Assassination Politics
grarpamp
grarpamp at gmail.com
Mon Sep 26 15:17:52 PDT 2022
https://www.thoughtsaloud.com/2018/07/01/can-a-second-civil-war-be-avoided/
Can A Second Civil War Be Avoided?
July 1st, 2018 | Author: Troy
It should be quite clear to anyone paying any attention that the
massive protests over everything Trump related get ever closer to
outright violence. I lived through the Vietnam War protests and
clearly remember students being shot by folks in uniform before the
then president shirked his duty and surrendered.
Even though the shots are not ringing out (yet), this seems to me a
far more polarized situation than we have experienced since our first
Civil War.
One factor that the protesting progressives seem to have overlooked
(despite the growing evidence) is that we clod-heads in “flyover
country†are heavily armed and, usually, well skilled in the use of
said arms. Do these coastal fools really think they can unseat a duly
elected president and complete the destruction of our Republic without
serious resistance?
Not going to happen. Will there be a “winner†in the coming
conflict? I can’t see how there could be. As soon as serious blood
begins to flow, our enemies will be picking over our dead and wounded
bodies worse than the Arabs during the WWII campaigns in North Africa.
Then there is the matter of what our military will do once it hits the
fan. My suspicion is that divisions of opinion within the military
will mirror those of the nation in general. No idea how that will play
out.
Point is, I truly think we are heading into a situation that will
produce only losses – losses that could be easily avoided by talking
rather than screaming at each other. That said, the intentional
destruction of our national education system is surely about to pay
the predictable dividends.
The fact that this is taking a bit longer to materialize than I
predicted in earlier articles does not change the reality I think I
see all around me. The other thing that I see is that the “good
people†for the most part are silently hunkering down hoping the
whole thing will simply go away. As it such problems ever do.
Think about it.
Troy L Robinson
+1
Posted in Debate, Education, Liberty
« Why I Quit The Libertarian Party
Assassination Politics »
43 Responses to “Can A Second Civil War Be Avoided?”
Jim Bell says:
July 2, 2018 at 11:49 am
I frequently point out that the MSM (mainstream media; at least,
the liberal/Democrat part of it) probably gave Trump $1-2 billion in
free publicity prior to the Republican convention in 2016. In effect,
they threw the Republican nomination to Trump.
This process was made easier because the Republicans started out
with 17 candidates, rather than 2 or 3. At each stage, some
candidate(s) was/were going to be winnowed, and usually that winnowing
was caused by lack of money or interest. Trump was never going to lack
money, whether or not he chose to spend it, and the MSM ensured that
he had at least apparent interest. This was intentional.
Not, of course, that the MSM wanted Trump to be elected; my
hypothesis is that they wanted to have him be the easiest-to-beat
candidate of those likely to be nominated. Well, they got what they
asked for, even if they didn’t want him to be President.
I say all this, in large part because I feel certain that the
“civil war” talked about is far less likely to occur, if the
MSM/Left/Democrats are outed as having been responsible for Trump’s
nomination. And ultimately they bear responsibility for Trump’s
eventual election.
While I, as a lifetime libertarian, would have still voted for
whichever libertarian the LP chose, I would have been much happier if
the Republicans had chosen Rand Paul or maybe Ted Cruz.
So, blame the MSM. I do. If the public is aware of how much, and
which direction, they manipulated the nomination of Trump, they will
be far less likely to blame each other for the ultimate outcome.
+2
Reply
Troy says:
July 3, 2018 at 7:45 am
I frequently point out that the MSM (mainstream media; at
least, the liberal/Democrat part of it) probably gave Trump $1-2
billion in free publicity prior to the Republican convention in 2016.
In effect, they threw the Republican nomination to Trump.
I think this was mostly because Trump made “good copy”. What
the MSM wants most of all is to be watched/read, taken seriously and
covering Trump made that happen.
I also think there is little doubt that the MSM mostly saw
Trump as some sort of buffoon who would never be taken seriously in a
general election — especially when running against the crown princess
herself. Thankfully, a sufficient portion of the nation saw said crown
princess as a generally unwashed self-serving crook who is incapable
of telling the truth about anything. Like, perhaps, why her daughter
is the spitting image of Webb Hubbell rather than her “husband” who is
incapable of making babies. I’m thinking this sham “family” needed a
child to complete the phony public image, Bill was shooting blanks
(if, indeed, he ever even aimed Hill’s way in the first place), good
old Webster had a poor sense of smell and no taste in women, and
voila, problem solved!
Gosh, I am a terrible person. Accurate but terrible.
And, I will repeat for the umpteenth time, there is no
“popular vote”. Our president is elected by the States, not by the
mob. Just had to toss that in.
Troy
+2
Reply
clinicalthinker says:
July 2, 2018 at 12:09 pm
Bill do you still think Rand Paul or Ted Cruz would have done
better than what Trump has so far accomplished? 😉
+1
Reply
jim says:
July 2, 2018 at 3:19 pm
“Bill do you still think Rand Paul or Ted Cruz would have done
better than what Trump has so far accomplished?”
[more on “Bill” later]
You are apparently assuming that each candidate could, and
would, have been elected, if nominated. That assumption seems valid
enough, in hindsight.
Yet, Trump ALMOST didn’t win! Had he lost, he wouldn’t have
done “well”, obviously! We are fortunate that Hillary Clinton amassed
so many serious scandals that she lost. I think that Rand Paul or Ted
Cruz would have been more likely to win the election, against her.
If we somehow “know” that the “Republican” candidate would
definitely win, we can choose which one we’d prefer. I’d choose Rand
Paul, because while he isn’t quite as libertarian as his father, Ron
Paul, I think he’d do quite well.
But, I think it was more likely that either Paul or Cruz would
have won, which is why I would have preferred to see the Republicans
run them.
[on “Bill”: In my 60+ year life, when I am called by other
than “Jim Bell”, it almost always is “Bill”. Interesting coincidence;
but one time, about 30 years ago, my FATHER called me “Bill”.]
+2
Reply
clinicalthinker says:
July 2, 2018 at 7:31 pm
Sorry Jim… maybe in my old age Jim = Bill for some reason?
You are correct it is an assumption that either Paul or
Cruz would be chosen by the public over Clinton.
My educated guess would be they would. It appears the
public was simply fed up FINALLY.
Perhaps it is divine providence if there really is such a thing. 😉
So the question stands do you think either of Paul or Cruz
had the ability to out perform Trump as it stands today?
+1
Reply
Troy says:
July 3, 2018 at 7:29 am
“Bill do you still think Rand Paul or Ted Cruz would
have done better than what Trump has so far accomplished?â€
While I really like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul (although my
estimation of Rand has declined a bit lately), and, my name is not
Bill (or Jim), I seriously doubt that either could have come near to
Trump’s accomplishments. They are simply too “establishment” beholden.
(For the record, I supported Governor Johnson in the last election and
had serious doubts about Trump.)
For whatever reason, Trump’s “take no prisoners” style
seems to be exactly what the situation needed. If the progressives
would just settle down a bit and start behaving like loyal citizens,
we might actually get the nation back into working order. Then again,
if elephants could fly…
Troy
+2
Reply
clinicalthinker says:
July 4, 2018 at 4:54 pm
Paying attention to what Trump has accomplished so far
I see no one who could have accomplished the same.
I often wondered why business men were not running the
country instead of lawyers (for the most part).
To top that off Trump’s personality is perfect for
what needed to be done. I look at him and am actually astonished he
has not flipped a number of these guys the middle finger. There is
little doubt in my mind he thinks that. I admire his restraint.
It all is fun to watch actually. Especially the
progressive media melt down. None of these half-wits appear to have a
clue what fools they are making of themselves.
I keep thinking at some point career self preservation
will kick in … but apparently not.
+1
Reply
Chris says:
July 5, 2018 at 4:46 am
Either Cruz or Paul were capable of accomplishing what
Trump has save one factor. Neither would have been able to withstand
the kind of progressive leftist and media pressure that Trump has.
Paul would have wilted like a spring flower and Cruz would have taken
the Bush approach and ignored it assuring only one term. Some would
say that the liberal gyrations are because it’s Trump. That’s a crock.
Obama’s minions and Pac are behind it all with a complicit media. It
would be happening no matter what republican were in office. Of course
there wasn’t supposed to be. Nobody could outperform Trump because
anybody else would be broken by now.
+2
Reply
clinicalthinker says:
July 6, 2018 at 11:10 pm
It would be happening no matter what republican
were in office. Of course there wasn’t supposed to be. Nobody could
outperform Trump because anybody else would be broken by now.
I believe you are correct Chris. The powers THAT WERE
somehow were overthrown unexpectedly. Clearly the shock remains today.
Personally I find it immensely entertaining … almost
as entertaining as the cute kitten themes on my browser which makes me
smile with each change 😉
+1
Reply
Chris says:
July 12, 2018 at 7:16 am
Entertaining? That dear lady is an understatement.
I’ve been laughing so hard I have to go in for hernia surgery next
month.
+1
clinicalthinker says:
July 2, 2018 at 12:21 pm
I remember Kent state also.
The moral of the story was it did not have to be repeated.
I have said all along … put a sniper on a rooftop … pick off a
couple protesters who are masked, dressed in black and see exactly how
committed they are to beat the opposition over the head with locks for
crow bars.
It is called behavior modification actually. 😉
+1
Reply
Troy says:
July 3, 2018 at 7:14 am
I have said all along … put a sniper on a rooftop …
pick off a couple protesters who are masked, dressed in black and see
exactly how committed they are to beat the opposition over the head
with locks for crow bars.
It is a known fact of war that, sometimes, killing a few
avoids having to kill many.
Troy
+1
Reply
â—„Daveâ–º says:
July 5, 2018 at 12:38 am
Isn’t this precisely the principle behind the efficacy of
Jim Bell’s elegant Assassination Politics proposal? Sacrifice a few
particularly disagreeable state functionaries, to deter any further
participation in tyranny by others, which then precludes the necessity
of a more costly revolution/civil war (same thing)… 😉 â—„Daveâ–º
0
Reply
Troy says:
July 5, 2018 at 12:26 pm
Dave, in the referenced comment, I was referring to an
open state of conflict where the lives and property of potentially
innocent people are already at risk. While you will, no doubt
disagree, if only in an attempt to irritate me, this is different from
political assassination which, IMHO, is always wrong.
Let me try to explain with a simple illustration — you
know from many past contributions that I truly think that Obama gave
aid and comfort to our enemy, thereby committing high treason. We also
know that the customary penalty for high treason is death by
execution.
Having said that, I would not perpetrate Obama’s
execution, either with my own hands or by paying some murder-for-hire
thug via pretend currency. Instead, I would propose that he be
publicly confronted for what I believe are his crimes, in a court of
law and subject to due process.
My reason for this stance is that if the decision and
its follow-on are left totally to me, there is simply too much chance
that I might be wrong, however right I believe my conclusions to be.
Obviously, I form my personal decisions without access to critical
evidence and my opinions are biased by my own preconceived notions.
That is why we have attempted to replace “vigilante justice” with due
process under the law.
Now you may well respond that the system is currently
too corrupt to render justice for the powerful and you are probably
correct. To me, the answer is to fix the system rather than to revert
to the law of the jungle.
At this point, I will drop out of what I think is a
frivolous conversation.
Troy
+1
Reply
jim says:
July 5, 2018 at 1:51 pm
” To me, the answer is to fix the system rather
than to revert to the law of the jungle.”
You said, “the answer is to fix the system”.
That reminds me of a joke, a few decades ago, of a
(fictional) book Titled, “How to be a successful millionaire”.
The first page of the book said, “First get a
million dollars”.
See the problem? Many things are easily stated:
“fix the system”. But how?
Can you explain how to solve the problem? How to
“fix the system”?
Prior to 1995, I had no easily explainable
solutions. After I wrote my AP essay, I could point to it as a
relatively straightforward way to “fix the system”.
If you can actually describe ANOTHER way to “fix
the system”, explain it and explain why it’s better than AP. If you
can’t do that, then you don’t have a solution. You are merely hoping
that another solution exists.
+1
jim says:
July 5, 2018 at 11:56 pm
Let me add, that you said: “At this point, I will
drop out of what I think is a frivolous conversation.”
It isn’t “frivolous”. In the 20th century,
governments killed an estimated 250 million people. (some people get a
lower number by not counting people killed in wars: Why, it isn’t
clear!})
Unless you think people HAVE to be killed by
governments, then you are morally obligated to consider how to avoid
that outcome. Do you have any proposed solution? Do you have any
proposed solution to solve the problem represented by nuclear weapons?
Thousands, maybe millions of very intelligent people have been
thinking about how to solve that problem since 1945. No solution in
sight.
Except one. My AP essay. Tell me why you think it
won’t work. If you concede it will work, explain why you aren’t
advocating it right now. Do you have a better, faster, cheaper, safer
alternative? Describe it.
+1
â—„Daveâ–º says:
July 6, 2018 at 2:52 am
…via pretend currency.
LOL! You know very well that ALL currency is
pretend money, including and especially Federal Reserve Notes. US
FRN’s, Zimbabwe Dollars, Venezuelan Bolivar, Mexican Pesos and
stateless Bitcoins, are all just tokens, worth precisely and only what
someone is ready and willing to trade for them. The moment traders
refuse to accept any of them, they become utterly worthless, no matter
how much their state promotes them as ‘money.’ See: “Money.”
At this point, I will drop out of what I think
is a frivolous conversation.
A pity. It bespeaks a lamentable failure of
imagination. You can’t imagine the possibility of a world without
tyranny, while Jim and I permit ourselves to conceive of such, and are
willing to explore, refine, and debate ideas for promoting a society
without rulers. While I will grant that I will never see this miracle
in my lifetime, as we discussed hereabouts two years ago, I contend
that the chances of ultimately abolishing tyranny with technology, are
infinitely greater than somehow ‘fixing’ the current Incumbrepublocrat
mob-rule duopoly, while continuing to sanction the ruling class with
enthusiastic participation in their sham elections.
As for ‘vigilante justice’ and the ‘law of the
jungle,’ I personally wouldn’t hesitate to join in any serious new
revolution/civil war (same thing) effort to violently overthrow the
tyranny ensconced in Sodom on the Potomac. It is infinitely more
oppressive than King George’s ever was; but now as then, there are
loyal Tories who wish to continue to try to petition for redress,
rather than upset the status quo.
I would suggest that there is now a considerable
contingent of dissatisfied Americans, on both extremes of the
political spectrum, who could be persuaded to join such an effort.
With that in mind, I submit that Jim’s AP idea would be considerably
less violent, with infinitely less bloodshed overall. It has the added
benefit that it does not promote a new crop of tyrannical politicians,
just itching to get their own hands on the levers of government, to
dispense retribution, which would just perpetuate the ills of this
society. I reckon it is worth a try. â—„Daveâ–º
+2
Chris says:
July 5, 2018 at 6:16 pm
It may be necessary CT. Right now we see little ill prepared
ANTIFA masked sissies (I’ll use that term in mixed company) that turn
and run when confronted and aren’t capable of taking a punch without
collapsing in a heap. They are useful idiots. It’s a bait and switch
coming. These sissies are being used to desensitize people to the
threat so nobody will take them seriously. Trust me the agitators have
far more “competent” people at their disposal that will sooner or
later be filtered in. How many inmates are now free from prison
because of a certain “community organizers” early release program when
he was president? How many of them left prison and found shelter and
help within the nation of Islam? If it isn’t stopped it will get
bloody and having the false sense of security that it will just be the
nose of a yapping snow flake is delusional. They are just the primer.
+2
Reply
clinicalthinker says:
July 6, 2018 at 9:56 pm
I am afraid we are heading in that direction faster than
any of us expected.
This ramping up the mob rhetoric is not a good thing IMO.
Mob/group action is an interesting thing. How one gets
caught up in it is even more interesting to me … since it did in fact
happen to me. Nothing more sinister than a self professed Shinto
master coaxing a group of about 20 to walk across a bed of hot coals
(i.e. firewalk).
Sound stupid? Indeed it was! Much to the objection of my
brother and my firefighting cousin … before I knew it I was trudging
across a hot coal pit about 8 feet wide and 10 feet long. Landing in a
puddle of mud being gently greeted by a Shinto helper who whispered
something I will never forget.
You completed a challenge most people will never try.
He did not include “sane” in the sentence.
When I got home my husband heard my brother recount the
story. My husband said I never thought you would ever be that stupid.
Frankly I never thought I would either.
The interesting thing was I only suffered a tiny burn
where a coal apparently got lodged under my little toe. My cousin
Lorna got no burn at all … amazing … she must certainly been more
spiritually minded than I was. That being said it hurt like hell. A
solid reminder to never to that again.
Lucky I have video of the whole thing or I would not
believe I was that stupid either at this late date in life.
The fascinating part of the whole incident for me was of
the 4 of us. I my cousin Lorna, her brother and my brother … it was
the 2 woman that for whatever reason actually did the walk. Had anyone
ever said in the beginning … hey guys we are going to walk on bed of
fire today there would have been a unanimous WE PASS from all of us!
Walking around with my foot in a bucket of ice while
preparing for a dinner party at my house that evening was not fun. It
was however memorable in that I was now a firewalker.
Through the years I have pondered that situation and why I
actually chose to go through with the walk. No one pressured me (in
fact the opposite from by brother and cousin telling us both we were
crazy). I was fully cognizant of what was occurring. I was in the
middle of a line where I could have stepped out of line at any time.
Perhaps my cousin Lorna being directly ahead of me in line? I do not
know. Before I realized it there I was facing a bed of hot coals and
thinking best not panic now.
So am I surprised at what happens in a large group or crowd?
NO!
It takes but one leader to start the charge and before you
know it the sheeple will follow.
The moral of the story you better decide to be a sheep dog
ahead of time.
+1
Reply
â—„Daveâ–º says:
July 7, 2018 at 2:25 am
Fascinating story, CT. Thanks for sharing. 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º
+1
Reply
clinicalthinker says:
July 8, 2018 at 5:32 am
You are welcome Dave. 😉
For me there was a rather interesting
psychological outcome I suppose. Challenge in life became less
challenging some how. That is where I quite looking at life through an
emotional prism and disciplined myself to make all further decisions
from a clinical perspective.
Funny how emotion seems to offer little or no
solution to fixing things but clinical perspective offers an immediate
fix every time.
An adequate fix according to ??? I suppose would
be the question. Clearly to the clinical thinking decision maker it
would work. The rest of the world? Who knows and would it matter?
For me? My perspective has changed to something
simple. I am headed in this direction. If you want to come along we
can walk hand in hand. If not I refuse to drag your ass.
You might recall in the beginning a tiny
discussion over how satisfied we all were with our current lives and I
said mine was very good. It is that way because total freedom to be
exactly what you choose in life is pretty heady stuff. Those who
accept being free tend to get along and are happy. Those who do not
make that choice … well they can freely move in a different circle.
So where does Jim Bell’s AP fit into that scenario?
In the long run universally?
Probably perfectly for a sheepdog.
For a sheep? Not so much.
At that point we are headed in a whole different
behavioral/psychological direction.
Look at your own life Dave does any of what is
going on out in the world alter your life at all?
It certainly does not alter mine one whit.
Long ago I adopted an outlook that is my creed so
to speak. “The world is what you perceive it to be so why not let that
be light?” (light being good according to my personal perspective.)
So fair warning … lol … step into my world and
muck up my UTOPIA and see clinically what happens to you. (You being
anyone with the guts or means to try)
Make sense?
+1
clinicalthinker says:
July 8, 2018 at 6:32 am
BTW Dave if you did not catch Jordan Peterson on
Joe Rogan’s podcast it is always interesting to watch someone with a
like mind IMO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Xc7DN-noAc
Also Sam Harris will be on Ben Shipiro today
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdUC8nRVyYY&t=9s
Somehow I get the inkling Sam has left his tried
and true atheist tangent into some new esoteric “how to live a better
life” money making scam (that is hinged on “common sense” for FREE
basics).
I will see … lol
+1
â—„Daveâ–º says:
July 9, 2018 at 4:15 am
I can’t thank you enough for the links, CT.
Particularly the Rogan/Peterson one, which I think may have been the
most riveting 3+ hours I ever spent in front of a screen. This new
“long form”/”intellectual dark web” business is utterly fascinating,
and the lengthy discussion of it on both videos was remarkable. Out of
curiosity, I will be exploring it further. Thanks again! â—„Daveâ–º
+1
Troy says:
July 6, 2018 at 8:28 am
Dave and Jim/Bill,
OK – despite my better judgment, one more try…
Unless I seriously misunderstand the AP proposal, it seems to be
based on the notion that if you eliminate a few of what you consider
the “bad guys†, the rest will suddenly wake up and think “wow,
we had best clean up our act before they come for us too†.
An interesting theory that just might work – in a vacuum.
One major flaw that I see is that no one gets into a position of
power without a constituency of some sort. And, the more corrupt the
person in power, the more corrupt the constituency. So, what I really
see happening is that you eliminate a “bad guy†and his/her
constituency does not like it one bit. In fact, they will surely have
to take out some on your side to even the score. And, on and on it
goes and nothing has really changed except the excuse for the killing.
The alternative is to repeat what happened in the American
colonies and again in France where to common people stood together and
to tell the powerful “we are not going to take it anymoreâ€
followed by whatever action best suits the circumstance.
Our Founders stated such grievous claims, defeated the most
powerful military of the time, then established a Constitution in an
attempt to place rigid bounds around the inevitable government that
followed. All that is required of the rest of us is that we defend the
Constitutional notion and demand its strict enforcement. This we have
failed to do for more reasons than I care to list.
I honestly think that most of those reasons could be negated by a
combination of a restored education system along with a return to
compulsory national service (the latter as a way to instill much
needed discipline into young plastic minds and bodies). And, no, such
change will not be easy but, IMHO, without it, no other solution can
have lasting effect.
For those of you who prefer to shoot your way out of the problem,
I say “fire away†– just don’t pretend surprise when the other
guys fire back.
As for the number of people killed in the last century’s wars, I
might note that since mankind has used its ingenuity to reduce famine
and epidemic but has done little to reduce the overall birth rate, war
and climate seem to be nature’s only means of population control.
Inference: if we stopped out-of-control reproduction, there would be
far less reason to kill each other (or for nature to kill us) in the
never-ending quest to control resources.
Troy
+1
Reply
jim says:
July 6, 2018 at 9:42 am
“One major flaw that I see is that no one gets into a position
of power without a constituency of some sort. And, the more corrupt
the person in power, the more corrupt the constituency.”
You seem to be assuming that in a post-AP world, there will be
“positions of power”, just like current society. Why? There will be no
“authority” that is deemed to be granted by the public, as in some
sort of a vote.
People will be able to get into positions (jobs) where they do
things, but if they piss people off enough they will have to leave
those positions.
For a few months or years, there might be a bloodbath, where
people who have grudges take their revenge, but I see nothing wrong
with this concept. Soon enough, society will probably be very
‘boring’, at least their will be a minimum of dispute, no war as we
know it.
+1
Reply
clinicalthinker says:
July 6, 2018 at 10:20 pm
For those of you who prefer to shoot your way out of the
problem, I say “fire away†– just don’t pretend surprise when
the other guys fire back.
Actually I think the same thing every time I see Moron Maxine
busy ramping up a riot against others.
I seriously wonder how long it will be before someone burns a
cross on her front lawn. Then she will really have something to gripe
about.
+1
Reply
â—„Daveâ–º says:
July 7, 2018 at 2:19 am
one more try…
Thanks for continuing to engage, Troy; but I can see that you
still don’t quite grasp the elegance of the remarkable potential for
Jim’s idea.
Unless I seriously misunderstand the AP proposal, it seems
to be based on the notion that if you eliminate a few of what you
consider the “bad guys†, the rest will suddenly wake up and think
“wow, we had best clean up our act before they come for us too†.
That is too simplistic. To me, the “bad guys” are any and all
persons claiming authority to rule, regulate, and/or enforce their
model of how the world should behave, over free, sovereign,
independent, individuals, who choose not to recognize any such
authority. This would necessarily include any coercive agents of any
government, including all law enforcement officers or military
personnel. Thus, “bad guys” would have to do more than just clean up
their act for self-preservation, they would need to find a different
line of work.
In fact, they will surely have to take out some on your
side to even the score.
You seem to misunderstand that once implemented, there could
be no “sides,” competing for power to rule over each other. Laissez
faire would reign supreme.
The alternative is to repeat what happened in the American
colonies…
Are you suggesting that another revolution would be a better
alternative to AP? Why? Such, even if your preferred side won, would
do nothing to end the us-against-them paradigm — only perpetuate it.
…the inevitable government that followed.
They desired to continue in international commerce on the high
seas, so they deemed it wise to join their existing colonial
governments into a federated nation for international respect. Since
there was no international internet or cryptographic blockchain
technology at the time, they must be forgiven for this failure of
imagination. Today, technologically competent libertarians have no
such excuse. 😉
I honestly think that most of those reasons could be
negated by a combination of a restored education system along with a
return to compulsory national service (the latter as a way to instill
much needed discipline into young plastic minds and bodies). And, no,
such change will not be easy but, IMHO, without it, no other solution
can have lasting effect.
Yikes! Improved compulsory indoctrination system and
compulsory conscription? Are you sure you are still a libertarian?
Besides, neither has a snowball’s chance in hell of ever happening
anytime soon, so dreaming of them as some sort of lasting solution to
what ails America is utterly futile.
AP, on the other hand, not only offers a solution with a
lasting effect, it is inevitable that it will eventually be
implemented. As I predicted two years ago in “Eliminating Authority“:
I reckon that it is only a matter of time, before a
workable, automated, and unstoppable worldwide system is designed and
implemented. If TOR can already circumvent the Great Firewall of
China, how could it be stopped, and by whom? Moreover, while mass
retirements of politicians, bureaucrats, police, and military officers
would undoubtedly soon follow, I don’t see it as being limited to
government functionaries. Why not Jihadist leaders and their radical
imams? How about dishonest used car salesmen? There could easily be
multiple prediction markets, to eliminate all manner of uncivilized
behaviors.Â
Being an unpleasant jerk and pissing people off, could
become extremely dangerous. If one did something to provoke getting
one’s name on a ‘hit’ list, with a sufficient reward to tempt a
friend or associate, one’s life would never be the same again. Since
the reward funds are donated up front, as anonymously as the ultimate
recipient of them, there would be no way to cancel a ‘contract’
once initiated.
Yikes! I predict a very polite society in the future of
mankind. Those believing that gangs of thugs would naturally terrorize
society in the absence of government, need to think again. They
wouldn’t dare have any leaders either! Who could a gang leader
possibly trust, with a sufficient price on his head? For their
bloodthirsty lot, it wouldn’t even need to be a very high price,
since it could be collected completely anonymously, with a few
keystrokes on a smartphone.
Once this genie is out of the bottle, and anonymous
cryptocurrency use becomes ubiquitous worldwide, I predict that
eventually all oppressive governments will fail, and all military
organizations will cease to exist. I am unsure what individuals will
then do with their lust for power, when none is available. I suppose
they might have to settle for becoming well-paid assassins; but even
that would be destined to become a dead-end career, as the survivors
did their very best to avoid provoking anyone, in any way.Â
Now, if you have absorbed Jim’s entire essay, please
show me the hidden flaw. I can’t find it! ◄Dave►
So far, other than personal emotional outrage at the idea, no
one has been able to expose a flaw. Perhaps there isn’t one… 😉
â—„Daveâ–º
0
Reply
jim says:
July 10, 2018 at 6:30 pm
You don’t seem to want to reply, huh? You used the term
“frivolous”, TWICE, but you cannot show that the issue (the problem of
the existence of government) is of no or little consequence. Chances
are you discovered that you couldn’t challenge the issue, both of
importance, but also you couldn’t challenge the idea that if
implemented, my AP idea would work.
+1
Reply
Troy says:
July 11, 2018 at 7:31 am
I have ceased participation in this conversation for
several reasons:
First, it has gotten far too contentious for my taste. I
simply do not take myself (or anyone else) that seriously.
Second, you have decided you are correct and will not
consider any alternatives so why offer any?
Third, this is simply not fun or mentally stimulating —
the only reasons I participate in this blog.
Troy
0
Reply
jim says:
July 16, 2018 at 8:55 am
You started off by claiming, TWICE, that the subject
was “frivolous”. I could define “frivolous” as being “without
importance.
Yet, do you really think that the issue of the
ultimate elimination of government is “without importance?
Governments killed 250 million people in the 20th
century. Do you really think that the lives of those 250 million
people are without importance?
I think you were just trying to avoid the discussion,
which you knew you would not win.
“First, it has gotten far too contentious for my
taste. I simply do not take myself (or anyone else) that seriously.”
Another example of trying, under different words, to
call the issue “frivolous”.
“Second, you have decided you are correct and will not
consider any alternatives so why offer any?”
I suggest that this describes virtually any discussion
or debate. And, the fact that I wrote my AP essay 23 years ago, and I
have been carefully paying attention to references to it, certainly
justifies me “deciding I am correct”.
You also haven’t attempted to provide any
“alternatives” yet. While people continue to die, you won’t explain
how to solve that problem.
“Third, this is simply not fun or mentally stimulating
— the only reasons I participate in this blog.”
Generally, it is painful for everyone to discuss on
the losing end of a debate.
0
Reply
Troy says:
July 16, 2018 at 9:35 am
I think you were just trying to avoid the
discussion, which you knew you would not win.
Jim, we have very different worldviews and
concepts. To me, the notion of “winning” or “losing” suggests life is
some sort of game. I refuse to accept this concept.
For me, the main two reasons to live are: 1. To
enjoy simply being alive, and, 2. To learn. Since I assume most others
have some form of these same ideas, even though they may state them
differently, I also adopt a “live and let live” approach which I try
to implement through tolerance of people who do not think exactly like
I do.
Alas, I find myself lacking any grand solutions
and, as stated elsewhere, I simply do not take anyone that seriously.
I find it somewhat odd that while you bemoan the
number of people “killed by governments”, your solution seems to be
even more killing, albeit more selective killing than that done in
war.
Troy
0
clinicalthinker says:
July 9, 2018 at 10:17 pm
I think may have been the most riveting 3+ hours I ever spent
in front of a screen.
Any time Dave 😉
Peterson/Rogan was also my favorite. I have seen so much
controversy over what Peterson says of late.
Frankly what people think he is saying astounds me.
It only reinforces my theory people hear what they want to hear no
matter what is actually said to them.
I was particularly intrigued when Peterson said something like
“this is the first time in history where the spoken word is more
important than the written word” … all because of the “intellectual
dark web”.
All of these guys are slowly putting newspapers and TV out of business.
Rogan had an interview with Candace Owens and Ted Nugent this
month too. Both interesting IMO.
A 3 hour show with one person is pretty telling no matter how many
short clips one has seen in the past.
+1
Reply
â—„Daveâ–º says:
July 11, 2018 at 2:51 am
Just finished the JRE/Candace Owens one. Wow! Excellent… â—„Daveâ–º
+1
Reply
clinicalthinker says:
July 11, 2018 at 9:56 pm
Glad you enjoyed JRE/Candace Dave 🙂
. I have liked her from the beginning when she cropped up.
This has been a rather interesting month for me … where
suddenly I run across information that causes me to really think and
wonder what if. Today was one of these special days. I have thought
for a very long time … how egotistical for humans to believe we are
the only thinking intelligence in the universe. Looks like perhaps not
if one is to believe there is an actual area 51 and perhaps a crash at
Rosewell in 1953.
Somehow I happened onto a youtube video with Ron Garner
talking about his life’s research of Area 51. It was his last
interview before his death. One of the people he talked about was a
Dr. Dan Burisch who reportedly has an IQ of 200, a trained
microbiologist … recruited because of his skills to S-4 of area 51.
Part of his job was the study of one of the crash victims
called J-ROD who had a degenerative disease.
This is a 1 to 12 part series of which I have watched the
first 2 so far.
Interesting IMO
Perhaps to others here also 😉
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uq9n7tpmd4
0
Reply
clinicalthinker says:
July 13, 2018 at 11:48 pm
I have now watched episodes 1 – 2 – 6 – 7 and part of 9.
I have given up watching because it appears that they
have simply chopped up the rest into what was already covered.
Burisch seems credible enough. I found it odd that the
government allowed this to go on and on. Perhaps they have not since I
find nothing after these interviews about him at all.
By 6 – 7 things were getting a little far out.
Time travel back and forth, multiple dimension
slipping, mental telepathy all fascinating and possible I suppose.
Most likely I would have to experience it myself to be
a gung-ho believer.
Perhaps after I rest my mind I will finish the series
just out of curiosity for whatever else of might be lurking out there
😉
0
Reply
â—„Daveâ–º says:
July 18, 2018 at 12:16 am
I finally got around to the Rogan/Nugent podcast. I certainly
didn’t expect it to be as fascinating as it was! I learned a lot about
both of these guys that I didn’t know. Thanks again, CT. 😀 â—„Daveâ–º
0
Reply
clinicalthinker says:
July 13, 2018 at 11:13 pm
I have to go in for hernia surgery next month.
Oh My Chris … hope the hernia part is not for real but if by
chance it is good luck.
My hubby had to have that surgery and came thru with flying colors twice 🙂
The laughing part? I look at it this way the more we laugh and
smile the less wrinkles we get … LOL
Are you enjoying the Peter Strzok BBQ Grill sequences?
The democrats put on quite a show.
Talk about nailing the coffin lid shut.
I have long thought Trump caused these wing-nuts to lost their
collective marbles.
Now I realize they never had marbles to lose.
What does that say for those who voted them into office?
Would love to see some charges come out of all this.
The country needs to see corrupt people in the “county clink” for
some of their misbehavior.
0
Reply
jim says:
July 18, 2018 at 9:12 am
This reply is actually for Troy, but of all the comments
above, the one I am replying to is the only one that has no “reply”
button!!
“Jim, we have very different worldviews and concepts. To me,
the notion of “winning†or “losing†suggests life is some sort
of game. I refuse to accept this concept.”
Don’t play word-games. You know what I mean.
“Alas, I find myself lacking any grand solutions”
Which, I suspect, is the motive behind some of the opposition
to my AP concept. Some people just don’t LIKE it, and mostly because
they cannot think of something better.
“and, as stated elsewhere, I simply do not take anyone that seriously.”
That doesn’t mean that you cannot respond in a non-serious fashion, huh?
“I find it somewhat odd that while you bemoan the number of
people “killed by governments†, your solution seems to be even
more killing, albeit more selective killing than that done in war.”
I notice your phrase “even more killing”. This suggests that
you believe that there will be even more killing in a post-AP world
than in a pre-AP world. Why do you believe that?
I concluded, even before I wrote Part 1 of the essay, that the
long-post-AP world would eventually be quite peaceful, even boring.
Have you ever heard the saying, “an armed society is a polite
society”? Well, AP will arm the people in a far more effective way
than they have ever been allowed to be armed, before. There will be no
government coercion, and certainly because there will be no
government.
0
Reply
â—„Daveâ–º says:
July 18, 2018 at 12:07 pm
This reply is actually for Troy, but of all the
comments above, the one I am replying to is the only one that has no
“reply†button!!
Jim, the nesting of comments on this blog is set at 5
levels, because they get too narrow if set higher. This is why there
is no reply button on comments in the final level. To make a reply
inline, use the first reply button you find in a comment above the one
you are replying to. Otherwise, especially if you are quoting
something, it is best to go all the way to the bottom of the thread
and make a generic reply, as if you were commenting to the main post.
This has the effect of moving the comment all the way to the left
column, and makes it more likely to be seen by a casual reader not
actively engaged in the conversation.
BTW: selecting the text you are quoting and then
hitting the “quote” button in the reply box, results in this more
elegant presentation. 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º
0
Reply
jim says:
December 1, 2018 at 12:24 pm
Okay, I now understand.
I’m not surprised that Troy abandoned the
conversation. There is definitely a very important problem, perhaps
the most important one humans face. Troy (and most everyone else)
doesn’t even pretend to have a solution. I, at least, claim to have
described a solution. (AP) https://cryptome.org/ap.htm
When I first wrote and publicized my AP essay in
1995-96, I expected there to be a robust debate, but it really never
happened. That debate could still occur today, and should.
Now that Ethereum and Augur exist (and the Forecast
Foundation) this discussion may be forced onto the world.
0
Reply
Larry says:
January 10, 2019 at 10:33 pm
Troy always provided useful contributions on any
issue he pondered in this and other forums in which we participated.
In this case, he probably should have early on just identified your
essay as meaningless, useless drivel.
I hope you can do better.
+1
â—„Daveâ–º says:
January 11, 2019 at 1:21 am
Nice to see that you are still kicking, Larry.
Happy New Year. 👴 ◄Dave►
+2
jim bell says:
February 24, 2019 at 10:48 pm
“Larry said:
Larry says:
January 10, 2019 at 10:33 pm
Troy always provided useful contributions on any issue he pondered
in this and other forums in which we participated. In this case, he
probably should have early on just identified your essay as
meaningless, useless drivel.
I hope you can do better.”
I think you need to be clearer. Assuming you agree that government
is the problem, then we should be searching for a solution to that
problem. I believe I have found it. Can you challenge that, my
conclusion?
If you DON’T believe that government is the problem, you are part
of the problem.
More information about the cypherpunks
mailing list