Sandy Hook.

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Bebelina, Dec 15, 2012.

  1. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Humor? seriously? yeah sure that might be a modern trait, but out in the bush the best man is the one that can protect you from being raped silly by other men, the best man is the one the bets you "because he loves you" as the yanomomo women say to each other. In fact look at how many women today stay with their abusive husbands and just take it, possibly an instinct? As for rape the female reproductive track is rather good at expelling semen, the chances of pregnancy per sexual intercourse is quite low in fact about 2.5% or less.

    Usually said children were raised horribly in ways that question if their minds could not have been damaged much more then simply not taught language. If you were chained to a toilet in a white windowless empty room from infancy with almost no human contact you would probably have difficultly perceiving colors and objects.

    Yes, but we also have evidence that humans were killing each other since before the dawn of man (chimps do it!). But yes we have changed a lot in the last few millennia, consider the rate of lactase persistence for example, proof that we can institute changes to our "nature" in just a few dozen generations, in short we have been domesticating our selves.

    Feudalism is practically slavery. I doubt productively has much to do with these systems for those governments, more to do with balancing the needs of desires of people with how well they could be controlled, its why say slavery was very popular in the United States's early years because it was not only very productive, but the slavers were very easy to control. Rome not so easy to control, Japan, easy to control as serfs worshiping the emperor. The society evolves to the technology and resources of its time and place, slavery is thus not less productive then freedom, just less productive then the cotton gin.

    ... "Civility"? as in the adjective of civilization. Even the Mennonites you so love have civility, they live by social order and rules and internal government based on strict following of their interpretation the bible with punishment of banishment.

    Nothing to do with language, nada, we have no proof that language is required for human level intelligence, none, it is merely hypothetical.

    Well for the poor and wreckage its a benefit over all not a "cost", everything has pros and cons, you look a public education as a means of programing people into societies cogs, I look at it as a means of trying to give everyone and foundation in knowledge so that they have a chance to understand and improve the world rather then forming hordes of morons that riot and burn down the libraries and destroy civilization leaving the world in darkness for a thousand years. Likely it may very well do both these things but the latter pro out weighs the former con.

    Hence all the education in things like science, math, geography, civics, world history, etc, etc, because when your working in a factory you will be thankful you had to take the class in 6th grade about why Rome fell.

    You know I somewhat agree with this idea: we know have the technology to get rid of class room and school books and just sit kids in front of a computer or tablet several hours a day, that machine will feed them more information more accurately and more enjoyably then some old hag teacher that speaks in monotone and believes a good paddling is the solution to any child's problems... oh wait the machine, that not "natural". As for the parents: some of them give a shit about there kids, are horrible abusive parents, who would more likely hock their kids computer for money to buy smack then upgrade it into the teaching aid. Public schooling provides some kind of standard.

    Yeah that is a stretched hypothesis. As for a free lunch, I would say from my perspective of not living in a jungle starving to death or dying of disease or being murder by a rival clan that we live pretty fucking well off thanks to standardize education and all of the other aspects of modern civilization! Yes we have our flaws in civilization but its simply does not compare to how bad things are without it, its practically like being born with things for free in comparisons, food, shelter, health, peace of mind all costing a tiny fraction of the hard work and vendetta killing spree (so that no one will dare think they can fuck with you) require to do it without civilization.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    If you saw a child laying prone in a ditch, bleeding, crying, screaming for help - you'd run as fast as your feet would take you over to that child.

    Did you learn that trait or was an instinct?

    If you learned it, then that's great, we should raise all children to be empathetic. Which means working towards developing a violence free culture. If it was instinct, that's great too - because now we have something to work with. In a society were violence is not a part of the language, there isn't going to be much of any violence in that society. Will there occasionally be a brain tumor induced sociopath? Maybe, what, one in a million? Right now the biggest entity in our society, and the only one with the legal right to initiate violence against you, is the State. If we want a relatively violence free society, we should work towards shrinking the size of the State.

    So you think a human without language can think about higher order abstract concepts like advanced mathematics. Even with a language it's nearly impossible for many people to understand some concepts in math. Without ANY language, written or otherwise, I fail to see how these abstract concepts could be 'thought' about.

    Either way, the point I was attempting to make, is that we 'think' in our language. This suggests our brain, whatever it's innate ability, also has the potential for huge amounts of change to occur during childhood. So, even if children do have an innate prejudice, the brain has such a huge amount of plasticity, most humans when taught race doesn't exist, lose that prejudice. Maybe due to neuroplasticity racial prejudice is completely (or nearly completely) gone - as in those neurons are no longer used to process information about race. Imagine if the concept of race just didn't exist. Which, it shouldn't as it really doesn't make much sense.

    Language seems to be used, instead of 'race' to identify 'tribe members'. There's evidence we use language to ascertain who is and is not a part of the tribe. This suggests tribal identify is learned. IF it's learned, then it's a matter of 'educating' children to learn the appropriate language - one of peace and voluntarism. I's argue the women of Yanomomo are learning the idea being beaten is love. Many women today will not tolerate it. AND those that do, often come from shattered childhoods where they learned violence and to succumb to it from their mother's and father's relationship.

    Then that's good - right?

    I recently read Bondsmen were much more productive than Slaves. There also seems to be a size issue. As in how much land is being worked. I seem to recall reading small farms are better managed with freemen working them. But, if you scale up to massive farms, then Slavery may have an advantage. The difference being Slavery required a State to enforce the Law on runaways. If there's no State to enforce the Law, Slaves just walk off the plantation. So, for Slavery to exist, the State must exist. This isn't true for freemen working by choice. The private owner must make an offer for wage and then it's up to the labor market to determine what the minimum wage will be versus productivity and the price the commodity can be sold at. That required no State at all. AND if competition and free markets are allowed, the productivity should go up, the price should go down and everyone wins.

    I don't "Love" Mennonites, they're far from the ideal society. I'm saying some of their societies, the ones that have a culture of not hitting their children, serve as evidence of how peaceful parenting can lead to peaceful children who grow into peaceful adults that create a peaceful nonviolent society. Sure, it's a correlation, but, that's still evidence.

    Everyone seems to be arguing we can't have a free society because we NEED the State to defend us against all these horrible people who are our neighbors etc.... OK, well, here's a way to create a peaceful society that's being practiced now, it something ANY parent can do and works. Thus, over time, actually not much time if everyone were to act similarly, we no longer need a State. See, this is WHY the State hates peace. Peace to the State is like Holy Water is to the Vampire. The State NEEDS violence to justify it's own existence. Violence grows hand in glove with the State. Which is why we now have the TSA (which the State LOVES). And that TSA, it isn't going away, because we now have ourselves a Forever War. Something the State has waited to reignite for a hundred years. Here it is.
    What do you mean by proof? It's no like we can run an experiment on humans. We have evidence language is required in order to have autobiographical memory. IOWs children really don't 'recall' their own past in long-term memory until they develop a language to express those memories in. AND without past recollection, we can't project into the future. ALL of this is evidence language is required to think, let along think abstractly as we humans are capable of.

    You're not going to find any other species writing Lord of the Rings any time too soon I can promise you that much.

    Private schooling would provide a much higher standard (and does). So, at the very least parents who do not work hard towards their childrens' education would have their child returned to a more public schooling environment. This could be done by assessment. It should be noted there are many children who can not read, where BOTH their parents AND their teachers couldn't give two shits about their education.

    I see you point about the PC not being natural and I responded that Natural wasn't the best adjective.

    Have you been to Detroit lately?

    Sure, public school does provide a foundation if you're in a good public school. And it that sense yes, it's better than nothing. But, it's far FAR from even being structured appropriately. We are no longer a society dependent on cogs to work in factories. Those jobs are gone and are not coming back. Education must drastically change - I just suggested some of the faults with public education and offered some thoughts to think about.

    Most people cannot recall any of those lessons. Hell, once they graduate many can't recall hardly anything. This suggest to me they're not really learning. They're just being babysat until they can be shoveled out into the world having learned to raise their hands when they need to go pee - like a common prisoner.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    The State IS the jungle. It's a return to the jungle. I'm really not sure if you appreciate this. The free market is peaceful voluntarism, and free-trade between humans. The State is about taking a gun, pointing it in your face and saying, do it or I'm shooting you in the head.

    The modern era came into being before standardized education. Japanese, as an example, had the highest (and still have one of the highest) literacy rates in the world - they were taught from home. Shakespeare only spent a few weeks a year in Public School (thank the Gods, imagine if he'd be taught the way children are today). Mozart was taught privately, his family was far from 'rich'. Electricity came from the private market. The road, came from the private market.

    The fact that you're satisfied with the statuesque suggests you and I expect vastly different outcomes from society. IMO we should already be on Mars living in colonies. many hundreds of billions has been spend on that and it's still not cured. Death itself should be a thing of the past (at least by aging). We're far far from where I expect society to have progressed. We waste TRILLIONS on wars and are do so at this very moment. The amount that trickles into education and healthcare is paltry compared with how much we spend on killing other humans.

    Isn't it interesting how much time the Media spends on Sandy Hook, which was admittedly horrible, but doesn't offer any real solution. Like this asinine debate about 10 bullet per holder versus 7 bullets per holder. The State LOVES to distract the public with that kind of shit. Never mind the child who was fed anti-depressant, raised by a single mother who wasn't at home much due to her issues. This kid didn't live IN a community who supported him and loved him. If he had, I promise you, this incident more than likely wouldn't have occurred. We no longer have community, we instead are soo sooo lucky (just ask The Bernanke) because with our forced use of a common currency families can dissolve and the worker cogs move to other parts of the country (and sometimes the world) to get a job in what's left for low-skilled low wage jobs. The knock on effects of loss of community can be felt when these incidences happen as society becomes less depend on one another and instead look towards the State to 'solve' problems (oxymoron there) or better yet, daycare, a public school and a handfull of pills. We are most definitely heading in the wrong direction as a society.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    What if everyone could get the best education that is available, would everyone take advantage of learning all that is needed to be known in order to get a college degree? Who then would work in the other menial types of jobs of say janitors? Having everyone get the best education will still not prevent those who do not care about education from dropping out of their schools and becoming whatever they can be.

    Then healthcare, which is costing us billions in fraud cases every year. More money spent on it only creates more greed and fraud that takes away from those needing services. Becoming better managers of this system would get the system to bring better results by insuring that there's no fraud. But those in charge of any system , military included, only are trying to get their slicer of the pie today and do not try to find fraud in their own system.
  8. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Some people are disposed to wanting to do menial jobs. Not to mention, when you fail at something, say starting a business, then you'll work a menial job. Kids in University often take menial part time jobs like being a janitor. Some people will take a menial job to make a little extra money. It doesn't have to be a life long profession as it's a low skilled job. Not to mention, if no one wants to do the job, but the service is in demand, guess what? It's no longer menial, but a highly paid job.

    The only way to fix this is with a free-market. Our healthcare is so far removed from a free-market, I wonder if we'll ever return to a day when it's even close to free-market. Honestly, the AMA is the second largest political donor after WallStreet, I don't see any changes to bring down profits happening any time too soon.

    We'll have to live with much more expensive healthcare and a lower quality of healthcare until either the entire economy is brought to it's knees and change is forced onto the fascist model of crony capitalism that poses as the free market in the USA (and so health along with everything would be drastically changed) or individual States start breaking away economically from the central government - as they individually can no longer afford crony capitalism. Maybe even printing their own currency and allowing free trade in that to occur for those that want to use it. That's going to take a lot of blood in the streets (metaphorically) - sad to say.
  9. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    I understand your point but Sandy Hook is a bad example. Not only did the assailant kill children from his own tribe but he did so for no reason such as survival or gain, unless of course your assertion that humans rape and kill for sport; I think His behaviour would have been considered aberrant even to the ancients. I fail to see how the contemporary example of someone killing children and then themself serves your observation. Tribes raped, abducted women, killed out of some necessity even if that was to weaken any perceived rivals or due to lack of resources, overpopulation maybe forestalling effects of inbreeding, though even that may not be true according to Scientific American (see article here
  10. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Individual humans can vary, be abnormal or completely insane! I was not speaking of Sandy Hook I was speaking of human nature in general not individually, in retort to Micheal claims that he knows what human nature is and how best humanity is to appeal to it.
  11. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Maybe, maybe not. Reports of mass genocide show that some people would run to that child stab it in the face until it was dead at stopped annoying them with its screaming. There even video of people ignoring dying children for example. Human empathy clearly is very conditional, if you are raised to be empathetic, and have most of your needs satisfied you very likely would run to said child, if you were starving, use to watching people die or be kill around you, you probably would not help the child, you might even murder the child and eat it.

    State "does violence" so that we don't have too, take a thief for example, without government if someone stole from you, you would go out and murder them, then their family would declare vengeance against you, raid you and you would be force to retaliate even more drastically, you may even consider deterrence ahead of time and attack you neighbors without cause just so they won't think of fucking with you. The state on the other hand provides police and laws that allow you to consider "well my neighbors are not likely to steal from me or rape my women because we got police and justice system that will come down on them, hence I don't need to have a defense of my own" The state prevents people from all out clan warfare by being the law, by providing fairer and more humane order than people could provide to each other if left to their own devices. Does this mean the state should control all human functions, not unless it could be made devoid of corruption! There are many social functions that work better using capitalism then statism, and thus should be in the free market but law enforcement, medical care, welfare, national defense, long term research, are not such functions. The democratic state and the free market must be balanced to prevent the other from falling via corruption because of the unstable drive of human greed and selfishness. This balancing act is the best solution we got so far, we have multiple countries and centuries of evidence of it working. I vouch for a automated society in which machines lacking greed or selfishness control the state and market place, but until such technology is developed and well tested we should stick with what works, dispute it problems. You on the other hand would rather go off to some romantic idea of utopian anarchy, despite all the logical reasons and evidence that its not viable.

    Possibly, we have animals that can count, despite lacking language.

    The Yanomomo for example only have a words for 1,2 and more then 2, yet they could easily discriminate between say 9 and and 10 of somethings. Deaf children raised without language would generate signs for numbers, clearly the concept must have preceded the word!

    Oh I agree we have a wide degree of neuroplasticity, hence how we domesticated ourselves from natural savagery, and hence why we need to continue to train our children to be civilized.

    Language can certainly be used to shape though, to convey ideas like empathy, nationalism, law, order, good and bad, but language is merely the means of conveying not the the ideas themselves.

    The state has progress a lot since the time of slavery and feudalism. If you had a country without a state the people would start murdering each other for the productive land of the other, as is seen in stateless countries, so call "uncontacted" people and human history, production actually goes down. In fact a society with slaves and feudal lords was way more productive then "free" anarchistic societies. Organizing everyone with basic laws allows for a free market to even exist, things like currency, trading rules, judges to settle disputes, legislation for laws to prevent monopolies and gaming of the system.

    Again their societies aren't devoid of violence. As for pacifism, sure that should be taught. Does spanking the child make the children violent, no evidence beyond correlation, perhaps pacifism makes people not spank their children, not forgoing spanking makes pacifism.

    State exist to maintain peace, now if we could make human perfectly little Buddhas, then yeah maybe we would not need the state, but I doubt not spanking would do that! We would have to completely rework the human mind by either genetic engineering or cybernetics to be devoid of emotions like hate, anger, greed and jealousy for everyone to work together in peace and love ad hoc.

    I have nothing against private schooling, my problem is how do you ensure every child can go to private schools, even if their parents can't pay? Hence why we need public education for those who parents can't pay.

    Detroit is a whole let better then the Congo.

    I'm up for improve education, but I still disagree with your cogs argument: why would we teach and test our children in so many concepts as we do in schools, that are irrelevant for factory work? Heck you don't even need an education of any kind for factory work! Education gives people the opportunity to be something greater then a factory worker or peasant!

    Yet they usually can read, write, do math, go to university with all the stuff they supposedly can't even recall as a basis and then design and build all the components of our growing evolving civilization. Before public education only a small percentage of people could do these things, and almost none of them could do it without having had some form of education.
  12. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Here's where we have our major disagreement.

    I'm not suggesting we don't have law enforcement. I'm saying that private law enforcement through voluntarism is preferred to state-run law enforcement. Take your local mall as an example. If ever there were places where crimes, like thief, take place - it's gong to be at the malls. Your chances of being shot are low. You can browse the items and scout the place out before you steal them. Pretty much the ideal place to commit a crime of theft. Much safer than walking into some random house where an owner might shoot you in the face. Or in Banking, lots of banks have private security. All international trade is through voluntary arbitration, there is no "World" police (as much as the USA wishes it were the World State, good gods how awful would that be). Diamond traders pretty much only use ostracism from the community. They often don't even report the crime to the police. If you introduce someone and they steal - out you go, for good (or you pay for what was stolen).

    My point is, there are plenty of examples of private security. From private roads run by toll that can be policed, to private malls, to private bars with their bouncers, to banks with private security, and etc...

    AS a matter of fact, ALL of the innovations around home protection (Alarms, gated doors, safes, safe-rooms, fences, locks, security systems, etc....) all of this come from the private enterprise. Not from the State. The State doesn't develop any of the things that make us safer. It's reactionary.

    Now, I know you want to say, what if one person somehow gains control over everything. Firstly, that isn't going to happen as everything is owned by someone and also recall money would be in competition and so a single person couldn't horde money. It's only possible with the State, which is why Dictators arise from within States that preexist. Secondly, if we supposed it could happen (and it couldn't) then that person would be exactly what we have now - a State! Because that person, or that family, would understand that people can not be ruled by force - not any longer, and never really could be. And so they'd come up with the best system to convince everyone they were free while milking them out of as much labor as was possible - Ummmmm HELLO, that's where we are at now. It's called the Nation State and fiat Money.

    Even the poorest in America, homeless, can own supercomputers that fit in their pocket and video link pretty much anywhere in the world.

    In a true free-market with capitalism as a basis, (A) there won't be hardly anywhere NEAR the numbers of poor the Government is creating (B) education will be cheap and (C) society, when given a chance, would work to help those poor - even if it came to taking out inexpensive loans.

    That's debatable.

    Are you so sure?

    The Transofmration of the American Economy, by Robert Higgs

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    In 1870 approximately 90% of adult white Americans could read and write; by 1910, 95% of adult white Americans could read and write. For obvious reasons the literacy rate was less among non-whites and in 1870 only about 20 percent of the adult nonwhite was literate. However, by 1910 the proportion had increased to 70 percent. It is thought that increases in productively led to more leisure time and that this accounts for the increased time Americans spent self-educating (oh, when they weren't be whipped by so-called Robber Barron's - funny that). Not bad hey? 95% literacy rate WITHOUT public schooling. Even non-whites were making HUGE gains in the free market. Sure, it was taking awhile, but it was advancing quickly. Very quickly.

    Compare with a century later and tell me if this seems like 101 years of 'Progress' since 1910?

    According to a PBS study
    In 2011 only 14% of African American eighth graders score at or above the proficient level. These results reveal that millions of young people cannot understand or evaluate text, provide relevant details, or support inferences about the written documents they read.

    I mean, can you believe that?! THAT is horrible. HORRIBLE! What's the solution? Not private education, but more public spending! Haaa! Yeah, give us MORE money! That'll fix it! That's the problem - more money. Except the government spent so much on bailing out the rich and funding the the rich's wars, we're now broke and going broker. Believe me, this would never happen in the private free-market. Any school that sucked that bad would never last a year. People would pull their kids out and put them in an educational system that was proven. The market would have provided us with cheap and excellent education by now. Instead we have a money pit where even the public school teachers themselves don't put their kids in public schools. Also, in a true free-market there'd be oppertunity to put that education to work. As it is the companies use the government to 'regulate' the un-free market to prevent competition. Even just the other day I saw an add for floor tiles to tile a small bathroom. It said the stock was limited to this small amount due to federal regulation # blah blah blah. THAT'S to keep people from purchasing floor tiles and forcing people to pay someone in the tiling industry to fix up their houses. That's f-ing evil. Add to the copy-write, patent trolls, etc.... all of this is to PREVENT a market, not to protect the 'consumer'. It's rigging the system to keep people OUT of the markets. This is what minimum wage has done as well. It prevents people here from working and all our jobs are shipped off to China - where they are getting richer, while we get poorer!

    As an aside, do you think ALL abstract ideas exist prior to language? I can't believe that. I think we have some inclination towards abstract ideas but not highly abstract (particularly mathematics and physics - some of these run counter-intuitive). Example: KIKI -vs- BOULBA
    Which 'sounds' more pointy and which more round?

    Most people pick KIKI as pointy sounding and BOULBA as round sounding. THAT is innate. Thinking about 1/0 versus 0/1 is not so obvious.
  13. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    They will never understand this, Michael.

    A little idealistic in the description of the free market, but that is the point.

    It has been patently obvious over the course of this thread that the end game is not to understand why individuals become angry, or what leads them to do what they do. It has not been to use them as an indicator of what might be wrong. It has not been to understand the undercurrent of humanity which still seeks to protest, even if though those who become so angry as to protest in such violent ways may not even know why they have become so angry.
    It has been, rather, to limit them; and to take away their power to influence anything at all. Not to address the problem; but to suppress it. To hide it, limit its impact. Sweep it under the rug.

    There is only one strategy in place.
    That strategy is to ensure that the population believes in the objective of the state. Only the tactics differ.
    It has been said that "Religion is the opiate of the masses". The modern world, however, has an alternative in play. Comfort, security, safety. Give them those things, and they'll follow you anywhere.The third world uses religion to promise it later, and the west promises it now.
    Both offer only subservience.
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    This is the core of the Ayn Rand delusion - that without a State, there will be no tyranny, no piracy, no abuse of the less powerful by the more powerful.

    The slave plantations of the American Confederacy created their regimes without the aid of the State, did not rely on the State to enforce their regimes, and operated in general as private capitalistic concerns (they weren't even corporations, usually, being personally owned and run according to their own whims and preferences - Ayn Rand ideals, except for that one little niggle). They hired slavecatchers, colluded with each other, and enforced their own rules and penalties in general. They didn't need the State at all - the State actually interfered with their operations, put ostensible limits on their cruelties and the breadth of their operations.

    Sandy Hook massacre was not created by the State, except as an opportunity - the required large population of people living in civilization involves the creation of a State. Violent human insanity is found among all humans, State or no State.
  15. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Firstly, Ayn Rand fully supported a State as well as a State run legal system.

    Secondly, as for tyranny, you do know our POTUS murdered an American Citizen, without trial, as well as his teenage son (also a Citizen) while consulting his political campaign adviser? You DO understand we've been at War on and off for the better part of 80 years, having participated in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War I, II and invaded Afghanistan. You were saying something about Tyranny? The State legalized Slavery and decimated the lives of millions. Add in the deaths Progressive Socialism caused in the USSR, China and other Communist countries 'for the Greater Good', the numbers are staggering - 120 MILLION+. The State dropped nuclear bombs on civilians in Japan. The State fire-bombed cities in Germany, cities full of innocent children. Lincoln, one of our most celebrated 'Civil Servants' led War against our own Citizens killing upwards to 800,000 (not to end Slavery, but to end self-determination). You do know we've been at War against "Terrorism" for 10 years? The TSA searches American Citizens, they're not looking for "Terrorists" anyone who believes that is a sucker, as if Muslim Terrorists are everywhere trying to 'Steal our Freedom'.... um, no, the TSA is here to keep an eye on us. Americans kill more Americans in a day than some patsy "Terrorists" could in a decade. The so-called "FREE" roads in the USA kill about 45,000 people PER YEAR due to poor conditions. Just to put things in perspective.

    You're so worried some fictional 'Tyrant' is going to pop into existence you don't seem to notice you're being farmed out MORE than under the King of England and English Aristocracy. The "Government". and let's be crystal clear, "The Government" is a group of generously paid unelected bureaucrats, you can find them working as bureaucrats under the Priest Class in Iran, under the Aristocracy in KSA, under the Communist Party in North Korea, etc..... This group produces nothing but paperwork. These people, who've been with us forever, now collect MORE from us, the so-called 'Free' Citizens, in our labor than at ANY other time in history! The average American now works harder, longer, more productively for the State than the Serfs of 300 years ago! So, you're all worried some 'Tyrant' is just going to *POOF* appear and ..... do what? YOU could not be forced to work any harder than you now are. The Federal Government now sucks up over a Trillion a year and composes 25% GDP in unproductive paperwork. You live POORER for them. And they're selling Bonds on you and your family. Your children will be sent to Prison if they don't pay on the Bonds they had no say in. That's about as undemocratic as you get. Selling the labor of another person, one not even born. Just so you can enjoy your life now. That is sick in my personal opinion.

    So, I wouldn't be too worried about a fictional Tyrant and a little more aware of what's happening to you as we speak.

    Also, speaking of Tyrants (and this seems to be an irrational worry both the Left and Right obsess over).... can you explain HOW a Tyrant would arise from within a culture of small government, free-markets, Law, Private Property rights and individualism? How does a culture that abhors Tyrants, end up with one? We're not North Koreans, we're not Chinese, we killed our Kings. We have no stomach for out-right rule. Let's use Steven Jobs as a good example. He was the CEO of the largest Corporation by market-cap EVER. He was by all accounts a Tyrant to work for. Is he the prototype of the "Tyrant" you're so worried about? What's he going to do? Make you buy an iPad?!?! Explain to me how someone like Steve Jobs is able to become a Tyrant in a free-market where even MONEY itself can be created by the free citizens. Where no one has to pay income tax. Where exactly does this Tyrant gain his power? Does he hire an army and surround his company with para-military? YOU don't THAT might be bad publicity for a person who can ONLY make "MONEY" by voluntary free trade? You don't think maybe people will see that and say, you know, I think I might buy NEC and not Apple. You do realize that all the people working FOR Apple might quit and go work for someone less insane?

    In the REAL world, Tyrants arise from within State Governments. As the so-called Civil Servant come Leader, they have direct control over the Military. They control the police. They control the TSA. This never happens in the free-market. But this happens in the REAL world. Not some fictional worry-wart world. BUT here and now. Again, the POTUS ordered the assassination of a Citizen without trial and murdered his teenage son right along with him. AND you have the gall to say you're worried about a Tyrant?!?!? The Wallmart Brothers aren't going to control some fictional army the spreads like a diseased across the World. Why would they? It would only harm their business which is the last thing people in free-markets want. But we have a real live POTUS that thinks he can legally assassinate Citizens without trial.

    Try and recall the doomsday Sayers of 10 years ago. Microsoft was going to take over the whole world. They needed to be broken up. Or 30 years before, GM had too much power over the economy. They needed to be broken up. They were TOO BIG and no one could compete. But guess what happens in the free-market, even the poor example of one we endure. These companies become too large, too bureaucratic, their product lines stagnate, and other companies and entire markets come in and displace them. THAT is what happens in the real world. Do you know how hard it is to maintain a monopoly in a true free-market? It's pretty much impossible without State force. It's extremely hard to keep prices so low that the competition can't enter free market. AND that's what has to be done. Prices have to kept extremely low to keep people from wanting to enter the market. Which is why true monopolies never exist (only one example and that was aluminum). And you want to know what happens when semi-monopolies like Standard Oil are broken up? The price goes UP. Not down. UP! That's a simple fact you can look up the numbers.

    Lastly, most people are trained to be cogs, and I sympathize with their plight as I was Government schooled as well. We're shoveled into a Government School pump-and-dump factory and crapped out the other end like good little sausages 'looking for a good job'.... with minimal skills needed to access money and every single road-block put in our way to prevent us from competing with those that have already carved out a little niche for themselves. Which is why everything from Taxi drivers to Bar owners need special licenses (rent seeking on the part of the State) or Lawyers and Physicians need a State stamp of approval, even when many clearly are incompetent. In the case of MDs about 1 in 25 are useless and 1 in 75 are dangerous.

    So, what is a Tyrant? Let me see, we have a bureaucracy that sucks upwards towards 50% of our labor, sells Bonds on the labor of our children, inflates away our labor, forces us to use USD, regulates every aspect of our lives from shoe-leather thickness and how you shit in your own house, to which jobs you are allowed to offer your services as. Oh, and the Leader of this bureaucracy talks it over with his Minister of Propaganda over which Citizens would be good ones to murder, and then murders them along with their teenage son. AND get's re-elected.

    Yeah, you were saying something about Tyrants????
    Give me a break.... you couldn't give two craps about tyrants. You just want to use the State to take as much as you can from as many as you can and give to yourself. You like to say it's for "the good of the Nation" but, that's just a lie you tell yourself so you don't feel as bad about it.

Share This Page