Badmovies.org Forum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjMeqminwz8

been getting too darn much positive karma lately so figure I'd lay this on you  :teddyr:.  our constitution insures that only the biggest a holes will control us.  Politicians under the constitution, and admittedly most other democratic systems, are simply those chosen by a group to take money from us to do what that groups think is a good idea.  sometimes they even take our sons and daughters from us to fight wars they think are a good idea.  the very nature of government results in only the worst people being succesful, even if occasionally the figueheads themselves are perhaps quite nice.

Why celebrate a system that uses coercion at all?  why settle for less than a society where everything is voluntary?  where we give people money when we want and even fight wars if WE feel they are just? is that so wrong?


just food for thought



warning: clip contains "the Departed" Spoiler!

If you could remove human nature and what would appear to be the base instinct or desire to control and manipulate, to envy and desire, then you might have the utopia you suggest.  Even though we are far more intelligent and are more able to control our emotions than our less-evolved ancestors, you cannot stop people from doing these things.

So creating a government such as ours was an attempt to allow the people to govern themselves. Over time, we, the people, are responsible for letting the rich and the elite decide what is right for us, and we have convinced ourselves that this is the way it should be.  If you ask the average Joe on the street if they would rather have a college-educated person running the country or would they rather have a dirt farmer with no more common sense than the person you are talking to running the country, they will, most often, defer to the college-educated person because they know that THEY don't understand all the stuff going on in the world, so hopefully such an educated person might.

Is this right? Hell no. Is it likely to change? Hell no. The only way you could even hope to mobilize a large percentage of the American populace into action these days would be to threaten something they hold as sacred. Freedom? Nah, it's just a word, but threaten to ban cigarettes or beer or something equally pointless and you might see the beginnings of a revolution.

Then again, when you look at the groups who have spoken out against things such as Vietnam or in favor of things like civil rights, it was spearheaded and controlled by the educated classes, so even "positive" things bring us right back to the same mess we find ourselves in right now with those who are in charge.

See, I think what we have NOW is the utopian system, the idea that we can elect the "right" people to unite us and lead us forward.  




the educated classes are the ones that started the vietnam war!! people in think tanks and the council on foreign relations and so forth. it's not like ordinary people were rioting in the streets in the early 60's DEMANDING we go to vietnam


the entire idea of a government is insane in a way we dismiss too easily.  I mean think about it, allowing someone to take 1/3 of your paycheck and spend it on what they think is the best way and they don't have to tell you what that is before you pay said amount of paycheck.

that's not like anything else we do with our money.  most imes we buy what we want and know beforehand what we are going to get.



part duh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHHEmWzUSM0

democracy is basically monarchy with term limits, which is worse than monarchy in some ways, namely that the people try to milk what they can out of what they briefly have, usually more than it can or would otherwise bear

Education hopefully will become more widely available to a wider range of classes and races within society, at least let's hope so.  But in the end, there's a ring of truth of that old saying..."Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

But that is not how our government was originally set up. National taxation came along later. Like I said, we ALLOWED this to happen. Instead of blaming government, blame us. We did this to ourselves. And we continue to allow it. Start a movement to end it. Otherwise, you are just stirring the pot. Personally, I just get through the day. If I felt wronged enough to change the system, I would have been disappeared by our government a long time ago or ignored like others who have correctly pointed out what is wrong with society. Leave me to my crappy movies and my heart-clogging food. I throw my vote away every election day (meaning I vote but see no change in things), and I see no change, and I don't have the oomph to try to make a change.

Have fun with the revolution. I'll watch it get distorted on Fox News.

Most people are only concerned about their own day to day  lives and don't care much about politics until it affects their pocketbooks.  As far a who gets elected, I don't know who said it, but I agree with the statement  "We get the government we deserve".

This might p**s a lot of people off, but most of the voting public are morons, people who are easily swayed and have no idea how the government works. 

Sadly true, but the concept of "lesser of two evils" isn't really there anymore. You have usually two major evils, and a couple of also-ran idiots to choose from. None of them are going to help you before they help themselves.  I just hope society can hold together long enough for me to die at a very old age, then it can consume itself. I don't think I'm gonna have that luxury.

It reminds me of Winston Churchill's old saying - "Democracy is the worst form of government in the world, with the exception of all others!"

He was mostly right.  But there is one form of government that we have not tried yet.  that is an absolute monarchy with ME in charge!  I will make all your best dreams come true!  I have Ed Wood's DNA and will clone him and make him my Minister of Culture if you will just all rise up and support me.  Chant it all together -

INDIANA SMITH FOR SUPREME RULER OF THE EARTH!!!!

PS As soon as we get me elected, someone tell Anne Hathaway to report for duty at my house, wearing a French Maid outfit!

Democracy has a lot of weaknesses to be exploited. It quickly becomes less about giving people clear options and letting them choose what they want than it is about manipulating them into voting for you by any means necessary. Bamboozle them into thinking you want what they want, make them come to you by scaring them away from the other guy - it's all good. Sure doesn't sound like the democracy people are always paying lip service to.

Here in Canada, we don't even have term limits, and our parliamentary system makes it possible for the prime minister to call elections, or for opposition parties to force an election on a minority government. It really has become all about getting power and holding it. With elections at the PM's discretion, they typically get called based on when the polls look favourable. Could be four years, or three years if there's some gain to be made, or up to five years if there's no chance of being re-elected.

Even worse, people are so distrustful of all the parties that there hasn't been a majority government in Canada for most of this decade. The result is a government that is under constant threat of an election, with just about every major piece of legislation being regarded as a potential confidence vote. I can't imagine how much effort is wasted on studying polls every time an important decision must be made, to determine if this is the time to pull the trigger. Never mind the legislation, this could be a chance to take power. The parties are all in a perpetual campaign mode. And if the polls favour a win, they'll toss it all in the toilet and start all over again, in spite of a pretty clear message from the public that we don't want another federal election after having three of them in the space of four years. We've chosen our goverment and we'd like it to get some work done. But every party seems completely convinced that the country can't get by without them in power. Funny, we're supposed to have fixed election dates now, but it means absolutely nothing when everybody still has the power to mess with it.

And even when democracy works, it seldom favours politicians with solid goals and ideas and convictions. When you average it all out, you end up, by and large, with bland, middle-of-the-road politicians who don't stand for much of anything. Just like pop music meant to please the most people, you get the lowest common denominator.

So, yeah, I'm not a huge fan of democracy as it is usually practiced. Mind you, a system of government in which everything is voluntary relies even more on the same ignorant majority who can't seem to elect a decent government. And I'm inclined to agree with the human nature argument. People are self-serving creatures by nature, and democracy's problems are largely due to that self-serving nature. Leaving everything up to each individual's conscience could be quite disastrous. I've known plenty of people who get incensed over their tax money being used for anything other than maintaining the street in front of their own house. And I've known plenty of good people with good intentions who just never get around to doing their part.

But there is another side to the human nature argument and that is that somebody is always going to take charge. You can see it in any organization that tries to run itself by consensus and give everyone an equal say. Some aggressive prick always sees a power vacuum and swoops in to fill it, dominating the whole thing. The absence of a strong elected government could very well only make room for something far more oppressive.

So to paraphrase Churchill, democracy sucks, but it's the best thing out there. The same human weaknesses that ruin democracy would surely do even more damage in any other form of government.

As for America, the last president everybody felt good about was Washington. After that, it all devolved into party lines. John Adams, a poor fool, believed that we would all decide for ourselves the best representative government. In the meantime Jefferson was funding the Fox News of his era.

Here's a funny thing. John Adams, who was the eternal pessimist about the natural goodness of man, was the first and last to place his hope in the goodness of the crowd. In the meantime, Jefferson was elegantly working propaganda like nobody else in history before him. Jefferson was such a Francophile that he believed that the bloodbath of the French Revolution was a natural extension of humanity's desire to free itself from opression.

I think that the formation of parties was inevitable. I may not agree with it, and I don't, but if you form your government this way, you don't have a lot of post-solutions.

At any rate, America is not a democracy, it's a republic.

Communism didn't work too well either, especially in my country of birth...it actually ruined it. I've always said that it's a pity the Internet didn't exist as we know it in the 1960's ~ 1980's: apartheid and Rob Mugabe would have gone down the toilet very quickly.

:thumbup:  In an imperfect world, it's the best we have, all things considered.

By definition, the average I.Q. is 100.  The larger the group, the closer the combined intelligence is to the average.  This is what politicians 'play' on: the more successful ones simply are better at appealing to 'the masses' - who are, by definiton, not very bright.  No wonder they talk down to us, act superior and dismiss us!

 All considerations of the shortcomings of human nature aside; surely having a body (group/corporation/assemblage) with an I.Q. of 100 (for lack of a better means of measurement) directly responsible for making all the decisions is going mean there are severe limitations on what that body is capable of dealing with and achieving.  Add in the apparent inability of so many to exercise personal responsibility, not to mention the tendency to avoid the effort of what reasoning they are capable of...and I don't see how any other social/governmental system can be superior to what we have.

"In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche

(http://mattdavisopenshismouth.com/wp-content/uploads/nixon.jpg)

(http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/john-edwards.jpg)


(http://thezipnews.com/graphics/Political_Characters/abramoff.jpg)



without a state you woudn't know who these poeple are. You would pay for your school, police and roads the way you pay for your newspaper  delivery and you could give all the rest of your money to something YOU care about or keep it!



you are arguing against your own point I think.  yes the herd mentality is dumber than our own respective individual minds.  

the problem isn't that we don't have an effective way of quality control for those in power.

the problem IS THE POWER ITSELF.  for example, today many republicans want war with Iran, especially when stuf fflares up over there from time to time. not all of them but alot of them.

liberals want universal healthcare, again most of them.


in both cases a group of people want control of OUR property.   can we just stop and see how insane that is?  imagine if instead of getting christmas presents your parents gave all the money for presents to the most obnoxious sibling you had and you had to petition them in hopes of getting something you wanted?  and in the end he got what he wanted and you had to try and enjoy it.  

we don't HAVE to have wars win the middle east OR universal healthcare!  isn't that amazing?

I pointed out the stupidity of the masses as an expalnation as to why democracy - real democracy - cannot function any better than it does as we know it; as an explanation of the flaws in its functioning.

I don't think think anarchy would be the utopia you seem to think it is lester.  You take a great deal for granted. What schools? What health care - the country doc up the road???  Take away all regulations, and the most aggressive individuals will quickly move into the void and be calling the shots - just as AndyC pointed out.  Your anarchy would become a series of petty dictatorships very quickly.  Much worse than what we have IMO.  You can keep your koolaid.

newt- well I learned the surest way to make someone more mad is to say "don't get mad" so react however you like.


see I dn't think it would be a utopia at all.  if the people in a given area were horrible or stupid people, all their money would for example, be hoarded to buy treats while basic functions were ignored.  or they could live in squalor and spend all their money on a fence to keep out the people they don't like or something.

our communities wold reflect who we REALLY ARE.  schools cold teach creationism instead of evolution and those students would probably have a hard time getting work in the science field. 

but that's what we have now anyway I think.  eliminating state coercian would jsut make it official.

what IS utopian is what we have NOW!  this fantasy that our government reflects the common interests of our community and that they have no interests of their own, only to express our interests.  look at the pictures I posted there and try and drink THAT kool aid.  peace sister newt  :teddyr:

lester, I wasn't angry.  Baffled, yes.  I don't waste 'angry' on the internet; it's ineffective and not appropriate.

As for the pictures you posted, OK I will admit my ignorance: the only one I recognize is Nixon; the others are nobody to me.  Maybe if I was an American it would be different, but as it is they bear no significance for me.  And no, I don't care for or feel a need of an explanation as to their place in things.  I'm sure the more politically savvy on here already know enough about the men in the pictures.

one is john edwards, a narciccistic democrat who ran for president last year while cheating on his cancer stricken wife, the other is jack aabramoff, noted corrupt lobbiest who swindled american indians out of tons of money and is now in jail i think

Not only did he cheat on his cancer stricken wife but told his mistress that they would be together as soon as she died. What is it with politicians not being able to keep it in their pants. Edwards is not the first, nor the last.. take Gingrich for example. now there is a real piece of work.  :lookingup:

Abramoff, along with NuWorld Services / NuImage is a name very close to meaning #@+##?! in the film industry here. Abramoff produced RED SCORPION which was supposed to assist the Bushmen but never did.

In jail? Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

Well i think democracy etc. is great.  PEOPLE suck, and politicians suck twice as bad. 
 I have  had opportunity to see the old communist bloc first hand, and I have friends who are in the foreign service and military in places who are um, practicing alternative forms of government... i.e the "Declare yourself President for Life" ", or the "If its not in a  1000 year old book of rules, its not allowed" schools of politics.   
Its not perfect, but in general, this is the only system that works, and say, allows you to say the things you are saying without being a) stoned or b) hauled off to gulag or a dark little room.  Lets fix the corrupt bastards and keep the system.

And I'll be sending the dark helicopters your way.
-Ed

3mnkids- these are just the guys up front.  that's why i included aabramoff.  i admit Obama is a likeable guy, but both parties have alot of edwards, nixons and abramoffs behind the scenes.

so it's just to reiterate the system can't be saved by a saviour type front guy, not for long.

trevor- I didn't know that. interesting.  those guys, abramoff and his gang were very active in the anti communist fight in the eighties in afghanistan, central america and I recall south africa was reliably anti communist was it not?  So they had lots of connections there.

they were as you indicated also huge scumbags whose anti communism was at best a front for their nefarious doings.  


of course, he is singing like a canary to reduce his sentence so could be some interesting things coming out of that.

he would do stuff like help one group of indians open a casino, then get ralph reed who is a big time christian family values guy, to have a rally right near where another indian casino wanted to open saying gambling is bad we don't want it in our community.  so there would be less competition for the first casino.




Ed- I'm not advocating for communism!!  I'm saying we have a form of it now.  I'm opposed to central planning period.  that's pretty much it.

Obama is very likable, almost too likable. It really turned me off of him at first. And you are 100% correct, both parties have some very shady people. most of them in fact. They all are in it for themselves and to hell with their constituents.  :thumbdown:  Its disgusting. Ever watch cspan?omg! I want to puke when I watch these so called adults acting worse than my 7 yr old.

You know,I can handle the occasional scandal whether it be interns or prostitutes, but what I cant stomach are the ones who hold themselves up like they are morally superior while banging interns or prostitutes.

What - NO ONE wants me as supreme ruler of earth?

FINE!!! I just flushed my Ed Wood DNA down the toilet!  take that!!!

Lester, your brand of anarchy - and I do mean anarchy in its most literal sense, that is lack of all government - would work perfectly if human beings were decent, kindhearted, and sharing creatures.

Sadly, we are not.  Whether you attribute it to man's fall from Eden or to the "survival of the fittest" Darwinist instinct, at our core, we are all greedy savages.  The best of us learn to suppress that beastial nature, but that is largely because of the fear of consequences, which are mostly inflicted by governments and their agencies.

Government prevents "the war of every man against every man."  That is its primary purpose.

Now, as to our good old U.S. Government, I happen to agree with Dave Barry.  It is worth its multiple trillion dollar a year price tag for the sheer entertainment value it provides!

Oh crap! You mean it's down in the sewer with all the toxic chemicals and microbes and organic matter? Who knows what you might have wrought?

 :buggedout: :buggedout: :buggedout:

Research tells me that the previous SA government co-funded Red Scorpion with Abramoff to diss the ANC but the film's failure put an end to that.

According to a source, Abramoff will be released in 2010 ~ after what he did to the local film industry, I wouldn't trust the man to wash my car.  :buggedout:

he, ralph reed, tom delay and grover norquist made a ton of money via the GOP gaining power 1980-2000 ish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Anarchism is the most misunderstood political philosophy out there! It has been so demonized by the elites because it is against coercive authority, hierarchy, patriarchy, religion and it is anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobia, anti-capitalist (as they see money as a form of coercive authority, albeit a symbolic one) and the fact that they want to abolish Government because it exemplifies all these things doesn't help. This is a very simplified explanation as it is a very varied school of thought. But I don't think that lester is an anarchist, he sounds more right Libertarian with his talk about property, no judgment, just saying. Anarchists consider property theft, at least most strains of it do, because it is produced off the labor of the working class through coercion ie. wage slavery by the capitalist class rather than through free associations of individuals producing for the common good. I would consider myself an Anarchist, more through thought than deed, but I am also a realist and realize at this point in history this type of society is impossible, if it ever will be. I believe people are socialized to be selfish (which is a debate itself), as this is the ethos of capitalism, which cannot be helped as it is all encompassing at the moment, but, all systems fail at some point.  :thumbup:

skuulbat- I'm an anaracho capitalist, but we probably agree on alot.  :thumbup:

Yeah I am not very dogmatic in my beliefs, there are a lot of Anarchists that consider Capitalism and Anarchism completely incompatible, but it is just a system that can be put to different uses and be reformed, it depends on the individuals practicing it. There are very good aspects to capitalism, just not as it's practiced now, at least in my opinion. But I still have a LOT to learn.

Heres a topic I've spent hours arguing about with my anarchists, commie friends, thats not an insult mind you I just have some really bizzare friends.
Technically are government was never a true democracy. Its a republic, if you go back and look you will see that are government was referred to as a republic since the beginning. The term democracy really didn't take hold until the 1900's.
The problem is as I have always said that as a population gets larger more rules and regulations are needed to keep it and the economy under control. The idea of having a system were everyone can live and work together with little or no government oversight is nice, but eventually never works because humans are selfish and stupid when they get in a large enough group. Inequality will always be around not matter what because resources are limited and only so much can go around. China and Russia both tried the method of rationing out equal portions to everyone, and millions starved as a result.
 The problem I don't think lies in are system of government as much as it lies in its over commercialization. The way media works now days is over whelm you with info then force you to take sides. And because humans are social creatures who want to be part of a group we have little choice to but chose a side. This takes the whole democracy part out of the equation because we can no longer think for our selves.
The second problem is money. Money is evil but unfortunately it's a necessary evil. We can't all pay for internet access with produce from are gardens, or expect the government to fix are roads with out resorting to slave labor. Money allows for people to get food, shelter and the amenity's of life with out them having to perform those services them selves. Its allowed even the poor in are country to still be fed and housed. Its increased are quality of living as a whole and are massive increase in population has been a direct result. Are desire to get back a simpler way of living is natural, but few truly realize how difficult it is to live that way. Money brings out many of people more un pleasant tendencies and so we get rich fat cats on wall street robbing people blind.
Lastly as I said earlier there are just to many people. How can a world of 6 billion people keep them selves restrained and under-control. The more people there are the less land there is, less food, more of us constantly having to go shoulder to shoulder with others, more competition all over. This always will lead to fighting, the only way to keep things from getting out of hand is through government oversight.
This is the part anarchist constantly over look. Small groups of people, can easily regulate them selves so long as they all believe they have a purpose and are working for something, but as soon as there is a famine, or a bad winter peoples relationships with each other break down.
It may seem I have gotten off point here but what I'm trying to point out is that nothing works perfectly and often you have to choose the lesser evil and be satisfied with it. If people want things to change then they can make them change for better or worse.  You just need to deal with it.

How would we have money without a central authority?

 :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle:

which is why I'm arguing for the exact opposite of what those people prescribed



this seems to argue against your previous point.


just as an aside, "the government" doesn't fix our roads.  our tax dollars pay for our roads to be fixed by people the government hires.  they don't have any money themselves they have our money.

ostensibly, we could pay those people to fix those roads ourselves. eliminate the middleman as it were.


ever hear of siberia?  most land in most countries is not being used.  also,  you are making the same mistake Malthus did.  in fact,  the more competition there is the more food there is.  there is not a finite amount of food and there is a finite amount of land generally only in the crowded areas and even then land that was seen as marginal (or not ideal)  before can be used if under slightly less friendly conditions




that happens anyway!!  people always say to me " if people are left to their own devices the roads and bridges will fall apart, the schools will be neglected and perverts will go around acting with impunity".

as opposed to now??


skullbat- I have n't had a lot of debates with non ancap (anarcho capitalist) anarchists because trhese aren't exactly the two biggest ideologies out there, I mainly talk politics with big time obama and sarah palin fans, but i did see noam chomsky who is ostensibly some kind of anarchist talking about ron paul type libertarianism and I was pretty shocked at how silly and frankly statist it was.  I don't think economics is among his many expert areas.

This is one of a handful of areas where the government is ideal, actually.  There's a reason even extreme libertarians don't want the government to leave the transportation sector.  When something is as extreme in scope as a national road system, the only entity large enough to manage it is a government - or a corp. so large it might as well be one, which would be really bad for reasons I think should be obvious.  A road system is not something that can be done well on a local level, and attempts to take it beyond a local level will lead to forms of authority that lead to, at the very least, a limited form of government. 

Granted, since the roads already exist, today it's largely maintenance, which could last locally for a while.  But try to imagine the interstate system ever coming into existence without a government.  It simply wouldn't happen.



....then again, considering how bland and culturally stagnant the areas surrounding the interstate are, maybe that wouldn't be so bad.

the government doens't have a bunch of masterminds for these roads, it beings together the various state and rural and they cooperate.  and the gas tax pays for the roads.

there are very few things in life that one person knows all the different parts of a given issue, 

here (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/audioessays/I_Pencil_Read.mp3) is a good illustration of this in the form of a satirical piece of writing called "I pencil"  abuot all the different industries and experts it takes to make a pencil.

(http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/2785/picture4l.jpg) (http://img686.imageshack.us/i/picture4l.jpg/)

So, they bring together all the state and rural organizations and they co-operate.  You're right that is largely between the states, but it's still government run.  I have difficulty imagining the system working well without any real oversight.  Can you provide an example of a road system on a large scale ever built without a good deal of government oversight, planning, etc?  Or anything of similar complexity in public works? 

I'm skeptical.  The burden of proof is on you for something like this.  You say anarchism is a better replacement for what we have here, but I've yet to see any compelling evidence of this.

My other question about the existence and usage of money also still stands.  Where would the basis for money come from?  What about international security, for that matter?  How would you have an army without a central government?

well we had the big dig here in boston and I'd say the oversight was pretty darn lax.  Largely this is because of corrupt bearocrats and their well conected corporate friends in the construction business who were given contracts not because they were the best available people but because their brother knew someone at city hall or something.  

the REASON massachusetts NEEDED the big dig or wanted it was because of excessive traffic and the inablity of the previous system, called the artery, to manage the job.  

people are more than willing to pay for things they need or want.  I certainly would have paid my own money for the big dig as I used it every day.   I would much rather have paid for that than the war in iraq, for example,  which I don't use everyday!

when you look at it, what government does isn't any big mystery.  if a neighborhood needs a road fixed the government, when they get around to it, calls up the road person and that person goes down there and fixes it.  the difference between that and bringing your car to the mechanic is you are free to choose which mechanic you want to go to and you and your community are not free to choose who you want to fix your roads or how much you want to pay.  you have to take the package the government has foisted on you for these things which is more of often than not pretty mediocre,




how is money used now?  until the 1970's we had the best system imaginable: the gold standard.  it had been falling apart since the inception of the federal reserve system in 1913 but here in a nutshell is what it is if you didn't know:


         for most of our county's existence the dollar was backed by gold, specifically 20 dollars equaled one ounce of gold.  so, if you had any doubts about the country or the currency you could take all of your dollars to the bank and get them changed in to gold and go on your way.  

  unfortunately, nixon went off the gold standard so now you can go to an antique shop or online broker and get an ounce of gold for 1170 dollars!!!  that's how much value our dollar has lost.  the government doesn't like to ask for more in taxes because it's unpopular so they just inflate the currency.  that's the meaning of inflation, when they print more money.  

   so, a free market system of currency would be the stablest one.  people would likly not use actual gold or silver coins but they would be accepted.  atm cards and so forth could be emplyed or paper currency where you could have the option of trading them for gold at a steady gold backed price.  this is what money is supposed to be.  



I'll get back to you on this one, I not only have to get my argument together but i have been at this answer for a while now!  sufficet to say it would be very different than the military industrial complex which is based on the passive compliance of the taxpayer and can scarcely be said to be anything resembling  "defense" of the american homeland as the constitution describes.

A "free market" of currency?  Really?  Are you aware of the state of currencies in the US before it was standardized, and the enormous problems caused?  And that was when it was largely restricted to states, let alone individual communities.  Plus, the lack of any protections on a private company printing money boggles my mind.  You'd have the most unstable and rapidly changing and fluctuating currencies (yes, plural, of course) in the entire world.  You might as well say we should bring back bartering.  I know I'd prefer it.  At least my stacks of deer skins will keep me warm when my currency is no longer in use.


This would lead to another problem: the poor areas would have awful roads (really, they'd have even worse everything than they do now in your system, leading to an even worse divide in the rich and poor), since they'd have no way of paying to fix them.  And guess what?  They'd only get worse.  Not to mention it's hard enough to get private people to band together for much of anything, let alone pooling money to fix public roads.  It wouldn't happen til it was past the point of redemption. 

the dollar has been the US currency since the nations inception and it was until recently backed by gold.  are you referring to the Continental dollar?  yes, that was a good example of how not to have a good currency and is exactly the reason why the founders CHOSE to have one backed by gold.  but it WAS the official currency

you are absolutely right about the deliterious effects of printing money without any protections.  unfortunately that IS WHAT WE HAVE NOW.  the federal reserve has printed trillions of dollars, money that is not backed by anything and that has been losing it's value steadily.  and we have no choice but to use it because businesses are forbedden from taking anything else. 




poor areas are pretty sad looking now, relatively speaking. and yet we have a 3 trillion dollar budget.

would you rather poor areas had better roads and schools or would you prefer wars in the middle east?  YOU DON"T GET TO CHOOSE


If you were allowed to keep the entirety of your paycheck you could donate 10 percent of it to the poor peoples roads initiative.

if you don't that's your prerogative.  Is it your contention that unless we have the state FORCING us to help the less fortunate we wouldn't do it?  i think it's the exact opposite, the idea that the state has all these programs is what allows people to turn away from a beggar, where once they wouldn't have done so.

I believe the poor would be much better of without a state because the state uses about 1/1000 of their budget to help the poor.  the rest goes to wars, subsidies for junk we don't need or use and the beaurocracy to run all of it!

I know this becaue I make very little money and the state does absolutely nothing for me personally.  I have to pay them taxes so that nancy pelosi and these people can form committes to study the slamander and all those peopel can get massive pensions.  given the choice I wouldn't invest in this research with these personell on such a contract but that's me.

I was referring to pre-constitution.  Bank notes, basically.  It causes a great deal of problems when a single CITY could issue what was basically its own unique currency.  It would be infinitely worse in the present day, due to much much greater interdependence in the country.


So..  You don't drive or use the roads for anything?  You don't have police protection?  A prison system?  You don't have a fire department?  The National Guard goes out of its way to avoid your area in the event of an emergency?  Your food isn't inspected for disease by anyone?  I find that difficult to believe.  Sorry.

I agree, lester.  We don't have a representative government, nor do we have a democracy or anything close to it.  If anyone's been drinking the Kool-Aid, it's the people who believe that we do have a say, and those who think that either liberals or conservatives can be trusted to make things right.

I used to be an Anarchist, but my lack of faith in human nature eventually led me to reconsider that position.  Now I'm just jaded.  One thing I do believe is that if we don't get rid of the corrupted system we have now and start over again from the ground up, things are going to go from bad to worse.

But that would require people to give up the Kool-Aid.  When they finally open their eyes, it will probably be too late.  

well again, I pay for the roads with the gas tax.  if you buy gas you are paying for the roads.

I meant the state doesn't do anything for me in the sense of the distribution of welath and helping the poor and whatnot.  the taxes collected from the rich are not distributed back to the poor.  a microscopic amount is allotted for the things you mentioned, most of which feature substandard efficiency, and the rest goes towards wars subisidies beaorcracy and other junk.  

by beaurocracy I mean departments rather than actual utilization: the department of education rather than actual schooling, the department of labor rather than actual labor.  

and no the government does not inspect food for disaease.  they issue guidlelines but companies often have even more strict guidlelines because they want to retain customers, not because they care about the states opinion on food safety.  

I would rather ALL of my taxes went to roads, schools and teachers rather than a very small portion of it, that's all.  

the state is like a package deal where you get alot of channels you don't want and don't get the ones you do want.  I want Spike, CNBC and Versus!  and I want to pay for those and just those


not if they were backed by gold.  what's infinitaly worse is going to the UK and the eurozone and having your dollars be worth half what they are here.  If the government didn't inflate the currency that wouldn't happen, but they do because they try and mamange the economy and fail.  Why would i want to be paid in a currency that steadily loses it's value? 

economist ludwig von mises "The existence of producers is a condition for the survival of conquerors. But the producers could do without the plunderers."

Yes they do. For both disease and quality.  In fact, IIRC, one issue left over from the Bush administration is he cut too much out of FDA inspections.

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/ (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/)
http://www.foodsafety.gov/compliance/inspections/index.html (http://www.foodsafety.gov/compliance/inspections/index.html)

Not to mention the health code at restaraunts and other places, which is related.  And yes FDA inspectors go out to these places.

At this point you might want to read about what the food industry was like in the era BEFORE the PFADA/FDA and USDA inspections.  Might I suggest The Jungle by Upton Sinclair?  Not the main point of the book, but its depiction of the meat industry is accurate for the time.

right and as a result of that book the companies improved standards so that customers wouldn't throw up upon eating their products.  they changed because of the consumer not because of the state.

notice that the government didn't do the study, someone in the free market did.  really it argues my point pretty well despite the governments latching on to sinclairs work with their redundent laws

do you think resteraunts would poison people if they had their way? why would they do that? they want customers. it's in their interest.


I worked at a bakery and a the health inspector did stuff like tell us we couldn't have the door open because flies would get in.  as if fresh air wasn't a quality people would wish tro have whilst browsing cookies and so forth.

The book (and others) inspired the government to look into it, leading to the Neill-Reynolds report and the Meat Inspection Act and other government agencies.  The book itself didn't lead to any changes.

I don't think business could have gone on as usual after that book.  It certainly wouldn't TODAY, I don't know what things were like in the 30's.  

if people want to of their own volition pay for health inspectors that's fine.  I just can't accept the sort of fear based rationale for it.  I mean, have you ever seen that show hells kitchen?  where gordon ramseys goes to the resteraunts and tries to fix them up?  maybe it's not hell's kitchen but Gordon ramsey is on it.  those places are like toxic waste dumps, mainly because the owners don't care about them and don't put any effort into ANY aspect of the establishments operation.

related example: we had a MASSIVE security apparatus in place before 9/11 and what happened:  the beaurocrats ignored the warnings because they are beaurocrats and basically can't be fired and/or aren't subject to market forces and have concerns that only rarely coincide with what they are ostensibly supposed to be doing.  same thing with ft hood or even virginia tech (not a government beaurocracy but a beaurcracy notheless)  and they were put in place largely to police people who hate our governments foreign policy!! so we pay for the disaease and the phony cure.  but that's a whole other issue.

I don't want to have food posioning and yes I am willing to pay for a degree of assurance of that.  probably there is a ton of waste and wasted effort in that department though