How To Fight Tyranny.

by **rothbardian** » Sun May 28, 2006 10:08 pm

Good grief, yathrib. The quotation marks mean nothing. Just trying to make your name stand out in the text. And I never felt persecuted from you. I'm perfectly OK with you speaking your mind. You sound fairly intelligent actually.

by **yathrib** » Sun May 28, 2006 10:26 pm

Okay, maybe read more into that than I should have.

by **professorpan** » Tue May 30, 2006 12:42 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The current war has been backed by...John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, John McCain and a huge assortment of liberal and neocon murderers. And by my reckoning, they are all willing participants in an evil, immoral, psychopathic, Orwellian government.<hr></blockquote> I have to wonder how much attention you pay to politics. Clinton, Kerry, and McCain are liberals? Say whaaat? True liberals are extremely rare in Congress. Wellstone was one (bless his soul), Kucinich is one (for the most part), and so is Bernie Sanders and a few others I'm forgetting. But Hillary? Your definition of liberal looks suspiciously like the wingnut version.

by **rothbardian** » Tue May 30, 2006 4:12 am

Pan-- Well...I'm a classical liberal and I had extremely few areas of agreement with someone like Wellstone. So we could go round and round on what the 'correct' definitions are. I didn't understand the reference to "wingnut". Is that a derogatory reference to conservatives maybe? I have nothing in common with their views. (We may need to get a compilation of definitions for your verbal slights, since you use so many of them in lieu of substantive expressions. I gather I am supposed to feel slighted...I just don't know what to feel slighted about, at this point. Maybe you could clarify.) Meanwhile, I provided a lot of other thoughts there. Anyone in government who in any way supports the idea of military slavery, among many other things, is participating in immorality and evil.

by **professorpan** » Tue May 30, 2006 2:06 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I didn't understand the reference to "wingnut". Is that a derogatory reference to conservatives maybe?<hr></blockquote> Yes. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>(We may need to get a compilation of definitions for your verbal slights, since you use so many of them in lieu of substantive expressions. I gather I am supposed to feel slighted...I just don't know what to feel slighted about, at this point. Maybe you could clarify.)<hr></blockquote> Here we go again. Verbal slights? I called you out for your use of the word "liberal" to define Clinton, Kerry, and McCain. And you ignored my request to explain why you consider them liberals -- that seems like a verbal slight. You keep suggesting that an Orwellian government will come to drag your son away at gunpoint to draft him into a war. Come again? There is no draft. There is no support for a draft in Congress, nor do I see any indications that a draft is likely in the near future. So your insistence on using the example of your son being subject to forcible conscription is odd, and I honestly don't know why you're using an example of something that doesn't exist to support your stance. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>We don't need regime change. We need regime removal.<hr></blockquote> What is your solution to getting rid of the "Orwellian" government? Do we scrap the entire system and start from scratch? Would it require an armed insurrection? It's easy to say "regime removal" or "fire all the bastards" but not so easy to accomplish it.

by **dugoboy** » Tue May 30, 2006 2:35 pm

pan just because the draft is not around now, doesnt mean it wont after some cataclysmic event that benefits a select few suddenly happens. things aren't quite so simple as liberal vs. conservative. in fact that supposed idea of conservative vs liberal is used to divide us as a nation. also the concept of conservative vs liberal has gotten so twisted the definitions are the like up is down and down is up. how do you fight tyranny? be prepared and ever vigilant. ___________________________________________ "BUSHCO aren't incompetent...they are COMPLICIT."

by **AnnaLivia** » Tue May 30, 2006 2:59 pm

should i be packing small arms while i'm hoeing my garden? i don't WANT to fight tyranny. i want to eliminate and forbid the unjust concentration of wealthpower that makes it possible and predictable!!

by **rothbardian** » Tue May 30, 2006 3:41 pm

I don't advocate taking up arms either. I'm with you. In regards to what you refer to as "wealthpower"...I personally make a big distinction between, let's say Walmart....and Halliburton. Walmart (and some other of these big outfits) shops the world and brings me a huge array of low-priced goods that improve the quality of our lives, giving us access to things that would otherwise be priced out of reach. Halliburton is a big fake joke. They need a corrupt government to contrive fake wars from which they then profit, coming and going. They make money on the 'ramp up' to war. They make money on the afternath. (I sure you know all of that.) Halliburton would shrivel and die without a corrupt government. The evil in the world is stemming from creepy government bureaucracies. They need to pull the plug on the CIA, the FBI and all these other creepy outfits. But I advocate no violence. I might very well be best described as a pacifist. Anyway...if there were no 'fat cat' government to sidle up to, companies and businesses would have no alternative but to come up with goods and services that appealed to voluntary customers. I think I'd pay good money to watch Halliburton scrambling to become a MaryKay competitor (or something similar).

by **AnnaLivia** » Tue May 30, 2006 4:07 pm

roth, u missed my point. my point was, i don't want a world where i spend my precious earthly life needing to be constantly on guard because tension and violence have been needlessly escalated to where that's necessary. i'm aiming for far higher rewards. if it surprises you, whatever, but i'm not against gun ownership. never said i was. and i sure wish you could see the whole circle as per walmart's merchandise. if you don't think you're being hurt mightily by the global race to the bottom of the wage scale, then i recommend some study of economics to you, friend.

by **professorpan** » Tue May 30, 2006 4:15 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Walmart (and some other of these big outfits) shops the world and brings me a huge array of low-priced goods that improve the quality of our lives, giving us access to things that would otherwise be priced out of reach.<hr></blockquote> Oh, my. That is rich! I second AnnaLivia's recommendation.

by **rothbardian** » Tue May 30, 2006 4:42 pm

Pan-- Didn't see your post at first. You seem confused and perplexed about the 'verbal slight' issue ("Verbal slight?"). It was your use of the term "wingnut". That would be considered a verbal slight. Hope that clears it up for you. As I said, it didn't have too much impact because I wasn't even sure what specific unpleasantness was intended. (And again, you seem to be very unhappy when others point out your deliberate and gratuitous unpleasantness. Very odd stuff.) As to your "request"...I scoured your post and found no request. Just an authoritative announcement as to who is or isn't a 'liberal'. That doesn't leave much room for discussion, does it? As I said...I claim to be a classical liberal myself...so where would we go from here? As to the issue of the 'draft'...the US government has repeatedly implemented the draft throughout it's history. There is huge bipartisan push to fight the so-called "war on terror" over the next many years. I don't understand your question. dugoboy-- I agree with you about the fundamental illegitimacy of the whole left/right thing. It's a big scam in my view. Both right and left are continually pushing for more centralized government..and it plays right into the hands of the PTB

by **professorpan** » Tue May 30, 2006 5:16 pm

Wingnut was not a verbal slight -- I said your definition of liberal (i.e. Hillary Clinton in particular) was similar to the way wingnuts define "liberal." And I guess I didn't request an explanation explicitly. But I did say: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Clinton, Kerry, and McCain are liberals? Say whaaat?<hr></blockquote> You state: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>As to the issue of the 'draft'...the US government has repeatedly implemented the draft throughout it's history. There is huge bipartisan push to fight the so-called "war on terror" over the next many years. I don't understand your question. <hr></blockquote> And here is what you wrote: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Liberals have backed ALL of this stuff. Liberals back the idea of gun-toting bureaucrats coming to your door to confiscate your children. <hr></blockquote> No they didn't, and no they don't. Liberals, or at least the majority of them, do not back a draft (and none of them would advocate "gun-toting bureaucrats" confiscating children). So, I'll ask again: What is your definition of liberal? and: Are you suggesting that liberals support forcible conscription (i.e. gun-toting bureaucrats dragging away people's children)? If so, can you point me to evidence of this?

by **rothbardian** » Tue May 30, 2006 5:42 pm

AnnaLivia-- I would say that if you want to get rid of the tension and violence...the source of all of that are these huge centralized governments. Look at the entirety of the twentieth century...wall-to-wall bloodshed, wars and violence. We couldn't have had all that tragedy without centralized governments. You can't ramp up and sustain worldwide wars without coercive centralized governments. I'm not an anarchist but if we had that century to do all over again, and had a choice between centralized govt or no govt....it's a 'no-brainer' for me. Hitler could've only screwed up his own neighborhood ( if even that) instead of the whole world. Without centralized coercive government, evil people like that would have no vehicle. Governments that have been constituted in terms of freedom are not a miracle cure-all. Classical liberalism is simply saying that in getting rid of coercive centralized government, you are ridding the world of the means to mass-produce war, evil and bloodshed. Think about the example of the Civil War-- it came about because Northern merchants wanted to see a huge confiscatory tariff imposed on Southern merchants (Lincoln couldn't have cared less about the slavery issue and restated that about a hundred times). So...how many hundreds of thousands of boys' lives would have been saved , if the Northern PTB had no government military to put into action (just the way we've seen modern-day PTB contrive their fake Iraq war on behalf of their oil interests etc.)? As far as economics-- it is a big subject but...one of the fundamental flaws of mainstream economic theory (in my view) is that there is only one way to improve the economy--- by increasing wages. That's an amazing faux paux. There are two ways-- increase wages OR decrease prices. If we replicated the division of labor that we have had in the US, all across the world...the economic benefits would be enormous. If, for example, my family had access to the cheaper food products from farmers in many other parts of the world who are currently not given access (African farmers are a good example)...it would benefit my family AND the farmers. And it would force an end to this gigantic welfare program for US farmers, most of whom are middle class or better.

by **rothbardian** » Tue May 30, 2006 6:35 pm

Pan-- Your statement "Wingnut was not a verbal slight" was very close to the truth, except for the word "not". You've got some personal issues I can't help you with. I see you're currently dealing with a similar situation over at this other thread with "bvonahsen": (<a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessageRange?topicID=4487.topic&start=21&stop=26)">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...1&stop=26)</a> You just got through with yet another 'verbal slight', two posts up with a sarcastic "That is rich." And once again, in doing so you are simply announcing your conclusion (that my views are wrong) without any further comment, and taking an unpleasant verbal swipe. The very thing "bvonahsen" is pointing out. When you treat people discourteously in that fashion, your behavior becomes the topic. I was going to muddle through on this conversation with you, but you continue with the sophomoric stuff. That's no good for me. By the way, I gave you plenty to chew on at your other thread. If, as you suggest, it is also a 'verbal slight' to not respond to someone's post, then you've got your work cut out for you over at the "In Defense of Skeptical Thinking" thread. I saw those quotes you provided, as fundamentally illogical and I explained why. Why not go over and work on that for awhile?

by **professorpan** » Tue May 30, 2006 6:43 pm

I don't even know where to begin to address this muddled mess. No government? None? I suppose we'll all return to the glory days of hunter gatherers? Yes, I'd say promoting "no government" is a no-brainer, but not in the way you meant it. Who's going to build roads for you to travel on? Fund medical research? Monitor your groundwater so an Exxon unshackled by regulation isn't dumping poison into the nearby stream? Have you ever thought out how a society without any form of government would actually function, on a day-to-day basis? If we were to eliminate government entirely, would you then leave society to the whims of corporate entities? If there was no centralized police force or fire department, what are you to do when the nearby tribe decides to raid your village, kill your children, and set fire to your fields? Centralized government does not have to equal repressive, Orwellian government. And anytime a group of people get together and agree on something, that is government. People making collective decisions is something that can never be abolished -- hence, government in some for will always exist. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>If, for example, my family had access to the cheaper food products from farmers in many other parts of the world who are currently not given access (African farmers are a good example)...it would benefit my family AND the farmers. And it would force an end to this gigantic welfare program for US farmers, most of whom are middle class or better.<hr></blockquote> Do you realize the cost, in time, money, and resources, that is required to get that African grown food onto your plate? Or the hideous labor situation it takes to get that low-priced thingamajig to the shelf in the Wal-Mart you praised? Annalivia was correct -- you'd benefit from taking some courses in economics. And some poli sci courses, too. And maybe visit a local small farmer while you're at it, or even better, a CSA (community supported agriculture) farm. And please, at the very least, do some reading on Wal-Mart before heaping praise on that bastion of ruthless, predatory capitalism.

How To Fight Tyranny.

In quotes

Re: In quotes

Re: regime removal

Could you define 'definition'?

Re: Could you define 'definition'?

Re: Could you define 'definition'?

ever vigilant?

I agree

Re: I agree? i don't think so

Re: I agree

Re: Could you define 'definition'?

Re: Could you define 'definition'?

Hitler's neighborhood

Denial--a river in Egypt?

Hitler's Wal-Mart

Who is online