This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: What Kind Of Power Should Government Have Over Your Life?

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by Brandon Smith from Alt-Market

What Kind Of Power Should Government Have Over Your Life?

The concept of government power is a strange and complex cipher.  The existence of governments has always been predicated on assumptions of necessity, but few societies have ever truly considered what those necessities might be.  What is government actually good for?  What do they do that is so important?  And, what happens when a government fails in the roles and duties that a culture deems vital?  We tend to view government as an inevitability of life, but the fact is, government is NOT a force of nature, it is a creation of man, and it can be dismantled by men just as easily as it can be established.

In America, many people see government as an extension of the Republic, or even the source, and an animal that feeds at the behest of the common citizen.  An often heard argument against the idea of drastic change or even rebellion within the establishment system is the assertion that the government “is us”.  That it is made of Americans, by Americans, and for Americans.  That there is no separation between the public, and the base of power.  This is, of course, a childish and fantastical delusion drawn from a complete lack of understanding as to how our system really operates today.  How many people out there who make this argument really believe at their very core that they have any legitimate influence over the actions of the state?  I wager not many…   

At bottom, to cling to the lie that the government as it stands is a construct of the people is an act of pure denial designed to help the lost masses cope with underlying feelings of utter powerlessness.  

Unfortunately, the U.S. government has shown clearly through word and action that its concerns are not with the average American, and that its loyalties rest with decidedly smaller and more elite interest groups.  When elections once meant to dissuade political abuse become a false paradigm tool for the maximization of tyranny, have we not lost our voice as a society?  When any government decides it is no longer concerned with the freedom and prosperity of a nation, no matter how righteous that government claims to be, we MUST, as citizens, ask ourselves whether that government is still useful to us, and what kind of power it should be allowed to wield.   It is a dereliction of our duty not just as Americans but as human beings to simply treat government as a realm outside of our control or concern.  It is lazy.  It is dangerous.  It could very well be disastrous.  Government should answer to us, now and forever.

As the new millennium stampedes forward, however, it appears that the intended roles of the American dynamic have been reversed.  The progression of the past decade has seen a hailstorm of legislation and executive orders that impede personal liberties and erode Constitutional protections in place for centuries.  So many trails towards totalitarianism have been blazed recently that it is becoming difficult to track them all, and yet, I do not think many in our country have asked themselves what this means to their future.  What kind of rights are you ready to hand over to government?  How many aspects of your life should the establishment be able to dictate?  How much freedom are you willing to give away?

While pondering these questions, each man and woman should also take into account the powers that those in government THINK they deserve.  What have they asked for lately?  What have they taken without permission?  Here is just a short list of the more detrimental declarations of authority attempted over the past decade along with the pieces of legislation and executives orders used to make them “all legal”…

The Power To Invade Your Privacy

The U.S. government has long held at least a private belief that it should be allowed access to every aspect of a citizens personal life.  In the past, the excuse of criminal suspicion was a standard rationalization, but this expanded beyond the targeting of individuals to broader surveillance of the populace as a whole with the advent of the drug war.  Financial records especially became subject to government perusal without warrant and generally without any criminal charges filed. 

This trampling of the 4th Amendment over a fabrication of a “war” on substances that by all rights should be legal anyway was just a taste of what was to come.  With the explosion of the war on terror (another fabricated conflict), the application of mass surveillance became standardized.  The Patriot Acts and the FISA bill, both upheld by so called “Republican” and “Democratic” presidents, have opened the door for centralized electronic spying in the name of “national security”.  Never before has the world seen such an unbridled assault on the private lives of common citizens.  The big brother grids of the Soviet era are child’s play compared to the data mining of the 21st century, and this tyranny is made possible by the marriage of government and corporate interests, working in tandem to ensure an ever tightening net.

The usual ill conceived debate point for such surveillance is the claim that it is “for the greater good”, for our own safety, and that if we have nothing to hide, we have nothing to fear.  It is not uncommon for slaves to embrace the loss of privacy in the name of safety, even if that feeling of safety is an illusion, but, in the end, whether we have something to hide is none of the government’s concern.  In a true Republic, innocent until proven guilty is a paramount ideal, and this ideal cannot exist in a country where everyone is treated as a suspect at every moment of every day.  No politician, no corporate body, no president, no alphabet agency in existence is exalted enough to play the all seeing all judging eye of god.  This kind of power in the hands of an organization whose sole purpose is self preservation and expansion at any cost?  Absolutely unacceptable!

The Power To Silence

From the DHS, to the private Federal Reserve, to Google and Facebook, the tides of opinion and social observation are being tracked, catalogued, and flagged for future intervention.  With active programs now in place to identify and isolate negative online criticism of these institutions as well as to marginalize freelance web journalists and more mainstream media icons with a strong voice, the general public is finally beginning to see what we in the Liberty Movement have been warning about for years:

The invasion of privacy is merely the first step in the process of silencing dissent.  If the citizenry is put in a position in which they know they are constantly being watched, they may decide to censor themselves to avoid possible retribution.  In fact, the destruction of free speech has always been accomplished in history first by the target population itself. Terrified of real and imagined consequences, people begin to filter their own views, until a single harmless and homogenized collective voice forms.

The near miss of SOPA legislation has proven as well that the government hopes to one day be able to summarily vaporize internet outlets based on whatever guidelines they see fit to apply.  It also showed that the American public is not going to roll over while this occurs.  I think it safe to say that the internet is the very last bastion of free speech in the world, free from filtration, bureaucratic meddling, and corporate vampirism.  SOPA was a test case.  New and more subversive methods will arise, and shutting down the web as we know it will be a number priority for our government for the foreseeable future.

“Free speech zones” aside, protest is becoming far more difficult in this country.  Less-than-lethal devices like tasers, rubber bullets, tear gas, sound cannons, microwave guns, etc. have “humanized” the act of government violence against peaceful protest, but the effects of violating the 1st Amendment are the same.  Add to this the use of Fusion Centers to coordinate armies of riot cops with the help of the DHS, the FBI, and even the military, and you have a high grade goon machine constructed to undermine the people’s right to redress grievances.  It has become obvious that this government not only wants to stifle your ability to affect change through electoral means, but it is also determined to make sure you can’t openly complain about being muscled out of the political process either.

The Power To Financially Destroy

Of course, much of the economic distress that we suffer today was generated by the corrupt activities of the Federal Reserve (a privately controlled banking cartel) and global financing conglomerates like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs, however, the government’s complicity in these activities cannot be denied.  It was the Congressional repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act that gave international banks the ability to derivitize massive numbers of mortgages and create the ongoing implosion of the housing bubble.  It was the SEC that turned the other cheek for years while credit fraud flooded markets and ratings agencies gave AAA status to toxic and basically worthless assets.  It is the U.S. government to this day that defends the Federal Reserve’s nonstop quantitative easing, the destruction of the dollar, and increased deficit spending driving our nation even deeper into debt.  The passage of the bailouts despite an 80% opposition from the public sent a stark message; the government does not care what you think about the economy, and will do what it pleases, even if it means destroying your means of fiscal survival. 

The Power To Imprison Without Trial

The NDAA is truly a perfect representation of the kind of power the government would like to have over the people, no questions asked.  The Obama Administration’s half hearted promises to not use the provisions of the legislation to detain American citizens indefinitely without trial are little comfort, especially when one considers that the man has not kept a single positive promise since taking office in 2008.  Frankly, I would have slightly more respect for the president (which isn't much) if he had the guts to come out and admit what the language of the NDAA clearly states; that American citizens can and will be designated as enemy combatants under the rules of war, and that anyone, regardless of citizenship, can be labeled a “terrorist” for any reason by the executive branch.

I suppose the one good side-effect of the passage of the NDAA is the level of awakening going on in the American public to the direction our country is taking.  Not to mention, the scrambling that political representatives now have to do to cover themselves and explain away their support for the draconian measures.

For those who do not grasp the ultimate goal of this kind of legislation, the NDAA seems outlandish, or insane.  But, in a certain light, it is perfectly logical.  A government that seeks totalitarian control is REQUIRED to remove the protections that a jury trial affords, otherwise, it cannot function in the manner it desires.  If a person is given the opportunity of a jury by his peers, this takes the ability to criminalize out of the hands of government and places it in the hands of a third party.  Just as in the economy, the globalists who stand at the helm of our country would very much like to centralize law.  This means removing all checks and balances from the equation.  In the name of national security, Washington D.C. considers all things possible…

The Power To Kill Without Trial

Another program supported by both Republican and Democratic presidents, the ability to assassinate American citizens without trial based on mere accusations from the executive branch is a highly useful tool for tyranny.  Over the past couple years the questions have always been; how far do they plan to take this policy, and, will they try to use it against American citizens on American soil?  These questions have been indirectly answered by FBI head Robert Mueller when he tried to dodge them in a recent hearing:

Mueller’s claim that he is “not sure” if Americans can be assassinated on U.S. soil is the same as an admission that this is at the very least being considered.  Given the legaleze wrangling that both Mueller and Eric “Fast and Furious” Holder have tried to implement in rationalizing the use of assassination, I find it hard to fathom that anyone would NOT expect they would use the policy for Americans on home turf.  The power to kill or imprison without trial is expressly forbidden by Constitutional law and the Bill of Rights.  Such abuses were the primary cause of the Revolutionary War, yet, here we are again, dealing with the same murderous reasoning with a slightly different face.

The Power To Militarize

Federal fusion centers and funding for local law enforcement has irreparably damaged state and county objectivity and opened the door to a steady diet of anti-liberty propaganda for police officials across the nation.  Some eat it up, some don’t.  However, the issue here is one of intention.  Why does the federal government feel the need to arm divisions of local law enforcement with automatic weapons, predator drones, and even tanks?  Why is Congress going out of its way to free up FAA regulations to allow police organizations unprecedented access to predator drones, up to 30,000 by 2020, for use in civilian airspace?

Why does the DHS suddenly need 450 million rounds of .40 cal ammunition from ATK?

And why has Obama quickly and quietly signed the Executive Order for National Defense Resources Preparedness?  Though many will claim the order only rehashes such continuity of government policies seen in older programs like Rex 84, I find it a bit disconcerting that our government suddenly feels the need to rehash Rex 84 powers at all!

The order is a claim to eminent domain, not just over land, but over every resource imaginable in the face of a “national emergency”.  Using military force, all goods, services, and property, can be confiscated in the name of support for military and governmental logistics.  In an article written in February titled “The DHS Defends Globalism, Not America”, I warned that Janet Napolitano’s language of supply chain protection and resource allocation could only be supported by the pilfering of goods from one place to feed another:

Now we see that this was indeed the intention all along.  Given that the John Warner Defense Authorization Act allows the president to declare a national emergency and martial law for almost any reason at any time without oversight from Congress for at least 6 months, the possibility of vast programs of resource confiscation becomes much more likely. 

The power to militarize a culture at will, and to force that culture to work and produce in the name of the state and the benefit of the state is perhaps the most terrifying power of all.  It is, for all intents and purposes, the power to enslave. 

What Has Our Government Become?

Really, who needs terrorists when you have a government like ours?  If it is the widespread destruction of the principles that founded our society that you fear, then the last enemy you need worry about is the Muslim boogie man.  The greatest threat to our way of life is an institution that has always operated right under our noses and acted with impunity sheltered by the very borders it is tasked to defend.  It is the only group in existence that has the resources, the military backing, and the proven intent to undermine liberty in America.  It is the supreme threat to individual freedom in the world today.  And, the worst irony of all is that it commits every one of its crimes in our name. 

So, there comes a point when we have to decide what kind of respect this brand of monstrosity deserves?  It would appear that the government, or at least root elements of it, see the American people as the enemy.  And why not?  We are, in the end, the only force on the planet in a position to deconstruct the machine, so it only follows that we find ourselves locked in its crosshairs.  We have not been given much choice.  The only decision left to make is one within each individual.  How much do we really need the system, and how much pain and horror are we willing to endure to satisfy its insatiable hunger?  Where will we finally draw the line…?


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:05 | 2276454 BobPaulson
BobPaulson's picture

Great thread - sorry for this off topic post but can anybody tell me in the new web site system how I track my posts? There used to be a tab called TRACK that allowed me to zip back to where I posted to keep my eye on responses to my posts. Anybody have a shortcut for this in the current system?

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:16 | 2276484 battle axe
battle axe's picture

Vampire Squid: The Federal Govt.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:26 | 2276511 AN0NYM0US
AN0NYM0US's picture

this is an instructive video of an alien asking about government



What is Government?

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:35 | 2276560 i-dog
i-dog's picture

This is a very instructive video on the origin and future of governments: (Statism is Dead)

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:48 | 2276588 comrade pravda
comrade pravda's picture

Get back to your side, peasant.  You will not unite.

Peasants from blue states will put Pepsi stickers on their cars and will support the Pepsi candidate.  Peasants from red states will put Coke stickers on their cars and will support the Coke candidate most like the OilBomber.  (Support for Ron Paul will not be tolerated.)

The federal government is the muscle for vampire squid et al.

Stop thinking, shut up, head down, row!

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:14 | 2276643 i-dog
i-dog's picture

We should not unite ... we should each, individually, disengage!!

There is no way that disgruntled socialists, fascists, capitalists, libertarians, voluntarists and undecideds will ever unite to confront the Criminal Occupation Government™ (COG) as a cohesive force ... all they will ever do is continue to bicker over which is the best way forward. Pointless!!! (Exhibit A: OWS)

Disengage = stop paying taxes (don't make it easy for them ... make the few thousand tax collectors for the Criminal Occupation Government have to plough through paperwork and courts to get each cent from each of the hundreds of millions of individual serfs); avoid as much as possible any use of digital "money" (starve the banksters of "capital" and starve the COG of information on your habits and whereabouts); pick up an old Nokia mobile for conversations and text messages (it doesn't include continuous GPS tracking of your whereabouts); focus on your family and local community for mutual assistance and employment. That'll do for a start!

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:38 | 2276729 Hard1
Hard1's picture

Great post, the US gov't has clearly gone beyond reasonable limits using the terrorism-fighting flag.  They have become the terrorists.  I Personally know of a couple cases of innocent people that have been chased by the government simply because their names popped up in the wrong place.  Once you look into it, the investigation seems to have been carried by a 12 year old.  Two years later and thousands spent in legal fees and they have not received a response yet frotm the gov't as nobody there seems to want to take the blame of the gross mistake made.  My acquaintances are simplyl collateral damage to their eyes if they have any. 

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 13:58 | 2277208 Abiotic Oil
Abiotic Oil's picture

Isn't government supposed to pay for my guns, ammo and other supplies so my militia can be "well regulated" and "provide for the common defense"? 

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 14:48 | 2277370 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture

Vanguard CEO Michael Buscher said his company's prototype drone was flying about 18-feet off the ground when it started having trouble. It's designed to go into an auto shutdown mode, according to Buscher, but when it was coming down the drone crashed into the SWAT team's armored vehicle.


Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness Initiative Update

January 6, 2011

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 15:09 | 2277429 jackvegas
jackvegas's picture

Exactly how is not paying taxes going to starve the COG?  It already creates nearly half its operating budget out of thin air.  What's to stop them from "borrowing" 100% of their budget, especially when they barrow it from themselves?

Thu, 03/22/2012 - 04:17 | 2279607 Element
Element's picture


We should not unite ... we should each, individually, disengage!!


Totally agree i-dog, I would say it this way;

D O N ' T   P A R T I C I P A T E

They need you to respond to their system, to their power-trips and dictates, to their social 'programs', to be a party to their projects. When you get approached by a 'Department' or some Govt 'Agency', or a 'private' contracted provider of Govt services (I'm using the term 'private' very loosely here, in any defined form), do not respond, don't take their calls, don't respond to texts, don't provide information, especially don't engage in any nanny state monitoring of, "how you are going", as a person in their system etc.  They are simply checking if they need to make other programatic adjustments to better pursue and coopt and coerce you into participating more efficiently toward their ends, so that their spreadsheets and reports look better to some more senior supervisor, and on up the chain of paid parasitising sickophants.  

When they ask you to provide 'feedback', they want it to find out how to better control you, sorry, I meant to say, "to provide better Govt services".

And they want to look like they 'care' ... but to hell with what you really want.

Disobey their requests, their corralling of your mind, wallet, thoughts, attitudes, behaviours and any plans you may have.

If the Govt wants you to do something to please them, do something else.

But above all else, ignore them, actively or passively, your choice, whatever works.

We don't owe them a damn thing, from birth, or any other time.  

We don't actually have a debt to Govt, and if they say you do, don't pay -- resist.

'Crown land', isn't.

They don't 'own' us, that's an abomination, a wicked evil, a sure sign of active slavery.

Take no oaths to them, or the state or some flag -- that is pure poison.

They tell us there are laws against providing to them false or misleading information ... but they have no problem lying to us and deceiving us for any reason that suits them.

Ok, so fuck them, tell them nothing.

Then they say if you don't 'cooperate' the will be fines, or imprisonment.

This is why you do not answer them -- ever -- regarding ANYTHING.

Sign no contracts that they can use to 'obligate' you to be their lackey and slave, especially with regard to taxation, debts or fines.

They will accuse us, and classify us as being a 'fifth column', or criminals.

We aren't ... but they actually are this, and much more.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 17:29 | 2277893 goldfish1
goldfish1's picture

Stop thinking, shut up, head down, row!

With candidates like this, who needs sociopaths? Read on...

COLUMBIA, Mo. (AP) - Republican candidate Ron Paul says he's noncommittal about backing Mitt Romney if Romney becomes the party's presidential nominee. The Texas congressman says Romney is a friend but that they'd have to talk about the kind of foreign policy Romney would pursue before he makes a decision.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:01 | 2276625 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture


Your comment re aliens reminded me of the fact it is not only our .gov but those almost everywhere are tightening their grip.  Greece, Russia and China are three obvious examples  But, I am now seeing the Peruvian government clamping down as well, especially for drug war / money laundering reasons.  It looks like a near universal trend


Anyone interested in seeing cars, buses and trucks here in Peru that you do not see in the USA are invited to visit my blog to see my new artcile ¨Vehicles in Peru¨.  Gmail me at my name or just use Google creatively...  Many curious vehicles here in Peru, and we sell bearings for many of them!

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:10 | 2276660 candyman
Wed, 03/21/2012 - 12:11 | 2276873 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

OH NOEZ!  It's that fact-free article claiming they're coming for our 401Ks!  Now I'm scared!

Yeah, it'll probably happen, but I wish we could get some better propaganda going.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 15:55 | 2277583 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Hey bd, finally got around to "Currency Wars", thanks for the reco. Agreed with Rickards everywhere it mattered. Reminded me of "Liar's Poker" in a way; anyone for a game of 'what if'?

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:28 | 2276525 fuu
fuu's picture

Click My Account. At the bottom of the landing page, under your account age, is a link that says "Follow this user's comments".

This will bring up a page with a text box, an apply button, and a long list of stuff. Just type your name in the text box and hit apply.

This will being up a list of your comments.

Not as handy as the old system which allowed you to continue following the conversations you were a part of.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:34 | 2276557 BobPaulson
BobPaulson's picture


Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:44 | 2276580 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

the first one was even easier.. we used to get an email and link when people replied to your comment.. atleast that's how my foggy mind remembers it

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:30 | 2276702 i-dog
i-dog's picture

If Sacrilege doesn't bring back the Track, I'm afraid I'm going to have to put ZH in the too-hard basket for keeping up with conversations (though I do appreciate the new Comment List and requested it). There's no way I'm going into the dating site Chat thingy.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:07 | 2276457 Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

Best form of government is Benevolent Despot.

People are too goddamned stupid to appreciate individual freedom.


Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:58 | 2276614 Jendrzejczyk
Jendrzejczyk's picture

Why you yanking peoples chains Gully?

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:26 | 2276712 Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture


I also like Bakunin Anarchy.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:00 | 2276617 ms1408
ms1408's picture

It's not about "freedom". Rape enhances the freedom of a rapist. Theft enhances the freedom of a thief. The goal is morality, not freedom. The initiation of force is immoral as is it is a non-universal standard. Hence the government is and always will be immoral, for exactly the same reason slavery is immoral.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:28 | 2276688 Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture


Morality is a very vague concept.

Neither Rape nor Theft enhanced the freedom of the person who commits it. They are compulsions which actually limit choice as decisions are not made without those compulsions shading them.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:53 | 2276804 ms1408
ms1408's picture

"Neither rape nor theft enhanced the freedom of the person who commits it"


I agree my language was ambiguous. To be clear, what I mean is that "freedom" simply describes the level of restriction on one's actions, but does not specify the properties of those actions. So the freedom to rape is an enhancement of freedom.


"Morality is a vague concept"


Yes, most people use the term very loosely. However all ethical principles must apply equally to all human beings, or else they are just opinions and not universal principles. The initiation of force cannot be a universal moral standard as in order for it to be "force" it must be "not wanted" by the subject. For example, rape is only rape because the subject does not consent to being raped - otherwise it is consensual sex. Hence, in order for the initiation of force to be a moral standard, it must be both wanted and not wanted by everybody at the same time, which is impossible.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 13:12 | 2277074 MainStreet
MainStreet's picture


Political freedom has only one meaning: the absence of physical coercion. It does not mean freedom from sustaining your existence by your own effort, but freedom from a coercive State.  It is the requisite of intellectual freedom and the consequence of economic freedom.

In a moral context, our social rights can be defined as a man’s freedom of action in a society.  However, a man may not define as his right the sacrifice or effort of another man; there can be no claimed right that violates another person’s unalienable right to exist.

Therefore, there is never a compromise of freedoms between the slave master, the rapist, the thief and their respective victims because the power of physical coercion can never be one’s social right. 

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:05 | 2276641 pods
pods's picture

Not sure why you got so many down votes Gully.  You make an argument that needs expansion.

Certainly at least a counter argument.  (edit: Replies are now here)

If amerikans are not smart or vigilant enough to reign in the government that serves us, why set it up in the first place?

The US gov, in the name of all of us (amerikan ZH'ers) can kill anyone throughout the world at anytime, with zero repercussions.

If we were to have a impotent monarchy, at least power would be decentralized.

At least one has to think critically about whether setting up a national government with the potential to morph into what it has become was a smart thing to do.



Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:26 | 2276704 Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture


Maslow compared the majority of people to bees who need a heirarchical structure, they need to be told what to do. The ones who could act independently Maslow compared to Wolves.

If civilization collapsed tommorrow, the majority would immediately establish some type of social structure where they knew their place.

"Enlightened absolutism (also called by later historians benevolent despotism or enlightened despotism) is a form of absolute monarchy or despotism in which rulers were influenced by the Enlightenment. Enlightened monarchs embraced the principles of the Enlightenment, especially its emphasis upon rationality, and applied them to their territories. They tended to allow religious toleration, freedom of speech and the press, and the right to hold private property. Most fostered the arts, sciences, and education."

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:26 | 2276707 Willzyx
Willzyx's picture

Indeed.  However, the worst form of governement is the tyranical despot.  What do you do when benevolence skips a generation?

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 15:43 | 2277536 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

revert to anarcho syndicalism until the clone becomes an adult?

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:07 | 2276460 4realmoney
Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:10 | 2276468 the not so migh...
the not so mighty maximiza's picture

Pro bailout Romney with anti bailout Paul,,, what an odd couple that would be, cue music

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:26 | 2276700 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

Paul is the only one not wiping his hands on our curtains

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:37 | 2276479 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Problem with that is Ron Paul would be set off in some obscure "safe " location where he would have little or no political sway. With his advanced age he won't be there to run in eight years. The country needs him now to get the ball rolling on the things that need to be done.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:18 | 2276493 Seorse Gorog fr...
Seorse Gorog from that Quantum Entanglement Fund. alright_.-'s picture

VP's not good enough. It's either El Presidente or Revolution v2.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:01 | 2276621 johnQpublic
johnQpublic's picture

 it can be dismantled by men just as easily as it can be established.



i think 'just as easily' is quite opposite of the truth

it would take a revolution

but with 3% or less awake, they would be named terrorists, and isnt that just what .gov has been prepping for?

them thar theys dont even need to fight for what they are fighting for ,so long as they can pay the plebes to do it for them

you and i would have to put our lives on the line

how bad would it need to get befor you were willing to lose life and liberty for the 'cause'?

the time is passed, and they are far to far along on their path

there will be no revolution



feel free to junk away at the truth

i'm only wrong if you march today, because the days you should have done it are but a distant memory

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 12:00 | 2276834 XitSam
XitSam's picture

"it can be dismantled by men just as easily as it can be established."

I feel it is far harder to dismantle once established. See USSR, Hungary 1956, etc.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 15:51 | 2277561 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Thanks a lot, now I've got the tune "It's a small world after all" stuck in my head for some reason.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 17:19 | 2277853 XitSam
XitSam's picture

Thanks, now I do too.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 19:19 | 2278208 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

"Nothing helps a bad mood like spreading it around."-Bill Watterson


Wed, 03/21/2012 - 14:52 | 2277379 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

it's an election year.   no revolutions until the voters see who wins.  

(then it will be xmas season, winter, rinse repeat kick the can)

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:20 | 2276499 SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

Ron Paul couldnt even cast a 'no' vote on HR347...I dont trust him any more than Bernanke.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:38 | 2276563 fuu
fuu's picture

He was campaigning in Michigan on 2/27. Was he suppossed to stop everything and race back to Washington? With 388 to 3 being the final vote why would he?

The 388 bastards that voted Yea are worthy of scorn.

Nice try at guilt by association.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 12:54 | 2276999 Liposuction
Liposuction's picture

My congress-critter - Justin Amash - is a freaking rockstar.  Thanks for the no vote, Justin.


For every vote, explanation and links to the roll call:



Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:10 | 2276663 Odin
Odin's picture

I read that he did cast a "no"....One of Three

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 12:09 | 2276865 XitSam
XitSam's picture

It says here he voted no.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 12:38 | 2276945 fuu
fuu's picture

The 2/28 vote was "On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended". The 2/27 vote was "On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Concur in the Senate Amendment".

He was not present for the 2/27 vote and did vote no on the 2/28 vote. Thanks for pointing that out.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 15:49 | 2277555 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

I knew there was a reason I kept SDO on "The List".


The List:


Born Patriot


JR in FL





Check it out.  This guy

Then turns into this guy

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:15 | 2276672 roadhazard
roadhazard's picture

If Ron Paul said he would be Any candidates VP then everything he has ever said is a lie.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 13:03 | 2277042 Goner
Goner's picture

Why would accepting a VP spot invalidate everything he has ever said?

Did winning his current spot in our govt invalidate anything or did it give him a platform to speak from? Dr Paul's poll numbers are not very good and everyone knows it. Blame this on Diebold, the populations being asleep or anything else you want.

Think of the fun he could have as VP. Just because the position is often put into the wings once the race is over does not mean anything. Ron Paul has proven he is not like other politicians who simply play the game to progress their own career. I imagine he would raise hell as the VP (especially for the Pres) I have no idea how it would play out (probably a plane crash/ heart attack) but I would love to see it

Would I rather see him win the Rep nomination or run as a 3rd party candidate and win, of course. But I don't think that's likely, just check the poll's.

If Ron Paul does not get the Rep nomination and he decided accepting the VP spot on another ticket was the best platform to speak from, he gets the benefit of the doubt from me.The man has proven himself over and over so to dismiss him for any single action seems premature.

Those are my thoughts anyhow

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 13:23 | 2277102 Liposuction
Liposuction's picture

People often forget too that the last 12 years has given us a VP that the media hated, and a bimbo.  Pretty hard to make the position look like it has any clout when you have the 4th branch ignoring you or covering up your gaffes.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:08 | 2276462 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

As the new millennium stampedes forward, however, it appears that the intended roles of the American dynamic have been reversed.


Spot on.  The ideals of Locke et al have been set aside, incrementally, by the totalitarian-veiled-as-utopian ideals of Plato, More, and Marx.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 12:18 | 2276890 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

The ideals of Locke are internally incompatible.  Most of his theory conflicts with itself if you extend the logic.  He was never really concerned with coherence as a philosopher, so his stuff is only useful at the most basic level.

Marxist theory is not at all totalitarian.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 15:52 | 2277567 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Totalitarianism has nothing to do with Communism, Socialism, Capitalisim, or any other sort of "ism".

They are simply fig leaves.

It would be harder to implement under Classcial Liberalism, however.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:09 | 2276465 zerozulu
zerozulu's picture

Power corrupts. Government without any power.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:16 | 2276485 Tsar Pointless
Tsar Pointless's picture

So, I'll put you in the "anarchy" column.


Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:24 | 2276510 CH1
CH1's picture

You can put me in the anarchy column...

but REAL anarchy, not the cartoon images of bomb-throwers that politicians and media drones love.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:20 | 2276686 roadhazard
roadhazard's picture

Really, just leave me the fuck alone and you won't get hurt.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 12:15 | 2276879 CH1
CH1's picture

Really, just leave me the fuck alone and you won't get hurt.

Cool by me.


Wed, 03/21/2012 - 14:56 | 2277390 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

and me.

I do no harm, you leave me the fuck alone. deal.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:25 | 2276513 Sanksion
Sanksion's picture

While living in a perfect anomist world, whatever how hard you try to tell me otherwise it is the case, hence I won't ever fear anarchy.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:53 | 2276605 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

Absence of government does not mean anarchy. Anarchy means the absence of rules, and there are plenty of rules that exist within society without government interference. In fact, governement usually trumps natural rules (respect of contracts, for instance).

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:03 | 2276627 Sanksion
Sanksion's picture

Nope, the absence of rules is anomy, not anarchy. And that's what we've got : anomy : absence of rules. The law of the strongest, of the guys who have most of the guns. That's what we see around the clock and the world. 

Need proof? Just look the foreign policy of the USA. It is an illustration that speaks for itself.

The only limit of power of one oligarch is the power of another foreign oligarchy. That is all. There is no rules, we (average peons) have no rights.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 13:41 | 2276680 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Kropotkin would be proud, well said.

To my red triangler: was that just reflexive, or am I doing it wrong? Please elaborate.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 14:05 | 2277238 Dave Thomas
Dave Thomas's picture

It's kinda funny, anyone who makes a baby face and spouts on about anarchy being the absence of rules and total chaos almost never has heard of Kropotkin.

They can tell you who's their favorite next pick on the Voice is however.



Wed, 03/21/2012 - 14:31 | 2277268 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

No kidding. Speaking of 'knee jerks' I wonder if the overall sentiment would change if, instead of the woeful image of forced toil accompanying this article, Tylers had employed a pic of Raquel Welch in The Magic Christian.

skip ahead to 6:32

"Oh I say! Do that again!"

For all the not-so-magical cross worshippers, neovictorians, or just plain prudish: Fair Bare mammary warning.


Wed, 03/21/2012 - 15:03 | 2277404 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

I'll refrain and just give you a +1 for playing the game.

Thu, 03/22/2012 - 11:59 | 2280592 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Well at least you have a sense of haha, but don't pull any punches on my account. This isn't a tickling competition, after all.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:12 | 2276473 heinrich6666
heinrich6666's picture

Governments make war upon their citizens. No surprises there. Power attracts the corruptible, and most people, it seems, are corruptible. Put them in power, they immediately identify and over-identify with their new positions. They use them to enrich themselves and ruin the rest. Rinse and repeat.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:12 | 2276474 kralizec
kralizec's picture

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." "...with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."


Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:26 | 2276515 CH1
CH1's picture

Abuses, usurpations, despotism.... throwing off Government...

I'm with Tommy J.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:14 | 2276480 lunaticfringe
lunaticfringe's picture

In the Moonbat view of the world, all power should be relinquished to government so that government can control our lives. The statists want laws for everything except abortions. Our government, and the welfare statists, are gonna have their way.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:14 | 2276481 Seorse Gorog fr...
Seorse Gorog from that Quantum Entanglement Fund. alright_.-'s picture

'Absolute'. Oh, they've already got it.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:03 | 2276629 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

Obamacare is the final nail in whatever was left of your individual liberty.  Under the guise of cradle to grave socialist healthcare, everything you do personally has an effect on HC costs, so there's nothing in your life the Govt can't justify controlling.  

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:25 | 2276706 roadhazard
roadhazard's picture

The worst part of Health Care Reform is they didn't contain any costs. First you control the costs and then address the rest. You can see the Health Care Industry wrote the bill. Stocks went UP.  whatta joke.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:15 | 2276483 rsnoble
rsnoble's picture

One things for sure the more people wake up and realize what's going on the harder that hammer's gona come down on us.  They just aren't going to go away that's for damn sure.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:16 | 2276486 Heyoka
Heyoka's picture

It's not complicated. Adhere to the Constitution. The list of what it CAN NOT do should dwarf what it CAN do. Oh yeah, and let failures FAIL.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:16 | 2276488 Buzzworthy
Buzzworthy's picture

Something wicked this way comes.  When apathy is combined with ignorance too many people are susceptible to propaganda.  The sheeple in this country have become so used to arguments between political left and right that they no longer know the difference between truth and fiction and so the majority has tuned it out.  Nothing will change until the crisis comes and then it will be too late.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 13:26 | 2277107 rsnoble
rsnoble's picture

I've been saying that for a long time.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:25 | 2276490 bigdumbnugly
bigdumbnugly's picture

i love me some gubmint cheeeeeeeese.


Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:17 | 2276491 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

What if we just let people freely compete? The strong would eventually rise to the top and be able to organize society as they saw fit. They might occasionaly do "bad things" but hell, it wouldn't be government and therefore we would all live in liberty. 

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:55 | 2276610 ms1408
ms1408's picture

What do you specifically mean by "organize as they see fit". The state is the only entity that can initiate force without moral condemnation. The only way a company can rise to the "top" is by convincing people to voluntarily exchange their money for their goods and services. It's amazing to me that we even have to argue about this.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:33 | 2276734 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

last time I checked  quite a few companies have infiltrated our government and control its direction.  They did it mostly by corrupting our government and lying to the people. See banking, energy, food........ 

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:58 | 2276826 ms1408
ms1408's picture

"quite a few companies have infiltrated our government "


Precisely. Because the government has the exclusive right to initiate the use of force.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 12:37 | 2276937 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

Ergo, if everyone was given the right initiate the use of force then.. what? Or do you mean nobody should have the right to initiate force? Do tell.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 16:37 | 2277708 MillionDollarBonus_
MillionDollarBonus_'s picture

ms1408 is a moron. We need force to protect us from terrorists, make sure the poor have benefits and provide education for children. The idea that libertarians would deny us these things is morally reprehensible.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 20:13 | 2278435 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

only -4. Come on, you can do better.

No mention of Islam? How about liberal-libertarial-socialists? Nada?

Come on man, you wanna be MDB or only mini-B?

Just one calorie, not MDB enough!

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 12:07 | 2276852 i-dog
i-dog's picture

... which they could not do if there were no government (or, at the very most, a geographically small local government limited only to protecting individual property rights - like the original 13 states at the time of the drafting of the Constitution).

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 16:07 | 2277618 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

agree but the massive growth of the federal government is a chicken and egg issue with the massive growth of companies that (1) control the marketplace (2) defy the law (3) injure the people (4) infiltrate the government to continue to do (1) - (3) 

therefore, big anything no matter what mask it wears is usually a problem.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 12:27 | 2276916 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

  The only way a company can rise to the "top" is by convincing people to voluntarily exchange their money for their goods and services.

Actually the way it usually works is that a company achieves control of some given commodity or resource and is then effectively able to mandate the exchange of money for services/products.

Coercion is the key ingredient, and monopoly is always the corporate goal.

Commercial transactions are inherently coercive, which is why the Randian free-market utopian dream is such a patently absurd myth.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 12:33 | 2276926 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

But... But.. OK; what if everybody's Liberty was allowed to manifest itself then, uhmm... well, governments are the only... business... free men never deceive others into... deception isn't coercion...

Aww, shit.

Are you seriously telling me there are no easy answers?!

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 12:54 | 2277002 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

I'd take it a bit further: we mostly don't even ask the right questions.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 16:54 | 2277771 ms1408
ms1408's picture

"Actually the way it usually works is that a company achieves control of some given commodity or resource and then is effectively able to mandate the exchange of money for services/products."

Yes. This phenomenon is known as "property rights". Individuals exchange their goods and services for money which is used to buy the resources. Property rights are derived from self-ownership. I own my actions, and therefore I own the effects of my actions. Hence I own the fruits of my labour, as they are a consequence of my actions.

"coercion is the key ingredient"

What coercion? Please explain. It sounds to me like you equate 'property' with 'force', which is full blown Marxism. Marxism has killed hundreds of millions of people in China and the Soviet Union. I honestly don't see why we should give Marxists any more respect than Nazis.

"Monopoly is always the corporate goal"

So you believe you have solved the problem of monopolies by granting a few people called the government the exclusive right to initiate the use of violence at will?


"patently absurd myth"

What does this have to do with the truth or falsehood of my argument?


Wed, 03/21/2012 - 19:50 | 2278324 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Property rights are the assertion that for whatever reason, and with whatever basis, your claim/assertion of ownership is just, and it is properly backed up by force.

The notion that government is the only initiator of force is a common trope among the hard-core libertarian set, but it's so obviously false--force is far more often employed against any *perceived* threat on the justification for the claim of ownership.  "Property rights" depend on a very abstract claim which MUST be shared by everyone else in your utopian world, and unfortunately, there are virtually no theoretical principles which are shared by everyone on Earth.

Commercial transactions are coercive because they produce behavior that would not otherwise result.  "Money" is a proxy for interpersonal influence.  I might ask someone to bring me a glass of water--they can say yes or no, do it or not.  When I offer money for the glass of water, I have departed from the "fully voluntary" transaction.  The person I address now must evaluate their desire not to bring me a glass of water vs. their desire to possess the money I offer. 

Here's the key: at some point, if all means of *survival* become bound up in money-based trade transactions (food/shelter/water/etc), the individual who you offer money to is forced to participate in your system, because the enforcement of others' "property rights" will deprive the individual of his life.  Ie: he'll starve because someone else owns all the food.

It sounds to me like you equate 'property' with 'force', which is full blown Marxism. Marxism has killed hundreds of millions of people in China and the Soviet Union. I honestly don't see why we should give Marxists any more respect than Nazis.

This is stupid.  "Marxism" hasn't killed anyone.  People kill each other--they do so for any number of reasons.  Pretending that a philosophy is murderous is absurd, because you can make similar claims about absolutely *any* way of thinking about things.  Christianity, capitalism, Newtownian physics, etc.  The problem isn't the philosophy--it's what you use the philosophy to JUSTIFY.

So you believe you have solved the problem of monopolies by granting a few people called the government the exclusive right to initiate the use of violence at will?

I have no idea why you're asking me this.  I'm not in favor of centralizing any authority.  My disagreement with you has to do with your apparent belief that enforcement of property rights somehow leads to an honest or just foundation of society.  It doesn't--it's totally arbitrary.

Ultimately: your "argument" only works in theory, because in order for the capitalist system to exist in perfection, everyone has be in agreement about the most important moral values (property rights), and in practice, people aren't.

Thu, 03/22/2012 - 05:28 | 2279694 ms1408
ms1408's picture

"The notion that government is the only initiator of force"


This is just made up. I didn't even hint at this proposition. I'm against all violence, not just the government.


""Property rights" depend on a very abstract claim which MUST be shared by everyone else"


The claim is not abstract at all. I own my actions by definition since I have free will. If an end is a result of my actions, and it would not have existed otherwise, it is simply an extension of my self-ownership. You are already accepting this proposition by recognising that I have ownership over my argument (you called it "your argument") since it is a consequence of my actions. 


"Commercial transactions are coercive because they produce behaviour that would not otherwise result"


Now you are redefining the term coercive without explicitly stating so, which is dishonest. This, along with your many subjective adjectives such as "hard-core" and "utopian", indicates to me that you are not interested in pursuing a truth seeking exercise with mutual respect. I would argue that they are an indication of emotional defensiveness (not that this makes my argument correct, but it's worth noting).


"Pretending that a philosophy is murderous is absurd, because you can make similar claims about absolutely *any* way of thinking about things"


If all ways of thinking are equally valid, then why are you arguing with me? If you are arguing with me, you are implicitly asserting that truth both exists and is preferable to falsehood.


"it's what you use the philosophy to JUSTIFY"


I'm not trying to "justify" anything. I am making propositions about what is true and what is false.


"he'll starve because someone else owns all the food"


I'll address your assertion that Marxism hasn't killed anyone with along with this one. Firstly, if the situation you describe came about, then choice is taken out of the equation as it is an immediate life-or-death situation. Ethics is about making choices, so there is no point in applying ethics to a situation without choice. Secondly, it is an empirical fact that hundreds of millions of people died in China and the Soviet Union precisely due to starvation as a result of restrictions on free trade, driven by explicitly Marxist ideology.


"for the capitalist system to exist in perfection, everyone has be in agreement about the most important moral values"


No they don't. We can have legitimate disagreements. The only thing most people have to agree on is not to resolve disputes with violence. Presumably you interact in your personal relationships without violence, so you already accept this premise.

Thu, 03/22/2012 - 11:28 | 2280498 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Yeah, I don't see any indication that you understand what I'm writing, so fine.  We've got no basis for conversation.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 20:14 | 2278442 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

No one should get a free pass on initiating violence, so if a state is what it takes to "get out of jail free" for it then we're better off without such a state.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 16:17 | 2277651 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture


The strong would eventually rise to the top and be able to organize society as they saw fit. They might occasionaly do "bad things" but hell, it wouldn't be government and therefore we would all live in liberty.

what you'd like to see is a model similar to say, tribal Afghanistan, with warlords and armed men patrolling the streets enforcing their notion of "organized society" with a *shrug* as to the enacting of "bad things"? 

I'll pass.


Wed, 03/21/2012 - 20:16 | 2278450 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

So you'd rather have one giant global military mafia warlord over all territories instead of de-centralized maybe-fiefdoms with some war-lords?


I'll prefer to have a world not ruled by a single planetary warlord.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 23:05 | 2278944 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

don't get histerikal, it's not EITHER a bunch of local warlords OR a global warlord.  roaming gangs of armed men is pretty much everyone's nightmare, bar the participants.

I don't want to see any of the current options offered, and that makes zero difference to the outcome - and so I'll continue to do what I've done all my life, dis-engage from the mass thinking, non-participation in their habits, live honestly, lightly, and to my own standards, with empathy for the deserving.

just for clarity: no TeeVee, no phone of any kind, no banking, or plastic cards, barter my skills for "living essentials" and make friends as I go.  a computer is indulgence for now, and I'll miss it, but I'll survive. . .

until I don't.   /shrug

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:18 | 2276494 SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture


Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:19 | 2276496 Red Heeler
Red Heeler's picture

"Here is just a short list of the more detrimental declarations of authority attempted over the past decade along with the pieces of legislation and executives orders used to make them “all legal”…"

All of those powers were exercised by Lincoln during the Civil War. Today's technology just makes it easier than ever for the federal government to keep its heel on your neck. On the plus side, we're hopefully reaching the breaking point at which the government's totalitarian fangs will be snapped off.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:19 | 2276497 duo
duo's picture

Mr. Smith, are there any black SUVs parked in front of your house yet?  You had better go look.

Bet on a "national emergency" right before the election.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:33 | 2276553 CH1
CH1's picture

Bet on a "national emergency" right before the election.

I think I'll bet on Deibolt instead. Much more serene to watch on TV.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:09 | 2276654 Doubleguns
Doubleguns's picture

Vote early or absentee although with this crowd of most likely winners it hardly matters.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 12:04 | 2276846 pods
pods's picture

The last thing they would do is cancel elections.  Elections keep up the illusion that you can change the system.


Wed, 03/21/2012 - 12:18 | 2276897 XitSam
XitSam's picture

"The last thing they would do is cancel elections."  

I would parse that another way, as in ... "If they cancelled the elections, it would be the last thing they ever did."

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:21 | 2276502 Shizzmoney
Shizzmoney's picture

Our Government has become a Corporation. 

Soon we'll ahve to take hair/piss tests just to get a license.

If it looks like a rat, and walks like a rat, well......

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:22 | 2276505 polizeros
polizeros's picture

Steppenwolf said it all in the 1960's with "Monster"

The spirit was freedom and justice
And it's keepers seem generous and kind
It's leaders were supposed to serve the country
But now they won't pay it no mind
'Cause the people grew fat and got lazy
And now their vote is a meaningless joke
They babble about law and order
But it's all just an echo of what they've been told
Yeah, there's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into a noose
And it just sits there watchin'

Our cities have turned into jungles
And corruption is stranglin' the land
The police force is watching the people
And the people just can't understand
We don't know how to mind our own business
'Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us
Now we are fighting a war over there
No matter who's the winner
We can't pay the cost
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into a noose
And it just sits there watching

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:38 | 2276516 Bluntly Put
Bluntly Put's picture

"No politician, no corporate body, no president, no alphabet agency in existence is exalted enough to play the all seeing all judging eye of god."

Herein is your truth, the role of man's government originally was to mediate God's law, however that role was usurped, via corruption, to replacing God's law.

The irony is, as the human race has endeavored to elminate the concept of God from our consciousness in theory it has striven to replace and pervert God's ordained role in practice.

Ultimately, lies collapse in upon themselves. Only the truth endures for eternity, truth does not lie within mankind, it lies with the Eternal. The philosophy of Natural Law was the closest mankind has ever gotten to accurately interpreting God's law and how it applies to our interpersonal releationships on this plane.

The war is between the Rationalists and the Humanists this war has been waging since the enlightenment, unfortunately and most likely due to our fallen nature, the humanists appear to be winning.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:22 | 2276693 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

You haven't a fucking clue about the nature of man.  No one attempted to mediate god's law, but instead claimed a mandate from heaven to justify power and control.  You're missing the forest for the trees.

[PS, if you understand the origins or the desire behind the creation of the mandate from heaven, you'll also understand why man created god (in his own image no less)].

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:37 | 2276746 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

I prefer my God not to be in my current image, maybe back when I had more hair.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 12:23 | 2276907 XitSam
XitSam's picture

MachoMan, along these lines do you have some recommended reading?

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 12:31 | 2276919 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

I recommend not reading and, instead, simply observing. 

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 12:39 | 2276950 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture



I'm interested to hear your case about how men "claimed a mandate from heaven to justify power and control." 

Edit: Libertarianism, to me, values the upholding of natural law so highly, but seems unclear about its origins.  Or maybe very clear but misplaced.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 13:58 | 2277204 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

What about it?  Either they merely claimed it or it was so...  I can say that if you believe they were truly the representatives of god, then we can save each other a lot of text and agree to disagree.

And yes, historical texts and foundations tend to equate natural law with god...  there are quite a few alternative explanations for this...  first, persons who did not reference god as the genesis of natural law have been mercilessly prosecuted throughout the ages...  (thankfully every once and a while we get a brave soul not afraid to be a lonely voice)...  aside from pecuniary concerns...  Second, the genesis is ultimately trivial...  god is simply a placemarker for whatever term we end up using to describe the initiating force of natural law...  (physics has a ways to go).  So, invocation of the word "god" does not necessarily give any credence to the term, but merely describes an unknown force, e.g. the first mover.  [it's the collective observations of the natural law concept that are important, not the genesis].

In the end, advocates for god as the genisis of natural law can be wrong about the first mover (and any attibutes of him), but still be correct as to natural law...  ultimately objectivism (the red headed step child of philosophy) has laid the conceptual foundation for natural law without invoking "god"...  the all knowing all powerful wizard...  or whatever you want to label a mundane force so as to appease your external locust of control and refusal to admit the existential crisis of life.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 14:27 | 2277301 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture



Thanks.  I wasn't looking to argue the point, just to understand your perspective insofar as it is different than mine.  I don't believe any government was set up by persons who were representatives of God, although I do believe that the U.S. government was founded by men who attempted in earnest to constrain the ambition of men by upholding their interpretation of God's laws. 

That said, I think we disagree simply in what we believe.

To your point that "persons who did not reference God as the genesis of natural law have been mercilessy prosecuted throughout the ages" - those that have made that claim have been mercilessly persecuted as well.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is not paying attention.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 15:03 | 2277412 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Yes, in large part the founding fathers knew the nature of man and attempted to create a system of checks and balances to ensure longevity...  unfortunately, they were near sighted and ultimately naively optimistic.  Humans have an uncanny ability to screw things up and trend to a polar whipsaw.  While they certainly invoked a creator in their writings, I guess we can't always be right...  frankly, I think they refined the system enough to where only minor changes could be guessed and checked...  and probably result in even greater longevity...  and really, not just longevity, but a moral existence for all.  (ultimately a corrupt government corrupts all... and don't get into any chicken or the egg george carlin speech).

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 12:35 | 2276936 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture



Try the Federalist Papers, Ameritopia, The 5000 Year Leap, and The Second Treatise. 

All of which would disagree with Macho Man, however.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 13:12 | 2277071 Bluntly Put
Bluntly Put's picture

I understand that for most men the last refuge of ignorance is violence oftentimes demonstrated in vulgarity to make up for a lack of intellectual capability to express themselves in socially acceptable language.

The nature of man is this, we look towards others for our identity. This proves to be a lie as each person is then looking to another for identity where identity does not exist as that person also looks towards others.

Let me state I garner my opinion from scripture itself, what you should have done in a reasonable argument is pointed that out instead of relying on your carnal nature of vulgarity to demeem my opinion.

This is my opinion, my belief, that truth does not reside in man's opinion which is a never ending circle of contention but rather lies in the Eternal, the Divine, that Spirit which is not subject to man's interpretation.

Yes, I believe that government was ordained by God to enforce His Law, that is if someone kills another or takes property (your life is your property) it is the duty of governmnet to enforce God's Law and bring justice. This current form of collectivism states that it is just for the state to rob others of their life and property if it benefits the collective "good". But that "good" is always defined by a few, note, a vulgar few. Perhaps you are aquainted?

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 14:16 | 2277271 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture




I'm on the side of Scripture, as most who know me know by my frequent citations and attempts at clarifying what I see as out-of-context references.  (And i don't agree with MachoMan on this, although I acknowledge him as a well-reasoned and articulate poster here.)  But I'm having a hard time following you on this one.

I don't know of a Scripture passage that states that government was ordained by God to enforce His Law.  Indeed, it rather clearly states that man-made governments are bound to be flawed, and that we are to exist within them, recognizing that citizenship of the believer lies elsewhere.

Moreover, I am troubled by what I read as a separatist tone in your comments.  That a non-believer is somehow a down-trodden, carnal type doesn't fit with the notion that we are all fallen/sinners, believers included (Rom 3:22-23). 

Peter says to "always be prepared to give the reason for your hope."  If you demean an opposing view, I don't believe your faith will be heard.  That is a battle I have regrettably lost myself at times.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 16:21 | 2277667 Bluntly Put
Bluntly Put's picture

In part I agree with your observations, for me to say that government is ordained by God is taking the scripture too far in regards to what is in print. I am in fact stating my own opinion/interpretation of 1 Peter 2:13-14. In fact I do believe that my Savior is the complete emodiment of God's Word and Law, and as such any human effort to dupicate or represent that authority is flawed. However, we do live at a time when our King is absent and as such should endevour to understand how humans in absence of their true King should be organized, perhaps even say "governed" in order to find whatever peace is available to all men, saved or not.

This is true that we are all fallen, sinful and in need of redemption. As such our "nature" - that is our flesh - is carnal. But I believe if you understand the function of the Spirit in our lives you will see as Paul did in Rom. Ch 7 that as a re-born believer we live in 2 worlds; 1 of the flesh and 1 of the Spirit. We can choose to be led by either the Spirit or the flesh, each has its' own effect of sowing and reaping. We also have the responsibility while in the flesh to understand how God's Law applies to those who are not re-born of the Spirit, as in such perhaps we can maximize potential harmony while on this earth.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 17:21 | 2277861 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

god told me to tell you to quit believing in him, you're wasting your time.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 15:05 | 2277275 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

So...  god created government, but then humans took a big shit on it?  So god is so interested in our daily lives that he has to create government, but yet not interested enough to ensure we can't fuck it to high hell?  Is this what you call intelligent design?  A system that humans break every 60-80 years?  if this is your approach, I think at the very least you have to admit god is a fuck up (despite conceptually being perfect) with severely limited capacity and foresight.

I'd say there is a vastly more practical answer to your query...  that civilization developed out of necessity for consistency and risk aversion...  and that government developed as a necessary derivative of the division of labor...  and as an inherent necessity in the operation of the collective.  I see no reason whatsoever to invoke god into this process.  [your theory is more complicated that mine].  Humans have always abused power...  it's just that it used to be with a club and stone tools...  now it's with a social contract, grin, waive of a pen, and a command.

The argument that government was created to impose natural law upon the citizenry is only fit for an academic vacuum.  In reality, the government was created to address practical concerns of every day life...  whose basis for doing so may or may not coincide with natural law...  further, the instant humans obtain power, they are corrupted and the government quickly loses any academic purpose for which it was originally intended (presuming it was actually intended for that). 

PS, shut the fuck up about your goddamn vulgarity bullshit ned flanders.  In the real world, people curse...  people yell...  and, every once and a while, people are right while they're doing it!  In other words, address the substance not the form.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 16:11 | 2277632 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

"it's just that it used to be with a club and stone tools...  now it's with a social contract, grin, waive of a pen"... and the new NSA center in Utah

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:27 | 2276517 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

a real debate on FOX News about the meglomaniacs in/behind the White House

you can see why the Parasite Class is stitching up Murdoch

keep the truth/debate going Rupert, you're with the 99% on this one

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:27 | 2276519 stiler
stiler's picture

If you let people freely compete you would get some of the strong rise to the top, some of the lucky, some of the talented, some of the weak. Chance favors anyone. Therefore it would be what you now have.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:28 | 2276524 Bansters-in-my-...
Bansters-in-my- feces's picture

Simple answer...


Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:29 | 2276530 Coffin Dodger
Coffin Dodger's picture

Where is the real Fight Club when we need it?

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 12:18 | 2276896 CH1
CH1's picture

Read up on Agorism and CryptoAnarchy. THAT is the real Fight Club.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:33 | 2276545 Decolat
Decolat's picture

So hi, I'm new at ZH, looking for some truth so I can get a good nights rest. I've been a fan for quite some time. I really appreciate articles like this one.


I believe that something HUGE and UGLY is right around the corner, and our gov't is getting ready to enforce a lockdown of a magnitude never before seen.

Ramming Speed, bitchez!


Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:06 | 2276644 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Welcome to fight club.


The eighth and final rule of fight club is ...if this is your first night at fight have to fight bitch


Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:29 | 2276725 Decolat
Decolat's picture

Thanks, and... Bring it

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:36 | 2276742 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

 "I believe that something HUGE and UGLY is right around the corner, and our gov't is getting ready to enforce a lockdown of a magnitude never before seen"


Right around the corner, sure but the corner still may be a few blocks ahead... They're still busy lining their pockets and feathering their nests at the moment... The ship doesn't sail until all the gold is loaded onto the boat...

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:30 | 2276723 Chump
Chump's picture


"...looking for some truth so I can get a good nights rest..."

Good luck.  I've found the truth here and now I'm looking for some Valium so I can get through the day sans murdering.

Oh and in the spirit of Dr. Engali's reminder: Fuck you clown shoes, your avatar is stupid and wtf is a Decolat?


Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:44 | 2276770 Decolat
Decolat's picture

It means to behead your inbred, mongoloid face, chump. :p

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 14:36 | 2277330 Escapeclaws
Escapeclaws's picture

I believe Chump has the best Avatar on ZH--it is in impeccably good taste! Do you know what it looks like it is saying? The same thing as Trav777's avatar, but trav's lacks that je ne sais quoi. I'm surprised Chump even stooped to comment on your avatar.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:32 | 2276547 q99x2
q99x2's picture

People like me don't need Gov't. Other people like Banksters and Politicians have to be taken care of. So I guess the only Gov't I need is one that will put the Banksters and Politicians into prison. And, I hope I have a Gov't that will do that soon.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:40 | 2276559 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

This might be appropriate:


When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security


Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:42 | 2276753 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

alter OR abolish

being a revolutionary is a constitutional right

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:56 | 2276816 Chump
Chump's picture

Well, that text is from the Declaration of Independence, but I agree with your sentiment.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 15:53 | 2277575 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

good point 

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 16:43 | 2277739 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

I realise this thread may be on it's last legs, but I wonder if anyone might engage this topic,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

for clarity, is there an agreed upon definition for:  "We" and "all men" - I mention this because these high principles proved to not be as inclusive as one might imagine. . . further:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

these words appear to leave an "opt  out" clause, that being consent (of the governed) - or maybe an "opt in"?   I know which I'd pick.

I think these words ring very true:

mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

some can't / won't wait for the collective "mankind" to right themselves, and some don't believe there will be an "abolishing" of the accustomed forms, to the satisfaction of these high ideals most certainly.

but of course, this is all pretty pointless to debate at this late stage, with the information we have available to us now.  we just need to acknowledge where we are, and act from there.   it won't really be a "mass" movement.


Wed, 03/21/2012 - 19:46 | 2278308 Chump
Chump's picture

No you're right ma'am.  No mass movement.  There will be lone "nutcases" who simply can't suffer any longer and take out their angst against the nearest target.  The target will never be the proper one, because they are safely sheltered away both physically and by a complicit media.  J6P doesn't know that Blankfein needs to swing from a lamp post.  He just knows he's pissed and by God someone's gonna pay.

In turn, as these "nutcases" pop up ever more frequently, they will be used as excuses to clamp down ever more viciously, for our own good of course.

This ends either in chaos or absolute totalitarian dominance.  Any mass movement will simply be neighbors shooting one another en masse in a desperate attempt to avoid starvation.  Sadly, that's what I'm "rooting" for, if you can call it that.  I can teach my son to hunt and grow; I can't teach him to worship the State at all costs.

I'm not sure if I answered your point so I'm sorry for the rant.  You got me thinking.  I'm going to go have a beer and try to stop.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 23:16 | 2279014 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

many thanks for your reply Chump, which you clearly are not. . . I'm inclined to agree with your "outline" of possibles, and so can also agree with your hoping to maintain some semblance of honesty throughout.

teaching your son, and any others who can be trusted, to contribute to his family rather than pledge his allegiance to the Flag - how many of us were trained - is a great way to help break the pattern of sacrificing "self" for "state" - and teaching skills that will assist in survival go hand in hand with the awareness of how a State is not in any of our best interests.

I suspect you'll be fine, and certainly deserve a good beer - salute!

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:36 | 2276565 sharkbait
sharkbait's picture

The idea of a governmentless utopia of libertarianism sounds wonderful and has great appeal, but has the fatal flaw that it has to be a universal and eternal ideal.  If it isn't, there will be a chain reaction of 'might makes right' on a local scale, followed by mob rule and anarchy, which will result in an eventual and inevitable clamor for a 'government' to 'take care of things'.

Government is not a recent creation.  Are we as humans suddenly or even slowly going to reach a egalitarian pinnacle of development that will eliminate the need and/or desire for a government?  No.  As long as there is one knuckle-dragger down the street that is meaner and stronger than you and is willing to take your car, money, kid, spouse, food, etc by force simply because he/she can; we always need a government structure.

The issue is that along with a need for govenrment, there is a need to creative/destructive cycles to purge the system of corrupt diseased elements.

It is clear that our government(s) have become diseased and corrupt.

There needs to be a mass repudiation of the ruling elites by the masses.

And here is the biggest of all the rubs about fixing the mess we are in.  As indicated by the raging debates on ZH, there is a great diversity of opinion about who are the ruling elites that need to be purged?  (BTW, I mean purged in the removed from positions of power sense, not the Stalinist sense).

One persons power elite needing elimination is anothers hero and potential solution.

So we end up just being stuck.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:53 | 2276606 Lednbrass
Lednbrass's picture

I agree, but part of that problem is that the US is not a nation but several regions with distinctly different ideas on how they want to live and there simply is no middle ground.  The North and Left coast want a European social democracy, the South and non-coastal West want more limitations to centralized power and localized freedom.  Until this is recognized and people are actually allowed to live as they choose its going to be a disaster, its like two people trying to swim in a stormy ocean with one hand on the other guys neck- drowning is only a question of when not if. There is no "us" and at this point its an absurdity to even pretend that there can be consensus on much of anything.

Hopefully after a massive breakdown we can have a reasonably amicable divorce.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:38 | 2276568 Waterfallsparkles
Waterfallsparkles's picture

Just watched this video which shows that the American Citizens are just Slaves with freedom of movement.  Obviously, we are all slaves to the Government thru Taxation.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:45 | 2276581 Decolat
Decolat's picture

We are all brainwashed one way or another, some more, some less. It's the only way slaves can be kept.


Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!