The Dream Team: Paul-Nader?

Maybe there is hope after all…

Isn’t it good to see a joint focus on macro issues and real diseases? Even better, to see micro differences and lame sideshows put aside for the badly needed greater good? What do ‘you’ think?



This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVDs.

Comments

  1. MoxNews says enough. At least most of us agree about the “Fed”
    There is a fine line between satire and reality… I’ll take satire.;)

  2. @kmwakak8: I am not a big fan of Fox news, but kudos for this one. And while we are at it: what do you get from the rest: NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS? When was the last time they had anything of any substance…other than ‘for show only’ clownsmanship? And by that I mean even the sold out, fake pseudo progressives? Oh I forgot…that piece of a clown stewart is a political figure now-we’ve declined that far! Please take the good, and stop short of shallow labels such as repugs or mox, or whatever. This is not about Fox.

  3. Thanks for the heads up. It was good to see them discussing corporatism together. Of course, I’d still have to side with Nader on health care. Too bad Roseanne Barr already took the party name “GreennTea Party”.

  4. Hope? Politics in Amerika is a spectator sport. Just another computer game, played from the comfort of one’s own home…”hope” would flicker into life when Amerikans packed the pickup for a tailgate party in front of the local DHS ‘fusion center,’ or conducted candlelight vigils at the local “correctional facility” where political prisoners like Martin Armstrong or the now murdered Thomas Manton are held on false charges; hope would come when they got so sick and tired of corrupt political and judiciary leeches that they dared to storm the local courts building with the intent to conduct citizens arrests of all the implicated….do you see that happening soon?
    Let’s face it, that kind of courage is exclusive to marginal, third world countries where the sons and daughters of day laborers dispossessed of even the last means of subsistence finally rise and say ENOUGH!….it will probably need another 48 months of tortuous decline into fascistic nightmare before Amerikans evolve into a citizenship worthy of Sidi Bouzid. By that time, what will be left to be saved?
    p.s. your 10 day hiatus scared the pants off of me…so much so that I resolved to stay silent here forever if that’s what it takes to keep the smallest warrior alive and in good spirits!…kindly give us a clue before going on walkabout next time…forget about the talking heads, you are the spirit of hope Sibel!

  5. Good stuff Sibel. Thanks for posting. That would indeed be a team which would get most of us in the irate minority camp excited about. There’s no question but that the ‘boiling’ elements from the left and right should unite on vital issues of agreement, putting differences aside while focusing on shared objectives. Maybe that way some REAL change could be made to the corrupt system and weaken the establishment power structure.

    I must say, I love the way you always make sure to cut through the phony partisan divide, Sibel. I’ve often thought about how the easiest way to recognize individuals who don’t have a clue about what’s going on in the world is to hear them blame one party for the country’s problems. I imagine the converse is true as well, and as you are one of the oh-so-rare public figures who avoids the silly left-right partisanship paradigm (in fact, making sure to tear it to shreds given any chance;), it says much about your wisdom, honesty, and integrity.

  6. On a somewhat related note, did you hear Ron Paul took second in a NH straw poll?

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/22/romney-wins-new-hampshire-gop-straw-poll-ron-paul-comes-second.aspx

    (fwiw)

    But will there even be a republic left for the next president to govern with the current fascist-in-chief working overtime to sell us down the river?

    http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2011/01/white-house-plans-to-launch-internet-id.html, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20027837-501465.html

    I think we’re starting to get a better idea of what the NSA data centers they’re building in my home state are for.

  7. Ending the Republican/Democratic liberal/conservative left/right false duality is key to bringing together an effective political movement for change. A Paul/Nader presidential ticket sounds great. Neither honest libertarians nor honest progressives want to live in police state or a corporatocracy. I agree with Nader on most of the issues on which they disagree, such as the objective of Medicare for all. It was never even consdidered by Obama which shows he has been in the pocket of the insurance companies from day one. Paul and Nader can agree to put their differences aside on this and other issues and unite on a platform of civil liberties, transparency, nationalization of the Fed, ending foreign wars and opposing the police state. But I have seen third party candidacies come and go over the years to no good effect. This one has to be different. What I would like to see is a very strong, prominent plank in the platform calling for an independent, public investigation into the events of 9/11 in conjunction with their call to bring the troops home from Afghanistan (and everywhere else around the world, I would hope). A realn 9/11 investigation is the vehicle for exposing and extirpating the vipers that are running our government from behind the scenes and have been for almost fifty years (I count from the Kennedy assassination). If Paul and Nader would adopt this plank and stick with it, they would have the whole 9/11 truth community behind the, which is millions of people including many dedicated activists who would work for them.

  8. Interesting how the outside of the political spectrum left off the lamestream media have both identified the driving force of the evil satan USA – corporatism!

    Next step is to call it what it really is FASCISM. And as our rights are being tossed aside it’s getting easier and easier to see that corporatism IS fascism. And that’s the good old USA which the two parties both completely embrace – free market capitalism… with a sprinkle of regulation to keep it from running mad.

  9. Roughly 60% of Americans call themselves Independents because neither of the two major political parties represents their interests. Both parties have instead elected to represent the interests of the richest 1%. No “third party” has been able to compete with the major parties because no third party has broad enough appeal to elect enough candidates to dominate either the House or Senate. But, multiple small parties, by forming issue-specific alliances could overcome that obstacle.

    Big parties are political dinosaurs, IMO. Their platforms come in one size, which typically translates as “one size fits none.” Small parties can tailor their platforms narrowly to the interests of a particular block of voters or one region, so that more voters would feel represented.

  10. Its called democratic fascism. The idea is to privatize Government.

  11. Since we are talking politics, I can offer a unique perspective. Last week I was able to engage a Chinese communist in good standing and a scientist, in politics, something he could never do in his own country. First to be at the level of his science skill and in this country means I was dealing with a very bright person, who for all his knowledge still had major gaps in his thinking. For example, he could not accept that climate change this time around was caused by humans. When it came to the meeting with Hun Jintao last week, we got somewhere. He stated that in China, at least they knew where the dictators lived. In Amerika, Obama or Bush are no longer anything more than puppets, vocal strands for the puppeteer. We seldom know who the real string pullers are, although banksters and Kissingers are highly suspect. What is the solution? One that I am learning about, but will never reach that level of expertise are the geeks. Has anyone ever heard of TOR or Ubuntu? This is a whole world of virus free – FREE SPEECH. Most of the geeks I have met are HONEST.

  12. Simon,

    There’s some info on TOR here in Time’s article on Assange as runner up for person of the year from 12/15/10.


    The worst — or best, in the view of advocates for radical transparency — could be yet to come. John Young, a New York City architect who left the WikiLeaks steering committee after clashing with Assange, says the group members are storing “a lot more information underground than they are publishing on the surface.” Some of it comes from a hacker-on-hacker sting in 2006, when data jockeys at WikiLeaks detected what they believed to be a large-scale intelligence operation to steal data from computers around the world. The intruders were using TOR, an anonymous browsing technology invented by the U.S. Navy, to tunnel into their targets and extract information. The WikiLeaks team piggybacked on the operation, recording the data stream in real time as the intruders stole it.

    In an encrypted e-mail dated Jan. 7, 2007, decrypted and made available to TIME by its recipient, one of the participants boasted, “Hackers monitor chinese and other intel as they burrow into their targets, when they pull, so do we. Inxhaustible supply of material?… We have all of pre 2005 afghanistan. Almost all of india fed. Half a dozen foreign ministries. Dozens of political parties and consulates, worldbank, apec, UN sections, trade groups.”

    Link to the full Time Article:

    http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2036683_2037118_2037146,00.html

  13. Simon here is some info on what TOR is and how it works: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network)

    Ubuntu is an operating system like Windows that your computer runs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_(operating_system)

    By the way, OpenLeaks http://openleaks.org is now open but not yet fully operational.

    I think the Ralph Nader/Ron Paul coalition will be bring the beginning of the end of the perverse wars and the downfall of sociopathic rulers.

    [WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ’0 which is not a hashcash value.

  14. avatar Bill Bergman says:

    First impressions wise, well, this is fabulous. Seeing – beep, Paul, than – beep, Nader, combines two parts in not massive but a good number of brains of good chemistry

  15. Thanks to Ishmael and Konst: Does that mean TOR (Vidalia) is compromised and no longer of use to NSA? Does that mean hackers have evolved beyond the skill set of the NSA? If many people use TOR and it is open source, then the principle of flying under the radar works until the big data storage facilities currently under construction are initiated. BTW here is an interesting leak that I copied in part:

    WIKILEAKS: Africa Offers Easy Uranium

    PARIS, Dec 26, 2010 (IPS) – Wikileaks cables have revealed a disturbing
    development in the African uranium mining industry: abysmal safety and
    security standards in the mines, nuclear research centres, and border
    customs are enabling international companies to exploit the mines and
    smuggle dangerous radioactive material across continents. (2006)

    The cables also highlight the involvement of European, Chinese, Indian,
    and South Korean companies in the illegal extraction and smuggling of
    uranium from Africa. Most European nuclear reactors use uranium imported
    from African countries.

    “The fuel rod storage room, where the nine unused fuel rods are stored,
    was not locked, and the fuel rods are not kept in a separate locked
    container.”

    But security gaps in nuclear and radioactive facilities in the DRC go
    beyond CREN-K. In a separate cable, dated Jul. 11, 2007, Meece reported
    that several sources “recently stated that the Malta Forest Company is
    (illegally) mining and exporting uranium from the DRC.”

  16. Those who are attracted to Paul because he opposes the wars would be in for a rude awakening if his Libertarian views were adopted in this country. Imagine a country with no public education, no regulation of food and drugs, no public highways, no Social Security and no Medicare. A country with abortion illegal, with automatic weapons and cop killer bullets legal, and with corporations free to pollute. We all desire peace and ending war, but Paul’s Libertarianism would not lead to a better, more humane country.

  17. avatar Bill Bergman says:

    Thanks again, Sibel, that was great

  18. about the last thing you’d have to worry about in American politics is Ron Paul getting to be President.

  19. avatar Black Order says:

    @ zeke2u

    zeke2u – ” Those who are attracted to Paul because he opposes the wars would be in for a rude awakening if his Libertarian views were adopted in this country. ”

    BO – I agree that many would be in for a rude awakening, but for different reasons.

    First of all, It takes one to know one. I am an Anarchist/Libertarian. Ron Paul is NOT a libertarian.

    Libertarianism recognizes the state as coercive and values freedom and individual rights above all else. Ron Paul is a statist Republican that advocates using coercion and violence to enforce state edicts like prohibiting abortion.

    A REAL Libertarian would NEVER advocate coercion for the sake of an edict.

    If Libertarianism were adopted, people who are so dependent on the state would indeed get a rude awakening as they would have to become responsible for themselves and their communities. No more free ride via theft by proxy of government.

    zeke2u – ” Imagine a country with no public education, no regulation of food and drugs, no public highways, no Social Security and no Medicare. ”

    BO – PUBLIC EDUCATION – The Department Of Education is a massive failure in my opinion. Statistics show that education in the USA has slipped since the start of federalized schools. Community based/funded schools have long proven to be much more efficient. Home schooling is the most efficient.

    Modern public schools aren’t interested in education. Their interests lye in making their school look good for more federal funding.

    Federal money has become the center of motivation for schools rather than education, hence why they are so obsessed with attendance, and why many schools have changed their teaching practices, grading formats and procedures so that it’s easier to get good grades, thus making themselves APPEAR to be performing well and more justified in receiving funds.

    And that’s just one aspect. What about issues with teachers unions? What about state funds and tenth amendment issues? Etc, etc, etc…

    It’s a mess. Just ask a teacher.

    Keep it local.

    NO REGULATION OF FOOD AND DRUGS – Government regulation does more harm than good as it interferes with natural market forces and manipulates motives of businesses.

    Regulations cause higher overhead/production costs when producing goods and services, which always get passed down to the consumer, resulting in higher prices.

    And it never really prevents accidents as intended. It only costs more to produce something.

    In many instances, it actually protects a crappy company and helps it stay in business as the penalty to government is less than that of the penalty to the consumer market.

    (And don’t even get me started on fascist/socialist bailouts.)

    I recommend you study Frederich Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises.

    NO PUBLIC HIGHWAYS – Who says you NEED government for these things?

    In private neighborhoods and small towns/villages where they have bypassed government to collectively pitch in to provide infrastructure and services for themselves, they’ve found that it gets done better, cheaper, and more efficiently than if they had depended on government.

    NO SOCIAL SECURITY AND NO MEDICARE – These programs have served as nothing but a government slush fund and are a complete mess as well.

    Once again, government has promised but not delivered. People would be better off worrying about their own retirement rather than depending on government.

    And besides, entitlements, social programs and government subsidies are theft by proxy of government and therefore a violation of natural unalienable individual rights. Is it moral to steal from one to give to another, to rob Peter to pay Paul so he can reap the rewards of something he did not earn?

    zeke2u – ” A country with abortion illegal, with automatic weapons and cop killer bullets legal, and with corporations free to pollute. ”

    BO – A country with abortion illegal would NOT be anything close to libertarian in nature.

    I’m all in favor of automatic weapons and cop killer bullets being “legal”. I advocate getting rid of ALL gun laws/regulations and promoting responsible gun ownership by everyone.

    An armed society is a polite society. The laws of mutuality apply.

    Try robbing a bank or a person when everyone around you is packin’.

    Try raping a woman when she has a 9mm drawn from her purse.

    Law enforcement can only protect citizens indirectly through deterrence, unless they are right there on scene when a crime takes place. It is only effective against those who are deterred by legal consequences. Those that are going to do it, are going to do it regardless of the law.

    And restitution rarely goes to the victim, but instead goes to the state. Your car gets stolen. They found the thief and your car is wrecked all to hell. He pays fines to the state and/or gets imprisoned…you are still without a car and better hope your soon to be more expensive car insurance covers it.

    If the thief gets caught, it is a lose/lose situation. You and him both lose. If he doesn’t get caught, it is a win/lose in his favor. If you or another citizen has a gun and shoots him dead when he tries to take your property, it is a win/lose in your favor.

    CORPORATIONS FREE TO POLLUTE – Actually Dr. Paul has argued in the past that this is a property rights issue, that instead of trying to regulate industrial practices, we should legally prohibit them from polluting other people’s property…which I think is a far simpler and superior approach to prevent pollution in a governed society.

    …not that I think regulations are even necessary. In an Anarcho-Libertarian society, factories would be plenty motivated to not pollute as they’d be likely to encounter an angry mob from downstream who are dependent on the river for crop irrigation and drinking water.

    If I were that factory owner, I’d be more worried about a mob boycotting me or burning down my factory then I would be paying some fine. lol.

    zeke2u – ” We all desire peace and ending war, but Paul’s Libertarianism would not lead to a better, more humane country. ”

    BO – But Paul’s Libertarianism isn’t really Libertarianism at all, but rather statism and coercion, …so you are right when you say that it would not lead to a better more humane country.

    Government is anything but humane.

    You cannot truly have peace or freedom in a governed society as government itself is inherently violent.

    Understand, government makes laws that are enforced through coercive means that ultimately end with violence.

    Government = Law = Enforcement = Coercion = Violence

    Every time a law is made, the end result is a policeman with a gun coercing you into compliance by threat of violence.

    Government has a monopoly on the legal use of violence against the non violent to enforce it’s edicts.

    Try arresting someone for not doing as you tell them. You can’t. You hhave to do so by proxy of government. You have to vote for someone that will “represent” you and make laws according to YOUR standards, and force yours/it’s edicts onto others via coercion and violence.

    And by supporting the state with your vote and taxes, you are also advocating, supporting, and legitimizing the use of coercion and violence upon yourself for the sake of another’s edicts.

    Representative governance is a farce as we are all individuals and cannot be represented simultaneously – Someone ALWAYS loses out. Someone is ALWAYS being forced to live as another dictates.

    The only social system that is consistent with freedom is one with no “government” at all.

    Necessary for a peaceful social order absent of coercive governance is a universal and definitive understanding of, and respect for, natural rights and personal responsibility as it relates to freedom.

    Really try to understand that. It says a lot. It is a fancy way of saying be responsible for yourself and your people, live and let live, and practice the golden rule.

    All it takes is for people to actually get it, and it would work just fine. Government would be wholly unnecessary.

    Admittedly, the human race isn’t yet ready. There are too many stupid barbaric idiots in the world that depend on violence as a solution.

  20. avatar ZicaTanka says:

    @BO-
    Isn’t government a part of nature and present in every interaction?

    Ever known a teenager that broke into a car? Should they have been shot?

    Who’s going to win, if the factory owners go up against the angry farmer mob and don’t have any limits on their monopoly of power and coercive violence?

    Are we at liberty to create a system which limits the ability of individauls and groups to get away with violently coercing each other?

    Are you able to see the color gray?

  21. avatar Black Order says:

    @ ZicaTanka

    ZicaTanka – “Are you able to see the color gray?”

    BO – Nothing is gray. So long as the premise is solid, there is always a definitive answer. If you’re seeing gray, you haven’t thought it out to it’s conclusion.

    ZicaTanka – ” Isn’t government a part of nature and present in every interaction? ”

    BO – No. Do not confuse social order with coercive governance. Natural rights/natural law is a part of the natural order of the universe, which is perfect and non-contradictory.

    Humans will naturally form an appropriate order that is consistent with natural law. (How did humans survive before government?)

    To exist, government must have a monopoly on the use of violence against the nonviolent to enforce edicts. This coercion is a violation of natural inherent unalienable rights, and is thus, unnatural.

    It is universally and fundamentally wrong to murder, steal, and kidnap people…except when government does it?

    ZicaTanka – ” Ever known a teenager that broke into a car? Should they have been shot? ”

    BO – You missed the point. It isn’t about an emotional appeal with regards to the appropriate response to an immature teenager breaking into a car. The point was to illustrate the fallacy in thinking that gun control works or that the law will protect you and your property.

    Like any creature, we have the natural right to defend ourselves. Taking guns away from people is not only tactically unwise, but it is also denying people their natural rights.

    ZicaTanka – ” Who’s going to win, if the factory owners go up against the angry farmer mob and don’t have any limits on their monopoly of power and coercive violence? ”

    BO – Coercion simply defined means: comply with demands, or face consequences, do it or else.

    The farmers would be acting within their right as they would be the victim acting in defense of their property and health that was violated by the polluter. This is not considered coercion if they take appropriate measures to eliminate a threat.

    And they may not get angry or violent at all. (Notice I also used boycott as well as violence in my hypothetical) – they may even help the factory owner to utilize a better method of disposal. Violence is not always the best answer – even when justified.

    ZicaTanka – ” Are we at liberty to create a system which limits the ability of individauls and groups to get away with violently coercing each other? ”

    BO – We’re at liberty to do as we wish, so long as it doesn’t violate the rights and freedoms of others…which is exactly what government does.

    Do two wrongs make a right? Both are violating your rights and freedoms.

    What sense does it make to trade one group of coercive thugs for another? What sense does it make to trade a group of thugs that you can defend yourself against, for another group of thugs that you can’t defend against(gov)?

  22. avatar ZicaTanka says:

    @BO-Thanks for the response. Short answer is that we are all related.

    My question about government being natural and always present is an attempt to focus our attention on government being an extension of the natural order. Semantic differences between “government” and “natural order” are not what matters, if we are attempting to create the society we would naturally prefer.

    I’ll take another read of your response later…

  23. BO – “To exist, government must have a monopoly on the use of violence against the nonviolent to enforce edicts. This coercion is a violation of natural inherent unalienable rights, and is thus, unnatural.”
    ZT – Try to think of government as a continuum, going from absolute power in the hands of one to equally distributed power in the hands of all. In this construct, anarchy is logically nothing. Absolute power in many hands of one cannot exist through a single interaction between two.

    BO – “It isn’t about an emotional appeal with regards to the appropriate response to an immature teenager breaking into a car. The point was to illustrate the fallacy in thinking that gun control works or that the law will protect you and your property.”
    ZT – I think you were the one who first mentioned a couple emotional appeals about theft and rape, in order to drive home the point that having armed victims would solve the problem of crime. Your appeal took us to the conclusion that a shot-dead car thief would be a win/lose situation for us. I don’t think you are considering the abilities of victims, the increased danger of having a weapon in a confrontation, or the externalities of killing someone who tried to steal a car.

    BO – “The farmers would be acting within their right as they would be the victim acting in defense of their property and health that was violated by the polluter. This is not considered coercion if they take appropriate measures to eliminate a threat.”
    ZT – I wasn’t asking who was right or wrong. I was asking who would win the fight. The point being that government can curb the monopolization of power by the few, in order for the many to have their grievances addressed.

    BO – “What sense does it make to trade a group of thugs that you can defend yourself against, for another group of thugs that you can’t defend against(gov)?”
    ZT – If it were necessary, wouldn’t you rather have coercion executed by those who had to follow the same rules as you? When the enforcers act above the law, we should consider that as an abuse of power.

    ZT – BTW, the act of organizing government can also be considered a creative thing, not just punitive.

  24. avatar Black Order says:

    @ ZicaTanka

    The difference between natural law and civil/government law is VAST and shouldn’t be dismissed as mere semantics. Definitions are important, so I will try to define the difference as best that I can articulate while groggy/sleepy at this late hour.

    Natural law is that which is consistent with the natural order of the universe.

    Natural rights are instinctual, inherent, yours from birth simply because you exist. They are unalienable. They exist independent of governance. They cannot be granted to or taken away from you. They just simply are.

    One of these rights is the right to defend yourself, the right to self preservation that exists in all creatures.

    Is there any rhyme or reason to describe exactly why you defend yourself when threatened? Why DON’T you let someone attack you? Because you don’t wanna die? Why not?

    Is it reasonable to expect any creature to just roll over and die without a fight?

    Natural rights aren’t much different than light or gravity. You can try to legally prohibit or regulate the amount of light that the sun emits, or how much effect gravity has on objects, but it will comply with the natural order of the universe anyway.

    You cannot regulate gravity anymore than you can tell someone or some thing not to defend themselves when threatened.

    This is EXACTLY what government tries to do, which is not in concert with natural order, hence why I stated that coercive governance is unnatural.

    Not that violence isn’t natural. It is. But it is balanced by the inherent right to defend yourself. When you try to take this away for sake of enforcing an edict, it becomes unbalanced, unnatural.

    NO WAY can it be a extension of the natural order unless it found a way to eliminate the monopoly of coercion and violence from it’s practices. But then it wouldn’t be government, but rather a social order as it would comply with the natural order of the universe and the right for all creatures to exist freely.

    Natural law is derived from the natural order of the universe. Civil law is derived from man, and it’s authority from those that support it and give it legitimacy with their taxes and vote.

    Civil law is one person to another saying “Obey, or else”. Natural law is the universe saying “Live free”.

    Society is natural as humans are naturally social creatures. A social order is what we do. But the minute we incorporate coercion and violence into the very fabric of our society, it begins to erode as it is now uncivilized.

    I’m really tired and not thinking as clearly as I’d like to. I hope this has helped some.

    Goodnight,

    Black Order

  25. avatar Black Order says:

    @ ZicaTanka

    I just noticed your reply made January 30th, 2011 at 11:12 pm.

    I’m going to bed but will respond tomorrow.

    G’night.

  26. avatar Black Order says:

    ZT – ” Try to think of government as a continuum, going from absolute power in the hands of one to equally distributed power in the hands of all. In this construct, anarchy is logically nothing. Absolute power in many hands of one cannot exist through a single interaction between two. ”

    BO – I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at here. Before I try to converse/debate this point, I ask that you please clarify.

    ZT – ” I think you were the one who first mentioned a couple emotional appeals about theft and rape, in order to drive home the point that having armed victims would solve the problem of crime. ”

    BO – I’m sorry that you misinterpreted that as an emotional appeal. It was meant to demonstrate that it is much easier to victimize someone who is unarmed as opposed to someone who has a gun. But I think you know that.

    ZT – ” Your appeal took us to the conclusion that a shot-dead car thief would be a win/lose situation for us. ”

    BO – Compared to being successfully attacked or robbed, yes, that is precisely what I am saying.

    Would you rather be a beaten, raped, woman laying in a mud puddle in an alley, or a woman standing over the body of a man that just tried to rape you?

    I’m thinking that the latter is the lesser of two evils.

    ZT – ” I don’t think you are considering the abilities of victims, the increased danger of having a weapon in a confrontation, or the externalities of killing someone who tried to steal a car. ”

    BO – You sure do make a lot of assertions. Just because I didn’t mention it, just because I didn’t write an essay on all the intricate factors involved, doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been considered.

    ~ …the abilities of victims -

    People’s abilities vary. There is no way to quantify this in any other way than on an individual basis. One thing is for sure – You are better protected if you’re armed.

    ~ …the increased danger of having a weapon in a confrontation –

    Yes, you are more likely to die in a gun fight than you are in a fist fight. But you cannot get rid of guns. This is a very unrealistic solution. Criminals victimize people in spite of the law. People buy guns in spite of the law. If you try to disarm everyone, you will only manage to disarm lawful citizens and make their victimization easier.

    ~ …or the externalities of killing someone who tried to steal a car. -

    I never said it was a good thing to kill someone. OF COURSE it would a tragic event to have to shoot ANYONE. Nobody WANTS this to happen, but you have the right to protect yourself, family, and property. And if someone gets shot while trying to victimize you, you have to consider that they assumed the risk, they asked for it. I do not have much sympathy for those who steal, assault, rape, etc. It is not my problem that their family is sad because little Johnny got killed while trying to execute a home invasion. My problem would be protecting my family/self.

    ZT – ” I wasn’t asking who was right or wrong. I was asking who would win the fight. ”

    BO – Who would win the fight? My original point was that there are other ways of dealing with things besides depending on government regulations. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a “fight”. They could boycott him, effectively shutting down his factory and his ability to pollute. They could burn down his factory in the middle of the night, effectively shutting down his factory and his ability to pollute. They could offer to help him find a new method of disposal, giving him another option besides dumping chemicals into the river.

    ZT – ” …The point being that government can curb the monopolization of power by the few, in order for the many to have their grievances addressed. ”

    BO – Government IS the monopolization of power by the few…like I said above…one group of thugs for another that you cannot defend against.

    Grievances addressed? – ROFLMAO! When was the last time government cared about the people and their grievances?

    Do you know who Sibel Edmonds is?

    ZT – If it were necessary, wouldn’t you rather have coercion executed by those who had to follow the same rules as you? When the enforcers act above the law, we should consider that as an abuse of power.

    BO – NO FORM OF COERCION IS ACCEPTABLE. That’s like asking someone whether they’d prefer a turd on wheat with cheddar and mayo, or a turd on white with swiss and mustard.

    ZT – BTW, the act of organizing government can also be considered a creative thing, not just punitive.

    BO – The act of organizing can be and IS, in my humble opinion, considered a creative and natural thing, …but the second you add coercion and violence to the equation, it becomes government, punitive, and a violation of basic natural human rights.

  27. An indivudual cannot retain complete power to themselves when interacting with other individuals. Interacting requires power sharing.

    Ever heard of King George III?

  28. avatar Black Order says:

    ZicaTanka – ” An indivudual cannot retain complete power to themselves when interacting with other individuals. ”

    BO – Why not? Power over someone is not required for peaceful cooperation within the constructs of a society.

    Individual rights are unalienable. Individuals ALWAYS retain their natural rights. No one can grant them or take them away. When you try, it creates conflict.

    When the individual’s right to self determination is violated, when power is exerted over them, the very essence of civility is gone. Society erodes.

    Individuals MUST be free, Individual rights MUST be respected for a society to exist and thrive.

    Hence The Bill Of Rights. The founders recognized this and tried to construct a society who’s form of governance is built around the concept of natural law.

    Unfortunately, the grand experiment didn’t work out as anticipated as they tried to protect natural rights with, of all things, …coercive governance.

    Government knows no limits when it is the one with the monopoly on coercion and violence. It doesn’t have to comply. It just grows and demands more. You comply, or else.

    ZicaTanka – ” Interacting requires power sharing. ”

    BO – Interaction requires sharing. Nowhere does it require you to forfeit your basic natural human rights and submit to the coercive power of another.

    ZicaTanka – ” Ever heard of King George III? ”

    BO – Yes, he was just another tyrannical statist turd in history.

    Okay, so I was kinda being a smart-ass when asking you about Ms. Edmonds.

    But her story is an exemplary example of how coercion erodes a society.

    Consider this…

    Our intelligent, attractive, and charming friend Sibel stands on the side of absolute righteousness in her endeavors. In the interest of the integrity of the system, she seeks to expose the truth.

    But her grievances have been denied, even to the extent of using coercion to silence her. She knows things. She has dirt on powerful people, and if she blabs, she goes to prison.

    The integrity of the system is dependent upon confidence of the people, which is dependent upon faith in the system of checks and balances, which is dependent upon truth and righteousness.

    Truth and righteousness has been thwarted by coercion. Ms. Edmonds’ natural right to speak freely and civic responsibility to expose corruption has been violated.

    Society erodes.

  29. avatar ZicaTanka says:

    Thanks, BO. I don’t think we’re very far apart in our ideas/goals – some fundamental philosophy questions are still there for me and I think the answers are part of a balancing act. But I think we can agree that Ron Paul and Ralph Nader conspiring against the power mongers is a good sign, no?

Speak Your Mind