Who is our enemy?

[Quik]

Regular experience from 1976 to 2009.

And how is Somalia worse off without a central government, from your experience?

 

[Quik]

How does the current government of the USA infringe upon your freedom and rights?

What is the U.S. government stopping you from doing?

My privacy, for example, with the Utah Data Center. My right to have the option to use drugs, or get prostitutes, or gamble online, etc.

 

[shrubnose]

It has. It works to the degree that the governed make sure that the government does what it should. The USA is not perfect, but it is a whole lot more free than most of the world.


That we are freer than other countries only goes so far, and a fair argument could be made showing that actually we are not as free as other countries.

In fact, we are not governed in accordance with constitutional procedures in many cases. It is a ludicrous statement to claim that the government is under control of the people, and that they exercise this control through the electoral process. It is delusional, for many many reasons, I'm sorry to say. eace

Who votes politicians in and out of office in the USA?

Care to take a guess?

 

[shrubnose]

My privacy, for example, with the Utah Data Center. My right to have the option to use drugs, or get prostitutes, or gamble online, etc.

The only thing stopping you and quite a few other people from doing whatever you want to do is the law and a little common sense (And/or fear of the consequences.).




"If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

 

[shrubnose]

My privacy, for example, with the Utah Data Center.

If you are a U.S. citizen, in the USA, NSA is not monitoring your communications.

In any case, if you don't break the law, you have nothing to worry about.

 

[Jack Hays]

And how is Somalia worse off without a central government, from your experience?

The Siad Barre regime was no one's idea of good government, but it was then possible to travel throughout Somalia in relative safety and with a more-or-less predictable schedule. The citizens did not fear (most of the time) arbitrary robbery, detention or murder. Everywhere outside Somaliland and, to a lesser degree, Puntland, that is no longer the case.

 

[Quik]

The Siad Barre regime was no one's idea of good government, but it was then possible to travel throughout Somalia in relative safety and with a more-or-less predictable schedule. The citizens did not fear (most of the time) arbitrary robbery, detention or murder. Everywhere outside Somaliland and, to a lesser degree, Puntland, that is no longer the case.

Is it worse to be robbed or murdered by individuals or the state?

 

[Quik]

If you are a U.S. citizen, in the USA, NSA is not monitoring your communications.

In any case, if you don't break the law, you have nothing to worry about.

Yes they are. Utah Data Center. Do you even know what a yottabyte is?

 

[Quik]

The only thing stopping you and quite a few other people from doing whatever you want to do is the law and a little common sense (And/or fear of the consequences.).

"If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

Morality can exist in the absence of government, and so can social order.

 

[APACHERAT]

Is it worse to be robbed or murdered by individuals or the state?

That's a no brainer, the "state."

 

[shrubnose]

Yes they are. Utah Data Center.

You have no proof of this. This is just conjecture on your part.

In any case, as I have said, if you are not breaking the law you have nothing to worry about.

 

[Quik]

You have no proof of this. This is just conjecture on your part.

You obviously don't know what a yottabyte is.

In any case, as I have said, if you are not breaking the law you have nothing to worry about.

I'm not worried at all. If I was worried I wouldn't be posting my opinions on a public forum. The government is watching me and I don't care, I'm speaking my opinion anyways.

I won't participate in any kind of revolution not because it wouldn't be the right thing to do, but because I have a family. It's the only reason. It's a moral weakness on my part and I have come to accept that. So I'm reduced to just talking about right and wrong.

 

[Jack Hays]

Is it worse to be robbed or murdered by individuals or the state?

It was safer with a government.

 

[Quik]

It was safer with a government.

Unless you were a political opponent, of course.

 

[Jack Hays]

Unless you were a political opponent, of course.

Without a government it's all against all (see Hobbes). With a government the calculation is simpler.

 

[Dittohead not!]

It has. It works to the degree that the governed make sure that the government does what it should. The USA is not perfect, but it is a whole lot more free than most of the world.

That we are freer than other countries only goes so far, and a fair argument could be made showing that actually we are not as free as other countries.

In fact, we are not governed in accordance with constitutional procedures in many cases. It is a ludicrous statement to claim that the government is under control of the people, and that they exercise this control through the electoral process. It is delusional, for many many reasons, I'm sorry to say. eace

Actually, I don't think it is under the control of the people. It should be under the control of the people, and was designed that way but the twin demons of apathy and money have corrupted the government. Only about half of the citizens are even registered to vote, for example, and only a quarter to a half of those actually do. All too many of them base their votes on party loyalty, or on TV ads paid for by the special interests that have way too much influence on the government.

 

[Jack Hays]

Actually, I don't think it is under the control of the people. It should be under the control of the people, and was designed that way but the twin demons of apathy and money have corrupted the government. Only about half of the citizens are even registered to vote, for example, and only a quarter to a half of those actually do. All too many of them base their votes on party loyalty, or on TV ads paid for by the special interests that have way too much influence on the government.

In other words, the people are sovereign, but you don't like some of their choices.

 

[Dittohead not!]

In other words, the people are sovereign, but you don't like some of their choices.

No.

In other words, I think the people should be sovereign, but aren't.

 

[Quik]

Without a government it's all against all (see Hobbes). With a government the calculation is simpler.

The government makes it easier to rob and murder, and that's something I disagree with. I don't think robbery and murder magically become moral just because it's organized robbery and murder.

 

[Quik]

In other words, the people are sovereign, but you don't like some of their choices.

The people are definitely not sovereign if they live under a government.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The government makes it easier to rob and murder, and that's something I disagree with. I don't think robbery and murder magically become moral just because it's organized robbery and murder.

With no government, who is going to catch and prosecute the robbers and murderers?

 

[Quik]

The well armed populace.

 

[Smeagol]

Listening to rant radio in the car yesterday, the talk show host was focused on the war on terror and just who we are fighting. Clearly, his opinion was that the enemy was Islam.

Since nearly a third of the human race is Muslim, I find it somewhat frightening that we the "war on terror" could be quite that large.

And it seems unlikely that "terror" itself is our enemy, despite the phrase "war on terror."

Yet, he did make a good point: If you're going to fight a war, you have to know who your enemy is.

So, who is our enemy?

With the exception of problems with drug cartels on our Southern border, every national security issue and conflict that America faces that I can think of can be traced to oil. Our dependency upon it; our funding of Americanism and the terrorism it inspires; support for dictatorships and the strong resentment that causes; figuring out who to support next when the people revolt, the dictators or Al Qaeda affiliated rebel groups; nuclear proliferation; terrorism at home; shoe bomber; underwear bomber; marathon bombers; 9/11; Desert Storm; Operation Iraqi Freedom; Arms for Hostages; Iranian Embassy Hostage Crisis; you name it. The Petroleum industrial complex, which is to say petroleum dependency, alternative energy suppression in the interest of insane corporate and dictator (OPEC) profits made possible by anti-competitive shenanigans coupled with effective right-wing propaganda efforts who have refused to see the issue as anything more than winning a political sparring match with environmentalists.

 

[Federalist]

Without a government it's all against all (see Hobbes). With a government the calculation is simpler.

It's not a question of whether a society has a system of governance. The issue is the idea that there are certain people (government workers) who are immune to the normal rules of ethical behavior. It is the belief in the religion of the state that permits certain special people to initiate violence against the person and property of others. It is possible to have a system of law and governance in which ALL people must adhere to the same rules.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The well armed populace.

Sounds like Gunfight at the OK Corral to me.