses the same terroristic methods that Niska's men do. He's not acting in his capacity as a lawman in that episode - he's exploiting it.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Lord Acton

Keep a government poor and weak, and it will be your servant. Let it get rich and powerful, and it will be your master.
Is there any doubt what kind of government the Alliance is?

To me, the very idea that a government would fight to maintain "control" of other people is the truest sign that the government does NOT have the best interests of those people at heart.
Or as Lysander Spooner put it: "no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted for a moment, or reasonably supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly on voluntary support."

Quote:

And finally, I'm not saying there aren't bad feds out there - as with any system, power will go to people's heads, and I'm sure that /especially/ on the border planets, you have people using their fed power for their own means, and to terrorize. But that's an individual trait - not neccessarily a trait of the government, which I still contend was simply bulky and overly bueacratic - not evil.

So, you side with the Alliance against the Browncoats?

loadandmakeready

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

Tuesday, February 10, 2004 3:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
Quote:

Several points -

1) People smuggle all the time, for a million different reasons - the most noteable are to move illegal cargo and to avoid goverment interference through such things as taxes. The prescence of smuggling does not an authoritarian government make. Heck - how many people go through US customs and just 'forget' to declare everything they've bought, because they don't want to PAY? Technically, that's smuggling. Throw in a few cows, and it's the same thing on a larger scale. Make the good stolen, and you're doing it to avoid a fine or jail sentence.

A: Why is the cargo illegal? Usually to "protect" the profits of a politically connected business interest.
B: To avoid taxes? All taxation is theft!
C: Stolen from whom? In one sense, you can't steal from a government, because the government got whatever it did with money that was stolen from you!

well, let's not be so noble. People smuggle because there is profit to be made. There are always things worth smuggling that the rest (most of the rest anyways) of society despise. Porn, liquor, ciggies, lego-blocks, whatever. If it's not something, it's another.

Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:

Quote:

2) I think it's been made pretty clear that it was Blue Sun doing those experiments, and that most of the Alliance had NO IDEA what they wanted River for. Witness the men killed just for speaking to her in Ariel. Witness the officer who doesn't even know if they want her alive or dead, and so orders them to shoot first (Bushwacked, I /think/.) Again, the horrific actions of a few does not make the entirity evil. I tend to think that's Blue Sun's control of the Alliance at work there, not the Alliance itself.

"Society in any state is a blessing, government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil, in its worst state, an intolerable one..."
Thomas Paine

It is government which created Corporations -- if the Corporations are out of "control," then who is to blame? To me, it all boils down to government enforcing the desires of certain politically-connected special interests. Ultimately, government is still the problem.
"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure."

Quote:

3)Accusing the postal clerk.. um. Ok. Recall how that lawman was working a tad illegally, chasing down some precious cargo he himself was smuggling? I hardly think we can use him as a shining example of a typical Alliance lawman. As a matter of fact, I never ever in the watching of the episode bought him as a legitimate one, for that exact reason - he uses the same terroristic methods that Niska's men do. He's not acting in his capacity as a lawman in that episode - he's exploiting it.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Lord Acton

Keep a government poor and weak, and it will be your servant. Let it get rich and powerful, and it will be your master.
Is there any doubt what kind of government the Alliance is?

To me, the very idea that a government would fight to maintain "control" of other people is the truest sign that the government does NOT have the best interests of those people at heart.
Or as Lysander Spooner put it: "no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted for a moment, or reasonably supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly on voluntary support."

Lysander Spooner, again. It might be true of some governments in our world, but why do some people keep believing that our government is runned with a programmed and specific determination towards malice - is it just me or the militant radicals in Montana?

Really, at best, it's the Keystone cops - complete incompetents and just randomly screwing things up, at worst, a bunch of monkeys - baffoons trying to do things, but all thumbs.

Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:

Quote:

And finally, I'm not saying there aren't bad feds out there - as with any system, power will go to people's heads, and I'm sure that /especially/ on the border planets, you have people using their fed power for their own means, and to terrorize. But that's an individual trait - not neccessarily a trait of the government, which I still contend was simply bulky and overly bueacratic - not evil.

So, you side with the Alliance against the Browncoats?

loadandmakeready

Look at what plain regular every day people can do, that's you, me, or even bright Stanford U students in the summer of 1971. We can't just keep blaming them as these disembodied talking heads, they are us, we are them. We are all very much capable of the same exact "evil" if put into similar circumstances. People in power act the way they do b/c that is their role. It's not an excuse to act the way that people do (although some of them are just plain idiots and bigots), but a way of understanding why it happens. Instead of blaming it on ethics, morality, freedom, and bad behavior. Look at the behavioral causes and fix it.

Look at the Stanford Prison Experiment:

http://www.prisonexp.org/

What should we do? How do we fix ourselves?

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

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

Tuesday, February 10, 2004 3:47 PM

ARAWAEN

Oh boy! Libertarianism vs. Communitarianism!

Seems to me the Reavers are at one extreme end of the spectrum and Blue Sun at the other, with the Independent and the Alliance falling in at different levels.

Mal can be pretty authoritarian when it comes to Serenity, his little piece of the sky. The Alliance has claimed a much larger piece, undoubtedly with the best intentions (and all the proverbial paving that goes with it). Mal gives his crew a choice; they can take it or leave it, even in the middle of deep space. The Alliance gives you a choice too, stay in 'civilized' space and follow their rules or leave.

As a jaded, bitter man I don't see much difference between the Reavers or the Alliance. Everybody has the 'right' to do whatever they have the 'power' and the 'will' to get away with. Anarchy all the way, the Reavers have a physical anarchy and the Alliance have a social anarchy.

I don't think it matters how power is organized, it matters how it is used, which implies decisions by individuals. A tyrant can be a good man and a democrat can be a bad one. The efficiency or inefficiency of scale is not really a moral question.

"Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible." -- Frank Herbert

In summation, there are members of both the Alliance and the Independents who are choose to do the right thing and members who choose to do the wrong thing. The majority of both sides choose what is in their best interest, rationalizing away any doubts or guilt they have. One plus for the Reavers is that they probably don't suffer from this failing.

Arawaen

P.S. Jaded and Bitter I tell ya'!

"Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm angry. And I'm armed."

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

Tuesday, February 10, 2004 3:53 PM

Quote:

Lysander Spooner, again. It might be true of some governments in our world, but why do some people keep believing that our government is runned with a programmed and specific determination towards malice - is it just me or the militant radicals in Montana?

Runned?

Governments always end up becoming the very thing they were created to prevent.
A revolution that was begun in protest of a Stamp Tax, and a small tax on tea ended up with the IRS.

Who is going to fight harder for public office? Your honest neighbor who knows he will have to put his life and career on hold in order to get into politics, serve a term or two in order to expand a freedom, or make freedom more secure ... then go back home and enjoy that freedom?

Or someone who wants to control the lives of others, and sees politics as a way to combine that sickness with a career which will bring him wealth, power, and fame?

loadandmakeready

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

Tuesday, February 10, 2004 4:20 PM

AERRIN

Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
Quote:

Several points -

1) People smuggle all the time, for a million different reasons - the most noteable are to move illegal cargo and to avoid goverment interference through such things as taxes. The prescence of smuggling does not an authoritarian government make. Heck - how many people go through US customs and just 'forget' to declare everything they've bought, because they don't want to PAY? Technically, that's smuggling. Throw in a few cows, and it's the same thing on a larger scale. Make the good stolen, and you're doing it to avoid a fine or jail sentence.

A: Why is the cargo illegal? Usually to "protect" the profits of a politically connected business interest.
B: To avoid taxes? All taxation is theft!
C: Stolen from whom? In one sense, you can't steal from a government, because the government got whatever it did with money that was stolen from you!

A: Or possibly because it's dangerous and hurts someone. Possibly because it crosses a moral line not everyone wants to cross. Possibly because yes, it's against the interests of the goverment. But saying that's the only reason is a vast oversimplification.
B: Whoa, dude. Really? Feel free to hand over your education, your highways, your postal system, your police force, your PBS, your afterschool programs.. anytime now.
C: See above. I have a hard time even arguing how that's inaccurate, because to state that all taxes are theft is so.. wow. You're welcome to your view of the world, of course, but.. let's just say it's not mine.

Quote:

Quote:

2) I think it's been made pretty clear that it was Blue Sun doing those experiments, and that most of the Alliance had NO IDEA what they wanted River for. Witness the men killed just for speaking to her in Ariel. Witness the officer who doesn't even know if they want her alive or dead, and so orders them to shoot first (Bushwacked, I /think/.) Again, the horrific actions of a few does not make the entirity evil. I tend to think that's Blue Sun's control of the Alliance at work there, not the Alliance itself.

"Society in any state is a blessing, government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil, in its worst state, an intolerable one..."
Thomas Paine

It is government which created Corporations -- if the Corporations are out of "control," then who is to blame? To me, it all boils down to government enforcing the desires of certain politically-connected special interests. Ultimately, government is still the problem.
"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure."

I'm not sure you can state that governments created corporations - and I /certainly/ don't think that you can them blame the government entirely. I think the corporations ought to shoulder a bit of the blame for their own actions, here.

Quote:

Quote:

3)Accusing the postal clerk.. um. Ok. Recall how that lawman was working a tad illegally, chasing down some precious cargo he himself was smuggling? I hardly think we can use him as a shining example of a typical Alliance lawman. As a matter of fact, I never ever in the watching of the episode bought him as a legitimate one, for that exact reason - he uses the same terroristic methods that Niska's men do. He's not acting in his capacity as a lawman in that episode - he's exploiting it.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Lord Acton

Keep a government poor and weak, and it will be your servant. Let it get rich and powerful, and it will be your master.
Is there any doubt what kind of government the Alliance is?

To me, the very idea that a government would fight to maintain "control" of other people is the truest sign that the government does NOT have the best interests of those people at heart.
Or as Lysander Spooner put it: "no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted for a moment, or reasonably supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly on voluntary support."

Well, yes, I do believe that my point was that power will corrupt. Thus the explotation of his position. I also don't recall mentioning that the government was trying to 'control' anyone - although I disagree with the assumption that trying to maintain public order ('control') is a /bad thing/. Let's be honest. Some people /need/ to be controlled. Some people are /not/ good for society. Some people are best off (for the rest of us) safely behind bars, or in rehab programs, or carefully watched by a parole officer. It helps keep the world safe for the rest of us.

Quote:

Quote:

And finally, I'm not saying there aren't bad feds out there - as with any system, power will go to people's heads, and I'm sure that /especially/ on the border planets, you have people using their fed power for their own means, and to terrorize. But that's an individual trait - not neccessarily a trait of the government, which I still contend was simply bulky and overly bueacratic - not evil.

So, you side with the Alliance against the Browncoats?

loadandmakeready

Wow. I have no idea how you got from point A to point B there. Just because I'm able to see the Alliance in shades of complicated gray instead of assigning them white and black hats means that I would side with the Alliance? Let's watch the assumptions there, huh?

But to answer the question - I think that would depend on where I was, and honestly, what I saw as in my best interests. I'm on a backwater planet and I'm craving an education I can't afford, and they're promising me one - hey. Yeah. Alliance might look pretty good.

I'm on a central planet and I see my tax dollars being taken to pay for education and medicine and law and order on the borders? May not be so appealing.

See? Things aren't always as simple as they seem. No matter where you are, who you are, there are going to be pros and cons.

I have a hard time believing that some of the characters we see who, at conception at least, supported Unification, are stupid, easily led, or evil - and if you paint the Alliance as completely black, then that's what you have to assume. Me, personally - I prefer complex. It makes life more interesting.

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

Tuesday, February 10, 2004 6:14 PM

Quote:

B: Whoa, dude. Really? Feel free to hand over your education, your highways, your postal system, your police force, your PBS, your afterschool programs.. anytime now.

I'm 57 years old. I don't need after school programs. And those who want them can pay for them out of their own pocket, instead of voting for some thug to stick a taxboard bayonet in my back to pay for it.

PBS? What's PBS! Like 99 percent of what the government does, I don't use it ... so why should I pay for it?

As far as the police force is concerned, I am capable of protecting myself ... I don't need their "help!" Kinda makes you wonder though, how mankind survived for goodness knows how many thousands of years without police. (The first professional police force came into existance in 1849.)

Highways? The first trans-continental highway was built by private enterprise. Americans don't need goofermint to supply highways!

Education? The only reason gummymint took over "education" in this country was to teach history and politics in a way that makes the gummymint look good. While many people call them "public schools, I call them "youth propaganda camps."

Quote:

C: See above. I have a hard time even arguing how that's inaccurate, because to state that all taxes are theft is so.. wow. You're welcome to your view of the world, of course, but.. let's just say it's not mine.

When someone can take the product of your effort away from you without your voluntary consent, they are claiming a property right in, and ownership of, your effort. I don't know what you call it, but I call it SLAVERY!
But then maybe you like being enslaved -- or maybe you like for others to be enslaved for your benefit.

Quote:

I'm not sure you can state that governments created corporations - and I /certainly/ don't think that you can them blame the government entirely. I think the corporations ought to shoulder a bit of the blame for their own actions, here.

I can state it, I did state it! Government created "Corporations!" Corporations ARE responsible for their actions, but government is responsible for creating corporations.

Quote:

Well, yes, I do believe that my point was that power will corrupt. Thus the explotation of his position. I also don't recall mentioning that the government was trying to 'control' anyone - although I disagree with the assumption that trying to maintain public order ('control') is a /bad thing/. Let's be honest. Some people /need/ to be controlled. Some people are /not/ good for society. Some people are best off (for the rest of us) safely behind bars, or in rehab programs, or carefully watched by a parole officer. It helps keep the world safe for the rest of us.

And some people are better off dead! You may not be able to protect yourself, so you may hire someone to do it for you -- BUT NOT WITH MY PAYCHECK!!

Quote:

And finally, I'm not saying there aren't bad feds out there - as with any system, power will go to people's heads, and I'm sure that /especially/ on the border planets, you have people using their fed power for their own means, and to terrorize. But that's an individual trait - not neccessarily a trait of the government, which I still contend was simply bulky and overly bueacratic - not evil.

Some people imagine that government will work if the right people are in office, this is a myth! The only way to eliminate abuse of power is to abolish the power! If it doesn't exist, it can't be abused.

Quote:

Wow. I have no idea how you got from point A to point B there. Just because I'm able to see the Alliance in shades of complicated gray instead of assigning them white and black hats means that I would side with the Alliance? Let's watch the assumptions there, huh?

If you had paid closer attention to that sentence, you might have noticed that little squiggly thing at the end of it -- it's called a question mark! I was not making an assumption, I was asking a question.

[qoute]
But to answer the question - I think that would depend on where I was, and honestly, what I saw as in my best interests. I'm on a backwater planet and I'm craving an education I can't afford, and they're promising me one - hey. Yeah. Alliance might look pretty good.

I'm on a central planet and I see my tax dollars being taken to pay for education and medicine and law and order on the borders? May not be so appealing.

See? Things aren't always as simple as they seem. No matter where you are, who you are, there are going to be pros and cons.

I have a hard time believing that some of the characters we see who, at conception at least, supported Unification, are stupid, easily led, or evil - and if you paint the Alliance as completely black, then that's what you have to assume. Me, personally - I prefer complex. It makes life more interesting.

What ever slays your Dragon. As long as I'm not forced to pay for the weapon.

loadandmakeready

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

Tuesday, February 10, 2004 6:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

"Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible." -- Frank Herbert

Arawaen

P.S. Jaded and Bitter I tell ya'!

"Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm angry. And I'm armed."

Frank Herbert was right!

I put it a little differently: It's a chicken and egg situation. Does power corrupt, and absolute power corrupt absolutely? Or is it that only the absolutely corrupt seek absolute power?

loadandmakeready

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

Tuesday, February 10, 2004 6:42 PM

AERRIN

Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:

What ever slays your Dragon. As long as I'm not forced to pay for the weapon.

loadandmakeready

Obviously we have very different world views about where your social responsibility lies, and what's good for society, so I'll just chalk this one up in the 'agree to disagree' category, as I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye with such vastly different starting points.

As for:

Quote:
If you had paid closer attention to that sentence, you might have noticed that little squiggly thing at the end of it -- it's called a question mark! I was not making an assumption, I was asking a question.

I appologize - I'm used to folks who use that question mark at the end of a 'statement' not to ask a question persay, but to imply disbelief of a fact or a given (you can probably even pick out examples in my own posts, I'm guessing). Not something I should carry here from discussions in other forums, obviously, and I'll be sure to try to take things at face value from now on. :)

Makes for a rousing discussion, though!

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

Tuesday, February 10, 2004 6:48 PM

TRAVELINGTHEBLACK

Without a government, you have Barons, thugs, tyrrants ruling. You have no healthcare, no streets, no nothing. I personally tolerate government because, well, without one worse people would be in charge than Bush or Paul Martin. What I realize, and some people might not realize, is that when you leave behind government, everything you have: freedoms, legal rights, etc. goes to. I accept that if i break the law, i goto jail. If I have no home, I cannot settle down. I see and accept. I just wonder if others see the same.

Mercy is the mark of a great man... *stab*

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

Tuesday, February 10, 2004 7:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Aerrin:

Obviously we have very different world views about where your social responsibility lies, and what's good for society, so I'll just chalk this one up in the 'agree to disagree' category, as I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye with such vastly different starting points.

Makes for a rousing discussion, though!

Rousing? Yes! And a very interesting discussion as well.

However, 'twould be interesting to learn what your starting point is.

Here's mine:

All my political, and value judgements branch out from one basic principle. I believe in property rights ... beginning with the concept that you are the absolute owner of your own life. And as absolute owner, you have the right to live your life in any manner you choose. PROVIDED! That you do not forcibly interfere with anyone else's right to live their life in what ever manner they choose ... and vice versa, and round and round.
Corollary to this is what is called the Zero Aggression Principle, or ZAP: No one has the right to initiate the use of force -- or to advocate, or delegate the initiation of force -- for any reason what-so-ever.

There is only one moral use of force, and that is to stop anyone who DOES initiate it.

Many a philosophy, which people view as beneficial, holds violence to be the very definition of evil. Who gains by this? The good? No! It is only evil that benefits when men of "ill will" find their victims disarmed and bound for slaughter by their very beliefs.
If we are to have a civilization, and if that civilization is to endure, we must come to view violence in a neutral light, examining only the circumstances of its wielding.
Initiated violence -- especially for collective purposes -- is the sum and total of all evil ever perpetrated by men upon man. So, can we not view resistance to this violence as beneficial? Even good? If not, then we needn't look to the future for some "ultimate triumph of evil," -- it has already occurred.

loadandmakeready

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

Tuesday, February 10, 2004 7:48 PM

Fine... Fine... Fine...

but why aren't you sitting in a cave
rubbing sticks together trying to stay
warm. Farming or running around with
pointy sticks hunting and skinning little
furry animals for sustenance.

What's more incredible is that you are
actually:

1. using the internet - build with 'that dang guv'ment research money' and runned by about 13 different corporations.

2. typing on a computer - build from parts made by 12 different corporations.

3. eating up electricity - generated by some guv'ment sanctioned monopoly in your locality

4. watching firefly on a TV (probably on cable too) - you put in your own words how many different corporations and government bodies takes to make TV and everything about it happen.

editted: not a personal statement, but rather an example of what I want to illustrate

People long ago found that binding together and *helping* each other made surviving and sustaining easier - not to mention maybe a little bit more enjoyable then hunt, eat, sleep, hunt, eat, sleep, etc... Sooner or later, any societal unit will attempt self-rule, self imposed rules. Every group goes through a norming stage. It's the basis of group dynamics. Even a group of individualists will *agree* to be individualists. It grows from there.

Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
Quote:
Originally posted by Aerrin:

Obviously we have very different world views about where your social responsibility lies, and what's good for society, so I'll just chalk this one up in the 'agree to disagree' category, as I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye with such vastly different starting points.

Makes for a rousing discussion, though!

Rousing? Yes! And a very interesting discussion as well.

However, 'twould be interesting to learn what your starting point is.

Here's mine:

All my political, and value judgements branch out from one basic principle. I believe in property rights ... beginning with the concept that you are the absolute owner of your own life. And as absolute owner, you have the right to live your life in any manner you choose. PROVIDED! That you do not forcibly interfere with anyone else's right to live their life in what ever manner they choose ... and vice versa, and round and round.
Corollary to this is what is called the Zero Aggression Principle, or ZAP: No one has the right to initiate the use of force -- or to advocate, or delegate the initiation of force -- for any reason what-so-ever.

There is only one moral use of force, and that is to stop anyone who DOES initiate it.

Many a philosophy, which people view as beneficial, holds violence to be the very definition of evil. Who gains by this? The good? No! It is only evil that benefits when men of "ill will" find their victims disarmed and bound for slaughter by their very beliefs.
If we are to have a civilization, and if that civilization is to endure, we must come to view violence in a neutral light, examining only the circumstances of its wielding.
Initiated violence -- especially for collective purposes -- is the sum and total of all evil ever perpetrated by men upon man. So, can we not view resistance to this violence as beneficial? Even good? If not, then we needn't look to the future for some "ultimate triumph of evil," -- it has already occurred.

loadandmakeready

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 1:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:
Not so sure I buy that argument. Just because the low level cops, even the guys running the Alliance details in BUSHWACKED and ARIEL, don't know the details or even any reall info, doesn't mean that the BLUE SUN honchos and the heads of the ALLIANCE are not working hand in glove.

The CIA and FBI stepped on each other's toes routinely until they were legislated out of each other's back yards. BOTH groups have better intel and superceding powers over local law enforcement. This is the future, remember. Things have clearly gotten worse on that score.

Ain't got nothing to do with how high or low their rank is. They got badges, and their bosses are billions of miles away. Folks rarely act the same on vacation as they do around the house. Or else Vegas would be bust overnight.

And because the cops we've seen are detached, there is insufficient data to conclusively prove (or refute) the idea this is "normal" behavior. And it says nothing about how intertwined the BHC and the Alliance government is.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 1:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ Interesting. But my guess is that the Reavers are more reputation than actual culture. That is, I suspect they are a myth maintained by someone with an agenda. Assuming there's a good reason to make people afraid of going too deep into 'the Black'.

Possibly even the Reavers themselves. Think about it, you've seen the same scheme time and time again on Scooby Doo. Scare everyone away from where you want to be, and you don't get bothered, hassled or shot at.

Quote:
I'd be giving Joss big kudos should he manage to present the Browncoats as dastardly as the Alliance ever could be. Maybe worse. You know, I'm of the belief that Mal needs his pat and fragile beliefs kicked out of him once more. Mal may have lost a few delusions but he's got a looooong way to go before he finds real Serenity.

Then take a look at the script "Dead or Alive"

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 2:49 AM

While I find the anarchistic or libertarian ideal persuasive to a large extent, I also realize that it is because folks are the way they are, that governments are around to begin with.

Sometimes it is simply better to leave things to some authority. And give that authority a monopoly on the use of force. Granted, there is a concern for abuse, but that exists regardless of who it is, or even how many have that ability.

There was an idea floated about private police forces. And have competing authorities enforce the law. But it is easy to see how that situation can quickly denigrate into a gang-like warfare (with serious weapons) amongst competing police agencies.

I don't think you can get away from a government, if you are surrounded by any kind of substantial population. In such a situation, the guy with the most guns and guts gets, and gets to do whatever he wants, regardless of the cost to others. And everyone else just has to suffer. Rance Burgess is a great example of what happens when you ain't got any government whatsoever.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 2:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
As far as the Civil War is concerned, slavery was NOT the issue.

Sigh. Sorry but this is not what the Southerners at the time of secession were saying. It is not what the South Carolina legislature said when they voted for the Declaration of Secession. For the South, slavery was the issue. Dressed up in the rubric "states rights" but still, its slavery.

It pains me to have to say this, but the assertion is simply not true. The first complaint South Carolina mentions in their declaration is the fact that northern states are not returning fugitive slaves, in violation of Article 4 of the Constitution. And the Federal government was not doing enough to compel northerners to returne escaped slaves.

If slavery were not the issue, then bringing this up, even tangentally, let alone as the first reason you give to seceed, does not make any sense.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 3:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Lord Acton

This is a common mischaracterization of Acton's quote. What he was referring to was NOT how much a bastard the historical figure was. He was referring to the tendancy, at the time, of historians to excuse terrible deeds, and attempt to explain it in terms of the political/social/whathaveyou context of the time.

Besides which, think for a moment. That would make God the biggest meanest thing in the universe. Even if it were true, ya really think ya want to say it out loud?

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 3:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Lysander Spooner, again. It might be true of some governments in our world, but why do some people keep believing that our government is runned with a programmed and specific determination towards malice - is it just me or the militant radicals in Montana?

There is more to it than that. You listen to some people, this entire UNIVERSE is supposed to be a trail of tears and misery. If you are happy and/or successful, that is taken as proof that you cheated.

If you start a business, and make a fortune, you are automatically a crook, did it through "connections" or some other such, well, manure. The very idea that someone can work their way up the ladder, or be a sucess without cheating, is anthema to them.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 3:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Aerrin:
I'm not sure you can state that governments created corporations - and I /certainly/ don't think that you can them blame the government entirely. I think the corporations ought to shoulder a bit of the blame for their own actions, here.

People form corporations, as well as governments. And that is the single problem with any of this talk. Unless you change people, complaining about what people do in large groups ain't gonna make any difference.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 3:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TravelingTheBlack:
Without a government, you have Barons, thugs, tyrrants ruling. You have no healthcare, no streets, no nothing. I personally tolerate government because, well, without one worse people would be in charge than Bush or Paul Martin. What I realize, and some people might not realize, is that when you leave behind government, everything you have: freedoms, legal rights, etc. goes to. I accept that if i break the law, i goto jail. If I have no home, I cannot settle down. I see and accept. I just wonder if others see the same.

Mercy is the mark of a great man... *stab*

You ain't. The reason why libertarians can complain about the government here, is because they have rights and a government to enforce those rights (Well, at least punish violations that come to its attention)

I am sure Load can protect and defend himself. Against a small enough group. Unfortunately that does not give much incentive to folks really wanting what he's got to only bring a small group.

Anarchism and Libertarianism, in their pure forms, quickly deginerates into totalitarian dictatorships. Where rights are whatever the guy with the biggest guns says they are. You may not like democracy, but I see it as a better alternative than most, if not all other forms of government.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 3:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

People long ago found that binding together and *helping* each other made surviving and sustaining easier - not to mention maybe a little bit more enjoyable then hunt, eat, sleep, hunt, eat, sleep, etc... Sooner or later, any societal unit will attempt self-rule, self imposed rules. Every group goes through a norming stage. It's the basis of group dynamics. Even a group of individualists will *agree* to be individualists. It grows from there.

This is the heart and soul of the whole Libertarian/Communitarian debate right here. Rugged individualists only gets you so far. And either one bands together in a community, or one is left to his own when facing any kind of catastrophy, manmade or natural.

And there is the problem that things like corporations and businesses in general, are created by mutual consent. People banding together, pooling their resources and skills, and creating products that other folks want to buy. To get rid of corporations, one has to put limits of the free association of others. And those limits have to be enforced, with well, force. Which makes opposition to corporations under libertarian rules kinda messy.

The same goes for democratic governments as well. You want to get rid of it, you have to force people to not associate in ways you don't like. And again, that means force.

The rugged individualist is a great start, but hardly a finish.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 5:26 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

I do not necessarily agree w/ the whole libretarian/anarchist arguement. I do agree that our government has many problems that need to be fixed, but I doubt they ever will be, as the Democrats and Republicans are too busy trying to stiffle one another to ever work together to better the government.

"No man is an island" has many meanings, and I think one of them applies here. I do not think any one man can stand alone indefinitely. Sure Load may be able to protect himself, for that matter I am a veteran and I know I can protect myself and my family, but the real issue lies in against what you are protecting. As was pointed out above, if you have something they really want, people will get real inventive on ways to get it.

Since the beginning of recorded history man has been banding together to form communities for protection and to pool resources. If there were no one to oversee the country, it would be everyman for themselves. Society would soon fall to the type of barbarism the world suffered from centuries ago, when men banded together to raid and still from the weaker, unorganized farms or homes. "There is strength in numbers" makes a lot of sense when viewed from this perspective.

I will say that without a government or some governing body to oversee things, we would not last long as a country. I do not think a federal government is the best option available, but unfortunately short of a revolution the federalist will remain in charge.

My personal problem w/ the government is that it is untouchable and not accountable for its actions. Our forefathers were anti-federalists for a reason. They had seen the powerful, centralized gov't of England abuse the colonies and did not want that in our country. Unfortunately, it has happened. Everyday you read or hear about corruption, special interest lobbying, and favoritism by one party or the other for business or some organization or another.

I also grow tired of all of the infighting in our government as both sides jockey for power. The Democrats are now questioning Bush's National Guard service in an effort to discredit him during this election year. Keep in mind this is the same Democratic party that told the Republican party that Clinton fleeing the country to avoid that draft during Vietnam had nothing to do with his ability to be president.

With all this political fighting between the parties it is no surprise that nothing gets done on Capitol Hill. At least Congress is sure to vote themselves a handsome salary increase every year. Way to go guys!

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 8:25 AM

Loadandmakeready... you're my hero.

... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it. - Declaration of Independence

I feel the need to point out to people that a government is simply an alternative to aristocrasy. No one ever said it was better, just not the blue bloods. It is the creation of LAW that creates good government. The Magna Carta for example. And of course, the beloved Declaration of Independence which used it's second paragraph (above) to point out that it's the LAW that comes before the government.

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 8:33 AM

Oh... the reason Corporations are so evil is that they are not bound by any law... at all! See all corporations have the rights of an individual under the law. The same rights as YOU!

Is that wrong? Yes, it is. It' just a silly loophole from 100 years ago but it is the basis of every legal scandel you've ever heard of. Erin Brockovitch is an example of a person fighting a corporation that is killing people. Entertaining movie, but under the law there was nothing Erin could do about it. The case, just as all cases against corporations, is settled. Then the settlement is settled and the people who get recompence are cheated out of that money too. trust me, it's just a laugh to CEOs as they know they pay armies of lawyers year in and year out to have fun with it.

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 8:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ Interesting. But my guess is that the Reavers are more reputation than actual culture. That is, I suspect they are a myth maintained by someone with an agenda. Assuming there's a good reason to make people afraid of going too deep into 'the Black'.

Possibly even the Reavers themselves. Think about it, you've seen the same scheme time and time again on Scooby Doo...

ROTFL!

Poor Joss Wheden... just can't escape the 'Scooby subtext'. Hahahahaha...

And I can read Firefly scripts where?

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 7:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:

This is a common mischaracterization of Acton's quote. What he was referring to was NOT how much a bastard the historical figure was. He was referring to the tendancy, at the time, of historians to excuse terrible deeds, and attempt to explain it in terms of the political/social/whathaveyou context of the time.

Besides which, think for a moment. That would make God the biggest meanest thing in the universe. Even if it were true, ya really think ya want to say it out loud?

There have always been those who try to excuse or rationalize the actions of governments, and men in government ... there still are! Centuries ago it was the Priest class, today it is so-called "intellectuals." Both have fastened themselves to the State, and have made their living trying to justify the actions of the State. For the most part, they have succeeded. For example, look at how successfully they have been able to turn a mass murdering megalomaniac like Abraham Lincoln into a national hero!
With all due respect DRAKON, you are mistaken. Lord Acton WAS referring to the crimes committed by men in power.

As far as "God" is concerned, I have described "Him" in proctological terms numerous times.
What would you think of a "God" that would send two she-bears to rend to bloody pieces a couple dozen children for the hideous crime of poking fun at an old man's bald head?

loadandmakeready

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 8:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TravelingTheBlack:
Without a government, you have Barons, thugs, tyrrants ruling. You have no healthcare, no streets, no nothing. I personally tolerate government because, well, without one worse people would be in charge than Bush or Paul Martin. What I realize, and some people might not realize, is that when you leave behind government, everything you have: freedoms, legal rights, etc. goes to. I accept that if i break the law, i goto jail. If I have no home, I cannot settle down. I see and accept. I just wonder if others see the same.

Barons and tyrants ARE government! Our word "thug" comes from the Hindu word thug which is pronounced as t-HUG ... the plural is thuggee. They were worshippers of a diminished avatar of Kali called Bhavani ... a goddess of destruction. They were swindlers, stranglers ... murderers. So to lump them in with Kings, Caesars, and Presidents is in my mind entirely appropriate.

You have no healthcare??? Are you trying to tell me that government invented Doctors? Don't tell me.... The next thing you will try to convince me of is that government invented roads.

Without government worse people would be in charge? Without government ... NO ONE WOULD BE "IN CHARGE!!"

Your assertion, that without government there is no freedom is, in my mind, truly warped. By that standard, the more government the better! Government should tax you one hundred percent! Government should tell you what job you can or cannot do, how to spend your leisure time, (if indeed they will allow you any leisure time) every thought word or action you have or make should come under the scrutiny of The State. Is that what you want?

Think for a moment, and ask yourself what would happen if say, the government had been in charge of the production and distribution of shoes, or bread. And some rabid anti-statist like myself dared to make the horrifying suggestion that individuals working singly, or in groups could do it ... maybe even do it better than the government! Would you be shocked?

The United States became the wealthiest, happiest, and most influential country in the history of this planet precisely because government was too weak to stop individuals from finding new ways to improve their lives!

When this country was founded, women were cooking over open fires ... as women had been cooking before history began. In two centuries, they went from cooking over an open hearth fireplace to wood stoves, to gas and electric ranges, to microwaves! Did government cause this?
When this country was founded, men walked, rode horses, and goaded oxen. Today they drive automobiles and fly in the utmost heights of air. Did government cause this?
When this country was founded people lighted their way to bed with pine knots and candles. In one and a half centuries, they went from candles, to whale oil lamps, to kerosene, to gas jets, to incandescent bulbs, to flourescent tubes. Did government cause this?
What about central heating and air conditioning? Did government invent air conditioning?

Government can hinder, restrict, or stop people from acting ... it can never control their actions. The opposite of government control is called freedom!

The Wright Brothers gave mankind wings ... it was government that put machine guns in -- and bombs under -- those wings. Government didn't even invent the machine gun.

Everything we see or have came to us, not BECAUSE of government, but IN SPITE OF GOVERNMENT!

loadandmakeready

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 8:56 PM

REDJACK

^^^

Oh my god.

Lincoln is a mass murdering megalomaniac?

Wow.

Dude (babe?) you are freaking hysterical.

On a heavier note...

The anarchy advocated by the -ahem- Libertarians and so-called Anarchists is, not to put too fine a point on it, complete rubbish.

It is the nature of ALL primates to live in hierarchical structures, usually pyramid formed, with a single alpha or alpha pair at the apex.

Even the democratic modification of this basic human trait results in an alpha ruling (male usually) over the rest.

It is the height of arrogance (or ignorance) to assume that humans would be exempt. We're primates. Super smart ones but apes nonetheless. We will always, always, always have hierarchical systems of government and those systems will always, always, always be corrupt. Get over it. Grow up.We're genetically hardwired for it. There's no escape until some new species of human emerges.

Representative government is the best you're going to get. Indeed, this is the best system any human society bigger than a five person family unit has ever produced. EVER. In human history.

You clearly enjoy the obvious benefits of participation in the American experiment but seem to ignore the invisible ones.

Like that there aren't armed bands of thieves rumaging through your house and your female relatives at will simply because they've got bigger guns.

Like the air you breathe isn't yet too contaminated to sustain you. Or that the food you buy at the market won't poison you.

Like the infrastucture whose upkeep you seem not to wish to pay for allows us to even have this silly debate.

Like guys with whips and guns aren't forcing you to work their land, offer up your wives and children to their whims, and your own body for torture at their discretion.

That is the history of the world, cheif. And it's the history of this country til about a century ago (give or take a score). It's ongoing in far too many places as we speak.

Anarchy and Libertarianism are the goals of children who believe the world either centers on them or that the people in it are inherently decent.

The facts, of course, are in direct opposition to such a veiw.

Absolute freedom is a pipe dream and, in fact, undesirable. Qualified freedom, freedom which is based upon mutual agreement, dependance and cooperation is not only desirable but is the best you'll ever get.

Nothing else works.

The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 10:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Oh... the reason Corporations are so evil is that they are not bound by any law... at all! See all corporations have the rights of an individual under the law. The same rights as YOU!

I've got to disagree with you slightly. It would be more accurate to say that Corporations don't have rights, they have privileges. Individuals can incorporate, and by doing so, escape many of the taxes, and other hinderances placed on them by the government.

Here is the essence of a Corporation:

Let's say that you invent some marvelous gizmo, I have manufacturing skills, and someone else is a whiz at marketing. We three get together and each of us puts 10,000 dollars into a pool to start making your wonderful gizmo. It turns out to be a great success! It is highly profitable and we each take home a large salary. This goes on for a number of years, and we each become wealthy. Then something happens. An economic downturn, we have saturated the market, somebody invents a better gizmo ... whatever. The company loses money. 500,000 dollars it loses. We decide to close the company. We sell the company assets, which comes to 200,000 dollars, and we each chip in 100,000 dollars to pay off the rest of the debt. It hurts, because we each have to remortgage our homes to do it. But we can get jobs elsewhere, and life goes on.

That is what happens if we DO NOT incorporate!

If we DO incorporate, the Corporation becomes an entity seperate from us. In a sense it becomes a human being under the law -- which was created by government -- just as you said. When we dissolve the Corporation, the assets of the Corporation can be sold to pay the debts, but WE CANNOT BE TOUCHED!! So the Corporation declares bankruptcy, and 300,000 dollars are never paid to settle the Corporations debts.

The laws of Incorporation which the government created have have also created a contradiction. The law has created a situation where we are responsible and irresponsible for the same thing at the same time!
When the Corporation is making money, we are right there with our hands out, taking our share. When the Corporatiom loses money, we are not responsible for its debt.

What some people here don't seem to realize is that it is government which made the laws of incorporation. If Corporations are monsters -- and SOME of them are -- it was government that created them. Which is why you see the heirs of huge industries involved in politics -- the Rockefellers for example. The primary, if not sole difference we would see without Corporations is that business enterprises would be smaller and -- without the protection of government -- more responsible to their customers. And without political pull, these enterprises would not be able to get themselves "bailed out" of financial difficulties with other peoples tax dollars ... and they would not be able to get laws passed to stifle their competition.

Now, you may ask, "What is the advantage of Incorporation to an individual?" Simply this: TAXES!! Generally speaking, if you incorporate, you can deduct (don't have to pay taxes on) a lot of what are otherwise considered "personal" expenses. You still have get government permission, but now you don't have to pay taxes on the money you spend to say re-roof your house. You don't have to pay taxes on the money you spend to fuel, maintain, and repair your car, and so on. In some instances, even your taxes are tax deductable. You have the special privileges of incorporation. You still have to pay your debts, but you would have to do that anyway. It's just easier to save money if your taxes are lower.

loadandmakeready

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

Thursday, February 12, 2004 12:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:

... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it. - Declaration of Independence

Yep, the Declaration of Independence is the most radical political document in history!!

It is the Statement of Principles behind the American political Revolution!!

Unfortunately, most people never really think about what it means.

Let's examine it.

"We hold these truths to be self evident..."
Or as my uncle Tommy used to say, "You can see with one eye that this is the truth."

"That: all men are created equal."
Pharaoh and the Mikado were living Gods, Louis the XIV ruled by "Divine Right," the Hapsburgs, the Hohenzollerns, and George the Third were of Royal blood ... superior human beings!! This simple statement meant that there was no such thing as Blue Blood, or Royal Blood ... there is no superior kind of human being. All human beings are humanly equal.

"That: they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights"
("Unalienable" seems to be a misprint, in fact, in the original draft, Jefferson wrote, "inherent and inalienable rights")
Although England was the fre'est country on earth at the time, whatever freedom an Englishman had was still a donation of his sovereign. So, when an Englishman spoke of his "Liberties," he meant the same thing you or I would mean if we asked, "May I take the liberty?" That is ... a permission to do a certain act. And a government that can grant a permission, can also withdraw the grant.
An "inalienable right" is one that cannot be bought, sold, traded, or given away. In short, this statement means that government can recognize your rights ... or not, that government can protect your rights ... or not, but that government cannot GIVE you rights!! Your rights are yours by virtue of the fact that you are a living, breathing, human being.

"That: among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
"Among these," means "to name a few." In short, no one has any business violating your right to life, liberty, and to pursue your happiness, as long as you do not interfere with the right of others to do the same thing. If you DO, they have the right to stop you -- self defense is also an inalienable human right.

"That: to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men ..."
To secure a thing means to make it permanent, to fix it in place and time ... to make it secure. In other words, the rights of the individual are SUPREME, and the sole purpose of the State, is to fill the purely passive role of merely protecting those rights.

"deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
The consent of the governed .... Throughout history this has always been true ... all governments have always derived their power from the consent of the governed. Normally however, governments only become aware of this when the governed DO NOT consent... then we have revolutions, and rebellions, and civil wars. Which is normally what happens when people try to "alter or to abolish it."
In short, this is recognition of the Right of Revolution ... or secession.

During the American Civil War, we heard political thimble riggers braying of "preserving our glorious Union," while "saving the National Honor" ... as though there could -- or should -- be a Union, glorious or otherwise that wasn't completely voluntary.

Quote:
I feel the need to point out to people that a government is simply an alternative to aristocrasy.

Actually, an Aristocracy is a government! The word comes from the Greek, Aristos which means "best," and Kratia, which means "rule." Aristocracy means government by the "best" citizens, a priveleged minority, or upper class.

Quote:

No one ever said it was better, just not the blue bloods. It is the creation of LAW that creates good government. The Magna Carta for example. And of course, the beloved Declaration of Independence which used it's second paragraph (above) to point out that it's the LAW that comes before the government.

I've got to disagree with you here.
(I think! I might be misunderstanding what you said.)
Firstly, the Declaration of Independence is NOT law! It is a statement of principles justifying secession from the British Empire. Consider the meaning of the name Declaration of Independence. Then consider these words from the first paragraph ... "dissolve the political bands" ... "seperate and equal station."
"Law" doesn't ensure good government. In theory, that which is Legal and Illegal correlates with that which is Right and Wrong. This, as I said is "theory," practise however is something completely different. We are told that this is a Nation of Laws, and not Men. But as the law is made by fallible -- and sometimes foolish and/or evil -- men there is often no relationship in law between right and wrong. For (bizarre) example, it was legal in Germany sixty years ago to enslave and murder Jews. The government passed laws saying it was!!

Here is a minor example of a law in this country today:
Say for example, you and I are independently making "Gizmo's." You charge $1.15 per Gizmo, and I charge $1.25 per Gizmo. Did you know that you could be prosecuted for "price gouging?" That I could be prosecuted for "intent to monopolize?" That if you lower your price a nickel, and I raise my price a nickel -- so that we both are charging $1.20 per Gizmo -- we can both be prosecuted for "collusion?" ... "price fixing?" And that we have to prove to the government that we are NOT fixing the price? (Guilty until proven innocent!)

I'm not kidding! This is part of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act!

What the Declaration of Independence actually says is that your RIGHTS come before the government.

loadandmakepersnickety

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

Thursday, February 12, 2004 2:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:
^^^

Oh my god.

Lincoln is a mass murdering megalomaniac? Wow.

Dude (babe?) you are freaking hysterical.

Actually, I have been studying history for nearly fourty five years. I highly recommend it (studying history, that is.)

Quote:

On a heavier note...

The anarchy advocated by the -ahem- Libertarians and so-called Anarchists is, not to put too fine a point on it, complete rubbish.

An Anarchist is anyone who believes in less government than you do.

Actually, most Libertarians are MINARCHISTS ... minimum governmentalists! Kinda like the men who founded this country. In fact, EXACTLY like the men who founded this country.

Quote:

It is the nature of ALL primates to live in hierarchical structures, usually pyramid formed, with a single alpha or alpha pair at the apex.

Even the democratic modification of this basic human trait results in an alpha ruling (male usually) over the rest.

True!! However, many human beings have evolved beyond this. You obviously are not one of them.

Quote:

It is the height of arrogance (or ignorance) to assume that humans would be exempt.

There are greater differences between individual human beings than there are between entire species of other mammals.
Unfortunately, being of a lower order of primate, you wouldn't understand that.

Quote:

We're primates. Super smart ones but apes nonetheless. We will always, always, always have hierarchical systems of government and those systems will always, always, always be corrupt. Get over it. Grow up.We're genetically hardwired for it. There's no escape until some new species of human emerges.

I'm sure that when you say "super smart," you are naturally thinking of yourself.

If we were genetically hard wired for it, then people like me couldn't exist. Which makes your entire argument bovine excrement.

Quote:

Representative government is the best you're going to get. Indeed, this is the best system any human society bigger than a five person family unit has ever produced. EVER. In human history.

You obviously know less than nothing of human history.

Quote:

You clearly enjoy the obvious benefits of participation in the American experiment but seem to ignore the invisible ones.

Like that there aren't armed bands of thieves rumaging through your house and your female relatives at will simply because they've got bigger guns.

Is that something you would do if you thought you could get away with it?? No, of course not!! (I hope) These armed bands you speak of were the forerunners of what we today call government.

Quote:

Like the air you breathe isn't yet too contaminated to sustain you. Or that the food you buy at the market won't poison you.

It was government that created the pollution problem you complain of. The government decreed that pollution was OK as long as you weren't polluting "more" than any one else in what ever industry you happened to be in. Helping to destroy property rights in the process. (After 1875, an individual could no longer sue a "Corporation" for polluting his property.)
You really ought to learn at least a little bit about history.

Food?? Do you think that food producers really want to poison their customers?? Or is that just something you would do if you thought you could get away with it??
As for me, I make my living by giving my customers the best quality I can produce. Happy customers tell their friends, which brings me more customers. If I gave bad or shoddy service, my angry customers would not only never come back, they would tell all their friends to stay away. Even without government, this sort of thing tends to be self-correcting.

Quote:

Like the infrastucture whose upkeep you seem not to wish to pay for allows us to even have this silly debate.

I happily pay for what I use, or consume. I just don't want to pay for what YOU use or consume. A distinction which it seems you (as a lower form of primate) seem incapable of understanding.

Quote:

Like guys with whips and guns aren't forcing you to work their land, offer up your wives and children to their whims, and your own body for torture at their discretion.

No, but what they do instead is to threaten to kill me if I don't pay them the tribute they ask ... they call it taxes!

Over time, they have learned that they are outnumbered by people like me, and that if they DO threaten our families we will kill them.

Quote:

Anarchy and Libertarianism are the goals of children who believe the world either centers on them or that the people in it are inherently decent.

Well, obviously you are not inherently decent. Psychologists call what you are doing here "projection." You believe that other people are just like you. TAKE NOTICE!! THEY'RE NOT!!
If a majority -- even a plurality -- of people were as you say they are, the human race would have ceased to exist thousands of years ago.

Quote:

Absolute freedom is a pipe dream and, in fact, undesirable.

Speaking for yourself, of course.

Quote:

Qualified freedom, freedom which is based upon mutual agreement, dependance and cooperation is not only desirable but is the best you'll ever get.

Freedom based on mutual agreement and cooperation is all I want!! Dependence, is not a part of the equation.

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is FORCE. Like fire it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master."
GEORGE WASHINGTON

But you wouldn't understand that.

loadandmakeready

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

Thursday, February 12, 2004 3:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
I also grow tired of all of the infighting in our government as both sides jockey for power. The Democrats are now questioning Bush's National Guard service in an effort to discredit him during this election year. Keep in mind this is the same Democratic party that told the Republican party that Clinton fleeing the country to avoid that draft during Vietnam had nothing to do with his ability to be president. With all this political fighting between the parties it is no surprise that nothing gets done on Capitol Hill. At least Congress is sure to vote themselves a handsome salary increase every year. Way to go guys!

Just a couple points. I see things that the present adminstration is doing that I don't like either. And I am a Republican. But I doubt very much that the things I want fixed, are the same things that each and every other person wants fixed, changed or what have you. So no government is ever going to work exactly like each and all of its constituents want.

For the infighting, when there is a debate, I find it fasinating. I see debate as part of an epistemological process, as well as a non-violent means of getting others to agree with me. That is politics, and if you have no debate, you ain't got a democracy.

But when they are so caught up in the infighting that they leave the rest of us alone, well, I can't be happier. Even if it is not working the way I want, I prefer a government that leaves it alone rather than changing it every two seconds.

But then, that is just me.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Thursday, February 12, 2004 3:46 AM

There's been a lot of political talk here, most of which has been asserted as fact. So, here's my opinion:

The initiation of violence may be evil, but it is surely only the most basic form of evil. Every human is capable of it, and ingenious enough to apply it in far more subtle ways than brute force if need be. It is this same ingenious nature that drives invention.

This is part of evolution: surviving, getting stronger, looking after number one. If success means teamwork, that's what happens, if it means individualism, that's what will predominate.

I would love to believe that the majority of folk out there are decent and good-hearted, but that's just not wise, because invariably you don't know until it's too late - deception is a far greater tool for evil/exploitation than violence. (You can call this 'projection' if you want, but I'm willing to gamble that I'm not the only one here who has been screwed over for being honest and trusting).

Not that I'm a big fan of government, either. Those who run governmental systems are just as prone to the above as the rest of the human race. Unfortunately, there's far more than one in nine for whom, "The money was too good!"

When it comes down to it, it's all about survival, growth, and quality of life (everyone wants safety, happiness and 'success' for themselves and their progeny). There are those (more enlightened IMHO) who believe in doing this as a species, with co-operation, and those who are happy to stick to the "red in tooth and claw" method - "Take what you can, give nothing back" if you like, with the corollary of not giving a rat's arse who gets hurt along the way. Maybe the latter is more comparable to the hierarchical system, maybe not, but it seems to me there are two types of leaders: those who marshall people together to create something bigger than the sum of their parts, and those who thirst for power, respect (or some shallow imitation thereof), and privilege without effort.

In short, idealism is great, but realism is safer.

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

Thursday, February 12, 2004 3:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
As far as "God" is concerned, I have described "Him" in proctological terms numerous times.
What would you think of a "God" that would send two she-bears to rend to bloody pieces a couple dozen children for the hideous crime of poking fun at an old man's bald head?

loadandmakeready

Well, that leaves you with a problem if you believe you are in the world God made.

If God is such a bastard, then the guys who think that virtue and success are always the result of cheating may be right. And if they are right, then a couple points come to mind.

1) You'd be an idiot to choose something as nebulous as virtue over your own life and happiness.

2) Its pointless to complain about the unfairness of someone else's success, as that is the only way to be successful.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Thursday, February 12, 2004 4:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
What some people here don't seem to realize is that it is government which made the laws of incorporation. If Corporations are monsters -- and SOME of them are -- it was government that created them. Which is why you see the heirs of huge industries involved in politics -- the Rockefellers for example. The primary, if not sole difference we would see without Corporations is that business enterprises would be smaller and -- without the protection of government -- more responsible to their customers. And without political pull, these enterprises would not be able to get themselves "bailed out" of financial difficulties with other peoples tax dollars ... and they would not be able to get laws passed to stifle their competition.

Not quite. Corporations were an idea that was proposed to governments, not something governments came up with all by their lonesomes.

And the "more responsible to their customers" line is not quite right either. It is one thing to build the best safest product you know how to build. Its a completely different story however if one of your customers sues you for his own defective use. It protects the business owner from such things as some idiot ordering hot coffee and then suing you because he spilled his coffee on himself.

Being incorporated will protect some of your assets. You won't lose your house in fighting a frivolous lawsuit, or even a legitimate lawsuit on a condition that you simply did not know about (i.e. asbestos). I don't see that as a bad thing overall.

Quote:

Now, you may ask, "What is the advantage of Incorporation to an individual?" Simply this: TAXES!! Generally speaking, if you incorporate, you can deduct (don't have to pay taxes on) a lot of what are otherwise considered "personal" expenses. You still have get government permission, but now you don't have to pay taxes on the money you spend to say re-roof your house. You don't have to pay taxes on the money you spend to fuel, maintain, and repair your car, and so on. In some instances, even your taxes are tax deductable. You have the special privileges of incorporation. You still have to pay your debts, but you would have to do that anyway. It's just easier to save money if your taxes are lower.

loadandmakeready

Generally speaking you pay taxes on your profits. What goes into creating those profits are called "costs" and hence are set aside when it comes time to figure taxes owed. So it is seen as smart policy to tax profits, instead of squeezing the engine of those profits. If you make less profits, because your costs are also taxed, then both you and the government suffer.

Besides which "costs" come out of money you have to have on hand NOW. Whether it works, whether it makes a dime in the future, well, that is any body's guess. Most taxes are on income, rather than the cash on hand.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Thursday, February 12, 2004 4:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
Barons and tyrants ARE government! Our word "thug" comes from the Hindu word thug which is pronounced as t-HUG ... the plural is thuggee. They were worshippers of a diminished avatar of Kali called Bhavani ... a goddess of destruction. They were swindlers, stranglers ... murderers. So to lump them in with Kings, Caesars, and Presidents is in my mind entirely appropriate.

Of course, being a religious sect might place them more firmly in the Christian/Muslim/Judaeism camp, except that their actions actually mirrored their official beliefs.

Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:

The Wright Brothers gave mankind wings ... it was government that put machine guns in -- and bombs under -- those wings. Government didn't even invent the machine gun.

Everything we see or have came to us, not BECAUSE of government, but IN SPITE OF GOVERNMENT!

loadandmakeready

I would say neither because of nor in spite of government. As you say, government didn't invent the machine gun. Why do you think it was government that invented the "flying machine gun"?

The fact is, humans invented government (well, you could argue that it was genetically hard-wired, but I would agree with your argument against that). This is largely the world we made.

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

Thursday, February 12, 2004 4:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
During the American Civil War, we heard political thimble riggers braying of "preserving our glorious Union," while "saving the National Honor" ... as though there could -- or should -- be a Union, glorious or otherwise that wasn't completely voluntary.

That is part of the price one ends up paying when one becomes part of a society or a nation. Particularly in democratic nations, it means that if your's is a minority position, you are out of luck. You either cede the question to the majority, or else you attempt to destroy the democratic government. And that is what happened during the civil war.

[Yes, I am aware of the argument that in a pure democracy, 5 guys can vote to pee in the cornflakes of the other 4. And so we have the whole, "majority rule with respect toward minority rights." thing going round.]

Actually that is not quite what happened. The South thought (perceived) the North and especially Lincoln's Republican party were more interested in the minority rights of the slaves, over the minority rights of the slave owners. And that is why they fired on Ft. Sumpter. They thought Lincoln was going to free the slaves by executive fiat. He never got a chance, one way or the other.

I find it hard not to laugh about a Southerner complaining about the Union not being "completely voluntary". This is probably one of the things that damned the cause more than anything else. You can talk about your freedom till the cows come home. But the facts remain that the particular instance of the "infringement on state's rights" was over the question of slavery. A issue that was not allowed to come to a head in Congress, because of the South's actions.

No government, or nation can survive by allowing large tracts of its population and territory to simply dissolve its bonds. Voluntary secession would have set a bad precident, for both the North and the South, as it would mean dissolving any political system established at the whim of the minority.

Or as one guy put it back then, "They have the right to rebel. They don't have the right to succeed." You had your rebellion, it failed and it is all ancient history now. I do think the world is better with a Southern loss than with a win. It made for a stronger, less hypocritical and successful American nation, one that could help out in two world wars, prevent Soviet expansion, and lots of other good things that I don't see happening if the South had won.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Thursday, February 12, 2004 6:25 AM

Frankly, at that point in the US's fragile history ,someone - might have been the west (not I don't mean California, which was Mexico at that time. I just meant figuratively however we labeled the parts of the country and however people liked to call themselves), the southwest, northwest, mideast, or anyone else for the matter - would have rebeled and attempted to secede for the dumbest of things. Look at the violent history of most young startups, there's a coup every two weeks. Slavery might have been a cause for the civil war - a secondary one to the economic cause - but it would have happened for a better or worst reason around that time. People were itching for a fight just so they can throw their weight around.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

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

Thursday, February 12, 2004 11:22 AM

REDJACK

Quote:
orginally posted by LoadAndMakeReadyActually, I have been studying history for nearly fourty five years. I highly recommend it (studying history, that is.)

You've been studying, you say.
Comprehending, not so much. Apparently. Your conclusion about Lincoln's character is– esoteric– to say the least. Almost unique in fact.

Quote:
An Anarchist is anyone who believes in less government than you do.

Actually an Anarchist is a mental deficient who doesn't understand that the political system he or she espouses only exists in the minds of him/herself and other idiot utopians.

Anarchy:
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

Quote:
most Libertarians are MINARCHISTS ... minimum governmentalists! Kinda like the men who founded this country. In fact, EXACTLY like the men who founded this country.

The men who founded this country were great but they were MEN. Just men. Fallible, flawed, hypocritical, sometimes mistaken. Just like all human beings. It's taken over two centuries to get what they began closer to Correct. The work is ongoing. They gave us a good start and a helluva pushoff but that's it. The rest is up to us.

Modern Libertarians are another bunch of mental midgets who think being an ultraconservative Republican is just a little too close to being a communist.

The only reason there's a Libertarian party is beacuse there's no Selfish Bastard Party to join.

I said : It is the nature of ALL primates to live in hierarchical structures, usually pyramid formed, with a single alpha or alpha pair at the apex.

Even the democratic modification of this basic human trait results in an alpha ruling (male usually) over the rest.

Quote:
True!! However, many human beings have evolved beyond [the adherence to the creation of heirarchical social systems]. [

No. No human beings have evolved beyond this. Not one single human. Not now and not ever once in history. That's what genetic hardwiring is.

Quote:
There are greater differences between individual human beings than there are between entire species of other mammals.

Um. No. Not genetically there isn't. We are almost completely interchangeable at that level. Perhaps you should leave off the history texts for a year or two and look into that whole biology thing. It's a hoot.

Quote:
If we were genetically hard wired for it, then people like me couldn't exist. Which makes your entire argument bovine excrement.

No. You are either self deluded (most likely) or missing some crucial gene pairs (most likely). In Nature there are often occassional mistakes. The ones that don't breed true fail because they don't enhance the success of the species as a whole.

Natural Selection. Perhaps you've heard of it.

Quote:
You obviously know less than nothing of human history.

This is, of course, impossible. But thanks for playing.

Quote:
It was government that created the pollution problem you complain of.

First...

Bwahahahahahaha! Oh. Oh dear. That quality of idiocy is just so hideous and corroded it's like a fine gourmet meal. So tasty. Man! You just don't get to see that that often anymore. Thanks.

Second.

Let's examine the activities of unrestrained industry, shall we? What period of time can we look to for a real world model for such a Revolution in the behaviour of our Industrial class?

Let's think...

Quote:
As for me, I make my living by giving my customers the best quality I can produce. Happy customers tell their friends, which brings me more customers. If I gave bad or shoddy service, my angry customers would not only never come back, they would tell all their friends to stay away. Even without government, this sort of thing tends to be self-correcting.

Yes. Because the trade in human flesh has tapered off so much in the rest of the world. As has the dumping of waste so toxic just breathing it ensures ugly death. Exactly. Humans are basically decent if left to their own devices and won't screw with each other or the planet to make a buck. Riiiight.

You go to sleep now, girls and boys. We'll read you another fairy story tomorrow night.

Quote:
I happily pay for what I use, or consume. I just don't want to pay for what YOU use or consume.

So you are- uncomfortable- with the concept of community. Sad.

Quote:
No, but what they do instead is to threaten to kill me if I don't pay them the tribute they ask ... they call it taxes!

Participate in the experiment or leave. Seems simple enough. Help keep the house clean, dry and warm or find somewhere else to live.

Quote:
Over time, they have learned that they are outnumbered by people like me, and that if they DO threaten our families we will kill them.

Well, you're definitely killing me. LOL. What color is the sky on your planet?

Quote:
If a majority -- even a plurality -- of people were as you say they are, the human race would have ceased to exist thousands of years ago.

Hello. Psycho. Humans are herd animals. Most humans FOLLOW. Jesus or Hitler, it makes little difference to most. It's all in the sales pitch and local environmental conditions such as scarcity of food.

It is our nature to live in groups. It is in our nature for those groups to have leaders. Deal with it.

btw: You clearly are still on the grid so I have to smile at the inherent hypocrisy of your position.

Quote:
Freedom based on mutual agreement and cooperation is all I want!!

Not according to you so far.

Quote:
Dependence, is not a part of the equation.

That door on the edge of the nation swings both ways, my freind. Don't let it bruise you on the way out. We Americans depend on each other. It's sort of the point.

Quote:
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is FORCE. Like fire it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master."
GEORGE WASHINGTON

But you wouldn't understand that.

I understand that the things said by a guy dead these last few centuries has little meaning without taking into account all the intervening, often supervening, data that has accrued since.

Something you clearly have yet to grasp.

We come in alone and we go out alone but, in between, we have each other.

Well.

We do.

The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

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

Friday, February 13, 2004 4:02 AM

Homosapiens is a species of predator, and the only way a species of predator can survive, is by not preying upon itself.

Question for you:

When it is moral for a group of people to do something that is IMmoral for one person to do alone?

loadandmakeready

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

Friday, February 13, 2004 4:50 AM

Loadandmakeready, you are still my hero. It's obvious you are full of even more esoteric facts and possess a deep understanding of reality.

The rest of you get a C- in rationalization.

You know... I'd written a long and clever responce as to the specifics but the goram .asp crapped out yet again and I lost a 400 word responce. So, let's just say I'm greatly pleased that everyone took time to make comments ... but that loadandmakeready is easily the most insightful and knowledgeable poster here. Heck, he's perhaps the most knowledgable person I've run across online on years! I deeply read each of loadandmakereadys' posts and groked the fullness, while others seemed to take each comment as a springboard to spout various points of ignorance and misunderstanding. Please, if you think something means one thing... read it again.. slowly.

I never lecture, not because I am shy or a bad speaker, but simply because I detest the sort of people who go to lectures and don't want to meet them. - H. L. Mencken

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

Friday, February 13, 2004 5:53 AM

hmmm... That might be just us Homosapiens. Predators in the wild weed out their weak and sickly. Keeps the pack tight and fit. In fact, through competition, only the "fittest" get to pass on their genes. We don't seem to do that today as "predators".

We homosapiens are more like a virus, we use up all of the resources mindlessly in one area, we spread out and take up more area, we reproduce thoughtlessly without regard.

Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
Homosapiens is a species of predator, and the only way a species of predator can survive, is by not preying upon itself.

Question for you:

When it is moral for a group of people to do something that is IMmoral for one person to do alone?

loadandmakeready

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

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

Friday, February 13, 2004 6:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

we reproduce thoughtlessly without regard.

Speak for yourself ... oh, you are ... sorry.

Quote:

Question for you:

When it is moral for a group of people to do something that is IMmoral for one person to do alone?

Still waiting for an answer to this one.

loadandmakeready

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

Friday, February 13, 2004 7:41 AM