What If...
What if we lost WW II, pre-war speculation from a Chicago paper.
The Democrats' scare tactics are really getting desperate. :lol:
Yes. "it's the beggining of the end", "the walls are closing in"
It's getting good. These guys aren't used to getting owned. :corn:
The Democrats' scare tactics are really getting desperate.
First its the Daily News. A low key propaganda outfit that also hype fears of criminal hiding everywhere to kill us all.
Second, responsible moderates always consider all possibilities. When the Supreme Court ruled against Nixon, the chief justice demanded a 100% vote one way or another. For many reasons including this one. They had to consider that Nixon would send the Army to occupy the Supreme Court. Things under Nixon had become that unstable.
What the Supremes did not know, staff members in the White House were also just as concerned about Nixon's mental stability and had already taken actions, if necessary, to protect the US from Nixon.
Trump is not a stable man very much like Nixon.
What will happen next? Are the walls closing in on Trump? Is this ( another ) begining of the end?
Will some recently declassed release from the DOJ put the "sha-zam" on something the dem liars say just moments after they say it? Like they do but legally because Trump declassed it. :corn:
Will Trump say "I'm not a crook"? Will Barr outwit the beast with another media narrative hijack?
Will Mueller re-testify that his report found no collusion? Will he testify as to WHEN he knew there was no collusion? Will he testify that he was going to continue the witch hunt until the 2020 election season if Barr had not spanked him and forced him to finish and submit the report?
Will Barr's gardener's tax returns be under subpoena? :corn: It's getting good.
… Second, responsible moderates always consider all possibilities. When the Supreme Court ruled against Nixon, the chief justice demanded a 100% vote one way or another. For many reasons including this one. They had to consider that Nixon would send the Army to occupy the Supreme Court. ...
[BOLD MINE]
I disagree. Whacko moderates consider all possibilities. Responsible moderates consider all
reasonable possibilities. Every member of the Army takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution and it was well established before Nixon that any orders received had to conform to regulations and the UCMJ both of which are rooted in the Constitution.
It was not reasonable to expect a military coup supporting Nixon over any other branch of government nor is it reasonable to expect a military coup in support of Trump. Other branches of government would have to be in clear violation of the Constitution for that to happen. Likewise for the Army to take action against a President.
It was not reasonable to expect a military coup supporting Nixon over any other branch of government nor is it reasonable to expect a military coup in support of Trump.
It was always a possibility back then just like it is possible (but unlikely) that the scumbag Don would also refuse to leave office. We are not talking about honest men here.
With wackos such as the Don, we must always consider these otherwise unlikely scenarios.
Pelosi's comments are unlikely if the White House has people who work for America. But so many of them get fired because they represent America rather than the Don's ego and financial interests.
Wackos are extremists (not moderates) - ie nationalists, White Supremacists, Nazis, Klansmen, people who kill in the name of religion, etc. American patriots are moderates. Extremists are not. Extremists are easily manipulated by soundbyte distortions of words such as freedom, liberty, the flag, patriotism, military loyalty, extremist talk show hosts, fear of learning facts before having a conclusion, etc.
Extremists are most often American citizens who would bomb an Oklahoma City building, attack moderates in the streets of Charlotte, stockpile reams of assault weapons in the name of religious lies, need solutions in big guns, hype more military and more wars (ie Mission Accomplished that still remains), fear immigrants (the most productive people in any nation), attack a pizza parlor because Hilary was operating a pedophile ring in the basement, hate Canadians, hate European and all all other American allies, praise Kim of North Korea, fear vaccines because a blond bimbo actress said so, believe Putin, subvert fundamental scientific research, attack China because they are becoming productive, and therefore vote for Donald Trump.
That is clearly the definition of an uneducated extremist. And not an educated and informed (and therefore patriotic) moderate.
Your definitions are categorically rejected. The Unabomber had a doctorate in mathematics. "Whacko" can cross all levels of education and the political spectrum. You yourself defy your own definitions and could never be officer material because of it.
Your definitions are categorically rejected.
A wacko believes other wackos are good people. It is called perspective.
Was he wacko when he got his doctorate? Back then he was not living as a sane man - was not living in a one room cabin hidden in the woods and incapable of doing advanced math.
Sane people know him to be a wacko extremist - not a moderate.
A wacko believes other wackos are good people. ...
If that were true, then whacko left-wing extremists would think that whacko right-wing extremists are good and vice versa.
They don't.
Your statement is rejected.
The remainder of your post supports my contention that being whacko is not dependent on education level. No one but you introduced the notion that anyone would consider the Unabomber a moderate. Irrelevant discourse since he wasn't used as an example of that.
False: I (a wacko) think you (a wacko) are friggin' awful.
refuted, disputed, trashed, canned, bagged, and left for dead
If that were true, then whacko left-wing extremists would think that whacko right-wing extremists are good and vice versa.
Again you are distorting / misrepresenting what wackos do. Wackos promote 'them verse us' distaste or hate. Hate is especially strong among the most extreme right wing. It works on the lesser educated who use emotions to somehow know.
Left and right wackos are little different to the patriots. For different reasons and using different conclusions (some because they want to and other because they do not understand the damage), they want to wreck shit.
Since you reject it, then it must be the truth. The Don said so. Even the internet is not as honest as the Don - your reasoning and henry quirk's.
tw, you do this -- "promote 'them verse us' distaste or hate" -- with every post.
#
"they want to wreck shit"
Only Crom-fearing minarchists like me wanna do that, and we wanna do it to preserve the union (gotta cut the cancer out to save the life)
Again you are distorting / misrepresenting what wackos do. ..
I have not distorted / misrepresented what you do in any way. You just can't handle the truth.
[QUOTE=sexobon;1032067You just can't handle the truth.[/QUOTE]
Did you order a Code Red?
Did you order a Code Red?
Sure took you long enough.
[ATTACH]67727[/ATTACH]
Hey Henry, this may tickle your fancy.
Idaho has 736 chapters containing 8,200 pages of rules and regulations, covering everything from fishing licences to building nuclear power plants. They also have a state constitution requiring they be renewed by the legislature yearly. But this year they didn’t and can’t until they reconvene next January. So July 1st the rules are all gone except the ones the new governor chooses to keep by emergency proclamation.
It'll be interest to see how this plays out. I'm betting the new Governor will wuss out and keep everything as is. He might drop a couple small rules his donors find annoying, but doubt a wholesale housecleaning.
"So July 1st the rules are all gone except the ones the new governor chooses to keep by emergency proclamation."
No doubt: "the new Governor will wuss out".
I wonder how many Idahoans will take advantage of what I imagine will be an exceedingly small window.
Idahoans...I calls 'em Taters.
No I mash the shit out of them.
I don't see why Henry is opposed to government, they're looking out for your best interests...
Okay, but like, should we just not regulate computers today since they didn't exist back then? Should we stop regulating farm machinery now that we have to put all our attention on computers? More isn't always bad, it's just the nature of a growing society.
It's not about 'no regulation'; it's about sensible, minimal regulation.
Look at Bruce's chart: what's sensible, minimal there?
Thousands of regulations from the local/municipal all the way up to national/federal. Many serve no good purpose; many conflict with other regs; many are in place simply to hobble, not guide, serve, or protect.
"More isn't always bad"
And less isn't always good or better, but often it is.
Parsimony, frugality, caution; self-direction, -responsibility: when did these become 'bad words'?
But most of those rules and regulations stem from some person or company abusing the public.
There were many people through larceny or ineptitude wiping out the nest egg of people getting ready to or already were retired. Bernie Madoff brought it to the front page by ripping powerful people. The result was a slew of new rules. The rules came late and for the wrong reason but they are still good rules. People will still get screwed but the perps won't walk away clean anymore.
Of course some of the rules are written to help the wife's cousin's coal mine keep a stranglehold on their market. That's why the rule makers have to be babysat by the voters.
It's not about 'no regulation'; it's about sensible, minimal regulation.
Minimal regulation, to you, is to 'wreck things'. Regulations must exist to have free markets. It was never a question of more or less regulation. It was always about regulations that the people "who come from where the work gets done" need.
More regulation or less regulation is simply the naive looking for solutions in their emotions. Adults, thinking like adults, first learn what works and then create informed standards. These same responsible people also know the purpose of every business deal is for both counterparties to prosper.
What made the internet possible. More regulations? Yes that is what happened - not the purpose. Regulations created massive and successful free markets. Corralled so many who were stifling innovation and growth. Those regulations empowered people who make America great. That was never corrupt scumbags such as the Donald. He is the perfect example (unfortunately) of why we need regulations.
"But most of those rules and regulations stem from some person or company abusing the public."
Sure, but do we need thousands of pages of regs, just on the federal level, to address that?
No, we don't.
#
"There were many people through larceny or ineptitude wiping out the nest egg of people getting ready to or already were retired. Bernie Madoff brought it to the front page by ripping powerful people. The result was a slew of new rules. The rules came late and for the wrong reason but they are still good rules. People will still get screwed but the perps won't walk away clean anymore."
How many rules were created, Bruce? List them, please. If you do, and we go through them, one by one, I guarantee we'll find nine tenths (or more) of them are unnecessary.
#
"Of course some of the rules are written to help the wife's cousin's coal mine keep a stranglehold on their market. That's why the rule makers have to be babysat by the voters."
Yes, most of the regs are meant to serve or benefit a minority. Sensible, minimal regulation serves the majority (a majority which is expected to be self-regulating and -responsible), so -- by definition -- such regs must be sensible, minimal.
And, yes: 'we' should keep our feet on the necks of our employees. 'We' should never think of them as 'rulemakers'. They're servants, proxies, employees. They should be second-class citizens, not you or me.
"Minimal regulation, to you, is to 'wreck things'."
No, minimal, sensible regulation is just that: minimal and sensible regulation.
Wrecking things is sometimes what has to happen to get there.
Think of the 'controlled burn' as applied to politics/culture.
#
"Regulations must exist to have free markets."
Minimal, sensible regulations, yeah, mostly centered on contracts.
#
"It was never a question of more or less regulation. It was always about regulations that the people "who come from where the work gets done" need."
Agreed, and that, for the most part, means minimal, sensible regulation.
#
"Adults, thinking like adults, first learn what works and then create informed standards."
Agreed. and these standards are almost always favor sensible, minimal regulation.
"Minimal regulation, to you, is to 'wreck things'."
No, minimal, sensible regulation is just that: minimal and sensible regulation.
But you have been quite explicit. You only want to wreck things. You do not want to upgrade or improve anything. Your entire mantra is to only 'wreck things' since - and you said it - that is good.
Why this sudden admission that regulations can be good and are necessary. What changed? Are you alright? What happened to bombasticism? Or did you mistakenly listen to a moderate information source.
Oh those evil moderates. They will provide all perspective with the associated reasons why. Then one might be force to think for himself.
"But you have been quite explicit. You only want to wreck things."
Liar. I never said I only want to wreck things. There's a context you're ignoring.
#
"You do not want to upgrade or improve anything. Your entire mantra is to only 'wreck things' since - and you said it - that is good."
Liar. You ignore my posts about free enterprise, about minarchy, about self-responsibility -direction, and -regulation. You fixate, like a good lil propagandist, only on what supports your assertion.
#
"Why this sudden admission that regulations can be good and are necessary."
Minimal, sensible regulations as needed by a watchman minarchy (which, as you know, I've written about before, in-forum, several times).
How many rules were created, Bruce? List them, please. If you do, and we go through them, one by one, I guarantee we'll find nine tenths (or more) of them are unnecessary.
I can't tell you, in that particular instance my financial advisor(an Edward Jones agent) called me in because one of the rule changes was they were required to inform all their clients. He started reading off the changes in the system to protect clients and after 10 minutes I said whoa, enough, stop, where do I sign. His assistant brought in 6 papers for me to sign.
The bottom line is I don't know, but you can be rest assured outfits like jones had people fighting onerous rules all the way through the process. Plus that was just one example of why the rules are necessary. For every rule made there are dozens of people plotting to get around it.
Sensible, minimal regulation serves the majority (a majority which is expected to be self-regulating and -responsible), so -- by definition -- such regs must be sensible, minimal.
You're kidding right? Capitalism has never been "self-regulating and -responsible", quite the contrary rape and pillage the gospel.
"For every rule made there are dozens of people plotting to get around it."
Sure, but that's how it 'is'. One reg, 500 regs, doesn't matter: someone is gonna (try to) navigate 'round it.
So: if folks naturally and normally try to break the rules, isn't it better to have a handful of sensible, easily understood, demonstrably enforceable regs than volumes of overblown, self-conflicting, arcane, almost impossible to enforce regs?
Isn't 'mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else' better than 10,000 loophole-plagued codifications that favor the guy with the fatter wallet?
#
"Capitalism has never been "self-regulating and -responsible", quite the contrary rape and pillage the gospel."
When did I bring up capitalism? I didn't, but: since 'you' did...
I've been unambiguous: I'm no fan of capitalism. By defintion, it favors 'capital' and therefore lends itself to melding with 'state'. I favor 'free enterprise' which is all about the individiual.
Having said that...
Capitalism (even the state capitalism we're saddled with now) can be self-regulating cuz the folks who transact 'can' self-regulate. Absolutely, capitalism (in any form) discourages self-regulation. Much easier to bilk folks who've been taught to 'not' cover their own keisters (who've been taught to rely on others for protection), but this is not the same as sayin' capitalism (more accurately, 'capitalists') 'can't' self-regulate.
I'll concede tte point, however, since -- at this late stage of American capitalism -- it's unlikely the big fish will ever play by the same rules foisted up on the small fry.
So: do we toss capitalism out and replace it with state socialism? We're more than half way down that road already. Here's the thing: at some point state capitalism becomes indistinguishable from state socialism. The Central Commitee or Politburo is really no different than the Board of Directors.
Now, I know we have democracy (one man, one vote) as the bulwark against the concentration of power, but -- really -- how's that workin' out for us?
When you and me step into the voting booth, we merely get to choose from a selection arranged by other folks, folks we don't know, don't have the ear of; folks with agendas that may not mirror our own.
We think we can reform the process by addin' layer after layer of regulation to it, but, practically speaking, we just muddy the water makin' it easier still for us to get hoodwinked.
So: I suggest, have suggested, will continue to suggest, we should move in another direction, one encouraging self-direction and -responsibility for each and every one, where 'government' is properly seen as limited proxy, where corporation stands as naked to the world as the corner independent. Remove 'their' protections and privilege, don't chain and hobble 'me'.
Yep, some stuff, some people, are gonna get (really 'need' to get) wrecked. Killing' cancer isn't easy or painless. Healthy cells are whacked hard gettin' to the cancerous ones.
*shrug*
'nuff said (cuz nobody agrees or gives a shit anyway).
Liar. I never said I only want to wreck things. There's a context you're ignoring.
Correct. What you advocate is "wreck shit".
Moderates build, create, and upgrade things. Extremists want to 'wreck shit'.
"For every rule made there are dozens of people plotting to get around it."
Sure, but that's how it 'is'. One reg, 500 regs, doesn't matter: someone is gonna (try to) navigate 'round it.
So: if folks naturally and normally try to break the rules, isn't it better to have a handful of sensible, easily understood, demonstrably enforceable regs than volumes of overblown, self-conflicting, arcane, almost impossible to enforce regs?
Isn't 'mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else' better than 10,000 loophole-plagued codifications that favor the guy with the fatter wallet?
#
"Capitalism has never been "self-regulating and -responsible", quite the contrary rape and pillage the gospel."
When did I bring up capitalism? I didn't, but: since 'you' did...
I've been unambiguous: I'm no fan of capitalism. By defintion, it favors 'capital' and therefore lends itself to melding with 'state'. I favor 'free enterprise' which is all about the individiual.
Having said that...
Capitalism (even the state capitalism we're saddled with now) can be self-regulating cuz the folks who transact 'can' self-regulate. Absolutely, capitalism (in any form) discourages self-regulation. Much easier to bilk folks who've been taught to 'not' cover their own keisters (who've been taught to rely on others for protection), but this is not the same as sayin' capitalism (more accurately, 'capitalists') 'can't' self-regulate.
I'll concede tte point, however, since -- at this late stage of American capitalism -- it's unlikely the big fish will ever play by the same rules foisted up on the small fry.
So: do we toss capitalism out and replace it with state socialism? We're more than half way down that road already. Here's the thing: at some point state capitalism becomes indistinguishable from state socialism. The Central Commitee or Politburo is really no different than the Board of Directors.
Now, I know we have democracy (one man, one vote) as the bulwark against the concentration of power, but -- really -- how's that workin' out for us?
When you and me step into the voting booth, we merely get to choose from a selection arranged by other folks, folks we don't know, don't have the ear of; folks with agendas that may not mirror our own.
We think we can reform the process by addin' layer after layer of regulation to it, but, practically speaking, we just muddy the water makin' it easier still for us to get hoodwinked.
So: I suggest, have suggested, will continue to suggest, we should move in another direction, one encouraging self-direction and -responsibility for each and every one, where 'government' is properly seen as limited proxy, where corporation stands as naked to the world as the corner independent. Remove 'their' protections and privilege, don't chain and hobble 'me'.
Yep, some stuff, some people, are gonna get (really 'need' to get) wrecked. Killing' cancer isn't easy or painless. Healthy cells are whacked hard gettin' to the cancerous ones.
-----
and: what exactly do you, tw, know about moderation or moderates?
Nuthin'.
You're the most extreme extremist in-forum.
You're lack of self-assessment and -knowledge pretty disqualifies you for anything.
'nuff said, to you.
So: if folks naturally and normally try to break the rules, isn't it better to have a handful of sensible, easily understood, demonstrably enforceable regs than volumes of overblown, self-conflicting, arcane, almost impossible to enforce regs?
Ideally, yes, but enforceable is the problem. In a country founded on living by the rule of law, the courts decide. That means the law has to cover every conceivable end run, or the law has to say you have to follow the rules made by X agency that cover every conceivable end run.
Isn't 'mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else' better than 10,000 loophole-plagued codifications that favor the guy with the fatter wallet?
OK I'm minding my own business and keeping my hands to myself while my business is poisoning the water supply, the air, or food. That doesn't work. Like Pittsburgh back in the day, the people who made the city a nightmare lived out of town where the air and water were safe.
When did I bring up capitalism? I didn't, but: since 'you' did...
I've been unambiguous: I'm no fan of capitalism. By defintion, it favors 'capital' and therefore lends itself to melding with 'state'. I favor 'free enterprise' which is all about the individiual.
I brought it up because as you well know, that's reality, that's what we live under.
Capitalism (even the state capitalism we're saddled with now) can be self-regulating cuz the folks who transact 'can' self-regulate. Absolutely, capitalism (in any form) discourages self-regulation. Much easier to bilk folks who've been taught to 'not' cover their own keisters (who've been taught to rely on others for protection), but this is not the same as sayin' capitalism (more accurately, 'capitalists') 'can't' self-regulate.
The only time they self regulate is when it's part of collusion between themselves to screw us.
I'll concede tte point, however, since -- at this late stage of American capitalism -- it's unlikely the big fish will ever play by the same rules foisted up on the small fry.
Agreed.
So: do we toss capitalism out and replace it with state socialism? We're more than half way down that road already. Here's the thing: at some point state capitalism becomes indistinguishable from state socialism. The Central Commitee or Politburo is really no different than the Board of Directors.
Tossing them out is a pipe dream, they won't quit without a fight and have the money, guns, and lawyers to win.
Now, I know we have democracy (one man, one vote) as the bulwark against the concentration of power, but -- really -- how's that workin' out for us?
When you and me step into the voting booth, we merely get to choose from a selection arranged by other folks, folks we don't know, don't have the ear of; folks with agendas that may not mirror our own.
We think we can reform the process by addin' layer after layer of regulation to it, but, practically speaking, we just muddy the water makin' it easier still for us to get hoodwinked.
The only way to fix it is to be involved from selecting the dog catcher on up, and not leave the selection to others until we get in the voting booth. I know I'm guilty, I went to the primary election a couple weeks ago only because of a referendum to buy another piece of ground for open space and saddle the taxpayers with an 8 million dollar mortgage for the next 30 years. But anyway, of all 30 odd candidates running, I didn't know one... even the ones who may have been running for reelection.
So: I suggest, have suggested, will continue to suggest, we should move in another direction, one encouraging self-direction and -responsibility for each and every one, where 'government' is properly seen as limited proxy, where corporation stands as naked to the world as the corner independent. Remove 'their' protections and privilege, don't chain and hobble 'me'.
Yep, some stuff, some people, are gonna get (really 'need' to get) wrecked. Killing' cancer isn't easy or painless. Healthy cells are whacked hard gettin' to the cancerous ones.
*shrug*
'nuff said (cuz nobody agrees or gives a shit anyway).
I wouldn't say nobody agrees, I think most people feel it can't be done, (see money, guns, and lawyers), so the best we can do is pressure legislators to protect the public from them with regulations. Not ideal, but maybe possible.
"In a country founded on living by the rule of law, the courts decide. That means the law has to cover every conceivable end run, or the law has to say you have to follow the rules made by X agency that cover every conceivable end run."
How's that workin' out, tryin' to codify every conceivable circumstance, and puttin' all your faith in men and women who present themselves as being Bastiat's 'finer clay'?
#
"OK I'm minding my own business and keeping my hands to myself while my business is poisoning the water supply, the air, or food.
Most definitely you 'not' minding your own biz or keepin' your hands to yourself. I went through this sequence of specious thinkin' with Happy Monkey (I think...might be wrong) a few months back. HP offered the same example. If you have a mind to, you can find the thread by goin' here...
https://cellar.org/search.php?searchid=10204920
#
"The only time they self regulate is when it's part of collusion between themselves to screw us."
Would you, in their position, automatically try to screw the other guy, the little guy?
#
"Tossing them out is a pipe dream, they won't quit without a fight and have the money, guns, and lawyers to win."
Tossin' out the tyrant doesn't happen via the ballot box or in court.
#
"The only way to fix it is to be involved from selecting the dog catcher on up..."
I disagree.
#
"I wouldn't say nobody agrees, I think most people feel it can't be done, (see money, guns, and lawyers), so the best we can do is pressure legislators to protect the public from them with regulations. Not ideal, but maybe possible."
A while back, well before you and me, some folks (about a third of the population) decided to break with the powers that be. These folks were countered by another third of the population who liked things as they were, and both sides had to deal with a third of the population who largely didn't give a crap one way or the other.
I imagine the break down is close to that in the here and now.
The difficulty of the act is, in itself, no reason not to 'try'.
Non-violent resistance to topple active regimes is successful 47% of the time. That's still successful twice as often as as violent resistance.
However success takes about 3.5% of the population actively protesting not watching on TV cheering them on. Time to start gathering friends and neighbors.
So that's only:eyebrow: 1.25 million people in the streets vs the police with...
[ATTACH]67915[/ATTACH]
Oh, and the military but they wouldn't fire on the people[SIZE="1"][COLOR="Silver"] kent state[/COLOR][/SIZE] would they?
Henry,
The Revolutionary War worked because there was an ocean between us.
Or maybe you are talking about the so called Civil War. That one didn't work because there was no ocean between the North and South.
At this point in US History, it's not a region fighting for its independence like either of those two wars, it's an idea that some people have and some people don't. Any fighting would be a true civil war that would destroy the country. Much like Zaire or the former Yugoslavia. People just killing the neighbors they disagree with.
I can't get behind that, Henry.
It wouldn't have to be a war persay, if people stopped shopping at walmart it wouldn't last long. Look how Sears was dethroned. Same with other businesses who abuse the public trust, except the utilities and monopolies(duopolies) we rely on. Then again, they might straighten up and fly right out of fear of reprisal through regulation.
Bruce,
I take your stats with more than a couple of grains of salt.
One: I don't know where you got 'em.
Two: My gut tells me they're way off the mark.
#
Glatt,
"I can't get behind that, Henry."
Then you'll be on the other side (or sittin' on the sidelines).
As you like.
From
here, but I think they got it from
here.
"It wouldn't have to be a war persay"
I'm inclined to think otherwise.
#
"if people stopped shopping at walmart it wouldn't last long. Look how Sears was dethroned. Same with other businesses who abuse the public trust, except the utilities and monopolies(duopolies) we rely on. Then again, they might straighten up and fly right out of fear of reprisal through regulation."
No, Bruce, the war isn't against the corps. It's against the mechanism used by the corps, the machine that extends protection and privilege to the corps.
Again: in a true free market (free enterprise) the state doesn't favor the rich cuz -- bein' severely limited -- it can't favor the rich (or the poor or anyone).
You keep pointin' to the corps as the root of evil while I keep pointin' to the state.
We're talkin' past each other.
thanks for the link, Bruce
"It wouldn't have to be a war persay"
I'm inclined to think otherwise.
:eek:
No, Bruce, the war isn't against the corps. It's against the mechanism used by the corps, the machine that extends protection and privilege to the corps.
OK, but it's the corps wanting to do evil that causes them to buy politicians to help them screw other corps and/or the public, plus protect them. That's the root of the evil and that evil infects the politicians(and bureaucrats) that abet them. If the corps just wanted free enterprise they wouldn't do anything and your description of simple enforceable rules would work.
An example:
Medicare is far and away the largest purchaser of drugs in the world, but the law says they shall not negotiate price. Why did the politicians vote in favor of that restriction? Because they're toadies of big pharma, but the evil didn't come from the legislators, they're just errand boys.
Again: in a true free market (free enterprise) the state doesn't favor the rich cuz -- bein' severely limited -- it can't favor the rich (or the poor or anyone).
You keep pointin' to the corps as the root of evil while I keep pointin' to the state.
We're talkin' past each other.
I still think the corps are from where all evil flows. I know, hyperbolic. :blush:
But you're right about congress enabling them, and must be cleaned out. Unfortunately that can't happen when people are fat and happy so the maximum energy they'll expend is to pick a party and vote for whoever the party endorses... when they bother to vote.
My father got the nod from the Republicans and was reelected every 3 years near automatically for near 20 years.
Then he pissed off somebody and didn't get the nod so ran as an independant and won, but the next election they didn't take for granted the nod was enough, and really worked hard enough to beat him. Even back in the '70s party was everything.
So how do you keep the state/government from making these restrictions? Pass a law? That requires congress to make the law and they can just as easily throw it out. It would take a complete change of government style and that requires a new constitution. I think if you proposed that, most people would stick with the devil they know.
You know, you're not near as crazy as led us to believe. :lol:
"I still think the corps are from where all evil flows. I know, hyperbolic."
'hyperbolic': an understatement. What you're sayin' is: given sufficent resources human beings will always screw over the other guy, the little. What you're sayin' is: I, Bruce, given the power, will screw over the other guy, the littie guy.
Don't know if I should admire or pity you.
#
"It would take a complete change of government style and that requires a new constitution."
Yes. Fortunately: we have a basic principle upon which to base such a document.
#
"I think if you proposed that, most people would stick with the devil they know."
You're right and that's a shame. As long as folks are (as you say) fat & happy, they'll accept any indignity, any degradation, as the price to pay for having that spare tire and that soma. Hunger & clarity would change their minds.
Actually, it wouldn't.
Domesticated animals don't rebel, even when they have reason to, even when they should, even when they can.
"I still think the corps are from where all evil flows. I know, hyperbolic."
'hyperbolic': an understatement. What you're sayin' is: given sufficent resources human beings will always screw over the other guy, the little. What you're sayin' is: I, Bruce, given the power, will screw over the other guy, the littie guy.
Don't know if I should admire or pity you.
Nope, not what I'm saying, I've been there done that. Just a small business but bent over backward, and not just to look up skirts most of the time, but to be fair to the customer. Cost me a little money but no guilt or lost sleep or lost friends..
The man on the top floor making the big bucks used to be the leader of the companies direction. Today he/she must sit for a conference call every quarter with the Wall Street crowd, to explain if they made the prediction(promise) made last quarter. If not, why not, and what have they done to rectify that. If the brokers don't like what they hear they'll give the stock a lower rating which usually means a drop in price, and maybe a big drop in the value of the CEO's bundle of stock he/she's counting on for retirement.
It's not enough to go along making money, even if you're the top company in your field. Now there must be increases every damn quarter or the private equity jackals will start circling to see in your steady income could be a cash cow, or if your company could be broken up and sold off in pieces for Mo Money. It's easy to see why the CEOs who are not evil themselves are driven to desperate measures. Plus it could be the Board or primary stockholder buying politicians.
"It would take a complete change of government style and that requires a new constitution."
Yes. Fortunately: we have a basic principle upon which to base such a document.
What document is that. I'll resisted jokes about the communist manifesto but I'm sure the Senator McCarthy wannabes would not.
"I think if you proposed that, most people would stick with the devil they know."
You're right and that's a shame. As long as folks are (as you say) fat & happy, they'll accept any indignity, any degradation, as the price to pay for having that spare tire and that soma. Hunger & clarity would change their minds.
But give 'em a break, since they were puppies they've been fed a steady diet of Rah Rah America can do no wrong etc etc.
But Uncle Sam what are we doing?
Never mind that, national security you know, trust us, we know best, Colonel North is taking care of that.
If you were a good player in business (large or small) then you must concede that other folks can be good players in business (large or small).
The document would be the new constitution based on the principle I mentioned.
And: no, no breaks are given. I'm an American and I want minarchy. I was exposed to the same bull manure, and I want the goddamn monkey 'off' my back. Them other folks, the ones who want a gorilla on their backs (on 'my' back), they can kiss my keister.
Certainly the heads of all size businesses can, even will, be good guys, at least while not under threat of going down the toilet. But there will always be that 10%? 5%? 1%? who will do dastardly deeds, tie Nell Fenwick to the railroad tracks, lie/cheat/steal, for an extra buck. That minority is always scheming and the reason for rules and regulations.
Mom: I told you not to get dirty, what are you doing in that mud puddle?
Kid: You didn't tell me not to get wet.
"That minority is always scheming and the reason for rules and regulations."
Sure, a handful of sensible, minimal regs, not volumes of over-blown, nitpicky crap.
And: we've come full-circle.
Without nitpicky Johnny will be in the puddle in no time.
I like your simple rules but I think the plan falls apart at "enforceable" in that how do you say they did wrong if you don't tell them what wrong is?
Full circle but with the understanding of what our differences actually are. :D
… And: we've come full-circle.
Full circle but with the understanding of what our differences actually are. :D
I now pronounce you agonist and antagonist. May your lives be filled with bickering bliss over who is which.
"Without nitpicky Johnny will be in the puddle in no time."
When mine used to play rules-lawyer (you said 'don't get dirty', you never said 'don't get wet') he got punished twice over (once for disobeying, and again for tryin' weasel out). He learned, with time, to not play rules-lawyer.
#
"I like your simple rules but I think the plan falls apart at "enforceable" in that how do you say they did wrong if you don't tell them what wrong is?"
'Mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else' is pretty damn clear, Bruce.
#
"Full circle but with the understanding of what our differences actually are."
Oh, I didn't need to go 'round the block with you to know what our differences are.
##
Sex,
Seems pretty obvious: I'm the villain and Bruce is the victim.
No question the rules are ponderous, the question is are they necessary and why.
Here's 2 I found today...
The first cartoon shows an obvious violation of the only reg needed (mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else).
The second is too ambiguous to understand (but no matter the actual circumstance, or anyone's interpretation, only one rule is required to judge it by).
Go ahead, show me an example where more than 'mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else' is needed, and I'll kiss tw's keister.
The first one they're minding their own business, as a matter of fact that's exactly what they're doing, taking care of their business above all else.
But you win, I surrender, I wouldn't wish tw on... on... on Trump.
"The first one they're minding their own business"
Sure, as long as they never move beyond talkin'. The second they actually begin poisoning they're not mindin' their own business, not keepin' their hands to themselves and so deserve a hearty helping of 'or else'.
#
"I wouldn't wish tw on... on... on Trump."
I ain't worried. There's not a soul here, or anywhere, who can foist up any example that doesn't fall cleanly and clearly into the sphere of MYOB/KYHTY/OE.
There's not a soul here, or anywhere, who can foist up any example that doesn't fall cleanly and clearly into the sphere of MYOB/KYHTY/OE.
By your interpretation, but I'm sure your interpretation is not universally accepted, and certainly wouldn't hold up in any court where you weren't the judge.
I understand what you want it to encompase but the devil is in the details when it comes to application and enforcement.
So, go ahead, gimme a specific circumstance, let's see if I how much I have to distort MYOB/KYHTY/OE to make it work.
I predict no matter how devilish you are in the scenario-makin', MYOB/KYHTY/OE will work, cleanly, clearly, no idiosyncratic interpretations needed.
The Wide-Open Field
By Holly Lisle
Right now, the world I want to live in is being destroyed in front of my eyes by the people who think they’re saving it.
Being different and trying to force people to respect how different you are by agitating for laws to require respect for your difference has become a cause célèbre.
Problem is, we are ALL different.
I don’t mean just a little different. I mean “holy shit, are you kidding me?” different.
Because no matter who you are and no matter what you want and love and think and desire, you are on the polar opposite end of the universe from not just one person you’d consider a freak, but by a whole lot of folks who think YOU’RE the freak.
Everybody is different. Hold on to that, because I’m going to come back to it.
And BECAUSE everybody is different, I think the case needs to be made for Real Individual Freedom, which is obtained by MYODBAKYHTY, otherwise known as the Philosophy of the Wide-Open Field.
And I am an excellent person to make this argument, because I am deeply and weirdly different, and BECAUSE of my own differences, I have been the beneficiary of the Wide-Open Field.
Right now, whole bunches of folks want a special law to protect their little bits of “special and different.”
And the thing about laws is, they create fences, and the more fences there are, the more impossible it becomes to get from who you are to who you want to become.
The very best law legislates as little as possible, with the broad rule that anything not expressly forbidden is permitted.
What is good and right and honorable in American law started here.
The absolute worst law legislates as much as possible, with the broad rule that anything not compulsory is forbidden.
Chinese Communist law, Russian Communist law, and the laws of all totalitarian countries start here and live here.
Right now, I see a lot of people trying to create laws legislating how people THINK about gender, and race, and political affiliations.
They want to FORCE respect for their point of view, for their alignment, for who they are.
They want to FORCE people to think that however they are is right, good, normal, okay.
And you can’t. People are going to think whatever they think, and you cannot do a single thing to force them to be better, but by trying to force people to think thoughts YOU approve of, you can make the situation a whole lot worse. And not just for them. For yourself.
You can’t make people like you, you can’t make people respect you, and you can’t make people believe that whatever way you are that’s different than the way they are is good, or okay.
You can create an environment, however, in which everyone has to start demanding their own laws to protect their own tiny bit of turf.
But Law create more fences, not more field.
So you can be part of the problem by locking down pieces of freedom with pieces of “compulsory action” and “compulsory thought.”
Or you can embrace the Philosophy of the Wide-Open Field, which starts with “Everything that is not forbidden is permitted,” and which is protected by the Rule of The Wide-Open Field:
MYODBAKYHTY
Pronounced Mee-YOD-bak-YHET-ee.
MYODBAKYHTY: Mind Your Own Damn Business, And Keep Your Hands To Yourself.
If you leave the Wide-Open Field wide open, there will be room enough in it for you to be whoever you are.
If you push for laws to try to force respect and obedience from those who don’t respect or like you, realize that the people YOU don’t like or respect can also get lawyers, and they too can push through bad laws that fence off thought and action and lock down parts of the field of individual rights and personal freedom until you cannot speak without doing so illegally, and you cannot think without committing a crime.
Please consider that there are four-hundred-million-ish people in the USA, and maybe as many as eleven of them HAVEN’T said, “There oughtta be a law…”
The Honest English translation of “There oughtta be a law…” is “I wanna shove MY view of the world down YOUR throat.”
When you support more laws, you start forcing people who never gave you a second thought before to hate you, because the law you favored put them in a box, and made them criminals for their thoughts.
MYODBAKYHTY.
Say it with me. Mee-YOD-bak-YHET-ee.
It is the simple rule that grants broad and amazing freedom. When you live by this rule, and this is the rule enforced by the law…
No one else needs to like you.
No one else needs to respect you.
Bastards can fucking HATE you… IF they mind their own business and keep their hands to themselves.
Which you make possible by doing the same thing.
The moment you realize that if you like and respect yourself and are living the life you want to live, or are at least pursuing the path you’ve set out for yourself to get there, you are FREE.
When you’re earned your own respect by living the life that matters to you, what other people think of you doesn’t affect your world.
And being able to walk across the Wide-Open Field that the freedom of broad individual rights creates allows all those narrow-minded bigoted jackasses you detest (the ones who don’t know you’re cool and who hate everything you think and love) to stand in their own place with their own issues and find their OWN path across the Wide-Open Field.
Probably well away from yours.
Maybe you don’t want them to have that freedom – the freedom to hate you from a distance.
Do you want the freedom to hate them from a distance, though?
Take a moment to consider that if the people you can’t stand are NOT forced by restrictive, field-narrowing laws to bow and grovel before what they hate or be criminalized for their THOUGHTS…
…the people who hate you (or at least what you stand for) might meet you in the field and come to like you, even if they discover you’re different, in whatever way you’re different. And no matter who you are, you’re at least different than someone, because odds are pretty high that whoever you are, you’re not like me.
And if those narrow-minded, bigoted, straight-gay-cis-trans-black-white-yellow-brown-red-rightwing-leftwing-middlewing-other-path assholes don’t like you?
Fuck ’em. Ignore them. Enjoy hating them in the privacy of your own unrestricted life.
As long as the rule is MYODBAKYHTY, and they’re following the rule, and you’re following the rule, and the government UPHOLDS the rule, the fact that they’re assholes doesn’t hurt you.
The Wide-Open Field gives freedom to everyone. Having a wide-open field lets you, me, and everyone else find our own way home to who we need to be, without having to fight through any laws, any restrictions, any punishment for being different.
‘Cause here’s the thing you gotta remember.
Everybody is different.
And when the Wide-Open Field is all locked down, EVERYONE gets locked up.
Contents © Holly Lisle.
https://hollylisle.com All Rights Reserved
I predict no matter how devilish you are in the scenario-makin', MYOB/KYHTY/OE will work, cleanly, clearly, no idiosyncratic interpretations needed.
EVERY application of MYOB/KYHTY/OEis an idiosyncratic interpretation.
...concoct some devilish, convoluted scenario and let's see how subjective I have to get to make 'mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else' work.
I'm thinkin' you can't.
Sure, as long as they never move beyond talkin'. The second they actually begin poisoning they're not mindin' their own business, not keepin' their hands to themselves and so deserve a hearty helping of 'or else.'
Say they aren't poisoning, they're just irrigating their land, but the river only has so much and now it's run dry for folks downstream.
Or say they poisoned it entirely by accident. And they really, truly didn't mean to, and now that they know, they've stopped immediately, but the damage is done. And it turns out there was someone else in town who knew that these two harmless chemicals made poison, and had maybe talked to a few people about it before, so it wasn't totally obscure knowledge, but the guy who made the mistake didn't happen to know. SHOULD he have known? Should he receive the same heaping of "or else" as the guy who poisons on purpose? What if 50% of the town says he deserves X amount of "or else," but 50% feels very strongly that he deserves at least three times that?
… What if 50% of the town says he deserves X amount of "or else," but 50% feels very strongly that he deserves at least three times that?
They can assess him three times "or else" and put two thirds of the assessment UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION.
You're an inspiration, Clod.
...concoct some devilish, convoluted scenario and let's see how subjective I have to get to make 'mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else' work.
I'm thinkin' you can't.
OR ELSE what?
Purely objectively, please.
"Say they aren't poisoning, they're just irrigating their land, but the river only has so much and now it's run dry for folks downstream."
Who is irrigating? Why are they irrigating? The folks downstream, were they aware of the irrigating operations upstream when they located where they did? who settled the area first. And, on and on, etc. etc.
I asked for scenarios: you give me a fill in the blank exercise.
In court (even the court of last resort you'd find in my minarchy) you'd have to do a damn sight better in presenting the facts.
#
"Or say they poisoned it entirely by accident. And they really, truly didn't mean to, and now that they know, they've stopped immediately, but the damage is done. And it turns out there was someone else in town who knew that these two harmless chemicals made poison, and had maybe talked to a few people about it before, so it wasn't totally obscure knowledge, but the guy who made the mistake didn't happen to know. SHOULD he have known? Should he receive the same heaping of "or else" as the guy who poisons on purpose? What if 50% of the town says he deserves X amount of "or else," but 50% feels very strongly that he deserves at least three times that?"
Joe fires his gun into the air on July 4th. The falling bullet strikes someone two miles away. Joe didn't mean to hurt someone. He had no intent to harm someone. But he did, he's responsible. The penalty, the 'or else', is mebbe the only 'interpretable' part of the equation.
In your scenario (piss poor, but slightly better than the first): the inadvertent poisoners shoulda known better. Even today, ignorance is no excuse (and that's with 100,000 regs on the fed level). In my minarchy with one clear principle and a handful of regs extendin' out from it, ignorance is defintely no excuse.
However, while the principle (mind your business, keep your hands to yourself) is plain & unambiguous, the consequence (the 'or else') is subject to interpretation, so...
I submit to havin' to kiss tw's keister (c'mere, you hunka man and let's get this over with).
"OR ELSE what?"
Depends on the particular circumstances of someone 'not' minding their own business, of someone 'not' keeping their hands to themselves.
As I say, while the principle is sound, the penality is subject to some interpretation (that is, every circumstance is individual [there'd be no formal precedents in the night-watchman's court of last resort), so...
Again: I'm ready to plant one on tw's butt (bring that big sexy thang over, guy, and let's get 'er done).
Common law would levy the requirement of proportionality of punishment to offense. The Golden Rule would essentially be in effect.
People performing a lynching typically aren't capable of putting themselves in another's shoes, which is a requirement for implementing the golden rule.
And the State (we the people), with all of its laws and judicial procedures, has incarcerated and executed innocent people for crimes they didn't commit. Other than no system is perfect, what's your point?
[COLOR="White"].
.
.[/COLOR]
The 'or else'?
Subjective: to a degree, yeah.
Purely: no.
Justice, by definition, is the balancing of scales.
Eye for an eye; not eye for a pinched candy bar.
The very best law legislates as little as possible, with the broad rule that anything not expressly forbidden is permitted.
What is good and right and honorable in American law started here.
Yes it did and that let people with money and connections run roughshod over the commoners, from slavery, to indentured servants, to the company store.
Worse yet these robber barons and their friends caused depressions where people actually starved to death, repeatedly. After the one leading up to WW I, then the one in the 1930's, FDR said fuck this, I'm tired of you fucking the people, shit's going to change.
He passed laws to protect people by regulating abusive businesses, then WWII got the economy moving. After the war the rise of regulations and labor unions(for all their faults) raised prosperity for all... except them negroes, and Mexicans, and Chinks, and lowlife musicians.
It's been proven over and over if a violation has to be adjudicated, the one with money/power/connections wins. The only way to stop the bastards is to spell it out, chapter and verse, so you have them dead to rights.
And you can’t. People are going to think whatever they think, and you cannot do a single thing to force them to be better, but by trying to force people to think thoughts YOU approve of, you can make the situation a whole lot worse. And not just for them. For yourself.
You can’t make people like you, you can’t make people respect you, and you can’t make people believe that whatever way you are that’s different than the way they are is good, or okay.
Right, you can't make people like people they have already decided they don't like. That's human nature. But you can sure as hell make it illegal to attack them, burn their house, refuse them services of a public store or real estate rental.
Or you can embrace the Philosophy of the Wide-Open Field, which starts with “Everything that is not forbidden is permitted,” and which is protected by the Rule of The Wide-Open Field:
MYODBAKYHTY
Pronounced Mee-YOD-bak-YHET-ee.
MYODBAKYHTY: Mind Your Own Damn Business, And Keep Your Hands To Yourself.
If you leave the Wide-Open Field wide open, there will be room enough in it for you to be whoever you are.
Historically that's led to mob rule.
Hey Jeb, that guy done me wrong and the law won't do nothing, so let's string him up.
MYODBAKYHTY.
Say it with me. Mee-YOD-bak-YHET-ee.
It is the simple rule that grants broad and amazing freedom. When you live by this rule, and this is the rule enforced by the law…
No one else needs to like you.
No one else needs to respect you.
Bastards can fucking HATE you… IF they mind their own business and keep their hands to themselves.
As I said, as a country, been there, done that, didn't work.
People performing a lynching typically aren't capable of putting themselves in another's shoes, which is a requirement for implementing the golden rule.
Wait, the golden rule is do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Who says I wish they would lynch me??
Hey Henry, I got one for your side.
In 2008 Chicago collected $28,3 million (@ $3 and hour), from 36,000 parking meters.
Starting in 2009, Mayor Daley leased the meters, $1.16 Billion for 75 years, half the meters going to the Abu Dhabi Government. In 2013 it was up to $6.50 an hour. They have collected $1.2 Billion so far, $1,72 million in 2018 alone, and another 62 years to go.
Oh, and the city has to get permission to close a street for a parade or block party.
You're welcome. ;)
People performing a lynching typically aren't capable of putting themselves in another's shoes, which is a requirement for implementing the golden rule.
Wait, the golden rule is do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Who says I wish they would lynch me??
Indeed. Mob rule does not indicate that the golden rule is in effect.
Putting things on a scale (safety at one end, freedom at the other), most folks look for a sweet spot between the two.
It's a mistake of course cuz the sweet spot gets shifted slowly and surely over to 'safety' by those who look to profit (in one way or another).
These profiteers don't have to work very hard cuz most folks, it seems, are easily hoodwinked into trading off autonomy in an effort to preserve autonomy.
Me: I skew heavily toward 'freedom'.
Hyper-aware of even the smallest encroachment, folks like me rage and stew.
We see the bars of the cage and hate them and we hate 'you' cuz you defend the cage.
I believe that cage ultimately will open to the chute leading to the abattoir.
I believe 'you' will walk calmly, mebbe even happily, to the killing floor cuz you simply don't know any better.
As you like.
What? You don't want to trade your privacy for the illusion of security? ;)
Putting things on a scale (safety at one end, freedom at the other)
Arnold Kling, in his book "The Three Languages of Politics",
published in full at this Cato link, says that, basically:
Liberals see the world as a battle between victims and oppressors.
Conservatives see the world as a battle between civilization and barbarism.
Libertarians see the world as a battle between freedom and coercion.
I have not read the full book as of yet.
Everybody has their different frameworks. All three of these are important. The tendency is to pick one and see everything else along that viewpoint. My guess now is that all of human governance doesn't actually solve for just one variable. And that it's human nature itself that won't permit it.
~ but that's just a guess, carry on ~
My view is red hot,
Your view ain't diddly squat.
:lol:
Liberals see the world as a battle between victims and oppressors.
Conservatives see the world as a battle between civilization and barbarism.
Libertarians see the world as a battle between freedom and coercion.
This rings true.
Random thoughts; Does this explain why Republicans, who appeared to liberals to get virtually everything they wanted out of Obama, are still pissed off? That alliance between conservatives and libertarians is untenable especially if both thoughts are in the same head. The disappearance of good government types might be explained.
Virtually everything they wanted, no. During Obama, cultural conservatives finally lost the previous culture war; and then, cultural liberals dunked on them, and then did a little superior dance and victory lap. That's why they are still angry and why they like it when Trump makes the liberals apoplectic
From the liberals perspective, Obama pushed through a center-right (progressive Republican?) healthcare program for his sole victory. He then saw same continuously attacked after losing Congress. He stabilized a collapsing economic system pleasing almost no-one. The culture war dunk was style not substance. Obama said nice things about previously shunned people but in the end lost the Supreme Court for a generation. As soon as he left, the Ryan/Trump tax victory made sure we'd never pay down his and W's bills creating a benefits cutting imperative threatening Social Security etc.. So style wise yeah the GOP had to look at a black woman's shoulders for eight years but our judicial branch remains firmly in the hands of right wing culture warriors. The only reason the "Deep State" also known as the Executive Branch isn't hammering through major right wing regulatory changes is that Trump didn't actually have sensible ideas and was too stupid to put a transition team in place two years ago. The professionals are still doing their jobs following Obama era directives absent actual leadership.
I did. Kling muddies the water.
His 'three axes' model folds neatly into this...
communitarian--------------------libertarian
'progressives' & 'conservatives' both sit on the communitarian end of the scale. championing victims and bringing down oppressors, and, preserving civilization from barbarians, amount to the same thing (straightjackets all 'round!).
I did. Kling muddies the water.
His 'three axes' model folds neatly into this...
communitarian--------------------libertarian
'progressives' & 'conservatives' both sit on the communitarian end of the scale. Championing victims and bringing down oppressors, and, preserving civilization from barbarians, amount to the same thing (*straightjackets all 'round!).
Simply: you progressives want them oppressive conservatives hobbled, and the conservatives want you barbaric progressives hobbled and folks like me want all of you to just leave us be. Folks like me don't wanna oppress you or your counterparts and 'we' don't wanna break whatever it is your counterparts (or you) think of as civilization. Folks like me try real hard to mind their own business and keep their hands to themselves. Least you folks could do is leave us alone as you go about your dumb lil 'culture wars'.
But: you won't.
凸(-_-)凸
*in other words: all them regs and laws most of you folks think are so keen
You're a splinter group, and splinters always keep festering until that part of the whole becomes incapacitated, unable to work in coordination with the rest of the whole. Then the paralisis spreads until the whole is unable to defend itself from the creeping crud which will devour everything including splinters.
If that's your choice, then that's your privilege, but that's no reason to be rude in the mean time. Kumbaya, baby, kumbaya. ;)
"You're a splinter group, and splinters always keep festering until that part of the whole becomes incapacitated, unable to work in coordination with the rest of the whole. Then the paralisis spreads until the whole is unable to defend itself from the creeping crud which will devour everything including splinters."
Nuthin' would give me more satisfaction than bein' the cancer in your midst.
#
"If that's your choice, then that's your privilege,"
It is.
#
"but that's no reason to be rude in the mean time."
Fuck you, bruce. You dismiss me and mock me pretty much every time I post.
tw, jackass that he is, is at least honest about his distaste. He never gets up to all your affable passive-aggressive, neutered garbage.
Go peddle that 'rudeness' twaddle to somebody elde, eunuch.
You're wrong, I certainly disagree with you and will argue my position at every opportunity, but never dismiss you. I'm fascinated because you're obviously intelligent and willing to doing the research to strengthen your position. You're the first person I've encountered who feels the way you do, who was willing to explain exactly what they believe and why.
I don't expect to change your mind, nor do I think you expect to change mine.
It's the others who read our exchanges, who might be swayed a little one way or the other.
"It's the others who read our exchanges, who might be swayed a little one way or the other."
In this place: most are on your side of things, you don't have convince any one of anything.
And me: I never try to convince. I just remind you folks from time to time that folks like me are around (I'm the cough the laudanum won't supress).
And: I'm sorry I called you eunuch (however, the 'fuck you' stands :angry: )
Well thank you, that's more action than I was getting.
Yes, most of the people who post here lean left, and some right, but what about the millions of lurkers watching from the shadows, silently judging us. :unsure:
I'm not much of a salesman. No doubt: I've put far more people off than I've convinced. Nuthin' I can do about that.
...cuz of my poor marketin' skill, 'millions' of fence sitters have turned away from the bright light of individual autonomy and embraced the collectivist nightmare.
Me, a natural rights libertarian, I'm a friggin' poster boy for the commies.
irony
I don't know if you're really a poster boy for the cause, seems to me there are some who are more hardline than yourself. I feel I'm closer to center than most of what you call "commies". No, wait, I see now, you're saying left and right don't matter, anyone who tries to work within the existing system is complicit, is a commie. Being an outlier isn't enough, one must not play at all. Man, that makes life awfully difficult doesn't it? Or is one allowed to swing through for provisions? I don't think divorcing oneself from the government and "commies" is possible without physically moving out.
But no matter where people live, somebody else is boss, even if it's a boos of their choice.
The libertarians in South Africa are
banding together. They feel cryptocurrancy is the way to avoid being controlled.
The Kling point comes down to this, for me;
When you study basic Physics, you get questions like,
A ball will run along a 20 foot track, which sits at a five degree angle. Assuming the ball is perfectly round, the track is perfectly straight, and there is zero friction, how long will it take for the ball to reach the bottom of the track?
In Physics 101, you can say "only solve for gravity" because you're learning about gravity, one particular force. But in the real world, that won't tell you anything.
In the real world, you can't say "only view it from the freedom/coercion angle" because the problem you are trying to solve is... I suppose... the best approach to human cooperation, into its yet undetermined future.
Culture. The foundation of morality. Evolved human nature. All that has a lot of fuckin' variables!! Humanity runs deeper than any of us knows.
If someone came up to you and claimed to have that solved to nine decimal places, wouldn't you be skeptical? You should be, there are a lot of people who make that claim.
In the real world, you can't say "only view it from the freedom/coercion angle" because the problem you are trying to solve is... I suppose... the best approach to human cooperation, into its yet undetermined future.
I think the part both commies and libertarians miss about cooperation is that different humans thrive better using different systems. Some are open floor plan muther-fuckers, some hole up in a dark corner, some are better in a field with a dog, some work best in a big organization, some need military regimentation, the "system" has to leave room for choice. Having a remorseless top down system limits choice as does the no system system.
Culture. The foundation of morality. Evolved human nature. All that has a lot of fuckin' variables!! Humanity runs deeper than any of us knows.
Which is why physics teaches one to break a problem down into parts. Then solve the bigger problem by first solving it part by part.
Those who want to add emotional variations into the physics could not even solve the physics part. They get frustrated, angry, and confused.
Trick to life is to break problems down into parts. Then address each part separately. The art is knowing how to / where to do the breaks.
Amazing how henry throws everything into a big pot. Has no idea what is in there. And then immediately knows from observation (using only political biases) how to explain it all.
"you're saying left and right don't matter, anyone who tries to work within the existing system is complicit, is a commie."
Half right: left, right, pretty much the same, but folks workin' in the system aren't neccessarily complicit, just terminally niave.
#
"Being an outlier isn't enough, one must not play at all."
Wrong. You gotta play (by your own rules).
#
"I don't think divorcing oneself from the government and "commies" is possible without physically moving out."
Why would a body do that, be obligated to do that? I'm an American. I like living here, working here, would like to see America improve. I ain't goin' nowhere.
#
"But no matter where people live, somebody else is boss, even if it's a boos of their choice."
Wrong. I work for me: I have customers, not bosses. As for government: it's supposed to be peopled by employees, not bosses. That so many view elected and appointed folks as 'bosses' is a big friggin' part of the problem.
#
"The libertarians in South Africa are banding together. They feel cryptocurrancy is the way to avoid being controlled."
I can't get the page to load: cut & paste it, will you?
-----
I'm startin' a topic over in 'philosophy'...any one who wants to play: feel free.
"I think the part both commies and libertarians miss about cooperation is that different humans thrive better using different systems."
Oh, I get that, encourage that. If Stan is most comfortable in a collective, then Stan ought to work for that. But that ain't right for me, so Stan needs to be mindful that I'm not gonna play nice with him and his. Surely: I don't expect Stan to play nice with me and mine as we work for sumthin' loose & raw.
Ideally: we'd leave each other alone. I'm willing. Is Stan? Doesn't seem that way. I wanna de-regulate life. Even if I'm successful, Stan and his comrades can still voluntarily regulate their bodies, minds, souls to whatever degree they like.
Does Stan reciprocate? No. He, instead, demands I submit to the same regulation he wants for himself.
In short: I wanna be left alone, to leave Stan alone; he wants to wrap a leash (or noose) around my neck.
#
"the "system" has to leave room for choice."
But it doesn't, and that's Stan's doin', not mine.
see my user title, my sig line
I can't get the page to load: cut & paste it, will you?
It's a pretty longish article on Wired, with a bunch of pictures.
I tried to get there on IE but wouldn't go, said this page can't be displayed and kicked it over to my search engine which is Google.
Googled found it, first on the list, but when I clicked on it IE refused to hook it up.
Damnifino? Chrome goes right to it.
https://www.wired.com/story/inside-an-all-white-towns-divisive-experiment-with-cryptocurrency/"I think the part both commies and libertarians miss about cooperation is that different humans thrive better using different systems."
Oh, I get that, encourage that. If Stan is most comfortable in a collective, then Stan ought to work for that. But that ain't right for me, so Stan needs to be mindful that I'm not gonna play nice with him and his. Surely: I don't expect Stan to play nice with me and mine as we work for sumthin' loose & raw.
Ideally: we'd leave each other alone. I'm willing. Is Stan? Doesn't seem that way. I wanna de-regulate life. Even if I'm successful, Stan and his comrades can still voluntarily regulate their bodies, minds, souls to whatever degree they like.
Does Stan reciprocate? No. He, instead, demands I submit to the same regulation he wants for himself.
In short: I wanna be left alone, to leave Stan alone; he wants to wrap a leash (or noose) around my neck.
#
"the "system" has to leave room for choice."
But it doesn't, and that's Stan's doin', not mine.
The 50 state solution mitigates some of this but I take your point. "Stan" and his opponent "Bob" both have grievances. Bob feels that Jesus shows his favor in a bank account and since he will be returning soon all environmental regulation is a farce. Stan wants a return to a "natural world". Is it fair to say that Henry wants to stay out of their argument so as not to be a nit-picker? Griff would suggest that decent science paid for by taxes could inform our decision making process and proper engagement with the regulators in the executive branch could lead to a reasonable outcome.
I should have access to a chrome machine today. I'll give the piece a look-see then.
#
Griff,
"Is it fair to say that Henry wants to stay out of their argument(?)"
Yep.
Bob feels that Jesus shows his favor in a bank account and since he will be returning soon all environmental regulation is a farce. Stan wants a return to a "natural world".
So both of them believe in a mythical apocalyptic outcome based on everyone's collective bad behavior not bringing about a correct condition?
*apologies for the thread drift
see my user title, my sig line
I also wanted to be on Nixon's enemies list. Can you also arrange that?
Adults don't use those expressions. Children do.
So both of them believe in a mythical apocalyptic outcome based on everyone's collective bad behavior not bringing about a correct condition?
*apologies for the thread drift
I wanted to show two extreme positions, held by irrational types. We each may find ourselves agreeing with one or both on occasion but a system to keep either from running roughshod seems sensible.
"Adults don't use those expressions."
In your entire adult life you never gave another soul the finger.
You're a liar (and your pants most certainly are on fire).
凸(-_-)凸
In your entire adult life you never gave another soul the finger.
Never did. And peers never did either (except in comedy). My peers are educated - not children.
I cannot even recall any peer in a bar fight. Adults never resort to childish antics. Adults who are still children do. It says so much about the mentality behind all those Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Fox News, and Pravda inspired beliefs.
Patriotic Americans are moderates. Wackos (anti-Americans) fly your fickle finger of fate. The intelligence behind that finger was mocked by Laugh-in. You could not learn even from Rowan and Martin?. Even Goldie Hawn demonstrated better patriotism.
Sorry. I did not mean to make this too complicated. Please feel free to continue 'wrecking shit'. It is what you do best.
It's a little odd that you insert the "even" before the concept of a bar fight, as if that is less bad than flipping someone off.
"I've never left my garbage cans out after pickup day--hell, I've never even murdered anyone!"
That's because tw has no peers.
It's a little odd that you insert the "even" before the concept of a bar fight, as if that is less bad than flipping someone off.
There is no difference. Both demonstrate antics of adults who are children.
I beg to differ. I have flipped off my child, but I have never punched my child. My incarceration rate reflects this.
It's a little odd that you insert the "even" before the concept of a bar fight, as if that is less bad than flipping someone off.
"I've never left my garbage cans out after pickup day--hell, I've never even murdered anyone!"
To be fair, tw said "I cannot even recall any peer in a bar fight."
The word "even" modified his "recall" and not the bar fight.
Had he said
I cannot recall any peer even in a bar fight.; then, your analogy may have been valid.
I beg to differ. I have flipped off my child, but I have never punched my child. My incarceration rate reflects this.
You should stop flipping off your child. Failure to take proper care in addressing a child is negligence; however, repeated negligence can constitute abuse. Being an adult acting like a child will not get you juvenile offender status.
BTW: I too have never flipped anyone off or been in a bar fight. I've always considered those things to be the purview of little girly men and little boyish women.
[SIZE="1"][COLOR="White"]This thread was getting boring. I hope this provocative post livens it up a little.[/COLOR][/SIZE]
You should stop flipping off your child.
It's an uncanny valley situation. I flipped him off when he was an infant and too young to know what was happening. Now that he's a teenager, I expect to resume flipping him off shortly, because his attachment is fully developed and he understands that my love doesn't hinge on whatever snarky thing causes me to flip him off. Rest assured, when it happens he will have deserved it.
One has to be careful not to raise a Boston Bruins fan.
I beg to differ. I have flipped off my child, but I have never punched my child.
Obviously one does not mean the other. But both are characteristics of adults acting as a child. You have completely reversed the logic to obtain a conclusion that was never stated or even implied.
henry demonstrates what an adult who is a child typically does (ie a Trump supporter, Dice Clay, Timothy McVeigh, suicide bombers who kill in the name of some pagan god, or the type of people that Hitler preached to). Each do things completely different and unrelated. All share a common factor. They are not operate in an adult manner.
Flying the fickle finger of fate was done by adults who actually mock adult children. Only an adult acting like a child does that. Also irrelevant that you did not yet learn. Relevant is that one would teach their child to act in a childish manner. That is unfortunate.
[ATTACH]68070[/ATTACH]
That comedy remains as good today as it was way back then
There is no difference.
Obviously one does not mean the other.
Yeah, bud. I'm the one who's reversed logic. :rolleyes: Did you know that black-and-white thinking and arguing in hyperbole are both childish behavior?
Henry, time to expand our vocabulary.
Kakistocracy = A system of government that is run by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens.
The word was coined as early as the seventeenth century. It also was used by English author Thomas Love Peacock in 1829, but gained significant use in the first decades of the twenty-first century to criticize populist governments emerging in different democracies around the world.
Kleptocracy = A government of thieves who are stealing everything they can get their mitts on.
You're welcome. :beer:
Yeah, bud. I'm the one who's reversed logic.
OK. I get it. You only want to argue. Message received.
Kakistocracy
What would be a good example of this?
Bruce,
Kakistocracy, Kleptocracy: pretty much any government you care to mention.
Kakistocracy, Kleptocracy: damned good reasons to keep governments, small, limited, under-powered, and under heel.
Kakistocracy, Kleptocracy: damned good reasons to keep laws & regs to a minimum.
#
clod,
Give it up. The Great & Powerful tw has declared you an 'emotional child'. It is irrevocably inscribed in The Book of Life.
You are sullied, adulterated, 'dirty'.
Might as well drink Drano, cuz tw don't love you no more.
#
tw,
凸(-_-)凸
For a moment I thought y'all were talking about
KekistanSounds like it could be
Londonistan from the way some tell it.
This has a nice ring to it, unfortunately they are "out of stock".
Looks like a legal loophole so you can shake a closed fist at someone and claim you weren't threatening them, just flipping them off by displaying the ring.
ETA: They even make one for moms who want to flip off their children without raising a finger in polite company or public venues.
[ATTACH]68082[/ATTACH]
polite company
Never heard of it.
You may not have heard of them but you must have seen their lights on poles everywhere. :haha:
Kakistocracy
So what is a good example of this?