Obama questions legality of BCS system

[carlfense]

I can't fathom how we can be less than 14 months past the George W. Bush presidency and already think that Obama is "worse."

 

Exactly. The "Bush is the worst president in history" got annoying quickly as well. Odds are that neither Bush nor Obama are the worst . . . or even close to the worst presidents in history. If I were asked to guess I'd say that both are average or slightly below average. However, that opinion could change drastically for the better or worse over the next decades.

 

Meh. Maybe I'm just jaded, but I don't think we've had a decent president since Reagan. Our choices are always two evils, or three if you account for Ross Perot's candidacies.

 

This is one hell of a country. Surely we can come up with better candidates than:

 

Bush/Dukakis

Clinton/Bush

Clinton/Dole

Bush/Gore

Bush/Kerry

Obama/McCain

 

That is NOT a list of the best/brightest this country has to offer, not by a long shot. It's an indictment of the political machine more than an indictment of the country as a whole, but the end result is the same - we're not working with top-notch people.

 

Decent??? Nobody that runs for president, or any other political office for that matter, is decent. How can that even be plausible when the job entails running other people's lives, stealing people's money and using violence to achieve whatever wishes or whims he or she might have?

Boom. There it is.

[SOCALHUSKER]

F@ck the system, become a "professional party pooper."

 

 

In the past, I spent lots of money and lots of time supporting thisor that candidate, advocating for or against this or that legislation, as a lot of "political activists" have done, and continue to do. Looking back, I now not only realize that it was a total waste of time trying to beg "the system" for freedom, but I realize that it was WORSE than if I had done nothing at all. By bickering over who should be my new master, or whining to the

masters to please do what I wanted (they didn't), I was only reinforcing the notion that "the system" is legitimate--that I should HAVE a master, and that I have some obligation to do what he tells me to do.

 

The control freaks of the world have done a marvel job of diffusing the anger of their victims by convincing people to channel their frustration into something that is doomed to fail, and guaranteed to NEVER achieve freedom: voting and petitioning "government." And it works on lots and lots of people, including millions of well- meaning people who can see how bad things are getting. The trouble is, they're still stuck in the idea (planted by the tyrants and

their mouthpieces) that if you want to change how things are, you have to "work within the system."

 

And what "system" is that? The system set up by the tyrants. It's like the Mafia telling you, if you don't like what they're doing, you should present your complaints to "Switchblade Guido" and "Tire Iron Tony." How much good do you think that will do? And yet MOST people who are trying to change our current "government" are trying to do so within the rules made up BY THE CROOKS, i.e., "the political process." Why would they do such a thing? For the same reason I did it for years: because everyone around them echoes the message that voting and lobbying are the only civilized way to achieve change. In reality, they're a way to get exhausted while achieving nothing.

 

A couple weeks ago I gave a talk entitled "Politics, Inside Out." I think everyone there would agree that something is horribly wrong with "government" today, but beyond that, they seemed to have pretty diverse ideas and philosophies. Many of them were devoted political activists (and at least a couple were candidates). I didn't meet everyone individually, but there were obviously a lot of sincere, good people there. And it was my job to be the

professional party-pooper.

 

In short, I explained (in a somewhat unusual format) how the control freaks of the world DESIGN "the system" in such a way that "working within the system" will never stop tyranny. In fact, it actually HELPS tyranny, by giving the ILLUSION that the people choose their "leaders," and that the masters are actually "representatives" and "public servants." Without the illusion that "the system" allows the people to change things, there would have been open resistance long ago.

 

As I've said before, if Red China invaded and took over (never mind that it's not tactically possible) and tried to impose a 50% tax on everyone, the people would immediately and forcibly resist. But when the SAME thing is done to us by people pretending to be "our government," pretending to "represent" us, pretending to be "serving" us, pretending to be doing what they're doing for the common good, and pretending that we gave them permission to do it--

all we do is sit around and whine about it ... and keep sending in money.

 

It's not surprising that some people respond negatively when they're told that what they've been doing for years, the work they've been pouring their hearts and souls into, has all been a pointless waste of time, or maybe something worse. So a few people at Wednesday's talk had tantrums at me, which I don't mind at all.(I would have had a tantrum too, if someone said those things to me some years ago.) I only hope that, after the smoke stops coming out of their ears, they take some time to THINK about things. Does voting actually accomplish anything? Do petitions and calls to congressmen do anything? There is one thing that "political action" does do: it tells the tyrants, in no uncertain terms, that we still think that we need THEIR permission before we can be free. Maybe it's time to stop telling them that.

 

Wouldn't it be fun if NO ONE called or wrote to "their" congressmen, no one showed up at the phony "town hall" meetings, and no one paid any attention to the parasite class at all? Tyranny could literally be IGNORED out of existence. But that won't happen until the people stop worshiping the Uber Nanny called "government."

[SOCALHUSKER]

Decent??? Nobody that runs for president, or any other political office for that matter, is decent. How can that even be plausible when the job entails running other people's lives, stealing people's money and using violence to achieve whatever wishes or whims he or she might have?

Boom. There it is.

I knew you were waiting on it!! HA HA!!

[zoogs]

Going to continue this tangent, but I think it's OK that the candidates aren't all that decent. If we were really all about finding the best possible, most capable guy to be president, then we would not be putting it up to an election. We wouldn't be putting it in the hands of the people...we're stupid, especially as a collective.

 

I think it's part of democracy: inefficiency, bureaucracy, not always having the best guy. But what's important is that it's stable, and that we have guys to do the job, a neat system of checks against their power so one guy doesn't go all ballistic, and at the same time certain limited executive privileges that allow the pres. to function as the nation needs him to in times of crises. Most significantly, we ACCEPT as a nation, the results of elections, and always concede the guy's right to his position. That's why I have pretty little respect for people who sit on the streets with posters questioning Obama's birth certificate or other loonies like that, or the people who keep wanting to impeach the president just because he's from the other party.

 

If we don't have this system, we have different, powerful factions who are convinced they are right, aren't willing to concede, and will use whatever means necessary to have their way. Military coups, political upheaval, violence, etc. Come think of it, threats of impeachment are pretty tame in comparison.

[sarge87]

So who will he appoint as his athletics czar?

No doubt someone who is totally unqualified and has no interest or knowledge of football....i'm thinking helen thomas....

 

Whoops! I thought this was the look-alike thread.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Going to continue this tangent, but I think it's OK that the candidates aren't all that decent. If we were really all about finding the best possible, most capable guy to be president, then we would not be putting it up to an election. We wouldn't be putting it in the hands of the people...we're stupid, especially as a collective.

 

I think it's part of democracy: inefficiency, bureaucracy, not always having the best guy. But what's important is that it's stable, and that we have guys to do the job, a neat system of checks against their power so one guy doesn't go all ballistic, and at the same time certain limited executive privileges that allow the pres. to function as the nation needs him to in times of crises. Most significantly, we ACCEPT as a nation, the results of elections, and always concede the guy's right to his position. That's why I have pretty little respect for people who sit on the streets with posters questioning Obama's birth certificate or other loonies like that, or the people who keep wanting to impeach the president just because he's from the other party.

 

If we don't have this system, we have different, powerful factions who are convinced they are right, aren't willing to concede, and will use whatever means necessary to have their way. Military coups, political upheaval, violence, etc. Come think of it, threats of impeachment are pretty tame in comparison.

Yeah, it would be OK for politicians to be indecent as long as they didn’t pretend to be a solution to the world’s problems or if they refrained from making decisions that can and do affect other people’s lives. However, since both are impossible, and government is as inefficient as you suggest, wouldn’t a better solution be to allow individuals to run their own lives and then accept responsibility for their own actions?

 

You mention that government is stable, but by who’s standard? Is non-stop warfare, an overwhelming and always-growing police and surveillance state, a deterioration of personal liberty, an increase in the prosecution of victimless crimes, an increase in government regulation, a reoccurring boom and bust business cycle, and an ever-devaluation of the currency and savings what you would consider stable? I’d hardly say so.

 

And as far as checks and balances, you have got to be kidding me? Who do you really believe the check is on? Since government is, by definition, a monopoly; the only check in place is that of ensuring that one branch of government does not step in and attempt to take a slice of another’s branch’s stolen money or power. How does that protect you and would you really consider that a check?

 

Lastly, who ACCEPTS the results of the elections? Maybe those who vote, but what about those who don’t? And do you really believe that without our current system that coups, upheaval and violence would occur? Did it ever dawn on you that maybe all of those are effects of government and not a result of the absence of them?

[zoogs]

Ah, anarchism Always a fun debate.

 

I've had some libertarian tendencies in the past but I'm moving away from that a little. I think ideally, the less government, the better, but you know, it kind of works. How is our day-to-day lives not standard? A total meritocracy, the kind Rand extols about in Fountainhead, is a wonderfully appealing idea that I just don't think holds too much weight.

 

There are reasons to give up total and extreme levels of individual freedom. The comfort and structures we end up with (and which we, including you, enjoy every day without even pausing to think about it) - as an example. The need to care for fellow people who are either less well off, or just complete bums, because they're still people and part of our society. Sacrificing a bit of potential quality of life to improve things for everybody. Selfishness and meritocracy are virtues in some extent, but is that the kind of world most of us want to live in? Not really. We value safety nets. We give up the goal of optimizing because we're not machines.

 

You mention that government is stable, but by who’s standard? Is non-stop warfare, an overwhelming and always-growing police and surveillance state, a deterioration of personal liberty, an increase in the prosecution of victimless crimes, an increase in government regulation, a reoccurring boom and bust business cycle, and an ever-devaluation of the currency and savings what you would consider stable? I’d hardly say so.

 

What's not so stable about our way of life? When you see a government that keeps collapsing and changing hands in power, that's not stable. The US, for all its flaws that you might point out, is pretty darn rock solid. Do you really, really feel repressed? oppressed? This is probably the country where you are most free to make your own way in life, speak your mind however you want, and do whatever you want. Ironic that you feel your liberties are gone.

 

Ever-devaluation of currency? Sorry - I must be misunderstanding that point, because that's just inflation. Which is OK. And better than deflation.

 

And as far as checks and balances, you have got to be kidding me? Who do you really believe the check is on? Since government is, by definition, a monopoly; the only check in place is that of ensuring that one branch of government does not step in and attempt to take a slice of another’s branch’s stolen money or power. How does that protect you and would you really consider that a check?

 

Let's be real here, the government is not one entity. It's two parties, effectively, divided in different configurations among three main branches at the federal level. When one party is in control of the executive branch, Congress can still check its power. Or, if you're the Democratic Party, you can be in control of both the executive and legislative branches, and still somehow end up powerless to do anything. In other words, one party of power can't go psycho and just do as they wish. And that protects the people from systems of more absolute power (look at some of the monarchies or ruthless periods of one-party rule in Russia) - and tell me that what we haven't isn't different. Maybe a more helpful analogy in anti-government terms: when there are three predators fighting over the same prey, the prey catches a break as the predators fight with each other instead.

 

Lastly, who ACCEPTS the results of the elections? Maybe those who vote, but what about those who don’t? And do you really believe that without our current system that coups, upheaval and violence would occur? Did it ever dawn on you that maybe all of those are effects of government and not a result of the absence of them?

 

YOU do. People who don't and say they don't have a funny way of going by legal, peaceful and inconsequential means of "non-acceptance". People who don't vote, accept it. There's a big difference between disagreeing, and not accepting. If huffing and puffing and writing paragraphs against the system is the extent of "non-acceptance", then I'd say things are pretty stable. Hey, there are plenty of places that HAVE governments and coups occur all the time. Now there's some real non-acceptance of power. When a guy loses an election here though, he concedes, some people are angry, and then we get on with our lives mostly the same as before. He doesn't call up the army and run over DC. Create a power void, or even a position of power, and it'll get filled one way or the other. Luckily for us, nobody really even thinks of "other."

 

There's a lot of stirring language and neat buzzwords thrown around every time one of these debates comes up, but at the end of the day, you get in the car, drive home on government-built roads, go home to your government-protected neighborhood where you check your USPS delivered mail and enjoy sleeping under the protection of the government-run badass military. Is it really so necessary to convince yourself that you are unhappy and being wronged? Nothing is ever perfect, but there are ways of making real differences, to people and to society, and I don't think tossing around buzzwords and devoting so much of your life to the same hackneyed tirade will get you anywhere. Not to say it's not an interesting point to consider or a worthy argument to make. But as a life mission? I don't know. Handed down to you by a politician, no less. I'm sure Mr. Paul is different.

 

Just my thoughts

[SOCALHUSKER]

Ah, anarchism Always a fun debate.

 

I've had some libertarian tendencies in the past but I'm moving away from that a little. I think ideally, the less government, the better, but you know, it kind of works. How is our day-to-day lives not standard? A total meritocracy, the kind Rand extols about in Fountainhead, is a wonderfully appealing idea that I just don't think holds too much weight.

 

There are reasons to give up total and extreme levels of individual freedom. The comfort and structures we end up with (and which we, including you, enjoy every day without even pausing to think about it) - as an example. The need to care for fellow people who are either less well off, or just complete bums, because they're still people and part of our society. Sacrificing a bit of potential quality of life to improve things for everybody. Selfishness and meritocracy are virtues in some extent, but is that the kind of world most of us want to live in? Not really. We value safety nets. We give up the goal of optimizing because we're not machines.

 

You mention that government is stable, but by who’s standard? Is non-stop warfare, an overwhelming and always-growing police and surveillance state, a deterioration of personal liberty, an increase in the prosecution of victimless crimes, an increase in government regulation, a reoccurring boom and bust business cycle, and an ever-devaluation of the currency and savings what you would consider stable? I’d hardly say so.

 

What's not so stable about our way of life? When you see a government that keeps collapsing and changing hands in power, that's not stable. The US, for all its flaws that you might point out, is pretty darn rock solid. Do you really, really feel repressed? oppressed? This is probably the country where you are most free to make your own way in life, speak your mind however you want, and do whatever you want. Ironic that you feel your liberties are gone.

 

Ever-devaluation of currency? Sorry - I must be misunderstanding that point, because that's just inflation. Which is OK. And better than deflation.

 

And as far as checks and balances, you have got to be kidding me? Who do you really believe the check is on? Since government is, by definition, a monopoly; the only check in place is that of ensuring that one branch of government does not step in and attempt to take a slice of another’s branch’s stolen money or power. How does that protect you and would you really consider that a check?

 

Let's be real here, the government is not one entity. It's two parties, effectively, divided in different configurations among three main branches at the federal level. When one party is in control of the executive branch, Congress can still check its power. Or, if you're the Democratic Party, you can be in control of both the executive and legislative branches, and still somehow end up powerless to do anything. In other words, one party of power can't go psycho and just do as they wish. And that protects the people from systems of more absolute power (look at some of the monarchies or ruthless periods of one-party rule in Russia) - and tell me that what we haven't isn't different. Maybe a more helpful analogy in anti-government terms: when there are three predators fighting over the same prey, the prey catches a break as the predators fight with each other instead.

 

Lastly, who ACCEPTS the results of the elections? Maybe those who vote, but what about those who don’t? And do you really believe that without our current system that coups, upheaval and violence would occur? Did it ever dawn on you that maybe all of those are effects of government and not a result of the absence of them?

 

YOU do. People who don't and say they don't have a funny way of going by legal, peaceful and inconsequential means of "non-acceptance". People who don't vote, accept it. There's a big difference between disagreeing, and not accepting. If huffing and puffing and writing paragraphs against the system is the extent of "non-acceptance", then I'd say things are pretty stable. Hey, there are plenty of places that HAVE governments and coups occur all the time. Now there's some real non-acceptance of power. When a guy loses an election here though, he concedes, some people are angry, and then we get on with our lives mostly the same as before. He doesn't call up the army and run over DC. Create a power void, or even a position of power, and it'll get filled one way or the other. Luckily for us, nobody really even thinks of "other."

 

There's a lot of stirring language and neat buzzwords thrown around every time one of these debates comes up, but at the end of the day, you get in the car, drive home on government-built roads, go home to your government-protected neighborhood where you check your USPS delivered mail and enjoy sleeping under the protection of the government-run badass military. Is it really so necessary to convince yourself that you are unhappy and being wronged? Nothing is ever perfect, but there are ways of making real differences, to people and to society, and I don't think tossing around buzzwords and devoting so much of your life to the same hackneyed tirade will get you anywhere. Not to say it's not an interesting point to consider or a worthy argument to make. But as a life mission? I don't know. Handed down to you by a politician, no less. I'm sure Mr. Paul is different.

 

Just my thoughts

Yes, anarchism!! I do love it so!!

 

And while your excuses and eloquent jargon for sanctioning the use of force against other individuals might be well-intentioned or even egalitarian, the fact still remains that using force as a means to an end is immoral, impractical and creates bigger and worse problems than anything it might attempt to remedy. Have a good day.

[T_O_Bull]

Don't our elected officials have more important things to worry about besides the BCS? If the Socialist-in-Chief thinks that sticking his nose into the BCS will boost his dismal approval ratings, he's got another thing coming.

 

[T_O_Bull]

Yeah, but he needs to leave college football the heck alone

 

I'm a big Obama fan, but not in this regard.

 

The BCS needs to leave college football aqlone.

T_O_B

[T_O_Bull]

I can't fathom how we can be less than 14 months past the George W. Bush presidency and already think that Obama is "worse."

 

Exactly. The "Bush is the worst president in history" got annoying quickly as well. Odds are that neither Bush nor Obama are the worst . . . or even close to the worst presidents in history. If I were asked to guess I'd say that both are average or slightly below average. However, that opinion could change drastically for the better or worse over the next decades.

 

Meh. Maybe I'm just jaded, but I don't think we've had a decent president since Reagan. Our choices are always two evils, or three if you account for Ross Perot's candidacies.

 

This is one hell of a country. Surely we can come up with better candidates than:

 

Bush/Dukakis

Clinton/Bush

Clinton/Dole

Bush/Gore

Bush/Kerry

Obama/McCain

 

That is NOT a list of the best/brightest this country has to offer, not by a long shot. It's an indictment of the political machine more than an indictment of the country as a whole, but the end result is the same - we're not working with top-notch people.

[T_O_Bull]

Ah, anarchism Always a fun debate.

 

I've had some libertarian tendencies in the past but I'm moving away from that a little. I think ideally, the less government, the better, but you know, it kind of works. How is our day-to-day lives not standard? A total meritocracy, the kind Rand extols about in Fountainhead, is a wonderfully appealing idea that I just don't think holds too much weight.

 

There are reasons to give up total and extreme levels of individual freedom. The comfort and structures we end up with (and which we, including you, enjoy every day without even pausing to think about it) - as an example. The need to care for fellow people who are either less well off, or just complete bums, because they're still people and part of our society. Sacrificing a bit of potential quality of life to improve things for everybody. Selfishness and meritocracy are virtues in some extent, but is that the kind of world most of us want to live in? Not really. We value safety nets. We give up the goal of optimizing because we're not machines.

 

You mention that government is stable, but by who’s standard? Is non-stop warfare, an overwhelming and always-growing police and surveillance state, a deterioration of personal liberty, an increase in the prosecution of victimless crimes, an increase in government regulation, a reoccurring boom and bust business cycle, and an ever-devaluation of the currency and savings what you would consider stable? I’d hardly say so.

 

What's not so stable about our way of life? When you see a government that keeps collapsing and changing hands in power, that's not stable. The US, for all its flaws that you might point out, is pretty darn rock solid. Do you really, really feel repressed? oppressed? This is probably the country where you are most free to make your own way in life, speak your mind however you want, and do whatever you want. Ironic that you feel your liberties are gone.

 

Ever-devaluation of currency? Sorry - I must be misunderstanding that point, because that's just inflation. Which is OK. And better than deflation.

 

And as far as checks and balances, you have got to be kidding me? Who do you really believe the check is on? Since government is, by definition, a monopoly; the only check in place is that of ensuring that one branch of government does not step in and attempt to take a slice of another’s branch’s stolen money or power. How does that protect you and would you really consider that a check?

 

Let's be real here, the government is not one entity. It's two parties, effectively, divided in different configurations among three main branches at the federal level. When one party is in control of the executive branch, Congress can still check its power. Or, if you're the Democratic Party, you can be in control of both the executive and legislative branches, and still somehow end up powerless to do anything. In other words, one party of power can't go psycho and just do as they wish. And that protects the people from systems of more absolute power (look at some of the monarchies or ruthless periods of one-party rule in Russia) - and tell me that what we haven't isn't different. Maybe a more helpful analogy in anti-government terms: when there are three predators fighting over the same prey, the prey catches a break as the predators fight with each other instead.

 

Lastly, who ACCEPTS the results of the elections? Maybe those who vote, but what about those who don’t? And do you really believe that without our current system that coups, upheaval and violence would occur? Did it ever dawn on you that maybe all of those are effects of government and not a result of the absence of them?

 

YOU do. People who don't and say they don't have a funny way of going by legal, peaceful and inconsequential means of "non-acceptance". People who don't vote, accept it. There's a big difference between disagreeing, and not accepting. If huffing and puffing and writing paragraphs against the system is the extent of "non-acceptance", then I'd say things are pretty stable. Hey, there are plenty of places that HAVE governments and coups occur all the time. Now there's some real non-acceptance of power. When a guy loses an election here though, he concedes, some people are angry, and then we get on with our lives mostly the same as before. He doesn't call up the army and run over DC. Create a power void, or even a position of power, and it'll get filled one way or the other. Luckily for us, nobody really even thinks of "other."

 

There's a lot of stirring language and neat buzzwords thrown around every time one of these debates comes up, but at the end of the day, you get in the car, drive home on government-built roads, go home to your government-protected neighborhood where you check your USPS delivered mail and enjoy sleeping under the protection of the government-run badass military. Is it really so necessary to convince yourself that you are unhappy and being wronged? Nothing is ever perfect, but there are ways of making real differences, to people and to society, and I don't think tossing around buzzwords and devoting so much of your life to the same hackneyed tirade will get you anywhere. Not to say it's not an interesting point to consider or a worthy argument to make. But as a life mission? I don't know. Handed down to you by a politician, no less. I'm sure Mr. Paul is different.

 

Just my thoughts

Yes, anarchism!! I do love it so!!

 

And while your excuses and eloquent jargon for sanctioning the use of force against other individuals might be well-intentioned or even egalitarian, the fact still remains that using force as a means to an end is immoral, impractical and creates bigger and worse problems than anything it might attempt to remedy. Have a good day.

[knapplc]

...the fact still remains that using force as a means to an end is immoral, impractical and creates bigger and worse problems than anything it might attempt to remedy. Have a good day.

 

That's an opinion, not a fact. It is also an opinion that force is inherent in authority.

 

Further, force does not always lead to "bigger and worse problems than anything it might remedy." Force can sometimes lead to bigger and worse problems, but certainly not always.

[T_O_Bull]

Ah, anarchism Always a fun debate.

 

I've had some libertarian tendencies in the past but I'm moving away from that a little. I think ideally, the less government, the better, but you know, it kind of works. How is our day-to-day lives not standard? A total meritocracy, the kind Rand extols about in Fountainhead, is a wonderfully appealing idea that I just don't think holds too much weight.

 

There are reasons to give up total and extreme levels of individual freedom. The comfort and structures we end up with (and which we, including you, enjoy every day without even pausing to think about it) - as an example. The need to care for fellow people who are either less well off, or just complete bums, because they're still people and part of our society. Sacrificing a bit of potential quality of life to improve things for everybody. Selfishness and meritocracy are virtues in some extent, but is that the kind of world most of us want to live in? Not really. We value safety nets. We give up the goal of optimizing because we're not machines.

 

You mention that government is stable, but by who’s standard? Is non-stop warfare, an overwhelming and always-growing police and surveillance state, a deterioration of personal liberty, an increase in the prosecution of victimless crimes, an increase in government regulation, a reoccurring boom and bust business cycle, and an ever-devaluation of the currency and savings what you would consider stable? I’d hardly say so.

 

What's not so stable about our way of life? When you see a government that keeps collapsing and changing hands in power, that's not stable. The US, for all its flaws that you might point out, is pretty darn rock solid. Do you really, really feel repressed? oppressed? This is probably the country where you are most free to make your own way in life, speak your mind however you want, and do whatever you want. Ironic that you feel your liberties are gone.

 

Ever-devaluation of currency? Sorry - I must be misunderstanding that point, because that's just inflation. Which is OK. And better than deflation.

 

And as far as checks and balances, you have got to be kidding me? Who do you really believe the check is on? Since government is, by definition, a monopoly; the only check in place is that of ensuring that one branch of government does not step in and attempt to take a slice of another’s branch’s stolen money or power. How does that protect you and would you really consider that a check?

 

Let's be real here, the government is not one entity. It's two parties, effectively, divided in different configurations among three main branches at the federal level. When one party is in control of the executive branch, Congress can still check its power. Or, if you're the Democratic Party, you can be in control of both the executive and legislative branches, and still somehow end up powerless to do anything. In other words, one party of power can't go psycho and just do as they wish. And that protects the people from systems of more absolute power (look at some of the monarchies or ruthless periods of one-party rule in Russia) - and tell me that what we haven't isn't different. Maybe a more helpful analogy in anti-government terms: when there are three predators fighting over the same prey, the prey catches a break as the predators fight with each other instead.

 

Lastly, who ACCEPTS the results of the elections? Maybe those who vote, but what about those who don’t? And do you really believe that without our current system that coups, upheaval and violence would occur? Did it ever dawn on you that maybe all of those are effects of government and not a result of the absence of them?

 

YOU do. People who don't and say they don't have a funny way of going by legal, peaceful and inconsequential means of "non-acceptance". People who don't vote, accept it. There's a big difference between disagreeing, and not accepting. If huffing and puffing and writing paragraphs against the system is the extent of "non-acceptance", then I'd say things are pretty stable. Hey, there are plenty of places that HAVE governments and coups occur all the time. Now there's some real non-acceptance of power. When a guy loses an election here though, he concedes, some people are angry, and then we get on with our lives mostly the same as before. He doesn't call up the army and run over DC. Create a power void, or even a position of power, and it'll get filled one way or the other. Luckily for us, nobody really even thinks of "other."

 

There's a lot of stirring language and neat buzzwords thrown around every time one of these debates comes up, but at the end of the day, you get in the car, drive home on government-built roads, go home to your government-protected neighborhood where you check your USPS delivered mail and enjoy sleeping under the protection of the government-run badass military. Is it really so necessary to convince yourself that you are unhappy and being wronged? Nothing is ever perfect, but there are ways of making real differences, to people and to society, and I don't think tossing around buzzwords and devoting so much of your life to the same hackneyed tirade will get you anywhere. Not to say it's not an interesting point to consider or a worthy argument to make. But as a life mission? I don't know. Handed down to you by a politician, no less. I'm sure Mr. Paul is different.

 

Just my thoughts

Yes, anarchism!! I do love it so!!

 

And while your excuses and eloquent jargon for sanctioning the use of force against other individuals might be well-intentioned or even egalitarian, the fact still remains that using force as a means to an end is immoral, impractical and creates bigger and worse problems than anything it might attempt to remedy. Have a good day.

 

SOCAL I think you are probably as close to being left alone, to live your life in any way you please, as you could possibly ever be.. In most places you views might well have already got you thrown into a dungeon. I know that taxes are a way for the government to, as you say 'steal' my money but as far as I'm concerned its a small price to pay, if only for the fact that the govt. has cleared the 37" of snow off our roads here in SD and the fact that I don't have to travel by dog sled or wear snow shoes to get to the grocery store that probably can't even get the needed goods because there is no way to get the goods to them.

T_O_B

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Ever-devaluation of currency? Sorry - I must be misunderstanding that point, because that's just inflation. Which is OK. And better than deflation.

 

 

If this is truly what you believe, then you really have a lot to learn. I'd suggest you put down the Keynesian playbook, use some logic and please study "real" economics. Contrary to popular opinion, yours included, inflation is not good, beneficial nor is it simply a rise in prices. In fact, rising prices are merely an effect of inflation. Instead, inflation is an increase in the total money supply. A term derived from inflating, meaning pumping up. As with any other valued commodity, when the money supply, in this case the dollar, is increased; the value of each dollar itself decreases along with the purchasing power it once held. Since there is more money in the system, more people have the ability to spend, therefore bidding up demand, which in turn leads to a rise in prices. By merely referring to rising prices as inflation, the root cause of the problem remains hidden and the real culprits are allowed to continue their robbery This means that unless you receive and spend the money first, which just so happens to be the government, those who are politically connected or those doing the inflating, everyone else is stuck with what amounts to a hidden tax, both a devalued currency and rising prices. How can you say either are beneficial?

 

You might say that increasing the money supply means increased spending and maybe some artificial growth, but even that aspect of inflation is destructive and unsustainable. In reality, it doesn't create any real growth nor does it fix any problems; it only serves to exacerbate them. A healthy, growing economy is not based upon spending or debt at all, it's based upon capital. Capital can only come from savings. However, when inflation occurs, not only does consumer spending increase but prices do as well. Either way, both lead to a decrease in savings and when this happens, capital dries up and the economy cannot grow. Not only this, but the credit expansion brought about by inflation also leads to reckless spending and a misallocation of resources. When credit is expanded and more readily available, individuals will take uncalculated risks and invest in ventures that have an artificial and no real demand. Unfortunately, in the real world government inflation is unsustainable, lest the currency become completely debased. When this happens and the supply is reeled in what occurs are depressions and recessions. And although both are necessary to reallocate resources to more beneficial and purposeful ventures, they are both destructive, stressful and yet easily avoidable. Since this is the case, and inflation is the cause of it, how then can you really say that inflation is good? Besides, don't take my word for it. Instead, take a minute and read what "real" economists have to say about it.