March Towards Socialism Series Finale…

socialism1Ah… so we have marched through history gaining a better understanding of where the moves towards socialism/fascism began and grew. Now we move on to the last couple of years, with the end of the Bush Presidency and the beginning of the Obama administration. I must again say that I know there are a lot of things that I am not touching on here. I can’t write a full history of the US. I just write what comes to my mind. I think about things and go and research them. So in this final section we will touch on a few really big mistakes of George W. Bush, but primarily focus on the Obama administration and what they have done and plan to do, and why this is bad for our country.

 BushGeorge W. Bush. The name alone spurs many who follow the MSM lead to simply explode with hatred. Make no mistake, he did just as much to take us down this road as anyone. However, he wasn’t the evil man that many in the Democratic Party or the MSM would have the Sheeple believe. But let’s take a look at what he did do to take us down the path. Let’s begin with what I see as the biggest abomination of his 8 years, The Patriot Act. Never before were such extreme intrusions allowed by law into the private lives of everyday Americans. I get that we face a terrorist threat. But deciding that this Patriot Act was the answer is madness. The Patriot Act gives the government unprecedented ability to disregard civil liberties. The government can look into your email, tap your phone, search your home and do all of it without notifying you at any point. It expanded its language to “domestic terrorism” as well, which means they are probably planning to search all of our homes since DHS now calls us “radical extremists”. It allowed open-ended detainment of immigrants as well (hence holding detainees at Gitmo indefinitely) , and expanded intelligence gathering abilities overseas. I could write about the Patriot Act all day, but there is so much more to cover!

Despite his claims, Bush was not a fiscal conservative. He spent money like it was going out of style. He signed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act into law in 2003, which was the largest entitlement program to date then. The program was touted to cost $400 Billion over 10 years, a figure which had grown to $1.2 Trillion by 2005. The program did not have in it a way to fund itself, so not only did Bush offer a government entitlement (which we all know I despise), but he did so without having a plan to pay for it. Even O’Prompter noted this as he pointed out that Bush was more socialist than he is (wishful thinking at best).

capitalism-carrot-and-stickRegulation of industry is a large contentious point for me because I am fairly tired of listening to Democrats lay the claim that “Bush’s deregulation is the cause of all these troubles”. Because here are the facts, and why I claim that Bush did move us along to socialism, when deregulating woud have done the opposite and thus made me happier. Economic regulation expanded rapidly during the Bush administration. President Bush is actually recognized as the biggest regulator since Nixon. Bush administration increased the number of new pages in the Federal Registry, a proxy for economic regulation, from 64,438 new pages in 2001 to 78,090 in new pages in 2007, a record amount of regulation. Economically significant regulations, defined as regulations which cost more than $100 million a year, increased by 70%. Spending on regulation increased by 62% from $26.4 billion to $42.7 billion (So the next time a liberal hack talks about the massive deregulation of the last 8 years” causing this, point this out to their uneducated, MSM-led asses). Meanwhile, I will point out that regulation is government control of industry, which means socialism/fascism.

 During his last year in office, Bush was faced with growing concerns over job losses and the economy. After a 5 year record loss of jobs in February 2008. he pushed through a $170 Billion economic stimulus, sending tax rebates via check to taxpayers. Later in the year, as the housing market crumbled, the Democratic Congress passed, and Bush signed, the bailout of financial institutions to the tune of the $700 Billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)  Bill, along with the $85 Billion bailout of insurance giant AIG. Simultaneously, the government stepped in and took over conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac through the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.All of these steps, while being pushed by a Democratis Congress, were signed into law by Bush, and set the stage for the new vision of Washington where government control of private industry is fully accepted.

obama-cartoon-711310Enter one Barack Obama.

I am just going to say it up front, Barack Obama is a a Socialist/Fascist. He would try to say otherwise, and his lackeys will back him up, but the bottom line is that he has either done, or is proposing to do, more government expansion and more government encroachment into private industry than any President since FDR. So where do we begin?

Much like FDR, Obama has relied on class warfare to rise to the Presidency. He has pushed the belief that big business is out to get us. The only one that can save us is…. government done the Democrat’s way. The entire premise of the Obama campaign was we are going to get involved and regulate and control industry, because if we don’t they will continue to screw over all you poor folks. 

We talked in great length about all of the environmental laws and the movement that allowed government to exercise more and more control over both business and individuals in the name of “saving the planet”. While the environmental movement and its dangers are nothing new, they certainly saw a new push of power thanks to Al Gore and his inconvenient lie. I personally believe that Al Gore has been one of the most dangerous men in America over the last ten years. His winning an Oscar from the far left loons in Hollywood was somehow seen as a legitimizing thing for his crackpot theories. His Nobel Prize did the same, despite the fact that it was for “peace” not for “science”. To be truthful they should have created a new category of Nobel prize for best work of fiction. 

liberal-bartThe controlling trends of the environmental movement under Clinton, discussed in Part 5, were a new twist in how things get accomplished in the progressive movement. Obama, has brought back many of those same folks we call the Algorians and Clintonistas and stocked his cabinet and the White House with them. Which means that I am not surprised to see those controlling trends popping up again all the sudden. As my contributor said to me, “this is the kind of orchestrated control that occurred in Italy, Russia, and Germany before WWII.” And I think that is worth noting since the fascism we are seeing has not really been better represented in history than in those examples.

So let’s talk some specifics. What has Obama already accomplished? I thought I would go through all the Obama stuff in this article. I soon realized, when I reached 2000 words, that was impossible. So I will cover the following and we can discuss the rest in the comments and future articles. 

Economic Stimulus Bill:

Let’s start with health care here. The bill created a new position and a new commission both to oversee the health care industry. The introduction of what socialized medicine will look like under the Obama plan was outlined here. And what it looks like is a system that sets criteria based on some magical government formula that will determine whether you receive the medical help you need. Let’s make that clear for all the liberals who will want to argue this point. The government thinks it is a good idea for THEM, not you and your doctor, to determine the best course of action for treating what ails you.

And when the budget gets tight for the government (and it will because you and I both know they cannot afford this bullshit plan), how do you think that decision will be made? If you have a heart ailment and you consult your doctor, and he has no choice but to let government decide. Do you think you will get the right treatment? The Best treatment? Or do you think you will get the “most cost effective” treatment? And before you go trying to say government wouldn’t screw us that way, remember that military contracts for our soldier weapons, planes, etc go to the lowest bidder, not the best builder. Same goes for the road systems and every other thing we let government “decide” for us. 

The stimulus bill also gave us massive entitlement increases. And I do mean massive. Wondering why we are seeing several states who have no money to operate decide to turn down federal money. Let me give you an example. We talked about Clinton signing welfare reform and the positive results we saw from that. This bill overturns nearly every one of those reforms and increases the amount of entitlements and the number of people eligible for them. My example will go to Revolution’s state of Maryland. The economic stimulus bill increased welfare entitlements nearly double. Simultaneously the bill increased the amount of people who qualify for the entitlements. And that is OK right? I mean the federal government is footing the bill for all of this crap?

madoff-cartoonWrong. The federal government is footing all the bill for the next 2-5 years. Then the burden will fall to the state. See once the qualifications are lowered and the entitlements increased, they don’t go back down. No, in 5 years the federal government will just no longer foot the bill, and the state will be left holding the bag. They will have two choices. They can increase taxes to pay for these entitlements. Or they can ask the federal government for money to help cover costs. And what comes with the federal government giving you money? Control. This entitlement explosion will wreck the states of their sovereignty. And if you think that isn’t the federal government’s plan, you are fooling yourself. 

And just for the record. I know we are just taking care of those who can’t take care of themselves. The down and out. Care to know what the entitlement qualifications change to in Maryland? You qualify for food stamps if the two people in your household make less than $3200 a month. That is almost 40k a year. It isn’t just the destitute getting a government handout from this administration. And Maryland is taking the money. They will be broke in 5 years and under the thumb of the federal government even more than they are today. 

The welfare reforms that required you to be looking for a job and limited to 5 years of total payout? You remember those, the changes that increased income levels and lowered unemployment. Gone. The medicare plans that the government cannot afford? Qualification age lowered to 55 in a world where people are staying healthy 20 years longer than when medicare started. Unemployment benefits extended, but only if you were really poor. Because making no money because you are unemployed is much easier when you made more money when you were employed?

And let me give you an example of the way Obama views entitlement spending. In a interview last week he stated “We are going to reduce non-defense discretionary spending to the lowest levels in decades. So that part of the budget that doesn’t include entitlements and doesn’t include defense – that we have the most control over” Did you catch that. Entitlements, according to Obama, are NOT discretionary and they have no control over them. Really? Because you could have controlled them by not funding massive INCREASES in them in your shitty spending bill. 

I can see that I am already at 2000 words and I could write all night about all the socialist/fascist moves that the Obama administration has done or is planning to do. But I won’t do that. Instead I will simply list a bunch of stuff here for all of you to comment on:

 

  • white-house-socialismFinancial Bailout #2 of the Banks. Most importantly the new “test” as to whether a bank is healthy. They are using this “test” as grounds for telling banks who show up with cash in hand to repay bailout funds “NO”. Get that through your head folks. Banks who don’t want government help, who have the money and wish to repay the federal government are not being allowed to because government does not want the money back, they want control of your bank. Government control of the banks=socialism/fascism
  • The control being done over GM and Chrysler. The government is telling companies who will be their CEO, what cars or technologies they will produce, and how they will structure. They are telling companies when they will file for bankruptcy. They are telling companies everything that companies should be deciding for themselves. I have to be honest, if I owned GM, I would pay myself off and walk away, tell the government to go screw themselves. Government control of the auto industry= socialism/fascism. 
  • HR1388. Need I say more. Government controlled “volunteerism” with provisions for finding a socially acceptable way to make a 4 year commitment from every American mandatory. 
  • Nationalized Health Care. Perhaps the biggest piece in this whole thing. It will have its own article coming soon. It takes a lot of research so it is coming slowly. Government taking control of the health care industry= socialism/fascism
  • nanny-state-blissCap and Trade. Again, need I say more. Government beginning to exercise even more control over industry using the old standby environmental movement. Government control of industry= socialism/fascism
  • Massive changes to taxation and regulation aimed at the top earners of America, taking the wealth from those with the most, and redistributing it to those who didn’t earn it. A giant step in the path getting bigger. Income Redistribution= Socialism/Fascism
  • Proposed bill that would allow the President to have the ability to shut down the internet in the event of a “national emergency” (such as too many Americans visiting Stand Up For America and learning the truth about government). Government control of information= Socialism/Fascism
  • Proposed bailout of the print media in the US that is highly liberal and dying because of it. Coupled with the proposed reinstitution of the “Fairness Doctrine” to silence conservative talk radio. Government control of the media= Socialism/Fascism
  • Proposed increased control over the public education system (as if they don’t have enough control of it already) coupled with elimination or strict control over alternatives to government indoctrination centers such as voucher programs and home schooling. Government control over the education system= Socialism/Fascism
  • Proposed control over the census program to ensure that the group in power continues to remain in power. Government control over the election process= Socialism/Fascism
  • Let’s be honest I can do this all day. So I will leave it up to all of you to continue to add to this list in the comments below. I write enough articles about Obama and this crazy administration to populate a whole website or blog. Maybe I should start one……

 

wake-up-fascismSo there you go. Now, one of you liberals who loves to argue with me tell me how this entire series did not lead directly to the fact that the entire goal of government over the last 100 years has not been to move us to a socialistic form of control? Can you really even do that with a straight face? And since the endgame is so blatantly obvious, is this what you want for America? I mean really? If the majority of this country really wants to enter into a socialist/fascist form of government I will just have to accept that and plan my exit to somewhere else. But i have to be honest and say I don’t believe for a second that this is what America wants. I simply believe that it has been sold to an apathetic and politically stupid populace. 

I believe that America has been sleepwalking through life the last 50 years. Even now in the midst of the greatest challenges that this country has possibly ever faced, they remain oblivious to what is really happening. They remain complacent and cooperative because it is easier and they don’t realize yet what they are sacrificing. Even now when things are so bad, they waste their days away watching American Idol and posting 37 messages a day on facebook telling the world what their kids ate for lunch or did how the play date went. Americans are asleep at the wheel and they are headed for the cliff.

I intend to wake their asses up. 

That’s the end of this series, but not the end of the story. Let’s discuss below, and as usual, another article comes tomorrow….. Time to start figuring out just how to set the alarm clock.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. If you’ve been properly indoctrinated, Obama is the greatest President in US history. If your of traditional American moral values, our country is in a sorry state.

    • Could you please explain what part the Bilderberg group plays in this socialism take-over?
      Thanks,
      Pat

  2. USW,

    Excellent Post! My boyfriend and I had breakfast with a friend this morning where we discussed, among other things, just what the American people will accept/tolerate. Our Texan friend and I feel about the American people much as you do. My lib boyfriend has complete faith in the goodness and intellect of the American voter. He is looking forward to Obama’s America. (and somehow, I still manage to love the man) I guess in a couple of years we’ll all know who was paying attention, and who wasn’t, eh?

    • Alan F. says:

      A liberal willing to discuss rather than dismiss? Now there’s a rare find.

  3. Manuel says:

    It is terrifying how far it has come yet. Unfortunately many people are too lazy or too stupid to make up their own mind. They only manage to repeat what the media tells them. This is a crucial point, whoever controls media controls opinion and not only this. The more people get hooked on government for welfare etc. the more people will vote for it.
    I clearly see how things are in Germany and in Europe and where we are heading but it really surprised me that most of the US media except FOX News (God bless this channel!) already are that leftist.

    Who pays for CNN, CNBC etc.? Honestly, where do they get their money from?

    Their are two reasons why I think that the march to socialism won’t be stopped:

    1. People are too lazy to do something. The tea-parties where great but where are the other 300 million people? I bet a lot of them are getting fat in front of their TVs or computers. They follow their hobbies but are not able to see the dangers ahead or are not willing or too lazy to stand up.

    2. The march to socialism is not very fast but continuous and that is what makes it so dangerous. It’s like a slow acting venom. People don’t recognize it until it’s too late. It spreads like cancer. Treat it as soon as possible where the healing chances are high.

    • Bama dad says:

      “The march to socialism is not very fast”

      It’s been on light speed for the last 6 months and yes both parties are to blame.

      • Manuel says:

        At least it’s not fast enough to make the majority of people do something against it.
        If all companies would be under governmental control tomorrow people probably would revolt and go on the streets.
        As long as they don’t really feel this march to socialism because they still have their normal work and environment they don’t care about these peaces of freedom they give to away.

        • As long as they don’t really feel this march to socialism because they still have their normal work and environment they don’t care about these peaces of freedom they give to away.

          Manuel:
          I agree with your comment. Although people awake see the March to Socialism moving in warp speed, the average American doesn’t see it because…
          A) They don’t want to believe that the government is corrupt and not working in the best and common interest of Americans
          B) They could care less
          C) Just watch, know what is going on but remain silent
          D) Have been to conditioned or brainwashedd to see the truth

          You see, it will take a major event like the collapse of the commerical real estate and credit cards market (and its coming) as well as war on our land (China, Russia, terrorist groups) before people finally wake up but by then, the secret agenda on Capital Hill will be completed and good ‘ol America will be no more. Just my opinion.

          • Nubian,

            No offense, but you and I think alot alike :o) (if you’ve seen some of my other posts, you might find that somewhat amusing, or at least I hope you do)I don’t have anything to add to your post. I just want you to know that at least one person understands exactly where you’re coming from…..

            • I love like minds and I don’t take it offensive…I love to unlock people minds. I know that several others besides you and I think on the same wave path…Thank you!

          • Alan F. says:

            E) Because most are “one day at a time” human beings and can’t see anything past what they’re doing this week end.

          • Manuel says:

            Thanks for putting this into words, I completely agree.

            In my eyes a disruptive event that is sensible for most of the people is able to open their eyes. The only other way I can imagine is that media coverage changes and moves towards freedom of the individual. This could maybe have its beginning in tea parties and more and more people who get involved in it until it reaches a critical mass.
            The first way would be passive the second way requires active participation.

  4. Vinnster says:

    Excellent series USW. I found it very educational in how it tied a series of “do-gooder” initiatives and the evolution of the Progressive movement into the Socialist/Fascist movement it is today.

    I sincerely believe very few Americans have a clue what they have done the last fifty years to get us, most likely, to the point of no return. I say “point of no return,” because in order to reverse our current situation would require the enlightenment of 80% of the American population.

    The entire education system would have to be overhauled to go back to teaching factual history with a heavy emphasis on the principles that produced the founding of America and a return of the belief system that brought about its creation-it is every individual’s duty and responsibility to control their own destiny.

    It would also require an honest Press, which I think is impossible at this stage. For that to happen would require a complete overhaul of the Journalistic process from within. Meaning all the Journalism programs in all of our universities would have to purge themselves (can not be externally forced) of about 95% of its members.

    We have a population of people where roughly 65% of eligible voters show up to vote. In the last election 51% that did vote, voted to limit their own rights and liberties, as well as restrict their personal future prosperity. In essence, they voted to let someone else control their destiny. If that is not the very definition of a dumbed-down brainwashed society, I do not know what is.

    What they do not know is, they are going to get the education they missed when the current system of Socialism/Fascism reaches full bloom.

    I am sorry to say I am no longer in the “save America” mode, because I do not believe it is possible in the confines of current laws and peoples personal beliefs systems. We missed the last chance to “reset America” with the perceived bailout of our economic system. It was not bailed out, it was put on long term life support, but it will fail, and fail big as Socialism/Fascism always fails.

    If we would have allowed Capitalism to work as it should have, all the bad decisions and corruption of the last 100 years would have been reset by the “correction” of letting all the poor performing companies fail and go bankrupt, along with the revelation government intervention was the major cause. Granted we would have had another Great Depression, worst that the first, but it would have been one where America would have emerged the better. I said at the time, I would gladly forfeit everything I owned and start over with nothing (at 55) in lieu of what is coming.

    • Alan F. says:

      A cleaner result could have come from the government picking up the toxic assets it began creating back in 2000. The total cost was said on Fox business to have likely been in the neighborhood of 1 trillion dollars or the same amount Mr Clinton pissed away on his welfare mortgage act.

  5. Barberian says:

    My first time to this site and I am intrigued by the tone of the posters here and the content of USWeapon’s Series. I tire of the bantering that occurrs between the Liberal Progressives (leftist facists) and the Conservatives with short little jabs and digs. These lib’ progressives cannot be convinced and it is mental masterbation to try.

    Vinnster, I agree completely with your assessment of the current climate that we now find ourselves and would add another caveat to it. As long as we fail to educate the future generations on the fundementals of how and why our country was formed, we are fighting a losing battle. Thirty-odd years of deprogramming is impossible. Only the “School of Hard Knocks” can do that now.

    Also, when the voting majority pays no income taxes and rely on the Fed to “nanny” them through life, they will do what our congress currently does; vote themselves a salary increase(aka more government handouts).

    Great site!

    “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
    — Samuel Adams

  6. Amazed1 says:

    Our children and grandkids are going to pay a very high price for what our government is doing right now. They will look at us as to selfish to pay the costs of bad ideals, therefore we pushed the costs off on them to suffer for and they had nothing to do with them. The shock will be so great that our children will hate us for our stupitity. Welcome to the new generation of AMERICANS.

    • Alan F. says:

      Just keep telling your kids you were against this madness from the start and when you are old and grey, you’ll be able to safely stand between them and a flight of stairs.

  7. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I take at least SOME solace in knowing that in the 1770s, the founding fathers of this country did not initially represent a majority of the population. For many, going against the status quo and revolting against Great Britain was something they just did not want to do. Many saw no benefit in changing the way things were.

    Sure, maybe things would eventually be better in an independent America, but it would just be so easy to leave things the way that they were and hope that after George III was gone, the next Monarch of England would be more reasonable.

    It took a lot of work for the initial revolutionaries to convince people of the “rightness” of their cause, but in the end their hard work and sacrifices paid off.

    The problem now is that the despotic ruler is not some King of a European Country, but the very government of our own country. This makes the possibility of a revolution even more remote.

    We can hope that enough people realize that Obama and the Democrat Congress are totally screwed up that there is a peaceful revolution at the ballot box, but even this will probably not cause any meaningful shrinkage of government.

    Unfortunately, our great country will probably have to endure 100-200 years of misery before it meaningfully turns around. My grandchildren and their children will not recognize this country at all. If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he most certainly would not recognize this country already.

    We can get to work, spread the message, and hope for the best, but my optimism level is pretty darn low.

    • Peter, Maybe, just maybe, Texas has started something that will take hold, that may be the only stop to the total Fed control, short of revolution.

  8. Great series, USW and I really, really appreciate the time and research you put into it. I have learned a lot.

    Now the biggie, What Do We Do?

  9. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I believe that a wise course of action would be for individual States and even individual people would begin filing legal claims against the Federal Government for violating amendment X.

    I do not know whether the Supreme Court would actually have the balls to shoot down Government programs based upon violations of the tenth ammendment, but maybe some conservatives with deep pockets could give it a shot.

  10. laborlawguy says:

    The Patriot Act was nothing compared to Woodrow Wilson and his despotic regime, or even compared to FDR and Manzanilla, etc. How about John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts (which Wilson resurrected), or good ol’ Abe with his suspension of habeas corpus and midnight railroading of his critics out of the capital and into enemy lines? No, Dubya was a piker compared to his predecessors. That being said, he did spend us into bankruptcy, and Hosannah Obama is finishing it all up to create a kingdom of serfs, who will have to kowtow to Demofiends if they hope to eat.

    • Amazed1 says:

      Funny…we did not lose as many rights as it seems…..why? Because we had already lost them. If you read the 911 transcripts you realize before the passage of the Patriot act the government could not only trace phone calls there are recordings of some of the masterminds conversations with Osama right after the first tower was hit. The government has always done exactly what they wanted and called it national security. Don’t fool yourselves into thinking that under Bush this just started.

    • Alan F. says:

      Sure it started with GW… oh how soon they forget:

      http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html

      “The Clinton administration has turned the Community Reinvestment Act, a once-obscure and lightly enforced banking regulation law, into one of the most powerful mandates shaping American cities—and, as Senate Banking Committee chairman Phil Gramm memorably put it, a vast extortion scheme against the nation’s banks. Under its provisions, U.S. banks have committed nearly $1 trillion for inner-city and low-income mortgages and real estate development projects, most of it funneled through a nationwide network of left-wing community groups [like ACORN], intent, in some cases [including ACORN], on teaching their low-income clients that the financial system is their enemy and, implicitly, that government, rather than their own striving, is the key to their well-being.”

      How many who couldn’t afford the loans they received would be in danger of defaulting at some point? Why all of them.

      Who should have known this would be a problem? Why everyone involved comfortable with 6th grade math.

  11. The real danger of Barack Obama is that he can (and does) promise the world to the mindless minions, but he will not be held politically accountable, as the real bill and the real consequences will not take place until he is long out of office. Thus, there exists the real danger that people will continue to cling to his vision for America and ignore the tectonic changes taking place beneath their own feet. I am continually amazed at the blindness of so many people, including those in other countries, regarding this man. It is like looking at one of those tricky illustrations in which some people see one image and some see something completely different. No matter how hard they look at the picture, they cannot see the other image. For instance, how is it that something that caused such an uproar in 1993 (Hillary’s plan for universal healthcare) can pass with barely a whimper of opposition in 2009? Have Americans changed that much in 16 years? Where is the outrage?

    • esomhillgazette says:

      MadMom, you should get US to read that article you posted on your site. As a matter of fact, everyone should go to her site and read it. That is a great article!

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Sort of like when the great hope that was Ronald Reagan eased the mileage standards on American auto manufacturers which set in play pain we would experience and literally pay for years down the road.

      • Alan F. says:

        Sorry but whomever killed the use of diesels in personal autos and held onto such after low sulfate diesel arrived on the scene did the largest disservice. Go to Thailand and rent a Chevy Colorado 4×4 Crew Cab diesel, enjoy the hell out its incredible fuel efficiency (30+ MPG), torque (off road heaven) and versatility (its a real truck). Recommended.

        In the car realm we’ve been enjoying the use of the VW Jetta diesel which gets a very real MPG of 45 with 4 adults for dead weight since the early 80’s. The local paper guy here has been driving the same one for decades and is approaching the 1 million kilometer mark. Just think of his “carbon footprint” having had one fuel efficient car and only that one for 620,000 miles without serious maintenance. All those saved resources, he puts Jabba the Gore to shame.

        As for MPG it went south when antipollution measures stripped away efficiency. The choice was mpg or reducing pollution and right choice was made. Oh and please no 100MPG carbs or such. Leave that idiocy on the other forums.

    • Alan F. says:

      America has always held its celebrities far above the masses. You have murderers, child molesters and thieves all excused because of their celebrity whether you care to admit it or not. With that in mind what could a celebrity president get away with? Everything.

  12. I think we have two options left to us, and only two:

    1) State governments take back power from the Fed and assert the State’s sovereignty.

    2) Armed revolution.

    Otherwise, we’ll remain Socialists.

    • Black Flag says:

      3) Do nothing – and I mean nothing – with or for the government.

      Violence will do nothing but energize the Government, so 1) is a no-go

      2) Very slim – everything the Feds are, the States are too – just smaller.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        It would be nice if everyone could simply refuse to pay their taxes. However, the government has designed things so that we are taxed every time we get a paycheck and taxed again any time we purchase (virtually) anything, so there is almost no way to avoid paying taxes unless we were all to become truly self-sufficient and “off of the grid”. A few people can manage this, but far to few to make an impact on the government.

        • Alan F. says:

          Absolutely correct! Tax time is the government making that grab for what they missed first time around and your one chance at recouping when they have taken far too much.

      • Disgusted in Cali says:

        How do you not do anything for or with the government? If you work, taxes get taken out of your check. You have to get to work somehow and unless you live within bike riding distance you have to drive or take a bus, more taxes. If you own property, theres property taxes to be paid. If you buy anything, taxed again.

        We are in the process of developing our secluded, highly defencable land into a self-sufficient property so in a few years we will be somewhat “off the grid” but thats not going to help our country survive.

        • Black Flag says:

          There are careful ways you can organize yourself so to avoid paying tax.

          True, even I can’t avoid all taxes, but I avoid most taxes.

          (Note the avoid … be very careful not to evade, the thieves hate it when you do that and they become violent)

  13. esomhillgazette says:

    I have to say that I echo some of the sentiments expressed so far. My optimism that this Nation and our government can be stopped around before we fall off the Socio/Fascism cliff is fading fast. And the really sad thing to me is, the BASTARDS are going to pull the rest of us right off along with them.

    It seems to me that too many of us (The People) are watching TV. And while American Idol and MSNBC are on, they are getting their daily “fix” of reality, hollywood style. It is unbelievable to me that a lot of America’s Morals, Political thought, and knowledge comes from whatever the MSM or Hollywood tells them it’s supposed to be. But it’s blatantly apparent that it does.

    It’s no wonder Obama has the majority of them brainwa…. uhmmm, believing in his vision for America. When “We The People” begin to believe folks like Barack Hussien Obama are the answer to our Nation’s problems, then boy, we are truly in the crapper.

    I tell folks all the time that we need to get involved with our government and tell them that NO, we do NOT like the direction in which we are being taken. That we DEMAND our rights and that the damn government get OUT of our lives. But it’s like a fart in a Hurricaine. Ain’t nobody listening and if they do hear me they simply don’t care or don’t see the need or the urgency. My own family is this way. I swear, I’m ready to grab them all by the shoulders and shake the hell out of them and scream into their face to “WAKE THE HELL UP!!!!!!”

    Sorry. I uhmmm… kind of got carried away with my fingers in rage for a minute. I’m okay now I think. Anyway. I try to tell even my own family about what we need to do, and get a shrug and a, “oh, it’ll all work out. If he goes too far, we’ll just vote him out the next election!” I try to say that we don’t have that much time. That long before 2010, much less 2012, the laws and regulations will be in place destroying us as a Nation, and that we need to come together as one and say “ENOUGH”!

    With all the Bailouts, Government Industry and Banking takeovers, Universal Health, and Cap & Trade Legislation, coupled with a Spending spree the likes of which we haven’t seen since, well, EVER, and our estinkin’ Politicians printing money 24/7, there will be no United States of America left when all of this $hit comes home to roost!

    If I sound just a tad frustrated, it’s because I am. What does it take to wake America up to the fact that we are circling the damn drain? That if we quickly don’t jump up off of our asses and demand change instead of just watching the feces hit the fan and splatter that we won’t have a Country left? WHAT WILL IT TAKE??

    I am listening more and more to BF and his Anarchy, and he is starting to make more and more sense to me. And (no offense BF) that’s just freakin’ sad.

    • When I think of the apathy of the American people, I always come back to the same question. “At what point should the people of 1930’s Germany have taken action to prevent Hitler’s ascension to power and control of their country?”.

      • I think in those terms also. I remember learning about Hitler in middle or high school, and thinking, “why didn’t they stop him” and now here we are and I’m thinking the same thing.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          They didn’t stop Hitler because his propaganda machine was even more powerful than the MSM of today. He ensured that the only views getting out were his own, and that they were put in as positive a light as possible. He also had the advantage of the fact that Germany in the 1920s and early 1930s was an absolutely deplorable place to live. The people wanted “hope and change” and that is what they voted for when they brought Hitler into power. The conditions in Germany in the 1920’s and 1930’s were a crisis that Hitler most certainly did not waste in his quest for ultimate power.

          It is no different in America today. Obama has taken a state of crisis in this country and promised the people “hope and change” and used his propaganda machine to build up a huge cult of personality for himself. There is a reason that many nickname him “The Messiah”.

          Back in the Carter years when the Democrats held the Presidency, a large majority in the House, and a supermajority in the Senate, their was not THAT much danger to the country because even most Democrats viewed Carter as a bumbling idiot.

          Now, there is real danger, because the Democrats have a large majority in the house, effectively a supermajority in the Senate, and a President who is viewed as an infallable superhero by about 60% of the population.

          Never mind that the polls show that 55% of all Americans view “big government” as a huge problem, 60% of Americans still say that Obama is doing a good job. This is the point where the slope gets extremely steep and slippery.

      • Bama dad says:

        Why did Hitler come to power

        1. Long-term bitterness

        Deep anger about the First World War and the Treaty of Versailles created an underlying bitterness to which Hitler’s viciousness and expansionism appealed, so they gave him support.

        2. Ineffective Constitution

        Weaknesses in the Constitution crippled the government. In fact, there were many people in Germany who wanted a return to dictatorship. When the crisis came in 1929–1933 – there was no one who was prepared or able to fight to stop Hitler.

        3. Money

        The financial support of wealthy businessmen gave Hitler the money to run his propaganda and election campaigns.

        4. Propaganda

        Nazi propaganda persuaded the German masses to believe that the Jews were to blame and that Hitler was their last hope.

        5. Programme

        Hitler promised everybody something, so they supported him.

        6. Attacks on other parties

        The Stormtroopers attacked Jews and people who opposed Hitler. Many opponents kept quiet simply because they were scared of being murdered – and, if they were, the judges simply let the Stormtroopers go free (see point 2).

        7. Personal Qualities

        Hitler was a brilliant speaker, and his eyes had a peculiar power over people. He was a good organiser and politician. He was a driven, unstable man, who believed that he had been called by God to become dictator of Germany and rule the world. This kept him going when other people might have given up. His self-belief persuaded people to believe in him.

        8. Economic Depression

        After the Wall Street Crash of 1929, the US called in its loans to Germany, and the German economy collapsed. The Number of unemployed grew; people starved on the streets. In the crisis, people wanted someone to blame, and looked to extreme solutions – Hitler offered them both, and Nazi success in the elections grew.
        Germans turned to Nazism because they were desperate. The number of Nazi seats in the Reichstag rose from 12 in 1928 to 230 in July 1932.

        9. Recruited by Hindenburg

        In November 1932 elections the Nazis again failed to get a majority of seats in the Reichstag. Their share of the vote fell – from 230 seats to only 196. Hitler contemplated suicide. But then he was rescued by Hindenburg.
        Franz von Papen (a friend of Hindenburg) was Chancellor, but he could not get enough support in the Reichstag. Hindenburg and von Papen were having to govern by emergency decree under Article 48 of the Constitution. They offered Hitler the post of vice-Chancellor if he promised to support them.
        Hitler refused – he demanded to be made Chancellor. So Von Papen and Hindenburg took a risk. On 30 January 1933 Hindenburg made Hitler Chancellor. He thought he could control Hitler – how wrong he was.
        In the end, Hitler did not TAKE power at all – he was given it.

        See 3, Obama raised a ton of money.
        See 4, replace Jew with business and Hitler with Obama.
        See 5, take it just like it reads.
        See 6, change other parties to republicans.
        See 7, change Hitler to Obama.
        See 8 We are in a what? Depression.

        Now before anyone screams that I am comparing Obama to Hitler, I am not. I am showing some of the main reasons Hitler came to power. You can learn a lot from history, scary ain’t it.

      • Andrew Gabriel says:

        People usually choose the path of less resistance. When will people wake up? They won’t, they will give their liberties as they have been doing and they will gladly turn to socialism/fascism bacause it is easier to accept and follow that path than to fight for real democracy. Democracy takes work, and sacrifice and a tenacity that few now posess. America is a melting pot of soo many cultures, most who are very understanding/friendly of socialist programs and ideas. So if were expecting the masses to wake up, not gonna happen. We are in a economic recession that has allowed the government to pass all legislation it needs to grow. Once the economy recovers that will stop some what because peoples attention will shift. People are worried about losing their “American Dream”. Their house in suburbia, their cars, thier cable,and plasma screens, everything that they believe makes them worth anything. So thats why this administration has been busy busy. So ya’ll want change? Do it! Don’t try to make the cattle masses understand, they like to be herded. The American way of life was the dream of the few, that controlled the many. People want to be told what to do, they don’t want to think for themselves. So my advice to all in this blog is the following:
        We are the few, so lets unite and organize!
        What do the masses want? That is not the question, It is what WE want for the masses? We have their best interest at heart? if we do Great! Well lets lead them to it, not wait for them te realize it, because they won’t.
        How do we start? We have started, by voicing our concerns here. But this is not enough, so my suggestion if at all possible, lets leave the comfort of our screen names and our laptops and lets start knowing who we are. Lets see how much influence we have collectively and lets use it. KNowing that the logistics of having all of us meet in one place face to face is hard, I suggest a conference call with whom ever is interested and discuss ideas there. Maybe then we can start shifting from the “virtual world” to the real world.

        • I’m in, where and when?

          • Andrew Gabriel says:

            G-Man Lets not lets this go unheard, the helmers of this site have to be on board. What do u say USW how about you BF? G-Man send me an e-mail and anyone who is interested Somethingnew16@live.com.

            Cindi your right, complacency is the problem, so we can’t wait for them to want to wake up, because when they do, it will be too late, and i for one don’t have the patience to wait for them, do you?

            • Andrew,

              Its not a matter of waiting for them to wake up. I’m convinced (at this point in time) that many of them won’t wake up, EVER. The few who do, won’t do so until its much too late to change anything. As for fighting, I don’t think this fight is worth the trouble. I choose my fights carefully. I don’t see how we’ll win this one as the deck is already stacked against us. I prefer to prepare for the inevitable collapse, and my survival, and if I can manage it, the survival of my loved ones.

              • Andrew Gabriel says:

                Cyndi,
                Evil prevails when good people choose to do nothing. You rather just wait and see the country burn, and not try atleast to change something? I rather die trying than live my life as a coward. Cyndi do it for your loved ones. Do something, anything. It is our duty as Americans to try and help America, not ditch it.

              • Andrew,

                I’m not a coward, just a selfish person who does what she needs to stay alive. I don’t lay claim to the moral high ground. Its crowded up there, and I don’t like crowds. Some of my loved ones are all for going off the cliff. The best thing I can do for them is to offer assistance if they should change their minds about the going over the cliff. Do you understand? I’ve tried to tell them, and they will not listen and become more deterimined to prove me wrong. I’m not going to waste my resources on people who are just not interested. I will not be a martyr to any cause. That’s a fine thing to do if that’s your choice, but its just not for me. If I see that victory is possible and worth the trouble, then I will fight. Otherwise, I stay out of it. Its not cowardice, it callousness.

              • AMEN! Completely on point and that is what I am teaching. no need to try to fight because unfortunately, its to late. PREPARE and SURVIVAL is what is important now.

        • Andrew,

          Do you believe your objective (waking up the masses) is next to impossible? It has a lot of merit, but there are challenges. Not the least of which that the masses just plain aren’t interested. As long as they have the luxury of remaining asleep, they will.

          President Bush had the objective of ‘bringing democracy’ to the ME. I’m pretty sure we can say that hasn’t been very successful. Why? Because the average person in a non democratic society just plain isn’t interested in it. They have their society, their law, their culture. Its ‘worked’ for them, and most of them probably don’t feel the need to change a thing. So, how does one get someone else to care? How do you get Americans to care? Most Americans have had it pretty good overall and don’t feel threatened by what’s going on. They just don’t take it seriously, and it causes them to be complacent. I believe complacancy is what kills.

          • I'm learning! says:

            The trick is in how to wake them up. Many members of my family rant, rave, preach about the evils of government and the horrible things to come. Most people I know (myself included until a few months ago) ignored it because you just get sick of hearing such negativity. Then one mostly quiet member of my family became political. However the mythology is much quieter – bringing up points, making people think. He sort of reminds me of BF. That converted me. I work with people who prefer to stick their head in the sand; however, I find the subtle technique is waking them up too. Sometimes less is more….

    • It was interesting that during his self-created “first 100 days” worship session in Missouri, that he mentioned the tea parties. That proves they worked, and that it is worrying him and his comrades.

      Odd comment he made, about his Universal Health Care….and waving tea bags….oh, he gets it, he just wants to get the focus off what people are really MAD about…and that list is long.

      When he mentioned the tea parties, too bad the crowd didn’t tell him to quit pissing money away on Air Force One photo ops with the Statue of Liberty and stupid self serving campaign trips all over the world….the campaign is OVER, the voters should demand Air Force One is grounded, except for emergencies. They should have kicked his ass out of Missouri right then and there.

      Many of us have sure as hell had to make that choice, when you’re broke YOU DON’T TRAVEL. Well unless you hitchhike 🙂

  14. Esom: You have raised the right question. What will it take to wake folks up to what is happening and how it will end?

    So lets try this. I think there are some on this site that weren’t all that concerned about where we were or going just a few months ago. I also think some of them have changed their minds.

    I would like to ask them to post their answer to the quetion. What was it that caused you to wake up and realize this is not going to end well?

    I would also like to hear from the liberal monitors of this site why they think it will all work out OK. A real explanation by the way, not “well Bush ran up the deficit too”.

    It has finally stopped snowing here and the sun has come out.
    My mood is improving, although very slowly.
    LOL on this Friday
    JAC

    • Snow?!!!! Yikes.

    • esomhillgazette says:

      Let me be the first to answer your question JAC, as I am one of those who has woken up in the last few months.

      I didn’t vote for Obama. I voted for McCain. I held out a very small hope when McCain chose Palin as his running mate, but that hope faded quickly.

      I guess you could say I started wakin’ up quick, fast, and in a hurry, when it became so obvious that Obama was the Media darling of the century and could do no wrong. As I said in an earlier post a couple of days ago, changes have always before come so slowly that I just hadn’t really paid much attention. I think I typified a lot of Americans.

      Then I started hearing what the Obamanation was spewing. In this I do not typify America at all. I say that because I listened to what he was really saying, not just what came out of his mouth. Most of what he is doing now is exactly what he said he would do if elected. In saying that in his 1st 100 days speech, he was dead straight with us. The problem was, that most weren’t listening to what he was telling them. And it’s not all their fault. Most were caught up in his “Hope and Change” mantra.

      The poor people saw him as their savior from a life of poverty without any effort on their part(that IS their fault). A lot of the black people weren’t like Nubian. They did indeed vote for him because of his color. Some were smart enough to know he was full of dookey, but hey, he was one of them, nothing else mattered. Some were like Nubian. They believed in his hope and change and didn’t vote for color and were screwed like the rest of us for it. And he was counting on that. Others were just too stupid politically to know what they were doing, and he counted on that also. Then there were the rest. They knew full well what Obama was going to do and they were just fine with it. These are the dangerous ones. Because of these fools, we are headed for disaster. Of course, not for them. This is what they’ve wanted from the start. It’s a sad time for America JAC. I think these last are going to get what they want. Our destruction.

      I wish my mood was improving but obviously not. It’s raining and thundering here and my mood is as black as the damn clouds over my head.

      Yo’ pal, EHG

    • JAC, What woke me up was the bailout last fall! I was so infuriated that, even as the public vast majority was agianst it, it was passed anyway. At that point I realized that the boat passed me by when I wasn’t looking, and it was time for me to look and look hard. That eventually brought me to this site, and have been here ever since. What I’ve learned is invaluable, and I feel that I’ve made some good friends as well.

      PEACE
      G!

    • Disgusted in Cali says:

      I woke up when the stimulous package got rammed down our throats. This was just pure stupidity! At least give us a moment to read the thing!!

    • Bama dad says:

      What changed me was the 2006 midterm elections that gave the dems a large control of congress and Bush jumping on their spend wagon. I know I have said it before but the last few months on USW’s site has taught me a lot and caused me to actually study more. It’s almost like being in school again. Wait I HATED school.

    • It was the bailout (TARP) last fall for me….when you have Bush, McCain, Obama AND Congress in Washington agreeing to put the screws to the American people….and ex Wall Street execs in the mix (Paulson),NO accountability….a runaway train. In spite of the outcry from the public, they did it anyway.

      I never had any illusions about Obama and never considered voting for him, but wasn’t happy about the alternative either.

      After the election, my brother and I, who are as “different as night & day” on many issues….compared notes and learned that neither one of us could sleep the night of the election, and many nights since.

      One thing that cheers me up a bit….spell check on here still does not recognize “OBAMA”….lol

  15. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    The Constitution was designed to set forth the powers allowed to the Federal Government and to limit those powers as much as possible.

    By allowing the continued abrogation of the Constitution by the Federal Government (and in many cases condoning it), we have caused (or at least allowed) the failure of the Constitution to do what it was designed to do.

    I believe that we are witnessing the failure of the “Great American Experiment” not because the Constitution is a bad document, but because we have willingly allowed it to be ignored.

  16. Black Flag says:

    From a gold report this morning:


    Gold fell marginally for a second day yesterday as gold continues to consolidate after last week’s 5% gain.

    Gold’s trading was erratic yesterday with unusually large sell orders leading to sharp falls in the price in seconds prior to mild rebounds. Such sharp and speedy declines are very unusual and would suggest a large player wanted gold prices lower in the futures market. (BF says -> Bullion banks)

    GFMS estimate that scrap supply may have reached a very large 500 tonnes in the first quarter. Despite this huge additional supply which was swallowed by the market, gold remained firm and this bodes very well for prices in the coming months. Scrap supply simply cannot continue at this rate.

  17. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    http://www.newsmax.com/limbaugh/same_sex_marriage_Hilton/2009/05/01/209686.html

    I was going to originally say that my posting of the above link was off-topic for today. Then I thought about it… it is totally ON-TOPIC for today!

    We are all being programmed. I believe that all of us can admit that all organisms that differentiate into male and female versions of the organism do so as a way to perpetuate the species.

    Marriage was a way for man to add some dignity to this process. As BF has said, there are 2 kinds of male – the sow your oats kind, and the protect your progeny at all costs kind. The sow your oats kind impregnates as many females as possible to ensure that he has as many genetically varied offspring as possible and that some portion of his DNA will thereby survive in the gene pool. The protect your own progeny at all costs kind prefers to select one mate with the desireable characteristics, have a family with that mate, and then will fight to the death to protect his mate and his offspring.

    At some point, humans decided to favor type 2 by coming up with marriage, which formalizes this arrangement. At some later point, governments decided to give certain benefits to people partaking in such an arrangement, because governments recognized that stable families led to a stable country.

    Now we are being told that these same benefits should go to any couple that chooses to live together regardless of their biological capability in such an arrangement to produce offspring!
    Oh sure, they would theoretically be able to RAISE offspring should they choose to adopt or whatever, but that is not biologically relevant. The could also produce children in a biological manner through surrogates or use of the latest medical technology, but as an actual “couple” it remains that they are biologically incapable of producing offspring with each other in an attempt to propagate the species.

    Why then, from a biological standpoint, would we confer upon people that choose this the same benefits that we confer upon the people that choose the arrangement that provides the most stability to the society and the means of propagating the species?

    Notice how I carefully avoided putting anything about religion in there and still made the argument?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I should also note that arguing against gay marriage was not really my point there (although I think I did a pretty good job of it :)), but my point was that we are all being programmed to feel like anything we have believed in the past is no longer valid.

      The importance of this is that if the government and certain parts of a society can break down the old morals, they can then replace them with a new set of morals which will tell us that whatever they are trying to do is perfectly ok. Once enough of us believe that whatever they are doing is perfectly ok, they have most certainly won.

      • esomhillgazette says:

        I think you did a pretty good job of it too! So good, as a matter of fact, I’m going to cut and paste it so I won’t forget it. 😉

      • TexasChem says:

        I simply do not understand how one can expect society to stay morally sound without religion to use as a standard.Some of you on the blog say that you can not have religion in government and I agree to a point BUT; our fundamental beliefs of right and wrong are undeniably judeo/christian.These beliefs are TAUGHT they are not instinctual.If you fail to have the means of teaching these beliefs how will they survive on to the next generation?Can you guys not see this failure to pass on these beliefs is detrimental to our society as a whole?America is imploding within itself right now because of the new set of morals being taught.Hey its ok to do this and that.Lets legalize cannabis, and maybe next year lets legalize heroin?Teachers in our schools can’t talk about religion, don’t try to teach religion.Don’t pray and don’t say the pledge of allegiance.And some of you wonder why we have kids killing their parents or fellow students?Students are taught incorrect versions of history and just plain dumbed down in this day.Stop drinking the kool-aid and open your eyes to what is happening to our country, to our children and to our FREEDOMS!

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          I agree with this to a certain extent. For a society to function, there must be at least a general consensus of what is right and what is wrong.

          I see a large portion of the downfall of civilized society (not just this particular society, but ANY civilized society) can be traced to losing its “moral compass”

          Rome eventually begat Caligula, and the society that was founded by Washington and Jefferson eventually begat Obama (and Perez Hilton). Perhaps even by studying history, we are still doomed to repeat it anyway, which is unfortunate.

          I do not think that a stable society requires religion per se, but it does require a society with a strong moral foundation that a VAST majority of the populace can agree upon.

          • TexasChem says:

            Yes Peter I see your point but let me ask you where will you get your morals for the foundation?As I said earlier morals are taught they are not instinctual therefore whatever morals a person has today were learned and adopted from…..drum roll…..religion. 🙂

    • Black Flag says:

      We have evolved from the requirement of male/female procreation and family protection to a civilization by which the protection of human life is done by community.

      The argument you place forward would also suggest that adoption is a perversion.

      But, yet I know you would not claim such – so, somewhere, your argument is incomplete.

      Since adoption is acknowledged (in fact, laudable) even if done by a single adult, multiplying the number of adults to the care of a child should be even more laudable and supported as it enhances the survivability of that child(ren).

      The care of child(ren) by adult is the generic definition of family – therefore, any multiple of adults into that unit would still would complete that definition.

      Whether the arrangements between the adults in a family wish to organized formally by contract (ie: marriage) is a matter of that family, and not a matter of the community.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Adoption may be seen as laudible, but biologically speaking, their are very few species that practice it the way that humans do.

        In other species, if a child of that species is orphaned, it is generally either (A) left to die or (B) adopted into another family of that species which is comprised of a mother and a father and other children.

        The whole “it takes a village of rhinos to raise a baby rhino” argument is a fallacy. Either the baby rhino is left to die or the baby rhino is taken in by another rhino family. (Not sure which is the case specifically with rhinos, they just came into my head, perhaps because of all of the RINO talk lately :))

        At any rate, there are precious few (if any) examples in any other species in which an orphaned child is raised by 2 male adults or 2 female adults.

        Yes, there are species where one male has more than one mate, and the females do most of the work raising the children, but I cannot think of any species off of the top of my head where 2 males (or 2 females) will elect to raise an orphaned (adopted) child.

        Your assertion that adoption is “laudable” is a social construct of humans.

      • TexasChem says:

        BF Stated:The argument you place forward would also suggest that adoption is a perversion.

        TC:Would adoption by a same sex marriage couple be a perversion if the child adopted were taught by the same sex parents that homosexuality were a preferred social state over heterosexual behavior?I mean the child would be their child so the parents should be able to teach them what they wish right?
        Or is this just another grey area that we should allow versus having a distinct black and white standing?I am increasingly frustrated with the way society accepts possibly/maybe over right and wrong.

        • Black Flag says:

          The responsibility of the adults is to raise their child in a manner they see best.

          For someone else to interfere with this also threatens interference on you.

          If you are unwilling for others to deem you wrong in your belief, you must be unwilling to force your beliefs on others.

          “If we do not believe in freedom for those we despise we do not believe in it at all”

          • TexasChem says:

            I’m gonna have to start calling you GreyFlag!

            BF:The responsibility of the adults is to raise their child in a manner they see best.

            TC:Even if that manner is detrimental to the child and society?

            BF:For someone else to interfere with this also threatens interference on you.

            TC:I agree which is why I believe in having a strong defense whether at my home or in respect to my country.

            BF:If you are unwilling for others to deem you wrong in your belief, you must be unwilling to force your beliefs on others.

            TC:I would never physically force my beliefs on anyone unless it became a reason for my families survival although I do frequently attempt dialogue at accomplishing a change of reasoning.

            BF:“If we do not believe in freedom for those we despise we do not believe in it at all”

            TC:This is why I believe in aculturalization.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            “The responsibility of the adults is to raise their child in a manner they see best.”

            That is my contention as well. Biologically, a child is the product of 2 adults, one male and one female. It is the responsibility of this male and this female (the adults) to raise their child in a manner they see best.”

            We can get around biology to a certain extent these days through the use of test tubes, surrogates, etc. However, biologically speaking, a child is still the product of an egg that came from one particular female and a sperm that came from one particular male. Biologically speaking, that child belongs to whomever produced that egg and that sperm. By your statement, it is possible to argue that whoever is responsible for producing that egg and that sperm are actually responsible for raising that child (which is the way it WOULD be if it were not for test tubes, surrogates and other things like that).

        • USWeapon says:

          TC,

          See my response below #33

      • Black Flag says:

        Absolutely, Peter – !

        The construct of the human family is human!

        Exampling Rhino’s is irrelevant. How ant’s organize themselves is equally irrelevant. Exampling any other species organization is equally irrelevant.

        We humans have organized ourselves civilly, no other animals we know of does this.

        • TexasChem says:

          Civility is a means to an ends depending on motive.

        • Black Flag says:

          I will not battle with semantics.

          Civilly, morally, righteously… what ever word you wish to use representing the peaceful interaction between people.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          We claim that humans organize themselves civilly, although this is not always the case obviously.

          We are capable of running the entire planet as a civilized society, and we are equally capable of destroying the entire planet. No other species has these capabilities.

          We are the only species in which a male and a female will willingly give up a child to someone else in the hope that that child will have a better life.

          We are the only species that takes active measures before a child is born to prevent the birth of that child.

          We could see one or both of these things as moral (in fact, many people attempt to view BOTH of these things as moral). We think it is great that people can give up a child for adoption so that that child can have a better life, and we also think that it is great that people can choose to actively cause a conceived child not to be born because it is the mother’s right whether or not to carry that child to term and have it be born. I for one cannot reconcile how both of these postitions can be “great”, but that is just me.

          The construct of the family is not, however, strictly human. There are other species in which a male mates with a female, stays with that female for life, and they produce and raise children in that setting. Some of these other species will adopt an ORPHANED child, although they will not willingly give up one of their own children to another family unit if both of the parents of the child are living. Also, none of these other species use any means that I know of to actively prevent an unborn child from being born (although they might kill a child at birth if it has defects which would cause it to be unable to survive, or they might just let the child live and be food for the predators).

          In some ways, we can be seen to be more “civilized” than the animals, in other ways, not really.

          I for one, as a human, am glad that we have the option of giving up a child for adoption even in cases where both the mother and father are still living, since I am the product of just such an event. My biological parents were both in college at the time of my birth, and my mother (and father) chose to carry me to term and allow me to be raised by another family because they felt that at that particular time they lacked the resources to raise me properly. So personally I cannot say that I am AGAINST the human construct of adoption. I personally find it highly preferable to the alternative of ending up a mass of dead cells in a vacuum cleaner.

          I got kinda off-track there, but I guess what I was trying to say is that what humans do in the name of being “civilized” does not always jive with biology.

          • esomhillgazette says:

            Also, what some call “Civilized”, others call “Barbarism”. In fact, some would say that the murder of a child, to stop an “inconvenience”, is not Civility at all, but is Barbaric.

            But then I guess it all depends on whether or not you see it as a child to begin with, or just as an “inconvenient life event”.

        • USWeapon says:

          Excellent point BF… I am willing to accept the argument of the animals do it this way, but not as a justification of how humans do it. We have created society and civility as we know it and therefore are not animals any longer.

          If we were to be compared to Lions and expected to act like them, then it would be accepted for the bigger, stronger male to take my wife, my food, and slaughter my children. We are humans, and humans are different from other living things because we have intelligent thought.

          At least some of us do…. LOL

          • TexasChem says:

            US I agree up to a point but I know you understand that we have no universal civility amongst the various societies throughout the world.Cultural differences abound now that some societies look upon with favor and others disgust.As an example: the oppressive nature of Islam towards its women.The laws of Sharia are IMO downright barbaric.But in any event I just wanted to point out that mankind is not as “civil” as some may think.

    • jrobo1980 says:

      Awesome Peter guess you pretty much blasted my comment from yesterday to bits about this topic and its ties to religion 😛

  18. Black Flag says:

    The people were not asleep in the past 50 (150?) years.

    Government positioned itself – as it always does – as the solution to problems. People used it to try to solve problems. Made them worse. People continued to use it more to solve more problems. Made them worse. People STILL continue to use it to solve even more problems. See that pattern?

    Most of you here claim you voted and have voted in every election. How’s that working for ya?

    Did government get better?

    A number of reader at this blog realize the consequences of government action is very troubling and problematic.

    What is slowly coming to dawn is that all government action creates these horrific consequences.

    I repeat – attempting to use government to solve any human problem will cause far worse problems….including attempting to use government to solve itself

    If government is ill-equipped to solve human problems – as most here agree – how can you believe government is any better equipped to solve the problem of it own nature?

    That is like asking a broken tool to fix itself. Can’t be done and worse, breaks the tool even more.

    • TexasChem says:

      Ok Mr. BF Ghandii what are we supposed to do? 🙂

      I would very much like to hear what the moral,legal, and cultural basis of your Utopia without government would be founded.

    • Black Flag says:

      The goal is not utopia.

      The goal is freedom.

      “Without government…” is ‘without the legitimacy to inflict violence on non-violent people’

      Are you with me up to here….?

      • TexasChem says:

        Our current government was defined in the constitution to not inflict violence on non-violent people.

        • Black Flag says:

          No, sir.

          The Constitution is a document that justifies the use of violence upon non-violent people.

          It simply describes a process by which government justifies such violence – called ‘due process’.

          ..be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation…

          So who determines how little ‘money’ you will pay me for stealing my land? What happens if I do not agree you are just?

          • TexasChem says:

            BF:So who determines how little ‘money’ you will pay me for stealing my land? What happens if I do not agree you are just?

            TC:Lawmakers elected to the republic by the people, to act on behalf of the people determine the laws.If you do not agree the laws are just then elect officials you view as just.If that doen’t work and you feel the government is being tyrannical then the 2nd amendment gives you the right to form a militia, bear arms to keep a government in check.

            The problem we have here is politicians are not for the people so much as for themselves since the constitution has been misinterpreted to represent a select few for their gain BF.

            The government is sound except for there needing to be be more strict laws to determine the legth of time an elected official can remain in office to reduce the possibility of the powermongering we see happening today.

    • BF:

      You said: “The people were not asleep in the past 50 (150?) years.”

      I strongly disagree. But perhaps I asked the wrong question.

      It should have been: What did you wake up to realize?

      You see, I think there was a time when most people did know what the basis of this country was and remained vigilant in its defence. While the govt may have positioned itself as the answer, there was a time when a majority of Americans did not accept that as true. Yes, that started to die soon after 1787 and has been declining ever since. I beleive the watershed was 1860 when most people started accepting a different role of federal govt. Any chance it had of being re-awakened was destroyed with the Progressive Movement and its minions, Mr. Teddy R. and Mr. Woodrow W..

      In this respect, they did fall asleep. It does not mean they can be awakened. It does mean their anscestors at least felt the warmth of that knowledge.

      Best Regards
      JAC

      • Black Flag says:

        My concern is that the dialogue you suggest will not lead anywhere.

        Then paint the wall, my friend, paint the wall.

        I really liked your story!

        That’s exactly the essence of the thinking I’m talking about.

        People are inherently practical. We want to know specifically what your ideals tell you that a free society would look like, and how this society would function, as well as WHY it would function.

        No argument here – it is the reason we’ve survived is because we are practical.

        However, we are at a point where we better become even more practical as the power for a very small group of people is at a point that they could be capable of killing millions of people a second.

        So, organizing ourselves to ensure peaceful coexistence is key, because power of violence in numbers is radically decreasing and the power of violence of the individual is increasing.

        Ok, makes sense. However, in a free society, who OWNED the land in the first place, and how did they come to own it? I assume that in a free society someone can lay claim to a piece of land, but can they truly be said to “own” this land? If so, how and why?

        Good question.

        There are three ways you own land, called the CCT.

        Conquest, by force of arms –
        Cession, by treaty, or mutual agreement –
        Terrae Nullius, when there are no inhabitants and no legal system –

        So, if by Cession we’ve agreed to my ownership and we are inhabiting it and we have a legal system to enforce it. (This is what we are dialoguing about, right? We are working together to articulate it, but we can presuppose that we will be successful for the sake of this answer).

  19. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    BF constantly states that the goal is not utopia, the goal is freedom. Ok, I get that, and it sounds good. I think what most of us want to know is, “How would such a society actually function?” I am not asking how you, as an individual, would function in such a society, but how would such a society, as a whole, function?

    I am not asking the question with the intent of attempting to debunk all of your answers. Actually quite the oposite. I believe that people should have freedom, I just wonder if we are capable of handling it. Basically I am wondering what you feel would be the day-to-day functionality of a society composed of free people? What do you see as the problems arising in such a society, and how would the problems be dealt with? Believe it or not, I don’t disagree with you BF when you say that all people should have freedom. I just want to know (in a practical sense) how a society of free men would actually function and if you feel that it could continually function.

    It is great to believe that we should all have freedom, but have you thought this through on a practical level and applied it to a large population and how that population would function? If so, please enlighten me, because that is the sticking point for me most days… figuring out how it would work.

    • esomhillgazette says:

      I also, would like for you to answer that BF. As I said above, I am starting to listen to what you are saying more and more and it’s starting to make sense. At least some of it is.

      And since I also said that it was sad, that is because I also do not see how your Society would function. If all men worked together for the common good and thought of every other persons freedoms and were careful not to tread on same, why that would be great!

      But I don’t think that people could EVER do that. Some maybe, a lot, never.

    • Black Flag says:

      I appreciate that you honestly would like to dialogue on how a ‘free’ society would operate.

      However (because of experience) I have these requirements:

      (1) It is a dialogue. I do tend to ask the questions in an attempt to provoke your answers. I have found that almost everyone knows – innately – how freedom works, and articulating it themselves is far more powerful then me doing it for you.

      I will answer some questions from my POV – but that is all it is – my POV.

      But I expect others to try too.

      (2)… and most important. You are not allowed to initiate violence.

      This is probably the hardest thing to comprehend in its deepest meaning.

      I have found that many people begin the process and quickly default back to “pound the crap out of the guy” thinking.

      In other words, they do not want to do the ‘heavy lifting’ of trying to figure out a different way. It’s been generations of the ‘easy way out’ – expediency – to simply beat up others to accomplish what they believe are ‘worthy’ goals.

      An example, my wife and I were dialoguing on a trip (arguing 😉 ) about building highways and right to property.

      She asked how would this highway we were on be built by ‘my society’ without seizing the land?

      BF:We’d have to buy the land.

      Wife: ..and if he didn’t sell?

      BF: We’d have to go around it.

      Wife: …the cost would be astronomical! The highway couldn’t be built!

      BF: Then the highway couldn’t be built. We’d have to do something else.

      Wife: LIKE WHAT!?!?!

      BF: I don’t know. Maybe a helicopter service, maybe a tunnel, maybe a really long bridge, who knows? But what we CANNOT DO is STEAL IT FROM HIM.

      ….

      After an hour of sitting quietly, she got the epiphany. We can’t steal it from him, no matter what.

      Then she really started understanding the whole thing of non-violence – and non-violent thinking….

      (3) Not all problems have a solution.

      Be prepared for this fact – it is a fact of the universe no matter how humans organize themselves – civilly or savagely. Therefore, remember RULE (2).

      Agree to my conditions?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        BF,

        I personally like your conditions. I once took a little quiz which was affectionately called “the barroom napkin psychology test”. One of the questions was,

        “You are walking along a path towards a destination that you must get to. As you walk along the path, you are suddenly confronted by a wall that seems to be infinitely high and goes as far as the eye can see in either direction. What do you do?”

        Most people, in response to this question will answer with “try to knock a hole in the wall” or “try to dig a tunnel under the wall” or “try to find a way over or around the wall.”

        My answer was “paint the wall”. The point of the question was to try to ascertain people’s approach to problem solving. My approach was apparently to not worry about where I was going or why I had to get there, but to adapt to the problem by attempting to make the wall more beautiful and just accepting that the wall was there.

        My concern is that the dialogue you suggest will not lead anywhere. People are inherently practical. We want to know specifically what your ideals tell you that a free society would look like, and how this society would function, as well as WHY it would function.

        Your example of road-building is actually pretty good, in that, yes, if a person owns land and a highway is desired to be built, you cannot build a road on that person’s land if he is unwilling to sell it.

        Ok, makes sense. However, in a free society, who OWNED the land in the first place, and how did they come to own it? I assume that in a free society someone can lay claim to a piece of land, but can they truly be said to “own” this land? If so, how and why?

        I am willing to grant you that in a free society, property ownership is allowed (after all, several of the founding fathers of this country wanted to say “life, liberty, and property” instead of the way it came out), but from a practical standpoint, in a society where each man is truly free, how does this ownership come about? How is it recognized by the rest of the society?

        Enough questions for now… I am certain in response you will find some of your own questions to ask rather than trying to answer mine 🙂

      • Bama dad says:

        Ownership of land extends below ground and up into the air, therefore no tunnel or long bridge, could not resist the temptation.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          In many states, you do not own the land below a certain point, nor do you own the air above. The “State” generally retains mineral rights on your land, and the “State” retains the right to the airspace above your land so that things like commercial aviation and satellites can have non-ridiculous flight-path requirements.

          Some States do still allow for a property owner to retain mineral rights on their own property, but sadly this number of States is becoming smaller with time.

          I would (however) think that in a free society if you owned a piece of land that ownership would have to extend below ground and above the property into the air, so that is interesting….

          • Bama dad says:

            NO NO!

            Excluding the original 13 colonies and Texas no states owned mineral or air rights. After the Revolutionary War the federal government acquired title by treaty to all excess land not part of the original colonies. The federal government had no way to make money and was in debt from the war so they began to divide and sell land to private citizens. When land was sold they issued a land patent to the new owner that conveyed all rights to the individual (there were some exceptions). Through the years individuals have sold different rights off from land (usually mineral rights). With the coming of air planes the federal government by regulation started encroaching on air rights. Also states, counties, and cities have curtailed certain use rights by regulation. Usually the only land that the states (excluding Texas) have any subsurface rights too is land under navigable waterways or lands purchased by them.

      • esomhillgazette says:

        I can completely understand what you just said BF, but that still doesn’t answer my question. How would your Society work? I mean how would it really work, not how it would work in theory.

        I know that it would be a great society if everyone in it agreed, and kept their word, to build a free Society without rules or government, and not initiating violence on each other.

        But I also live and breathe in realities. You get a lot of people together in a Society, and sooner, rather than later, someone’s going to get uppity. Someone is going to start to think that they are right and the rest of you are wrong. They know what’s best for the Society, not the rest of you. That is the Nature of Mankind.

        Your Society would be a Utopia, but it is just a dream, no matter how noble.

  20. Black Flag says:

    (Con’t)
    Peter,/b>

    We claim that humans organize themselves civilly, although this is not always the case obviously.

    Can organize civilly” – it is a choice; savagery or civilization – one excludes the other.

    We are capable of running the entire planet as a civilized society, and we are equally capable of destroying the entire planet. No other species has these capabilities.

    We couldn’t destroy the Earth if we tried. Inflict extinction on ourselves? Sure. But many species have gone extinct and there is evidence that some did it on themselves too.

    We are the only species in which a male and a female will willingly give up a child to someone else in the hope that that child will have a better life.

    Humans are a species – unique in this, I believe – that can intellectually project themselves into the future and past their own lifetime.

    We are unique as a species that we know we are mortal – and because of that, make very different decisions regarding our lives then other animals.

    We are the only species that takes active measures before a child is born to prevent the birth of that child.

    I do not think this is true.

    Many species actively attempt to kill their young – adult male grizzly bears actively try to kill their cubs, for example – and other animals eat their young (Alligators(?))

    We could see one or both of these things as moral

    Morals are merely personal beliefs – and cannot be proven ‘right’ outside of one’s own self.

    They are not a valid measure of another person’s actions as a justification to inflict violence upon them.

    I got kinda off-track there, but I guess what I was trying to say is that what humans do in the name of being “civilized” does not always jive with biology.

    I agree – and there is no necessity for us to act like other animals.

  21. Black Flag says:

    (Con’t) (*#$&(& lack of editor)
    Peter

    We claim that humans organize themselves civilly, although this is not always the case obviously.

    Can organize civilly” – it is a choice; savagery or civilization – one excludes the other.

    We are capable of running the entire planet as a civilized society, and we are equally capable of destroying the entire planet. No other species has these capabilities.

    We couldn’t destroy the Earth if we tried. Inflict extinction on ourselves? Sure. But many species have gone extinct and there is evidence that some did it on themselves too.

    We are the only species in which a male and a female will willingly give up a child to someone else in the hope that that child will have a better life.

    Humans are a species – unique in this, I believe – that can intellectually project themselves into the future and past their own lifetime.

    We are unique as a species that we know we are mortal – and because of that, make very different decisions regarding our lives then other animals.

    We are the only species that takes active measures before a child is born to prevent the birth of that child.

    I do not think this is true.

    Many species actively attempt to kill their young – adult male grizzly bears actively try to kill their cubs, for example – and other animals eat their young (Alligators(?))

    We could see one or both of these things as moral

    Morals are merely personal beliefs – and cannot be proven ‘right’ outside of one’s own self.

    They are not a valid measure of another person’s actions as a justification to inflict violence upon them.

    I got kinda off-track there, but I guess what I was trying to say is that what humans do in the name of being “civilized” does not always jive with biology.

    I agree – and there is no necessity for us to act like other animals.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      What irritates me in the case of BF, is that not only does he in general fail to explain how a large population operating as a society would actually function (which I hope he attempts to do in a post in the near future) but he also argues that all morals are relative:

      “Morals are merely personal beliefs – and cannot be proven ‘right’ outside of one’s own self.

      They are not a valid measure of another person’s actions as a justification to inflict violence upon them.”

      Ok, if that is the case, it REALLY causes me to question how BF’s society of free people would actually function. If each and every person can claim that their actions are “right” by their own standards regardless of what their actions are, then HOW DOES THAT WORK?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I know that you are going to answer something about them not having the right to perform an act of violence on a non-violent person. I guess my statement is “good luck with that”.

      If morals truly are personal beliefs, there are always going to be people that believe that it is moral, for some reason, to inflict violence upon others in a free society.

      That is where I feel your idea of a free society and your idea of morals breaks down.

      Basically, I don’t want platitudes that sound good. I want to know, specifically, how would a society composed of free men operate on a day-to-day basis, and why it would function that way, and what (if anything) would constrain it from functioning in some other way?

      For example, to say that a man has no right to inflict violence upon another non-violent man is great in theory. Man is endowed with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (I think I heard those somewhere before) and performance of violence on a non-violent person would obviously violate those rights. Ok, I get that. However, that still tells me NOTHING about how a society of free people would ACTUALLY FUNCTION, which is what I want to know on a practical level.

  22. Black Flag says:

    (Moved down for readability)

    I appreciate that you honestly would like to dialogue on how a ‘free’ society would operate.

    However (because of experience) I have these requirements:

    (1) It is a dialogue. I do tend to ask the questions in an attempt to provoke your answers. I have found that almost everyone knows – innately – how freedom works, and articulating it themselves is far more powerful then me doing it for you.

    I will answer some questions from my POV – but that is all it is – my POV.

    But I expect others to try too.

    (2)… and most important. You are not allowed to initiate violence.

    This is probably the hardest thing to comprehend in its deepest meaning.

    I have found that many people begin the process and quickly default back to “pound the crap out of the guy” thinking.

    In other words, they do not want to do the ‘heavy lifting’ of trying to figure out a different way. It’s been generations of the ‘easy way out’ – expediency – to simply beat up others to accomplish what they believe are ‘worthy’ goals.

    An example, my wife and I were dialoguing on a trip (arguing 😉 ) about building highways and right to property.

    She asked how would this highway we were on be built by ‘my society’ without seizing the land?

    BF:We’d have to buy the land.

    Wife: ..and if he didn’t sell?

    BF: We’d have to go around it.

    Wife: …the cost would be astronomical! The highway couldn’t be built!

    BF: Then the highway couldn’t be built. We’d have to do something else.

    Wife: LIKE WHAT!?!?!

    BF: I don’t know. Maybe a helicopter service, maybe a tunnel, maybe a really long bridge, who knows? But what we CANNOT DO is STEAL IT FROM HIM.

    ….

    After an hour of sitting quietly, she got the epiphany. We can’t steal it from him, no matter what.

    Then she really started understanding the whole thing of non-violence – and non-violent thinking….

    (3) Not all problems have a solution.

    Be prepared for this fact – it is a fact of the universe no matter how humans organize themselves – civilly or savagely. Therefore, remember RULE (2).

    Agree to my conditions?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Reply also moved down for readability:

      BF,

      I personally like your conditions. I once took a little quiz which was affectionately called “the barroom napkin psychology test”. One of the questions was,

      “You are walking along a path towards a destination that you must get to. As you walk along the path, you are suddenly confronted by a wall that seems to be infinitely high and goes as far as the eye can see in either direction. What do you do?”

      Most people, in response to this question will answer with “try to knock a hole in the wall” or “try to dig a tunnel under the wall” or “try to find a way over or around the wall.”

      My answer was “paint the wall”. The point of the question was to try to ascertain people’s approach to problem solving. My approach was apparently to not worry about where I was going or why I had to get there, but to adapt to the problem by attempting to make the wall more beautiful and just accepting that the wall was there.

      My concern is that the dialogue you suggest will not lead anywhere. People are inherently practical. We want to know specifically what your ideals tell you that a free society would look like, and how this society would function, as well as WHY it would function.

      Your example of road-building is actually pretty good, in that, yes, if a person owns land and a highway is desired to be built, you cannot build a road on that person’s land if he is unwilling to sell it.

      Ok, makes sense. However, in a free society, who OWNED the land in the first place, and how did they come to own it? I assume that in a free society someone can lay claim to a piece of land, but can they truly be said to “own” this land? If so, how and why?

      I am willing to grant you that in a free society, property ownership is allowed (after all, several of the founding fathers of this country wanted to say “life, liberty, and property” instead of the way it came out), but from a practical standpoint, in a society where each man is truly free, how does this ownership come about? How is it recognized by the rest of the society?

      Enough questions for now… I am certain in response you will find some of your own questions to ask rather than trying to answer mine 🙂

    • Kristian says:

      I agree to your conditions BF. I’d really like to learn about this. I think that it would probably help me in my day to day life and not just this “Utopia” that I keep hearing about. I’ll do my best to really read and understand what you say.

  23. Peter and All:

    We have been pushing the door open a little at a time. A crack now, looking in to find out where we go next.

    Ahhhh, it looks like it is finally time to kick the door all the way open.

    Everyone had better buckle up!!

    Smiling Very Big Smile as the cool breeze comes in my window, carrying the songs of a Robin nearby.
    JAC

  24. Peter B:

    There is once caution I would like to throw out to everyone. The desire to be “practical” leads one to focus on questions that have to flow from the core principles that you must accept first. You can not ask how does this work, then if you like the answer start working backwards to defend it.

    The solution requires identifying the core values we consider as absolute. All options are then evaluated against it, like the road example. If he won’t sell, I can’t build the road. You accept this answer only if you have adopted the “no force against innocence” core value.

    I hope I am not confusing the matter but it is a very important point. To do otherwise always leads us back to where we already are. The circle just gets bigger but it still returns to where we now stand.

    JAC

    • Black Flag says:

      Exactly, JAC, exactly (as usual!)

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Herein lies the rub, as they say. You state that a core value which is an absolute is: “You cannot initiate violence” or “no force against the innocent”

      Ok, how would one create a society in which this is a core value? People CLAIM to have this as a core value all the time (thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, etc.) but at the root, one HAS to be practical. You cannot assume that people are simply going to stop killing each other and stop stealing from each other and stop all other acts of violence of their own volition and then build a society from that point outwards. What you have then constructed is simply an “ideal society” which cannot exist under the current parameters of reality.

      To discuss such a thing is wonderful, and we can all dream that such a society can exist. That is not my question. My question is, how do we go from where we are now to this place where we all have freedom? If there is not a roadmap on how to get from here to there, such a discussion is merely philosophical and really does not serve much practical purpose.

      After all, the goal is to get to where we want to be, not merely to fantasize about it.

      • Peter your jumping ahead to a conclusion that I do not support and BF does not support.

        Because our core is no violence does not mean I don’t think others will not ever violate this rule.

        The rule acts as the sideboards within which we construct our society, including laws. You presume there is no law and that is a false assumption.

        You are leaping to the conclusion that if our core is not violence we assume everyone will live by that rule. No way Jose!!

        Remember my post some time ago regarding the corruption of good men. Also my post that the real core is “man is man”. Reality is what it is and man and his behaviors are real, they define man. We must work within that.

        The no violence ethic or morality is in my view the only true core moral because it is totally consistent with mans pursuit of survival, which is the essence of a living thing.

        Getting off track a little so I will stop here.
        Hope this helps some, and sorry I left at a bad time. Had a meeting and another in 20 minutes.
        My Best to all
        JAC

        • TexasChem says:

          Seems to me the principles you guys are speaking of are already contained within a collection of manuscripts called the New Testament in a book called the Bible!Perhaps if you were to find a copy of a recent translation in modern english and peruse its chapters you might just find a whole lot about it you tend to agree with!Raise your hands and bow your head and you will find a lot of truth written in those words written in red!

          • Black Flag says:

            It is.

            Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you.

            Sums it up nicely.

  25. Black Flag says:

    (This was originally posted in the wrong place – here is properly lands…)

    My concern is that the dialogue you suggest will not lead anywhere.

    Then paint the wall, my friend, paint the wall.

    I really liked your story!

    That’s exactly the essence of the thinking I’m talking about.

    People are inherently practical. We want to know specifically what your ideals tell you that a free society would look like, and how this society would function, as well as WHY it would function.

    No argument here – it is the reason we’ve survived is because we are practical.

    However, we are at a point where we better become even more practical as the power for a very small group of people is at a point that they could be capable of killing millions of people a second.

    So, organizing ourselves to ensure peaceful coexistence is key, because power of violence in numbers is radically decreasing and the power of violence of the individual is increasing.

    Ok, makes sense. However, in a free society, who OWNED the land in the first place, and how did they come to own it? I assume that in a free society someone can lay claim to a piece of land, but can they truly be said to “own” this land? If so, how and why?

    Good question.

    There are three ways you own land, called the CCT.

    Conquest, by force of arms –

    Cession, by treaty, or mutual agreement –

    Terrae Nullius, when there are no inhabitants and no legal system –

    So, if by Cession we’ve agreed to my ownership and we are inhabiting it and we have a legal system to enforce it.

    (This is what we are dialoguing about, right? We are working together to articulate it, but we can presuppose that we will be successful for the sake of this answer).

    • TexasChem says:

      BF Stated:However, we are at a point where we better become even more practical as the power for a very small group of people is at a point that they could be capable of killing millions of people a second.

      So, organizing ourselves to ensure peaceful coexistence is key, because power of violence in numbers is radically decreasing and the power of violence of the individual is increasing.

      TC:How do you ensure peaceful coexistence when that small group with the capability to kill millions in seconds does not agree with your views and IS WILLING to use violence to enforce their will upon you?

      • Black Flag says:

        You presuppose that he/they do not want to live.

        The best way to see this is how USSR/Russia and USA deal with each other.

        Both want to live.

    • Black Flag says:

      An aside:

      Terrae Nullius argument is used to take lands from the Aboriginals – though they inhabited the land, they did not have a legal system regarding the land.

      This argument is used in Canada by the British Colombian government regarding Indian Land claims against the Province.

  26. Black Flag says:

    Bama Dad

    Within our dialogue, cleave on to this understanding.

    If by what I do does nothing to you, then I can do it

    The test:
    Between being no tunnel and having a tunnel, you know no difference, feel no difference and have no action forced upon you, then I can build that tunnel.

  27. The question has been repeated many times, “how do we stop this march to socialism?”. After reading and learning here’s my conclusion. 1. This road has been getting built for centuries. 2. We, cannot stop it. 3. We can go nuckin futs trying to figure out how to fix it, only to end up with a headache and more questions than yesterday. 4. We can let it run it’s course and defeat itself (which seems it will, economically sometime soon). 5. We can survive it all, with preparation and patience.

    Ok, I’m ready for the lashings, have at it!

    G!

    • Black Flag says:

      4) which leads to 5).

      We can design what we want when the ‘thing’ collapses.

      We get an almost Tabla Rosa….what we wish to write on it is our decision… let’s hope we’ve learned something…

  28. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I guess that USW could see this as a total thread-jack by some of us, but I feel that this discussion is actually of vital importance. Pretty much everyone on this site is a big fan of freedom and liberty and all that jazz. My purpose in instigating this discussion is NOT (believe it or not) to show how impractical BFs ideas are. That is actually the exact opposite of what I am hoping to show.

    What I am trying to get at by jacking the thread is to show that as an alternative to the faciolism (to borrow someone else’s term from the other day) that we are now seeing, there HAS to be a way to have a society in which individual freedom and liberty are paramount. My question, which I am hoping to get some answers to, is, “How do we get from here to there, and what does it look like when we get there?” Also, “Is it possible to even get there?” I don’t know the answers to these questions, although I have SOME ideas.

    My hope is that by engaging in this little exercise we can come up with ideas as to how to really bring about these vaunted ideals of freedom and liberty instead of merely giving them lip-service while we watch our government abolish them.

    I couldn’t possibly care less about these ideas if they only lead to a philosophical discussion. We can discuss philosophy all day long until we are blue in the face and it will accomplish nothing other than to leave us gasping for air. Let’s try to not only discuss philosophy here but try to apply it to reality a bit and see where THAT leads us.

    • Black Flag says:

      I’m sure USWep won’t mind this type of hijack – though it may spawn its own blog post by him….

      • USWeapon says:

        How is it that you were reading my mind? I have a proposal for you to write a guest post when you have time to. One that I think will be of great interest. I will email it to you later tonight.

  29. esomhillgazette says:

    I wonder, when this FUBAR collapses, who throws Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and Franks asses under the freakin’ bus? I wonder if there’ll be a bus left to throw them under? Or a road to run them over on? 😀

    (No. Really?)

    • Black Flag says:

      When the time comes that government in its essence collapses it is very important to treat those that engaged in government action with great neutrality.

      No reverence but no hatred either.

      Simply, no anything.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I guess “throwing them under the bus” would indeed not be the wrong thing to do… after all, for the purposes of this discussion, the core value is “do no violence against the innocent” and they are obviously not in the category of “the innocent” 🙂

      • esomhillgazette says:

        Oh I’m not talking about us (the people). What I mean is the folks who got them where they are today. In the Government with a Supermajority.

        Who throws them under the bus when this “House built on Sand” of theirs doesn’t work, and instead collapses? And will their be a Nation left to worry about it?

        Because I don’t think there will be. And I don’t think I’ll like what may replace it.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          My contention is that when this house of sand collapses, at best there will be a people willing to pick up the pieces and start over, and at worst the house of sand will have become a house of radioactive glass.

          I very much hope for the former as opposed to the latter.

        • Esom, When it falls, we’ll be all to busy to worry about those that drove us here. Their lack of skills will take care of them for us.

          G!

          • esomhillgazette says:

            Oh I ain’t worried about THEM. To hell with them. I’m more worried about us, the ones who didn’t CAUSE it, but will be directly affected BY it.

            This could get very ugly. Just HOW ugly is what worries me for my family.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      In reality however, we would have to do what BF says and treat the situation with great neutrality. For one thing, it could be seen as vengence if they were treated in a violent manner. The Guillotine was a very powerful tool in revolutionary France, but it did not bring about freedom and liberty, it was merely a tool of revenge against the aristocracy as well as a tool to control (eliminate or threaten to eliminate) any possible dissindents. Vengence and control/coersion are anathema to the ideals of freedom, so I guess throwing them under the bus is simply out 🙂

  30. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Ok, back to the original thread-jack. It being the weekend (or very soon to be) I may not be on much until Monday, but I will try to check in and see how this discussion is going, since I kinda started it 🙂 I hope that it somehow morphs into something useful.

  31. TexasChem says:

    I’m out for a while as well after I get off work this evening.Going to go pick up for boil a hundred pounds of crawfish for our family reunion tomorrow!My wife is from Louisiana so will be much pleased with this as she doesn’t know I’m getting the mud-bugs yet!YUMMY!Gonna’ throw in coupla pounds of some spicy sausage links, new potatoes, entire garlic cloves, crab boil, salt, black pepper, red pepper, whole onions, lemons, mushrooms and sweet corn on the cob!Going to pich up a fifth of Crown Reserve to sip on and a case or 2 of bud light to wash it down!Thats just what I’m taking to the reunion.There will be every southern country dish there you can imagine!I’ll gain 10 pounds this weekend!

    • esomhillgazette says:

      Hoooleeeyyy Smokes! I wanna go with you tomorrow! We (my family) call that a Low Country Boil. And I ain’t ate no MudBugs in a long time! I can’t get them here so we use shrimp. I’m going to have to mention this to my Daddy and see if we can set one up.

    • TC, I was with ya all the way up to “bud light”. Might as well drink water. Then you can sip more of that Crown.

      Sure wish I was goin to be there. Have a fun time.
      JAC

  32. Good article USWep. I learned a lot. I am new to these sites as I didn’t wake up until last fall. The MSM is what woke up both my husband and I. Until the last election we had never seen a candidate elected to office by the media.

    • esomhillgazette says:

      “Elected to office by the Media.” You’re sure right about that Ma’am.

    • USWeapon says:

      Well I welcome you to the site and hope you will stick around and join in on the conversations often. We need to talk as much as we can to figure out the ideas that are going to take us forward. Don’t feel about about how long it took you and your wife to wake. Look around and you can see you are still an early riser…. most are still asleep.

  33. USWeapon says:

    TC,

    Would you be willing to accept your own argument if the shoe was on the other foot. What pains me is that the accepted arguments are around inane arguments. I have never, in 20 years of knowing gay folks, ever, heard a single one of them say that same sex relationships are the preferred method in society. So why are you even bringing that up. It is akin to me saying “so are you ok with those crazy christians teaching their children that the preferred way to die is on a cross?”

    Do you see my point? Gays don’t tell children things like that. In fact most gays I know would prefer that their children did NOT have to deal with the ridicule and bigotry that they faced, so they are not going to “push” them there.

    What makes you think your bible is right? If I have a different one, how can you prove yours isn’t just a great work of fiction? The biggest question, that I need an answer to in order to continue the discussion is…. What if you are wrong?

    This isn’t an attack. Please know that. I am trying to have intelligent debate here, so the point may take a few back and forths to get to.

    • TexasChem says:

      U.S.

      Ahh I had been waiting for someone to ask about that post.
      Do you agree that a child is a product of their environment?
      Not only do children learn from what they are taught but they also learn from what they are exposed to.Especially daily.That is the one reason I am against children being adopted by gay parents.The gay community the parents associate with also influences the child by.Would that child have a distorted view of human sexuality and consider same sex relationships the norm?

      Christianity is not a mindless cult of people doing things to disrupt society or impinge upon others freedoms.Christianity is basicly a group of people living their lives according to a moral guide set forth in a book.That book is the Bible which contains the divine laws of God passed on to mankind.I have yet to come across anything in the New Testament that implies anything towards taking a negative stance with regards to human behavior.What I do know is that if you live your life adhering to the principles set forth in the Bible by God your life will be full of the morals and values that allow societies members to coexist in peace.I know mans laws and guidelines do not allow that peace based upon what is happening with the collapse of society today and throughout history.I firmly believe that christian principles are what made this the greatest nation in the world and mankinds turn from christianity in America is what will destroy her.Now don’t start quoting scripture to me from the old testament saying how the tribes of Israel committed genocide and slaughtered entire cities because thats what it is the Old Testament(which is undoubtedly one of the greatest books of history ever written)now christians live by the New Testament.Hence the term christian.

      To answer your question “What if I am wrong?” I say that I would feel content with knowing I lived my life according to the best guideline a human could ever have and be content with knowing I was not an evil person harming society but rather contributing to the success of it.I really believe from a logical and emotional feeling that the better question you should be asking me my friend is “What if he is right?”

      • Black Flag says:

        So, taking the Commandment of the Nazarene , “Do unto others as you wish them do unto you”,

        Do you accept that others will prohibit you from adopting children based on their belief that your religion is corrupting their minds?

        • TexasChem says:

          My religion does not corrupt minds.Quite the opposite it enhances them and allows them to contribute to society.Someone that thought otherwise would not be abiding by the commandment of the Nazarene therefore they determine nothing that I do.

        • Black Flag says:

          I didn’t ask whether you believe your religion corrupts or not – I think you believe it doesn’t.

          I asked about someone else who believes that it does.

          If you can hold a belief that some else’s believe is corrupt, then you also must accept that others hold that belief about yours.

          If you feel you can act in a way that removes rights from someone based on your belief – then you must equally know that others will claim that same power upon you.

  34. Black Flag says:

    Another question that comes up often is regarding how “we” would enforce contracts without violence?

    Answer: You cannot use violence.

    So, for example, the Madoff Ponzi would not have him shipped off to jail for 100 years.

    What violence did he do? None.

    Everyone gave him their money voluntarily. So by what right do we have to attack him? Ans: No Right.

    So, what are the implications and what are the tools to enforce morals in a non-violent society?

    I’ll let others ponder a bit (because, obviously, I already have my own POV and I don’t want to unnecessarily distract others from thinking for themselves)

    • I am very hesitant to even jump into this conversation because, well, my Mensa card must be lost in the mail…..

      But I do have a question for BF….

      You’ve often mentioned the “cannot use violence against non-violent people”. Is violence only physical? How about mental/emotional violence on another person? For the purpose of this dialogue, could you clarify? Thanks!

    • Black Flag says:

      Kathy

      LoL! Somebody is running around with your Mensa card….
      …….
      Good question.

      I’ll answer with describing my self-reasoning.

      1) I do not know anyone else’s mental state
      2) I can only see what I see.
      3) I can only act on what I know.

      Though I may surmise an emotional domination, I cannot prove it without invoking someone’s subjectivity.

      So, what does that mean?

      If someone finds themselves subject to such abuse, and requires aid in removing themselves from that environment, I have a right to intervene then by their grant to me for assistance.

      The first step comes, however, from that person.

      Yes, I know that is harsh – but a person is truly responsible for their own welfare and thus, they need to take the first steps to free themselves.

  35. Black Flag says:

    Also, people may find that I will be referencing many circumstances within society today that operate within the same frame I propose.

    Yes, that’s right! You are already living within the ‘no ruler’ State, and aren’t regularly aware of it.

    What group of people operate without regard to laws put in place by other people?

    Monarchs – and the evolution from them – nation states.

    • OK – my first answer to “what group…..” was that group out west where they built their own compounds, had multiple wives and where all those kids were taken away…..forgot the name.

      Is that how it would work with no government? YIKES!

      • Black Flag says:

        It might.

        Remember, though, what someone else chooses for themselves is their right.

        If they do not impose upon you, then what right do you have to stop them?

        Yes, you may be disgusted with their behavior – but so what?

        You have 100% the right to work with them or withdraw your support for any reason you chose.

      • Kathy:

        Give me a C
        Give me an O
        Give me an N
        Give me a G
        Give me an R
        Give me an E
        Give me an S
        Give me another S

        What do you get? Aristochracy What do you get: Screwed

        Sorry, just feeling a little silly at the moment.
        That was for you to SusyQ….you smilin now?

        Hugs and more hugs
        JAC

        • Yeah, yeah, I knew that’s what he meant. But that Polygamist group under that Jeffs guy also was/is operating without regard to laws put in place by others.

          But hey, appreciated the cheer!

  36. USW and all,

    “I intend to wake their asses up.

    That’s the end of this series, but not the end of the story. Let’s discuss below, and as usual, another article comes tomorrow….. Time to start figuring out just how to set the alarm clock.”

    I do think the Tea Parties were a very good start. Other groups are popping up, then there is the 9-12 Project.

    I hope there is a massive Tea Party on the 4th of July. Fox this afternoon has been revisiting the Tax Day Tea Party, and Obama’s reaction to it. I bet all our elected officials, at all levels are wishing the Tea Parties would go away, die out. I hope that does not happen.

    OK, Glenn Beck just came on…he also is talking about the Tea Parties and Obama’s recent comments and the media coverage.

    Here is another site I found via 9-12 Tea Party page:

    http://www.americanuprisinginc.com/

    • OK, still watching Beck. This is a really good show, so far, he has an audience of those that went to Tea Parties.

      It will rerun at 1:00 AM Central Time (5-2-09), for those that want to watch or record. DirectV channel 360. Fox News Channel (FNC).

  37. Black Flag says:

    TexasChem

    Lawmakers elected to the republic by the people, to act on behalf of the people determine the laws.If you do not agree the laws are just then elect officials you view as just.If that doen’t work and you feel the government is being tyrannical then the 2nd amendment gives you the right to form a militia, bear arms to keep a government in check.

    By what right do the lawmakers have to make laws upon me?

    • TexasChem says:

      You give them that right by your participation in a governed society.You have a voice to be heard as a voter.

      • Black Flag says:

        As I do not participate, they have no rules over me, then.

        • TexasChem says:

          I would venture to agree with you there BF.

        • Amazed1 says:

          BF
          You know that as long as you live inside any society there will be rules you do not agree to….so does that mean isolation is the key to living in a society with no formal government? For instance stealing…you live inside your society and the rule is everyone shares…no one steals. Bob steals apples because he is afraid he will not get as many as he wants. What do you do to Bob in this society? I really am interested in picturing how this new society will work…..if there is a society and not isolation.

  38. Black Flag says:

    TexasChem

    BF:The responsibility of the adults is to raise their child in a manner they see best.

    TC:Even if that manner is detrimental to the child and society?

    Who determines this, and by what right?

    TC:I would never physically force my beliefs on anyone unless it became a reason for my families survival although I do frequently attempt dialogue at accomplishing a change of reasoning.

    Remember, by agreeing to law to enforce your belief, you are merely delegating the use of force to another so to act in your name.

    • TexasChem says:

      BF:Who determines this, and by what right?
      It is my belief that God determined our morals long ago by His divine right.I ask you is there a moral contained in the New Testament that does not apply to our society today in a good manner that benefits and nurtures society in general?

      TC:Now I am using this as an example so do not in any way take this in bad light but I want to get my point across that this logic of BF Anarchy is flawed and could not work without a standard such as religious moral belief…you don’t even have to call it religious morals but how about a moral standard?

      Well if we all went along that same line of thought we would have Anarchy wouldn’t we?
      It wouldn’t be the nicey nice Anarchy you want but chaotic “You can’t tell me what to do, if I want to marry an 8 year old girl then I can and will!” She agreed to it since shes eight and I told her I would buy her a new dress every week.She doesn’t complain about anything anyway since she has no morals because morals make no difference in our society of Anarchy. Then by your reasoning since I am not doing you any physical harm then it’s not your business as to what I do.By your reasoning I could have 30, eight year old little girl wives.Nothing society could do about it.Doesn’t that seem like a little off the wall and flawed logic BF?

      BF:Remember, by agreeing to law to enforce your belief, you are merely delegating the use of force to another so to act in your name.

      Not to commit murder is a law.
      Not to steal is a law.
      Not bearing false witness against your neighbor is a law.

      Laws that mankind has adopted from biblical morals.Threee of the ten commandments.I do believe it practical to have a major use of force to protect the innocent.Now by no means are all the morals contained within the Bible sound.Gasp!
      Slavery is not morally sound in my eyes.Genocide is not morally sound in my eyes.Stoning is not morally sound in my eyes.
      BUT:If you study history at the time the Bible was written these were part of that societies culture.Even though scripture was from divine inspiration or visions from God; guess what? A man interpreted them.Interpreted them and applied the logic of his day to them.So I suppose it would be great if God had just dropped the manuscripts off to mankind in readable greek and hebrew in their entirety with no room for errorbut, he didn’t so I attempt to sort through the Bible myself and pull from the solid sound morals that nurture society and human nature while understanding historical culture at that time to assist me.

      • TexasChem says:

        So you see, although I consider myself a christian, I do not agree with all of the doctrines of judaism and christianity.More along the lines of an Inclusive monotheist theistic evolutionist.To put it in political idealology I am a fiscal conservative with Republican tendencies because they are the party I relate to the most…

  39. As this fit with the conclusion of USW’s series I thought I would share.

    http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/30/the-facts-on-fascism

    By the way, make sure you read the comments to this article.

    • JAC,

      I tried to check out the link and got a FORBIDDEN page. So, I’m on a US Military base overseas, with internet access via the US Government. I want to say ‘wow, what a coincidence’, but the little paranoid voice in my head says ‘not so fast’. What’s the gist of the article?

      • Cyndi P: It is an article describing a summary of how modern progressives and our current administration share characteristics of the original progressive/fascist movements. I thought it would be interesting for everyone to read it from a new source.

        Seems we are not alone in our delusional conclusions.

        The link did work for me from this page so don’t know whats up on your end. I told you not to live on a low lying island. Its the proximety to salt water OTFLOL.

        Lots of hugs
        JAC

        • Linked worked for me; your paranoia might not be misplaced!

        • Yeah! Close proximity to salt water. That’s it! If I keep thinking that, will I stay out of the re-education camps? :o) Speaking of low lying atolls, I’m signing of for a few hours. My lib boyfriend and I have decided we’re gonna sit on the pretty beach and gaze out over the beautiful water, play in the surf, and have some fresh coconut. Mmmmm. Its a rough life, but somebody’s gotta do it……..I haven’t had this good a tan since I was kid. Ya’ll have a nice day, evening, whatever it is where you are.

          :o)

    • Black Flag says:

      Website blocking, an article:

      …. In recent months, more and more American officers have told me that when they attempt to access the websites they need, they find access is blocked on DOD computers. Is al Qaeda doing this in a dastardly attempt to blind American combat units? Sadly, no. DOD is doing it. Someone in DOD is putting blinders on American troops.

      I do not know who is behind this particular bit of idiocy. It may be the security trolls. They always like to restrict access to information, because doing so increases their bureaucratic power. One argument points to them, namely an assertion that the other side may obtain useful information by seeing what we are looking for. That is like arguing that our troops should be given no ammunition lest muzzle flashes give away their positions in a fire-fight.

      But the fact that websites of American organizations whose views differ from DOD’s are also blocked points elsewhere. It suggests political involvement. Why, for example, is access to the website of the Center for Defense Information blocked? CDI is located in Washington, not the Hindu Kush. Its work includes the new book on military reform America’s Defense Meltdown, which has garnered quite a bit of attention at Quantico.

      The goal of the website blockers, it seems, is to cut American military men off from any views except those of DOD itself. In other words, the blockaders want to create a closed system. John Boyd had quite a bit to say about closed systems, and it wasn’t favorable.

      Intel officers supposedly can go all the way to the top of their chain of command with a request to view a blocked website; their petition may or may not be granted. But this just intensifies the problem, because it gives the intel community a monopoly on information. In 4GW, it is essential that everyone do intel, not just a few specialists. Every private has to understand the environment he is operating in. Many websites can help him do that. But if he tries to access them on a DOD computer, he finds them blocked. He is thrown back to pure kinetics, which leads to our defeat.

      Never could it be said more truly that we have met the enemy, and he is us. People on our own side are blinding our men. One person in a senior position could put an end to this absurd practice. Secretary Gates? General Petraeus? Jim Jones? Surely you all understand that putting blinders on our own side is less than helpful. Anyone listening out there?

      As I said, I don’t know where this mindless action originates. Whoever is responsible for it should get the Order of the Black Turban, First Class. They are doing our opponents a great favor.

  40. SFC Dick says:

    Not to worry folks, it’s all undercontrol

    I just got my notice of results from an “agency”.

    I applied for a GS12 spot , I recieved 10 points combat vets

    out of the KSA evaluated on a max scale of 100 points I have 109point, I screwed up somewhere on that 2 1/2 hour form, I lost 1 point somewhere.

    I’f hired, I promise to not ride any harder on you folks than previously expected and I will only torture those whom have publicly dissagreed with me on this board.

    • TexasChem says:

      Gratz on the score SFC!

    • USWeapon says:

      Did I disagree with you somewhere? Just checking. I have been trained to withstand torture. But yesterday I broke. Every man breaks at some point. I was doing well for so many years. Then there I was sitting on the couch with my wife. And she turned on the view. The mental break occurred. I spilled my guts about everything….

      Just kidding government monitors!!!! Your secrets are still safe with me, as if you didn’t know that.

      But seriously SFC, congrats on the test. That is a score to be proud of.

  41. Black Flag says:

    Amazed1

    You know that as long as you live inside any society there will be rules you do not agree to

    There are a lot of rules of poker that I don’t like to … but when I chose not to play the game, there is no one with a gun to my head forcing me to play.

    ….so does that mean isolation is the key to living in a society with no formal government?

    Ripe of dichotomies. Why do I need to live in isolation?

    For instance stealing…you live inside your society and the rule is everyone shares…no one steals. Bob steals apples because he is afraid he will not get as many as he wants. What do you do to Bob in this society?

    You go and get your apples back from Bob or pay someone to do it for you.

    Isn’t that what you do today?

    I really am interested in picturing how this new society will work…..if there is a society and not isolation.

    How do you think King Richard I would get his apples back that were stolen by King Louis XIX?

    • Amazed1 says:

      Yes but that is violence….my guess is I wil have to live in isolation….LOL I can’t even get the first rules right.

  42. Black Flag says:

    It is my belief that God determined our morals long ago by His divine right.

    I’ve posted the theological argument that God has no morals – He doesn’t need them.

    All morals are a construct of human thought – not God’s.

    I ask you is there a moral contained in the New Testament that does not apply to our society today in a good manner that benefits and nurtures society in general?

    I am in no position to argue one religious belief vs. another.

    Faith, by definition, is immune to reason.

    but how about a moral standard?

    Moral standards are subjective. You cannot rationally prove your morals beyond yourself – that is, you cannot use your proof of your morals and apply that proof on some one else.

    “You can’t tell me what to do, if I want to marry an 8 year old girl then I can and will!” She agreed to it since shes eight and I told her I would buy her a new dress every week.

    Before you utilize such descriptions upon complex issues, you should – first – become incredibly clear on simple issues.

    Do not believe that because you can create a hypothetical, complex issue and attempt to apply a predefined, but unreasoned argument against it, that you’ve proved or disproved my argument.

    Not to commit murder is a law.
    Not to steal is a law.
    Not bearing false witness against your neighbor is a law.

    Laws that mankind has adopted from biblical morals.

    I do not agree.

    These laws are derived from natural law.

    Simply codifying them (ie: writing them out) in some book does not suddenly make them law, but simply recognizes their previous existence.

    The law – “Do unto others….” came way, way before it was ever written on paper or spoken by the Nazarene.

    Take to a point – I am not debating on where you may or may not have heard or taken what ever morals you have.

    The point that I make is that if you attempt to apply your morals on others by force, you will have granted others the right to apply theirs upon you.

  43. Ray Hawkins says:

    It is confusing that the ideological epithets seem to confuse what is occurring plainly and what is occurring in complexity. It is certainly politically expedient to frame what is now as socialist/fascist wherein socialism and fascism are no more identical than marxism is to corporatism or fascism is to marxism. As a moderate I find it distressing that we do not recognize that actualization of policies that fall generally under social and political egalitarianism are not always one in the same – but herein are placed in the same pot of stew (to mean – there are different drivers and planned outcomes, not all of which fall neatly into one label – labeling is very utilitarian politically but it is why the majority of voters did not see President Obama as an extreme and why there existed such a thing as a Reagan Democrat). My point is – it is too easy to lump it all into a single bucket – sure – that just makes it easier to piss on or piss in. Different problems require different solutions. Do I think the Federal government should have significant ownership stake in major U.S. companies? On the surface no. If it a component of a solution that bridges us back to an economy both capable of control and more efficient safeguards – I’m all for it. Does the current plan or plans give me complete confidence that it is or has been done? Nope – but its like that intersection I drive through every day to work. I’ll still cuss under my breath that people I wave to turn in front of me don’t have the common decency to wave a ‘thanks’ back in my direction – but I will still wave them on for the near future. At some point I will not wave them on to turn in front of me and my offer a middle finger instead. If its patience great. If its stupidity – that’s on me.

    • TexasChem says:

      Yup, I agree Ray, this is why I believe political parties should be abandoned and candidates required to fill out a politically egalitarian questionairre defining their stance on all issues concerning the people.While were at it we should set term limits that in effect would curb the enticement of political office that powermongers seem to wallow in by not allowing sufficient time to become beholden to lobbyists and the select few rich of the world.

    • Ray: You said “If it a component of a solution that bridges us back to an economy both capable of control and more efficient safeguards..”

      In my opinion this is where your drive for practicality, pragmatism, goes astray. There is no evidence that govt has ever been able to “control” an economy. It may affect short term trends but in doing so creates distortions in otherwise normal flow of up and down, making the amplitude greater and sometimes the frequency as well.

      You, yourself have pointed out that govt never lets go, is ever increasing its strangle on all it controls. Yet you assume that govt ownership of business could be good if brings us back to an economy capable of control and more efficient safeguards. Aren’t the terms efficient and government in contradiction?

      There do need to be practicle solutions to everyday problems. But the larger question of how big a govt and how it should be structured to maximize our liberty can not be allowed to fall victim to pragmatism.

      Best Regards
      JAC

  44. TexasChem says:

    BF:I’ve posted the theological argument that God has no morals – He doesn’t need them.

    TC:So suppose God has no use of morals for himself, what if he wanted mankind to have morals since we have been given free will?

    BF:Faith, by definition, is immune to reason.

    TC:True there BF, although I do claim that religious debate is not immune to reason so could theoretically alter faith.

    BF:Do not believe that because you can create a hypothetical, complex issue and attempt to apply a predefined, but unreasoned argument against it, that you’ve proved or disproved my argument.

    TC:Evil men have existed in this world since the beginning of man.The issue I stated was hypothetical and complex but that issue does exist today in this age with pedophiles.The arguement was based on your reason and so until you can add more reason to justify having a society that can peacefully co-exist with no defining moral standard I have indeed disproved your arguement.

    BF:Moral standards are subjective. You cannot rationally prove your morals beyond yourself – that is, you cannot use your proof of your morals and apply that proof on some one else.

    TC:So if I had a moral that prevented me from getting trichinosis by not eating pork (scientific fact) then you are saying that, that moral could not be passed along to future generations as a learning tool to prevent disease?
    That should be proof beyond subjective in and of itself.

    BF:These laws are derived from natural law.
    Simply codifying them (ie: writing them out) in some book does not suddenly make them law, but simply recognizes their previous existence.

    TC:That is a correct statement but who is to say that the disposition of the founding fathers was not determined by christian doctrine?Since that is more plausible for them to have learned that line of thought from christian religious teachings versus them hearing it from a Greek student of philosophy.Now given Natural Law by theory has been around since the beginning of time that still does not disprove the fact that morals are taught and not instinctual.They had to learn from somewhere.

    BF:The point that I make is that if you attempt to apply your morals on others by force, you will have granted others the right to apply theirs upon you.

    TC:No society will ever exist that has no morals.As long as their are morals there will be disagreements.
    A standard has to be in place someway, somehow.If not daily life would be a never ending condundrum of moral chaos.

  45. TexasChem says:

    I’m going to bed I’ve agreed with Black Flag and Ray Hawkins today on various matters today so I must be coming down with something!Maybe I been sipping on this crown too much this evening, I don’t know.

  46. Black Flag says:

    TexasChem

    BF:I’ve posted the theological argument that God has no morals – He doesn’t need them.

    TC:So suppose God has no use of morals for himself, what if he wanted mankind to have morals since we have been given free will?

    What possible ‘wants’ could God have?

    Isn’t He the maker of everything, so what didn’t he make that He now wants?

    BF:Faith, by definition, is immune to reason.

    TC:True there BF, although I do claim that religious debate is not immune to reason so could theoretically alter faith.

    Theology is the ‘reasoning’ to discover the mind of God. However, as its premise, starts with faith – that there exists a God with a mind to discover.

    TC:Evil men have existed in this world since the beginning of man.The issue I stated was hypothetical and complex but that issue does exist today in this age with pedophiles.

    Before you can reason complex problems, one needs to be very clear on the simple ones. If one can’t get their mind straight on the simple things – the rest is futile.

    The arguement was based on your reason and so until you can add more reason to justify having a society that can peacefully co-exist with no defining moral standard I have indeed disproved your arguement.

    Remember, I’m providing merely a kitchen to cook in. What meals you may make, good or bad, are up to you.

    I’m willing to dialogue some meals and recipes – but that doesn’t mean those are great meals, or meals you’d eat.

    But as long as we agree on the materials in the kitchen – we can might make some great dishes too.

    TC:So if I had a moral that prevented me from getting trichinosis by not eating pork (scientific fact) then you are saying that, that moral could not be passed along to future generations as a learning tool to prevent disease?

    That is a fact about pork.

    However, even with this fact, you have no right to stop me from eating pork.

    Do you know why?

    BF:These laws are derived from natural law.
    Simply codifying them (ie: writing them out) in some book does not suddenly make them law, but simply recognizes their previous existence.

    TC:That is a correct statement but who is to say that the disposition of the founding fathers was not determined by christian doctrine?

    They derived many doctrines from the natural law of man. If they learned such from a religion, so be it – if they figured out for themselves – what’s the difference?

    Now given Natural Law by theory has been around since the beginning of time that still does not disprove the fact that morals are taught and not instinctual.They had to learn from somewhere.

    I do not agree.

    Toddlers in a playground already -instinctively- know the natural law.

    Hit me gives me the right to hit you back!

    They may not be able to articulate why they feel they have a right to do that – but they act with it anyway.

    What you do to me gives me the right to do to you – Law of Mutuality.

    TC:No society will ever exist that has no morals.As long as their are morals there will be disagreements.

    I agree – no society can survive without consistent moral law.

    That is why I argue regarding about the basis of that law – and its moral proof.

  47. Bee in my Bonnet says:

    BF,
    Are you talking about anarchy?

    – No rulership or enforced authority.
    – A social state in which there is no governing person or group of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty.
    – Independent from rule or authority.
    – Legitimacy of a state is gained through consent, not through coercion.

    This is the definition of anarchy and nothing good comes from anarchy.

    We are all born with the potential of good and evil. Have you ever watched a 2 year old child play with others? His natural tendency is to push his way to the front of the line, take toys away from others and strike out if he doesn’t get his own way. We, as parents, teach him to wait, share and have some semblance of self-control. That HAS to be taught because our first inclination is to be selfish and want our own way. HUMAN NATURE.

    If we wish to coexist with each other in a community, we must follow some rules, even if it’s “Don’t kill your neighbor.” Otherwise, complete chaos would ensue.

    • Black Flag says:


      Are you talking about anarchy?

      Yes, by definition –

      but the word holds some many connotations placed upon it that it conjures up arguments by emotion.

      So, instead of labeling it, let’s work from the beginning and reason it. You can mix any letters to make a new label to define what ever result come out of the reasoning.

      – No rulership or enforced authority.
      – A social state in which there is no governing person or group of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty.
      – Independent from rule or authority.
      – Legitimacy of a state is gained through consent, not through coercion.

      This is the definition of anarchy and nothing good comes from anarchy.

      Careful about presupposing opinion without argument.

      We are all born with the potential of good and evil. Have you ever watched a 2 year old child play with others? His natural tendency is to push his way to the front of the line, take toys away from others and strike out if he doesn’t get his own way.

      No labels, please. Good and evil are subjective for most people – I have defined mine.

      Evil is anything that contradicts the nature of the universe.

      So seeing children act – which initially is almost reliant on instinct – is not evil; they are acting consistently with the make up that is human.

      Further, we cannot judge children the same as adults because biologically, children have not yet developed the full cognitive abilities.

      Bluntly, they do not – physically – have a thinking brain. This development matures and is complete usually by the time a person is 25 years old. (95 percentile).

      Be wary of using children as a observation of intellectual choice and decision making.

      We, as parents, teach him to wait, share and have some semblance of self-control.

      Actually, what parents really do is guard and protect the child until the child grows their brain. Along the way we also train them with skills, but until they have a thinking brain, pretty much them understanding ‘right’ from ‘wrong’ is futile.

      That HAS to be taught because our first inclination is to be selfish and want our own way. HUMAN NATURE.

      No, it is NOT.

      Our first inclination, after basic survival, is cooperation.

      Cooperation is a rather high order thinking skill – one must learn one’s self and understand the capability of others while strategizing.

      Again do not judge children as a measure of what is human – it is only a small part – you only 15% of your life as a child; it shouldn’t represent the significant measure of humanity.

      If we wish to coexist with each other in a community, we must follow some rules, even if it’s “Don’t kill your neighbor.” Otherwise, complete chaos would ensue.

      Rules, sure.

      Rulers, no.

    • Black Flag says:

      Are you talking about anarchy?

      Yes, by definition –

      but the word holds some many connotations placed upon it that it conjures up arguments by emotion.

      So, instead of labeling it, let’s work from the beginning and reason it. You can mix any letters to make a new label to define what ever result come out of the reasoning.

      – No rulership or enforced authority.

      Correct. By what right does someone rule over me?

      I am a man – he is a man. Where is his rights more than mine?

      – A social state in which there is no governing person or group of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty.

      Yes, but I’ll bet you’ve defined freedom in a way that it will contradict itself.

      – Independent from rule or authority.

      See above

      – Legitimacy of a state is gained through consent, not through coercion.

      Exactly.

      This is the definition of anarchy and nothing good comes from anarchy.

      Careful about presupposing opinion without argument.

      We are all born with the potential of good and evil. Have you ever watched a 2 year old child play with others? His natural tendency is to push his way to the front of the line, take toys away from others and strike out if he doesn’t get his own way.

      No labels, please. Good and evil are subjective for most people – I have defined mine.

      Evil is anything that contradicts the nature of the universe.

      So seeing children act – which initially is almost reliant on instinct – is not evil; they are acting consistently with the make up that is human.

      Further, we cannot judge children the same as adults because biologically, children have not yet developed the full cognitive abilities.

      Bluntly, they do not – physically – have a thinking brain. This development matures and is complete usually by the time a person is 25 years old. (95 percentile).

      Be wary of using children as a observation of intellectual choice and decision making.

      We, as parents, teach him to wait, share and have some semblance of self-control.

      Actually, what parents really do is guard and protect the child until the child grows their brain. Along the way we also train them with skills, but until they have a thinking brain, pretty much them understanding ‘right’ from ‘wrong’ is futile.

      That HAS to be taught because our first inclination is to be selfish and want our own way. HUMAN NATURE.

      No, it is NOT.

      Our first inclination, after basic survival, is cooperation.

      Cooperation is a rather high order thinking skill – one must learn one’s self and understand the capability of others while strategizing.

      Again do not judge children as a measure of what is human – it is only a small part – you only 15% of your life as a child; it shouldn’t represent the significant measure of humanity.

      If we wish to coexist with each other in a community, we must follow some rules, even if it’s “Don’t kill your neighbor.” Otherwise, complete chaos would ensue.

      Rules, sure.

      Rulers, no.

      • Bee in my Bonnet says:

        BF:”Correct. By what right does someone rule over me?”

        If you choose to live in society, you are choosing to accept the rules amd mores of that society. I’m assuming you pay your taxes, go to work every day on time, obtained a marriage license to marry you wife, etc. All this is accepting someone’s rule over you.

        Bee:”- Legitimacy of a state is gained through consent, not through coercion.”

        BF:”Exactly.”

        The USA would not have become an independent nation without the Revolution. Abolition of slaves (and preservation of the union) would not have been gained without the Civil War. Are you saying that you would rather have seen the alternative? In a perfect world, we could all consent to get along, but let’s look around and acknowledge reality.

        Bee:”This is the definition of anarchy and nothing good comes from anarchy.”

        BF:”Careful about presupposing opinion without argument.”

        Ah, but BF, this is not just my opinion. Anarchy is chaos and there is no chaos in the universe; just order. Again, not just my opinion but that of Einstein’s and Max Planck’s as well. Paul Davies (physicist) explains the universe in this way: “Everywhere we look in the Universe, from the far flung galaxies to the deepest recesses of the atom, we encounter order.” That goes for humans as well. We like order or rules. It’s in our DNA.

        Bee:”We, as parents, teach him to wait, share and have some semblance of self-control.”

        BF:”Actually, what parents really do is guard and protect the child until the child grows their brain. Along the way we also train them with skills, but until they have a thinking brain, pretty much them understanding ‘right’ from ‘wrong’ is futile.”

        What age are we talking about? A child of 5, 6, or 7 certainly knows the difference from right and wrong. Why do you think they lie when they think they are going to get into trouble? Or hide that cookie from the cookie jar? I agree that much of their cognitive reasoning in not developed until early 20’s but let’s not underestimate them as well.

        Bee:”That HAS to be taught because our first inclination is to be selfish and want our own way. HUMAN NATURE.”

        BF:”No it’s not. Our first inclination, after basic survival, is cooperation.”

        But why are we cooperating, if not for selfish reasons?

        BF:” Rules, sure.Rulers, no.”

        If no rulers, where do the rules come from?

        Now you’ve given me a headache; I hope your happy. 😀

        “Evil is anything that contradicts the nature of the universe.”

        Chaos/anarchy also contradicts the nature of the universe. There is no chaos in the universe. Only order. As we are part of this universe, like it or not, order is something that humans demand, no, need.

        If no rulers, who makes the rules?

        Bee:We, as parents, teach him to wait, share and have some semblance of self-control.

        BF:Actually, what parents really do is guard and protect the child until the child grows their brain.

        No, BF, I teach my children to wait, share and have self-control, as well as guard and protect them. They are not allowed to run amok, thinking they can have their own way all the time.

        • Bee in my Bonnet says:

          Sorry, that last bit was my attempt to put some order to my ramblings.

          BF, you amaze me, how you can have several of these threads going on at the same time. I’ve just been conversing with you and I’m wrung out.

        • Black Flag says:

          Bee
          ..on ‘keeping up’ on many threads and everything else…

          Would it help if I explained my work area around my desk?

          In my home office, I have 3 desktop computers, 6 monitors, 3 keyboards and mice – and a laptop and two color laser printers.

          My home network is a large Network Storage Array containing 15 terabytes of disk, as well as running my own web and email servers.

          My home office is a mastery of complete chaos of papers, books, computers, and computer parts. When it starts to leak out of my office and into the rest of the house, Wife puts on her ‘angry face’.

          …and then there’s the basement… 8)

          I’m working on compiling all of this into a shared post for USWep, however, I’ll add these thoughts….

          BF:”Correct. By what right does someone rule over me?”

          If you choose to live in society, you are choosing to accept the rules amd mores of that society.

          When can a man chose not to follow the edicts written on pieces of paper by another man?

          I’m assuming you pay your taxes

          Careful with assumptions.

          Go to work every day on time,

          Nope.

          obtained a marriage license to marry you wife, etc.

          Nope.

          Why would I want to bring into a very personal relationship with a beautiful human being, an entity that is careless, couldn’t care less, is murderous and violent, and acts in a manner completely contrary to my personal morals?

          Not on your life.

          Instead, I rented a yacht, invited 20 couples, closest friends and family, sailed around the bay where I lived at the time – and had a very spiritual, mutual friend of ours preside over our ceremony and vows.

          Yes, that does mean I can’t avail myself of a number of government goodies, but — do I appear as a guy who cares?

          😉

          All this is accepting someone’s rule over you.

          Hmm, guess I don’t accept anyone’s arbitrary rules.

          Bee:”- Legitimacy of a state is gained through consent, not through coercion.”

          BF:”Exactly.”

          The USA would not have become an independent nation without the Revolution.

          Perhaps.

          But,eventually, Britain ceded Canada and Australia without violent revolution – India, a bit heavy-handed, but gave up there too.

          Americans were in a hurry, I guess.

          Abolition of slaves (and preservation of the union) would not have been gained without the Civil War.

          Interestingly, the rest of the civilized world gave up slavery without requiring war. I would offer that the Civil War was nothing about slavery, but about State Rights vs. Federal Rights.

          Sadly, the wrong side won.

          Are you saying that you would rather have seen the alternative?

          Yes.

          Freedom is messy. But it’s a lot better than tyranny.

          In a perfect world, we could all consent to get along, but let’s look around and acknowledge reality.

          George Bernard Shaw:

          The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

          Bee:Anarchy is chaos and there is no chaos in the universe; just order.

          Ah, but there is nothing BUT Chaos in the Universe – it is all perfect Chaotic Order.

          One of my favorite quotes:
          “Chaos always eventually wins, because it is so better organized”.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

          Again, not just my opinion but that of Einstein’s and Max Planck’s as well.

          And, then came Quantum Theory and Mechanics, and shattered their vision of Ordered Universe.

          What age are we talking about? A child of 5, 6, or 7 certainly knows the difference from right and wrong.

          Actually, they only know the rules of your sense of Right and Wrong.

          They do this => you get mad.
          They do that => you get happy.
          They like happy parents, thus that is what they generally will do.

          Ask them why they acted in a ‘good’ way – they will say “Because Mommy said so…”

          .. hide that cookie from the cookie jar?

          Because they want the cookie and know you won’t let them have it.

          That is not a ‘right or wrong’ thing – they just want a cookie.

          They are not purposely confounding you – they just want a cookie that you don’t want to give to them.

          I agree that much of their cognitive reasoning in not developed until early 20’s but let’s not underestimate them as well.

          We tend to over-estimate their logical abilities and under-estimate their skill level.

          We are always surprised by the child who can play a piano as a master – but demand our kids develop moral behaviors that they cannot conceive.

          Because one ability we can see, we are enthralled – but that what we cannot see – their thinking – we believe they think like us.

          But why are we cooperating, if not for selfish reasons?

          I’ll give you that one.

          The Ayn Rand’s “Objectivity” theory – all acts are essentially selfish.

          BF:” Rules, sure.Rulers, no.”

          If no rulers, where do the rules come from?

          From yourself. You rule yourself.

          Where do the rules of a King come from? The King.

          If he can do it, why can’t you?

          “Evil is anything that contradicts the nature of the universe.”

          Chaos/anarchy also contradicts the nature of the universe. There is no chaos in the universe. Only order.

          Have you looked at our Sun or any star? No order there!

          Chaos is the rule of the Universe – even in math, the language of the Universe, it pops up.

          There are infinitely more irrational number then there are rational numbers by proof.

          We tend to live our world within a very thin experience – but the great vast universe exists in chaos – God does play dice.

          God is waiting with bated breath for tomorrow, too, to see what will happen. His design of this Universe made is so that even He doesn’t know, for sure, what glorious thing will go ‘boom’!

          • Bee in my Bonnet says:

            BF,
            You do make me laugh. I may not agree with a lot of what you say, but you are a hoot! And you make me think deep thoughts. On a fundamental level, I disagree but I don’t know why. Hmmm, I need to ponder.

  48. The flawed mantra of socialism “From each according to his ability,to each according to his need”
    Why is this flawed??
    I have yet to see a anyone bring up Philosophy in this discussion!!

    • Barberian says:

      Where has it ever succeded?

    • Fred

      I suggest you read the other posts on this series as several of us have raised philisophical questions, many of them.

      Unfortunately many of us wind up jumping back to the details before the philisophical system has been completed. But it has been discussed.

      I am curious as to whether you are proposing that socialism is not flawed and what philisophical base you use to support that conclusion.

      I for one would like to hear what you have to offer.

      Happy Saturday
      JAC

      • Black Flag says:

        It succeeds in your family, doesn’t it?

        You don’t charge your children the full economic value they consume – if you did, they’d starve.

        “From each according to his ability,to each according to his need” is a beautiful way to run a healthy family.

        So why do you think it doesn’t work on a grander scale?

        • Two points.

          1) In a family situation it would more appropriately be called charity, not socialism. Support is given freely.

          2) It works if I get to define “ability” and “need”.

        • my youngest was born in 1976, as an almost college grad, makes north of 100k a year. My oldest born in 1976, college grad, quit his job 1+ yrs ago,just started a new job,the employer came to him, he wrote his own job description, makes just south of 100k a year. got what he wanted!!!

          They went to a private boarding school in the 80’s because public education was so bad then. Cost me my entire retirement fund

  49. Black Flag:

    I left for the afternoon and the discussion has once again taken a new track. Can we get back to Peter’s original question? I was looking forward to more detail on how your society would be structured and function.

    Let me restart the discussion with a few questions related to where you left off.

    Are there any laws?
    If so, what is the basis of those laws (ethics/morals that support)?
    Are there any written laws?
    If not, how does everyone know what the laws are, especially visitors?
    How does the society come to agreement as to what are the applicable, accepted, laws?

    I do hope your weekend is shaping up nicely.
    JAC

  50. Okay…
    Non-American here.
    One simple question.

    Why does the word ‘socialism’ spark such terror?

    Surely it has to be an improvement on the thinly veiled fascist capitalism that has gripped the US over the last few decades?

    • USWeapon says:

      It isn’t that the word socialism sparks terror. For that matter neither do the words fascism or capitalism. They are just labels that we apply so that we don’t have to go writing “government control of everything and redistribution of wealth on a grand scale” every time. Instead I can just write one word and everyone knows what I mean. And socialism/fascism are accurate terms to describe what we are seeing.

      As a non-American, do you hail from a country that is socialist in nature? Just wondering what your take is if you do. I don’t object to socialism or fascism. I wouldn’t object to capitalism either, but you are falsely thinking that capitalism is what has existed in the US and caused all these problems in the past. It is the fascism that crept into capitalism that caused the problems. Go back to pure capitalism and you may find a self correcting mechanism that isn’t nearly as scary as socialist politicians are scaring people into believing it is. What we here are opposed to is the rapid depletion of our individual rights and the trampling of the Constitution that founded this country. And we certainly recognize that as bad as any capitalism could be, it isn’t nearly as bad as what happens when government throws it’s hat into the ring.

      • CyndiP says:

        Well said, USW.

      • Reaper says:

        Yep, Aussie here, so that means a tradition of heavy socialist democracy that dates back close to a century.

        I do fall into the trap of thinking about politcal systems by their ‘pure/academic form’ however. Socialism = State infrastructure & citizen equality. Fascism = Merger of Corporations & State. Democracy = Rule by the majority. Which means I get kind of confused by all the additional emotional baggage that tends to be lumped in with these terms.

  51. Hi Joel,

    No matter what label is applied, the relentless assault on our freedom and increasing regulation & control of our lives is what we object too.

    We also object strongly to the “privilege” of paying for all of it.

  52. Reaper says:

    That I can get behind. The Patriot Act (boy was that a misleading title) and its implications for the rest of the world terrified me.

  53. Ramon T. Poet says:

    Yes, it is very late in the game. If we don’t pass the “Fair Tax bill’ HR25 and investigate the ‘Fed’ HR1207
    we will continue on the downhill slide faster and faster. BIG CORP and their heads (oligarchy) rule with an iron fist. They control the wealth, the power and the government (Capitalistic Imperialism which is first cousin to Communism and Socialism and is NOT ‘Free Enterprise). The arguments and finger pointing between the phony parties (Republicans vs. Democrats) and Liberal vs. Conservative is just what they like to keep us discomboomilated and off-course. The first step is to end the tyranny and control of the income tax system and then the fiat money system which are theft systems of labor, production and stored value. It is too bad that the people just don’t get it and probably never will. We must try to wake up America now.

%d bloggers like this: