This sums it up well.

[crumbcake]

This sums it up even better:

A man walks in a tailor shop & asks for a pair of pants.
The tailor measures the man, lets him pick out the fabric & asks him to come back in a week.
In a week's time, the man returns to the shop, but the pants aren't ready.
"Sir, the inseam pulls a bit, allow me to correct it & come back in a week -- the pants will be ready."
Another week passes, the man returns to the shop, only to hear another excuse:
"Sir, the inseam's perfect, but i must restitch the lining for the pants to drape as they should.  Please, return in another week."
The man storms out & returns a week later.  The pants are ready, but the man's furious with the delays.
"It took God six days to make the whole world!  Why couldn't you make a frickin' pair of pants in that time, ffs?!
The tailor, shocked & indignant, replied:
"But Sir!  Look at my pants [beams at the pants], and ... [sneers] look at the world!"

[1715101257]

1715101257

[1715101257]

1715101257

[myrkul]

Well, that's what he gets for getting pants from BFL.

[crumbcake]

Well, that's what he gets for getting pants from BFL.

I don't think BFL analogies are appropriate here.

After all, the man got a perfect pair of pants, though 2 weeks late.  If the taylor stalled the man for a year, and the man is still naked, the comparison would be apropo.

[Biomech]

That would make more sense if the first guy had 2 coats. Taxes take 10%-ish, not everything you have. And not even all of it goes to welfare.

10 percent? Where do you live? Where I live, they take more than that before I even SEE the money, and that's not counting the 7% sales tax, various and sundry license fees, inflation, tarriffs, etc...

A better, realistic estimate IF YOU ARE POOR is 50%. Worse as you go up. Fines to punish statutory "crime", tax to punish success.

As for not all of it going to welfare, you're right. The vast majority, right now, goes to killing people. But social entitlements are growing exponentially, and even with the inflationary faucets open wide, they can't do both. I suspect the entitlements will "win" in the long run, in that they will be what topples the system.

[myrkul]

I suspect the entitlements will "win" in the long run, in that they will be what topples the system.

Thank god for the baby boomers. The first waves are starting to retire, and you can already see the cracks starting. By the time the whole group is out of the workforce, the welfare/warfare state will be drained dry.

I've heard that up north, deer can be killed simply by being drained dry by a swarm of mosquitoes.

[crumbcake]

I suspect the entitlements will "win" in the long run, in that they will be what topples the system.

Thank god for the baby boomers. The first waves are starting to retire, and you can already see the cracks starting. By the time the whole group is out of the workforce, the welfare/warfare state will be drained dry.

I've heard that up north, deer can be killed simply by being drained dry by a swarm of mosquitoes.

You're thinking ticks, i think, though i've only seen that in some documentary.  Whatever.  The imagery is even moar suitable.

[Biomech]

I suspect the entitlements will "win" in the long run, in that they will be what topples the system.

Thank god for the baby boomers. The first waves are starting to retire, and you can already see the cracks starting. By the time the whole group is out of the workforce, the welfare/warfare state will be drained dry.

I've heard that up north, deer can be killed simply by being drained dry by a swarm of mosquitoes.

You're thinking ticks, i think, though i've only seen that in some documentary.  Whatever.  The imagery is even moar suitable.

reminds me of a joke by Dave Barry. A definition of politics? Let's look at the root. We have poly, meaning many, and ticks, meaning small biting insects! (yes, I know a tick is an arachnid. It's not my quote.)

[myrkul]

I suspect the entitlements will "win" in the long run, in that they will be what topples the system.

Thank god for the baby boomers. The first waves are starting to retire, and you can already see the cracks starting. By the time the whole group is out of the workforce, the welfare/warfare state will be drained dry.

I've heard that up north, deer can be killed simply by being drained dry by a swarm of mosquitoes.

You're thinking ticks, i think, though i've only seen that in some documentary.  Whatever.  The imagery is even moar suitable.

Parasites, at any rate.

If you follow the course of the "greatest generation," you see that they're a really powerful demographic. They got some serious changes made back in the 60's and 70's, though not as much as they hoped, in the 80's and 90's, they influenced car and house  design (to say nothing of all the other consumer industries), and now in the 00's and 10's whole industries are springing up to care for their failing health. Come the 20's and 30's, they'll likely be responsible for the fall of an empire.

"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." - George Carlin

[crumbcake]

I suspect the entitlements will "win" in the long run, in that they will be what topples the system.

Thank god for the baby boomers. The first waves are starting to retire, and you can already see the cracks starting. By the time the whole group is out of the workforce, the welfare/warfare state will be drained dry.

I've heard that up north, deer can be killed simply by being drained dry by a swarm of mosquitoes.

You're thinking ticks, i think, though i've only seen that in some documentary.  Whatever.  The imagery is even moar suitable.

Parasites, at any rate.

If you follow the course of the "greatest generation," you see that they're a really powerful demographic. They got some serious changes made back in the 60's and 70's, though not as much as they hoped, in the 80's and 90's, they influenced car and house  design (to say nothing of all the other consumer industries), and now in the 00's and 10's whole industries are springing up to care for their failing health. Come the 20's and 30's, they'll likely be responsible for the fall of an empire.

"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." - George Carlin

I always liked "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public," which i always thought was E.T. Barnum, but turns out it's H. L. Mencken.  And when i hear cars in the 80s & 90s, i reach for my revolver (which also wasn't said by the right guy -- it was a line in some play, apparently )

[Biomech]

I suspect the entitlements will "win" in the long run, in that they will be what topples the system.

Thank god for the baby boomers. The first waves are starting to retire, and you can already see the cracks starting. By the time the whole group is out of the workforce, the welfare/warfare state will be drained dry.

I've heard that up north, deer can be killed simply by being drained dry by a swarm of mosquitoes.

You're thinking ticks, i think, though i've only seen that in some documentary.  Whatever.  The imagery is even moar suitable.

Parasites, at any rate.

If you follow the course of the "greatest generation," you see that they're a really powerful demographic. They got some serious changes made back in the 60's and 70's, though not as much as they hoped, in the 80's and 90's, they influenced car and house  design (to say nothing of all the other consumer industries), and now in the 00's and 10's whole industries are springing up to care for their failing health. Come the 20's and 30's, they'll likely be responsible for the fall of an empire.

"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." - George Carlin

I always liked "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public," which i always thought was E.T. Barnum, but turns out it's H. L. Mencken.  And when i hear cars in the 80s & 90s, i reach for my revolver (which also wasn't said by the right guy -- it was a line in some play, apparently )

Mark Twain, actually for the first quote, and that's Phinneas Taylor (P.T.) Barnum.

Last one I'm not sure, but it sounds like "bad habit" by The Offspring ("When I show my piece, complaints cease, something is odd, feel like I'm god, you stupid, dumbshit, goddamn MOTHERFUCKER!")

[crumbcake]

I suspect the entitlements will "win" in the long run, in that they will be what topples the system.

Thank god for the baby boomers. The first waves are starting to retire, and you can already see the cracks starting. By the time the whole group is out of the workforce, the welfare/warfare state will be drained dry.

I've heard that up north, deer can be killed simply by being drained dry by a swarm of mosquitoes.

You're thinking ticks, i think, though i've only seen that in some documentary.  Whatever.  The imagery is even moar suitable.

Parasites, at any rate.

If you follow the course of the "greatest generation," you see that they're a really powerful demographic. They got some serious changes made back in the 60's and 70's, though not as much as they hoped, in the 80's and 90's, they influenced car and house  design (to say nothing of all the other consumer industries), and now in the 00's and 10's whole industries are springing up to care for their failing health. Come the 20's and 30's, they'll likely be responsible for the fall of an empire.

"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." - George Carlin

I always liked "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public," which i always thought was E.T. Barnum, but turns out it's H. L. Mencken.  And when i hear cars in the 80s & 90s, i reach for my revolver (which also wasn't said by the right guy -- it was a line in some play, apparently )

Mark Twain, actually for the first quote, and that's Phinneas Taylor (P.T.) Barnum.

Last one I'm not sure, but it sounds like "bad habit" by The Offspring ("When I show my piece, complaints cease, something is odd, feel like I'm god, you stupid, dumbshit, goddamn MOTHERFUCKER!")

That first one's attributed to just about everyone, and i'm not saying wikip is right, that's what the wikipedos claim
The second one i always herd attributed to Hermann Goering "When I hear the word culture, I reach for my revolver," but wikipedos want to muck wit that one too.  Revolvers are pretty distinct looking, so they made it into all kinds of song lyrics (i think the old Luger looks more evol, but that's me).  The one that comes to mind is "That's when i reach for my revolver/That's when it all gets blown away..." -- not sure who that was, some 80s punk/pop crossover band.

edit:  Mission of Burma, which isn't even the top Google hit anymore (using the exact above quote content).  Moby & Catherine Wheel are above the original.  Fkn Moby

[Lohoris]

also, if you have more money it is easier to circumvent the law.

Abolish law?

so that murder becomes legal?
srsly?

[Biomech]

also, if you have more money it is easier to circumvent the law.

Abolish law?

so that murder becomes legal?
srsly?

Self contradictory. To make murder legal REQUIRES law. Outside of law it's a matter of morals. Immoral men will murder regardless of law.

Thus, the first requisite of freedom is general competent armament. For those few men without morals to be made to think twice, or never again.

[Mike Christ]

Self contradictory. To make murder legal REQUIRES law. Outside of law it's a matter of morals. Immoral men will murder regardless of law.

Thus, the first requisite of freedom is general competent armament. For those few men without morals to be made to think twice, or never again.

"Whoever desires to found a state and give it laws, must start with assuming that all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature, whenever they may find occasion for it."
--Niccolo Machiavelli

I'm guessing Lohoris would be the first to found a state if ever we were absent of one.  Since murder would then be legal (which would just make it killing, technically,) it would be assumed that all people, everywhere, would begin systematically killing every person they came across, until everyone was dead.  Somehow, I don't believe this is normal human behavior.

I mean, y'know, unless you're the head of a state with billions of dollars worth of a military to dispose of in some way.  Then it would just be a waste not to kill people.

[Biomech]

Self contradictory. To make murder legal REQUIRES law. Outside of law it's a matter of morals. Immoral men will murder regardless of law.

Thus, the first requisite of freedom is general competent armament. For those few men without morals to be made to think twice, or never again.

"Whoever desires to found a state and give it laws, must start with assuming that all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature, whenever they may find occasion for it."
--Niccolo Machiavelli

I'm guessing Lohoris would be the first to found a state if ever we were absent of one.  Since murder would then be legal (which would just make it killing, technically,) it would be assumed that all people, everywhere, would begin systematically killing every person they came across, until everyone was dead.  Somehow, I don't believe this is normal human behavior.

I mean, y'know, unless you're the head of a state with billions of dollars worth of a military to dispose of in some way.  Then it would just be a waste not to kill people.

I had forgotten that quote. I was very young last I read Machiavelli

But the sentiment behind it has been the driving force behind organized religion and government for, well, forever. The belief in the face of evidence that one little group of power hungry leeches angels devils men are somehow able to compel the ravening masses and make them not violent, against the very basis of their nature. Democracy takes the fallacy a step further in saying that you too can become one of these Ubermensch, if you get popular enough.

Yet the obvious failure is that men MAKE governments, and that men EXIST after somewhere between 1 million and 40,000 years of existence, most of which had no superstates. If men were by nature self and species destructive unless controlled by outside forces, then any EFFECTIVE government would have to NOT be men.

[Lohoris]

Self contradictory. To make murder legal REQUIRES law. Outside of law it's a matter of morals. Immoral men will murder regardless of law.

Thus, the first requisite of freedom is general competent armament. For those few men without morals to be made to think twice, or never again.

So you arm yourself to defend you from your neighbours.
Then bands of armed robbers appear, and you have to team up with your neighbours to make a common stand.
Then armies appear, and several neighbourhood have to build a common defence strategy...
and you have your old State again.

Your approach is EXTREMELY naive and doesn't work.

I really do not like the current implementation of states, or states altogether, but "splitting up" just isn't going to work.
What we really need now is a totally different approach.

[Biomech]

Self contradictory. To make murder legal REQUIRES law. Outside of law it's a matter of morals. Immoral men will murder regardless of law.

Thus, the first requisite of freedom is general competent armament. For those few men without morals to be made to think twice, or never again.

So you arm yourself to defend you from your neighbours.
Then bands of armed robbers appear, and you have to team up with your neighbours to make a common stand.
Then armies appear, and several neighbourhood have to build a common defence strategy...
and you have your old State again.

Your approach is EXTREMELY naive and doesn't work.

I really do not like the current implementation of states, or states altogether, but "splitting up" just isn't going to work.
What we really need now is a totally different approach.

My approach has only been hinted at. One doesn't put the whole of a philosophy in a few words. I said that competent general armament was the FIRST requisite of liberty. Not the only one.

Common cause, whether in defense or in industry, does not in itself even suggest a state. People can and will come together in common cause for many reasons. There is NO reason that such groupings have to be involuntary or permanent.

And splitting up is PRECISELY what is needed. Extreme decentralization. Centralization is the power to destroy from the top. Decentralization makes that impossible. Don't believe me? Look to the history of Afghanistan. Or America, for that matter, before it completely forgot it's roots. If one man or a small group controls the area, all you have to do to take the reigns is supplant them. This is more often done by subversion than violence, but either works. When every man is independent and armed, who do you go to to take the rei(g)ns?

[oakpacific]

Self contradictory. To make murder legal REQUIRES law. Outside of law it's a matter of morals. Immoral men will murder regardless of law.

Thus, the first requisite of freedom is general competent armament. For those few men without morals to be made to think twice, or never again.

"Whoever desires to found a state and give it laws, must start with assuming that all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature, whenever they may find occasion for it."
--Niccolo Machiavelli

I'm guessing Lohoris would be the first to found a state if ever we were absent of one.  Since murder would then be legal (which would just make it killing, technically,) it would be assumed that all people, everywhere, would begin systematically killing every person they came across, until everyone was dead.  Somehow, I don't believe this is normal human behavior.

This was normal human behaviour. Not sure if it still is consider that we maybe much more enlightened then our ancestors.

[Lohoris]

My approach has only been hinted at. One doesn't put the whole of a philosophy in a few words. I said that competent general armament was the FIRST requisite of liberty. Not the only one.

Common cause, whether in defense or in industry, does not in itself even suggest a state. People can and will come together in common cause for many reasons. There is NO reason that such groupings have to be involuntary or permanent.

And splitting up is PRECISELY what is needed. Extreme decentralization. Centralization is the power to destroy from the top. Decentralization makes that impossible. Don't believe me? Look to the history of Afghanistan. Or America, for that matter, before it completely forgot it's roots. If one man or a small group controls the area, all you have to do to take the reigns is supplant them. This is more often done by subversion than violence, but either works. When every man is independent and armed, who do you go to to take the rei(g)ns?

This would be cool but kind of utopistic, I fear.

Look at Yemen: more guns than people, but they are still oppressed. Why? Because having a gun doesn't turn you into an army, so disorganised people with guns will still lose agains trained soldiers and tanks.

Not saying that none of your ideas could be applied into a real society, only that as a whole it doesn't work.

[Lethn]

He's talking about decentralisation not being disorganised, those are different things, what Libertarians and Anarchists tend to follow seems to be self-regulation rather than the more popular definition of chaos. You can still have leadership and communities in such a system but the point is that it's not one big organisation that runs everything.