What are the legitimate functions of government?
 

I have, in the past, argued for a strictly minimalist government. One of the few things I supported was national defense. Now that government has proven itself inadequate to the task of national defense, what can government be entrusted with? Am I reading too much L. Neil Smith?

How have they proven inadequate at self defense? You're still alive, aren't you?

I think the answer to your question is probably "Yes", from what you've posted so far. But I'll allow you to explain your thoughts a little better before I judge.

Yes, I am alive.

We have two major security issues that are front and center now. The 9 11 bombing and the anthrax scare.

Easy one first, its looking more and more likely that the anthrax was made in the USA by government labs. Problem created and eventually solved by government.

The messier one, why are we a target for Islamic extremists? Our foreign policy. Problem created by government, unfortunately probably irresolvable by our government. We still have a little problem in that most of the terrorists were Saudi nationals and we are allied with the oppressive regime there. No change in our relationship with Iraq, the sanctions are in place only the people suffer, not the regime. Israel still points American weapons at the Palestinians. Now we also have the added problem of the further dismantling of the Bill of Rights by der Office of Homeland Security.

I guess what I really wanted to know is, what other functions of government have value to people? I wrote the question intending to be provacative not to focus on the failure of national defense.

And not even Ft. Marlene, which would have been my guess.

The oppressive regime there isn't allied with the terrorists -- nor are they opposed to that regime because the regime is too oppressive.
have value to people? I wrote the question intending to be provacative not to focus on the failure of national defense. [/b][/quote]

Correct, but would the Saudis actually hand over Al Queda members who get home?

Government should only be around to protect our rights to life, liberty and property, as outlined in a minimal constitution containing objective laws. Anything else is too big.

The question then becomes "Where is the line drawn?"

Where does protecting "our rights to life, liberty and property" end and "overbearing government" begin? For example - is a trial of Microsoft too much? What about the RIAA, which as been called a "cartel" by the DoJ - their anti-piracy measures possibly infringing on rights - should the government step in? Who makes that decision?

I wouldn't authorize a govmint to intervene in either case. If the consumer is getting screwed a market without political barriers would provide other options. I would draw the line at coercion, if a business uses the power of government to hold market share it should be destroyed (by the consumer). Government intervention always leads to bullshit like the taxpayers of NY or PA buying stadia for for the poor baseball owners. To paraphrase Gandolf when offered the ring of power... I cannot take it, for I would be tempted use it for good, unfortunately power has its own purposes.

Gandalf. :)

I agree that taxpayers shouldn't pay for baseball stadiums and the like. So we see eye to eye on that. But what if the consumers are powerless to stop a corporation? Suppose Microsoft managed to get its operating system on to everything - they would, then, control everything. What then? Consumers stop buying their products? What if Microsoft started stealing money from consumers' bank accounts? What if the big dissenters were completely drained and their identity erased? No coersion, though, so it's all good?

Well the principle of a *democratic* government is to express the will of the people..

Right. But now we're talking about principles and ideals, which, unfortunately, the world doesn't follow. I agree - ideally, the government should have as little to say in the day-to-day lives of its citizens as possible. However, with human nature and all that fun stuff, I'm not sure that's very plausible.

Idealy?
Debateable.
Look at for instance Calssical Athenian Democracy. Over 6000 citivens had to be present at a meeting for any laws to be apssed, there would be debate, and either consensus would be reached or it owuld go to a vote, juries often had 200 or 500 memebers, a much more participatory decmoracy than our currant competitve eliteist model (As defined by Models of Deocracy - Stanford Press).
By wanting the government entirley out of your life you also lose a degree of control of it.

I think you're misreading what I wrote.

People should have control of the government - the government should not control every aspect of the citizens' life.

I don't need a law to tell me how to brush my teeth or tie my shoes. I don't need a law to tell me what I can and cannot do with things I have purchased - if I want to make a copy of my CD so the original basically sits as a "backup" and doesn't get scratched, then that's nobody else's business, and doing so should not mean that I am liable to arrest. Do I want a government to exist? Yes. Do I want it to do its job? Again, yes. However, I don't want its job to be "micromanage the population of the country". Not only is it a waste of my money (in taxpayer dollars), but it's restricting on personal freedoms as well. It's not something that we need.

My point was that the more interactino yo uahve with government, hte larger role you are going to play in hwo it operates.
What a government is meant, and not menat to legislate is often set out in consitutional boundries. hte problem with a decocracy i tht is is menat to represent the majroity, no matter how stupid and selfish they happen to be....



Your example is a contraversial one, while i do agree with you woudl you prefer if governments didi not legislate copyright? It get murky.

*looks at Jag's post*

Damnit jag! I told you to lay off the sauce for New Year's! ;)

(post # 900)

Why should the Saudi's hand over their own citizens? Would we want to hand over our own citizens to a foreign court?

Copyright is definitely important, and I support it. I write software for a living - if other companies stole it and sold it, I'd have a hard time staying employed. However, software itself is a different issue. I support the government's right to make backup copies of the (hehe) tapes I deliver to them, because if they didn't, I could fuck them out of money to get another copy. If you buy a CD, be it of software or music, you own that CD. Maybe you don't have distribution rights to the contents, but you own that CD. If you want to break it in half, you should be allowed to (and I'm sure no one would dare write or sponsor a law that took that privilege away, heaven forbid you'd want to purchase another copy of their overpriced product). Conversely, if you want to make a backup copy of that CD, should you accidentally break it in half, irrecoverably scratch it or drop it in a river of molten lava, you should be able to. You bought the CD.

The same is true with DVDs, especially in my household, where they are frequently watched. I'm not paying for a license to watch that movie - I am paying for a DVD that happens to contain the movie I want to watch. Maybe I want to make sure I can watch that movie for a long time to come, so I rip it to my hard drive or make a backup DVD of it. This should be perfectly legal, but it is not. Circumventing the Content Scrambling System is illegal under the terms of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. It's completely bogus, but it is illegal. You cannot play a DVD in a standard DVD player unless you have its region code and CSS, but those are in portions of the DVD that are uncopyable, as per the DVD standard. So, of course, if you make a backup copy of your movie, it's virtually useless, and therefore, not an actual backup - more like a hack copy. This is <b>unacceptable</b> - I have purchased some 120 DVDs. What if they are stolen? Am I supposed to eat that loss? That's what the MPAA hope, but that's not acceptable to me. I'd rather have copies, thank you very much, so that even if my DVDs are stolen, I can at least copy them. This is, of course, currently a crime, and one I could be jailed for.

I do not agree with "piracy" (nor do I agree with the practice of that word being used to describe "intellectual property theft"). The issue of IP theft itself is rather fuzzy - one is not actually stealing (as in, revoking the possession of) any property - they're simply copying it and possibly depriving one of revenues, which is also sketchy. But I digress. The fact of the matter is, if I write some really cool software and I decide to charge $100 for each copy of it, that should definitely be protected by copyright laws. But removing the right to make fair-use backups of such materials (as is currently illegal and impossible in the case of DVDs) is, I believe, a greater crime, because it deprives humanity of what I believe is an essential freedom - that to do what you wish with what you have purchased. I work hard so I can buy what I buy, and if I want to eBay it a day later or rip it to mp3 in iTunes, I damn well better be able to. I don't rent CDs - I buy them. Period.

If they killed a bunch of their citizens on their soil, we might. It's called extradition, and it happens all the time.

While i do entirely agree with you, legally you're on very shakey ground, you own the medium but not what's on it.

THe bullshit factor in all this is very high, msotly due to thinks liek the DMCA being steamrollered though the courts by corperate money meaning basicly - you're screwed.

I've ego t a feeling it iwll change though, there is a backlash coming, and i can't wait.

Right. But you're entitled to Fair Use of the contents of the medium, no matter what. The ground is shaky, but in the end, it will work itself out - I'm very much sure of it.

Whether or not I'll live to see that day is another story. Who knows - I may be executed for ripping a CD.

THisis so offtopic its not funny.
Ut the arguements involved cut ot the core of our economic sturucture of ht efuture - an infomation based economy. Problem i see iwth that is ou currant economy relies of scaristy of goods, only so many tons of gold, HI-Fis, Plums, whatever ot go around. Infomaiton can be replicated 100000000 times and use no finite resources, any attempt to change that is artificial, and tht is the flaw.

Governments useful? ever?
 

Throughout the time of man on earth the numerous structures of governments have done but one thing, exploit their people.

Please post examples of how every government in the history of the world has exploited their people. Thanks.

It's hard to start from somewhere on a broad question. List some governments to me and I'll list how they exploit(ed) their people

That is a statement so broad that even i wouldn't dare make it.

Uh. No. You made the statement. Back it up :)

Also.

Key words there being "but one thing" -

Please explain how they have never done anything except exploit their people. This can maybe be easier than the other one, 'cause it doesn't require such a vast amount of typing.

How has, say, the Canadian government done nothing but exploit their people?

As for where to start on the other one - how about starting with all current countries by alphabetical order, and then going back through history to make sure and cover all the ones that were replaced along the way. Simple!

I guess I read that as one common thread in all governments in all times, they always exploit their people. Sloppy writing but in the sense that I read it, absolutely correct.

Well then, maybe you can write a faithful response to my first request, which was:

Please post examples of how every government in the history of the world has exploited their people.

Unless you know, factually, that there has NEVER existed a government which has refrained from exploiting its people, then you can't really make such a statement. And to know, factually, that there has NEVER been such a government, one needs to research all governments that have ever existed and find irrefutable proof of their exploitation of their people.

I welcome the post with the evidence.

Hmmm...I read it as a broad general statement. Governments have exploited their people through the ages. Every government? Who knows? We don't know of every government that has existed.

Unnecessary.

You misunderstand.

I quoted that by hand - didn't hit the "quote" button. I typed it all in, code and all.

You've never heard the expression "or some shit"?

Well, if you haven't, that's where that came from. Not as an insult, but kinda like

"Man, she was like, wantin' to get it on or some shit, and I was like 'damn, bitch!'."

One cannot understand voice inflection in words. My apologies for not clarifying that the "or some shit" applied to "Originally posted by" and not to Muse.

Better. Wanted to make sure you weren't bagging on the person already. :)

No no no. I usually wait at least a week after their first post before I totally tear into 'em :)

He he. This will be a long post. I'm not signing on for that but as soon as archeologists show me something different I'll post it.

Og realized that he was stronger than Ig. He went to Igs leanto and, established mans first government. Ig and Bo overthrew that government by establishing a peoples committee, they went to Ogs cave beat him about the head and took his stuff. Over the years, the system had different window dressings applied to it usually sold as an improvement over the previous governments failings. Athens attacks Sparta, Aztecs slaughter get slaughtered, the Czar gets rolled. Irish and Scots get displaced by the English go to america and slaughter Native Americans.The North taxes the South. Euro govs set up colonies. Japan follows suit, Truman goes atomic. Australia reeducates the Bushmen. Commies get back Hong Kong, Canada gives free ride to rich Asian emigrees. America bombs Iraq for 11 years is suprised when get bombed. Government is stupid brute force, period.

I think I may have missed a gov or two there, but thats Muses deal not mine.

blah
 

I'll admit, my orginal statement was pretty broad, yet I still have the same view, I'll just rephrase it as someone suggested before. The one common thing about governments is that they exploit the people. They never truly represent the views of their citizens and have their own desires when in leadership. This can be seen through the corruption of almost every government in our current world by corporations.

.....haha tear into me......go for it.......i won't cry

So what you're saying, then, is that because governments are made up of people, they make mistakes and are plagued by human characteristics, and are therefore imperfect?

To which, I would say "That is correct".

[quote]The one common thing about governments is that they exploit the people.

What is a government? How do we define such a thing?

Were Native American leaders considered to be governing of their tribes? I think that's what I'd consider them. Yet, I don't believe they worked to exploit their people.

I think what I'd say is this:

Government is inherently flawed because it is, and should be, made up of human beings. However, government is, at worst, a necessary evil, because of the protection it offers its people and the bargaining power, for a nation, that comes with the citizens' will as a collective whole.

Your original question was something to the effect of "Is government necessary?"

My answer to you is "Stop taking advantage of anything being furnished by the government for 6 months and then get back to me."

To understand those comments, you need to understand my history on the Cellar. Click my "profile" button, then click "Search for all posts by this user" in the upper right corner. Read all of them, all of the posts they were in response to and all of the responses to mine.

If you're not up for that, here's the short story: I have a history of vehemently defending a position I know to be correct, and pushing people to back up their baseless claims. I'm not doing that with you because I attempt to be courteous until the person has settled in and knows what they're in for. Since you don't, and you haven't been particularly idiotic or absurd yet, I have no reason to. I imagine we'll butt heads in the future...

Until then, welcome to the Cellar. I know I'm not alone in wishing you a lengthy and enjoyable stay.

First off, for your belief about Native American Culture. The only tribes which used government were on the North West Coast such as the Kwakiutl, Tlingit and Haida. These were also the only colonies who exploited their people through the wanton lust for more material goods. As for the tribes of the plains, woodland etc. They were lead and counselled by their elders and shamans. Not governed. Rules and regulations weren't imposed by the elders, they were morally developed through the whole society. An elder would not dictate to the tibe where and when they have to go, they would councel them on it and in turn each memeber of the society would choose.
This differs from our society in the fact that we have a supposed "democratic" government who forces policies upon us which we must accept under the threat of violence and aggression.

As for the human nature of governents, the reason that they are flawed by human characteristics is the reason why the have and will not ever function properly. They are not a necessary evil. Societies have functioned in the industrial age without governments ie during the Spanish Revolution. We do not need governents to dictate policies about trade to us. These can be simply maintained by the companies themselves and society as a whole which the government does not represent.

blah..i feel that's enough for now..ello to you as well

Do you drive on Interstate Highways? Have you ever?

Have you ever used the dollar to purchase something?

Is it likely that you will be robbed by a band of criminals who are ransacking your neighborhood?

Do you appreciate the fact that you probably will never see a war waged in your front yard?

Have you ever posted an unpopular view on an Internet messageboard, secure in the knowledge that you can't be arrested and executed just for saying it?

Can you guarantee me these freedoms and comforts and abilities without a government?

Can you guarantee to me that the U.S. government is not in the war on Afghanistan for oil?

Can you guarantee to me that the U.S. government did not kill over 250 000 civilians in the Gulf War. For that they were convicted of 19 War Crimes charges by the International War Crimes Tribunal ie using illegal weapons such as napalm on civilians and instigating the war in the first place.

Can you guarntee to me that your country is one of freedom and democracy when it imprisons hundreds of afghani decent after september 11th even though the weren't and still haven't been found guilty of any crimes. They are simply being held due to their race.




and to answer your questions.....yes i have driven on a highway, do we need governments to build the highways or to we need buisnesses to?

yes i have used money to purchase things since our government makes self sustianment so hard to accomplish.

.......crime was not existent within the anarchistic society of the Spanish Revolution...

Can you substantiate this? Do you think that maybe they are being held on immigration offenses? Can you point me to policy, written or unwritten, which says "Ye shall detain all sand niggers"? Maybe the fact that those who are being held are of Arab/Afghan descent has something to do with the fact that most terrorism against U.S. citizens (including the 9/11 terrorist attacks) has been performed by those from the Middle Eastern arabian states? I personally have no problem with Arabs or Afghanis or Japanese or anyone. But consider this:

If only black people committed crimes, would it be any wonder that the jails were occupied only by black people?

So is it surprising that, when most terrorist acts against the United States are committed by Middle Easterners, Middle Easterners are the focus of our investigations?

Who do you think is going to pay those businesses? Fact is, contractors build the roads already, after the government negotiates a fair price for it. Could we, as only a group of citizens, coordinate that?

No. You used money to buy things since self sustainment is just plain fucking hard to accomplish, period. You don't need a job - you could spend all day farming and feed yourself. Well, go for it, buddy. Trade some of your corn for a cow so you can have some milk. Trade some of that milk for some chickens so you can have eggs for breakfast. Make no mistake, you can live reliant on yourself, but it's not easy. No one's stopping you. If you think our government is killing it for you, I'm sure there are places in Africa or Asia where you could try to make it work. But I promise, it won't be easy.

Come on. Not one murder? Not one rape? Not one theft? Not one jaywalker? Not a single one?

You mean 9/11/2001 isn't enough? Or the paucity of oil in Afghanistan?

I'm guessing the US does not recognize this body, therefore was unrepresented. It's fairly obvious that the US did not instigate the Gulf War, unless you consider the Iraqi seizure of Kuwait to be a fait accompli at the time, and then the re-invasion to be an entirely separate act -- which is a rather idiotic way of looking at it.

Rusutto, to begin with, I'm not quite sure where you live but i'm taking it that it is in the U.S. This is due to the fact that if you live somewhere where the media has not yet been completely manipulated by the U.S. Governent you would realise that there would be an international outcry to the retaliation which is taking place. Numerous accounts have been recently released dealing with certain facts such as that it is impossible to mobilise the military might of the U.S. in 2 months. The operations planned for Dessert Storm alone took over 4. There's also the fact that the supposed account of Bin Laden on Video released would never be admissable in a court. This is becasue it can easily be forged, students in Britain recently made one of Bush.
Also, although there is no oil in Afghanistan, the U.S. prior to Sept 11th was trying to get the Taliban to put a pipe line through their country. The US had brought Taliban leaders into the U.S. to negotiate this. However they declined.

Second of all, the U.S. does acknowledge the International War Crimes Triubunal, it has several prominent members on the board such as Michael Ratner, USA (Attorney, former director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, past president of the National Lawyers Guild.) Deborah Jackson, USA (First vice president of the American Association of Jurists, former director of National Conference of Black Lawyers.) and many more. By the way the report was written by Ramsey Clark who once served as the Attorney General
One of the 19 crimes the U.S. was convicted of was "The United States engaged in a pattern of conduct beginning in or before 1989 intended to lead Iraq into provocations justifying U.S. military action against Iraq and permanent U.S. military domination of the Gulf. " Another one being "2. President Bush from August 2, 1990, intended and acted to prevent any interference with his plan to destroy Iraq economically and militarily."

I hope this enlightens you. I'd be happy to deal with any more questions. Oh one final thing, the reason nothing has happened to those convicted, is to well look at who they are and the power they hold George Bush, J. Danforth Quayle, James Baker,
Richard Cheney, William Webster, Colin Powell,
Norman Schwarzkopf etc

One quick point:

The mobilization for Desert Storm was <b>enormous</b> compared to the current conflict in Afghanistan. Also, advances and optimizations have definitely been made in the last, oh, ELEVEN YEARS since Desert Storm. Considering what has been done, I don't think that the month between the attack on the WTC/Pentagon/Flight 93 and the beginning of strikes on Afghanistan on October 7 is too long to get some planes down there to drop bombs. We're not talking full-scale mobilization to invade a fucking country, Muse.

dhamsaic, I can substaniate that they are being held due to their race. Currently the prime example being Shakir ( something i'll get the name to you later if you'd like )who has been held for 4 months with no legal council and has only just recently been able to contact his family. He is a Canadian doctor also.

Your statement of "Could we, as only a group of citizens, coordinate that? " Belittles yourself. To me that shows an example of a personality which only wishes to be led and not to think.

Self sustaining yourself within our society in North America although possible is burdened by the fact that the government permeates everything. Although in the future I do plan to live in a commune for awhile, I believe that change is needed in our current state.

In the Spanish revolution crime as you stated before such as looting ones neighbours, was not present. The crimes being conduced were by those of the communists and fascists attacking the Anarchists.

Well then, allow me to mother fucking clarify:

I do not think that 250 million people could agree on any single thing. Furthermore, I do not think they could be split into ten or less solid, defined factions, each with their own choice of contractor and price for, say, building an interstate highway system. Government has a hard enough time with its stupidly slow bueracracy - like we need 250 million fucking people voting on whether or not we do such or such.

To me, it shows nothing about whether or not I wish to be lead or to lead. It shows nothing of whether or not I care to think or not, save the fact that your belief that we could accomplish such feats, without having some central regulation, seems to be based less on thought and more on a silly ideal, whereas mine is derived, rationally, from a solid understanding of human nature. But if you feel you can get 250 million people to agree on something, be my guest.

First point: If the anarchists had a government that protected them, maybe said crimes would never have happened.

Second: Do you honestly believe that, if the communists and fascists had been removed, there would have been NO CRIME WHATSOEVER?

God this thread is getting a tad myopic for my liking, time to post ;)

First off, not all governments can NOT represent their people, take a more direct democratic model - Classical Athenian. Now I’m out on a limb here because the only "citizens" in Athens were +20 males, BUT over 6000 were required in the hall for a law to be passed, juries for criminals often considered of up to *500* people. A correct implementation of Marx’s theories has similarities.

Democracy sucks - until we come up with something better.

Mao said political power comes out of the barrel of a gun, Bush has just vindicated that, I think it’s a pile of shit for people who are incapable of more delicate politics.

Muse: Dham and I have been crashing into each other about once a month since we both got here - you get used to it=)

Erm....... They were applied by the society, on the society, the people governed the people inside a structure, and self-governance is still governance.

And the hospital system is impeccable in Cuba. It’s when things get hard the dissent starts to flow.

This one scared me. What the FUNDAMENTAL purpose of business - to make money, by handing over al our infrastructure to private hands we are asking for one hell of allot of trouble, I’m watching our public transport net here fall apart because its in private hands, things that are meant to provide board services to the community SHOULD BE RUN BY COMPANIES.

This comes up again - the US Govt has been reading too much Mao. Fuckit the response was not justified, a better, abet longer term strategy would have been to assassinate Bin Laden in his own community, change perspectives in the Muslim world, takes longer but its s more permanent solution, by bombing, they’ve toppled an unstable/nutter government, and achieved little else apart form some pride regained and displacing/killing/maiming hundreds of thousands of people. Pulling that off, the delicate political approach requires too much though for Bush I think - and the Us population that are calling for blood, so blind, so myopic they don't care of more Afghanis, innocent Afghanis like the innocent Americans in the WTC die, to get bin laden that died in the WTC, fucking sad.


Last I checked one country invading another wasn’t a legal prerequisite for the USA to wander in for gods sake, take the global policeman shit and shove it, I’ve seen more honest cops in Vietnam.

this really is the crux of the issue, it’s just too bloody big all round. Something like the Athenian model would be hilarious - try getting about 30 MILLION people in congress lol. If power bloc weren’t such an issue I’d like to see it broken down into like autonomous states, with then a legislative council of one member form each state for issues of national importance (foreign affairs) pure fallacy of course but I think democracy loses its grounding in countries so large, that disattachment from political candidates, and the apathy that evolves as a result.


Sorry but WHAT.THE.FUCK.IS.THIS.SHIT.

What are you? a peaceful anarchist? If no one exerts power over anyone else then we're all free? That was a joke system we use in debates at school - peaceful anarchy. What happens when one bloke get a few mates together to cause trouble, you're fucked because you're on your own, so afterwards you form your own group and probably have some kind of leader - voila, a government is formed. Anarchists are people who are confused - but too apathetic to do anything about it.

Yep. Trappe, PA, USA.

This fact is not unknown in the US. There's also much internation support for this retaliation. No surprise there either.

Dessert Storm? Yum.

In any case, Iraq was a country with a real (if puny compared to the US) army and military structure. The Taliban was a band of warlords barely able to beat down another band of warlords they were in conflict with -- it didn't take much to tip the balance.

Certainly it could be faked. Is there any credible reason to believe it was? There are good reasons to believe it was not, such as parts embarrassing to Saudi Arabia (a US ally). Its admissibility in court would depend on a number of factors simply not applicable here -- chain of evidence, for instance.

Oh yeah, we knocked off the Taliban for a lousy pipeline. What's next, we invade France over poor turnout at Euro-Disney? If the pipeline was an issue the US has many much more subtle ways of getting its way than outright war.

And a certifiable kook.

Quite Machievellian, but even if so, it was still up to Iraq to take the bait.

That's basically what war IS.

Russia stand to benifit more than the in the issue with pipelines anyway. Personally i think whatever they do unless they've got an armed guard every 500m along the pipeline the idea of it staying intact for long seems pretty unlikely.

so much to say so little time
 

..........i'll just try and respond to a couple of things....

..........okay besides the fact that a govenment is exactly what anarchism is against....a government wouldn't have protected them from the communists or fascists due to the fact that they simply would have been assimilated as well. As well the great conditions of the proletarians would never have existed if a government had been there.

with the political belief of anarchism buisness run as things called syndicates. The general thought behind this that society looks after the moral implications of the industry and those within the buisness make the day to day decisions

ummm okay........to start...yes i am a peacful anarchists......as are the majority of anarchists. It depends on what you see as peacful. I am not peacful in that fact that I sit around in complacency, I stand up for my beliefs either in demonstrations or another froms of action.
.......so are you trying to say that people need strict regulations forced upon them for a society to work, that people do not have their own morals?

Re: so much to say so little time
 

Oh no, everyone has morals. The problem comes when one's moral activities including raping children and killing their parents or killing the niggers and kikes or castrating all crackers or going around to rape and kill all dem white bitches.

What then, Muse? "Oh, it's cool, since they're alright with it"? Do you do something to stop that person? Why?

Sounds bloody similar to classical democracy to me.



No, waht i'm trying to say is that 'pure' anarchy - noone exerting any control over anyone else is a fantastic way to live, until one person stops doing it. Soon as one bloke who's been owrking out for a while starts picking on other people to give him stuff, those poeple need someone to protect them, etcetcetc, see my pervious post.

Oh my GOD. Jesse Ventura is my stupid brute Governor. I hate this man from the core of my being. Hurry up November.:mad:

Warch or Dafydd...I'd be curious to hear your honest opinions on Ventura, since both of you live in Minnesota. From the outside looking in, it seems like he was doing a respectable job...then the whole XFL came up...and he's been pretty quiet ever since.

Well...First off, my previous statement was pretty honest. I am not one, who studies politics, but I am a conscientious voter of average intelligence, and here are my observations:
When Ventura was running, he was shaking up the two parties and that was good. I liked the idea of another party challenging the old limits. So here's this showman. He let us all know he was not only a fab ex-wrestler, but also a Navy SEAL (he'll drop that in at every opportunity) Not just "the body", but "the brain". Hmm. He had his mayorship of a northern suburb, and his radio talk show, which was obnoxious. He celebrated, promoted himself as the average Joe, fishin', huntin' and listin' to classic rock. And if elected he would bring common sense and get tough to stop this rampant taxation! Reform Party. He was a Navy SEAL.... One listen to his radio show and you could hear that he really had no clue, but he is loud and has bravado. WWF. He won the election because he hired an ad agency who created hilarious TV spots for him. Humor worked. One involved a Jesse action figure, the other a spoof of Rodin's Thinker.
He actually asked former Twin's First Baseman Kent Hrbek to be his Lt Governor (another good regular joe) But Kent knew better (saving my opinion of him) and really just wanted to fish and promote Lenox air conditioners. So Jesse (with the direction of the Reform Party ) went with a local teacher, Mae Schunk. Now, I’d met Mae. Mae's a nice lady, but she ain't no one to Lt.Govern anything, barely a 3rd grade class. Nowadays we don’t see much of Mae.

So on Election Day we have Humphrey Jr.(squishy legacy DFLer), Norm Coleman (St Paul Mayor and *hungry* Rep) and Jesse! The vote was split 3 ways- and Jesse inched out on top. Stunned everyone. ( for the record: I vote for the candidate with the strongest supporting position on education, the arts and women's issues, needless to say this was not Jesse)
But it was interesting and unexpected that Ventura won. It demonstrated the importance of the individual vote and rattled the traditional systems. The bulk of Ventura's support came from the rural areas of MN.
Then the media circus begins....extra security is needed as he travels to be on Letterman, Today show and to go on his (multiple) book signing tours, movie spots. While ostensibly serving as my Governor he has taken virtually every opportunity to build his personal fortune while on the job. This seems very wrong to me. From marketing his books, action figures, refereeing wrestling, guest spotting on XFL. What has he done for us? Well he passed a tax reform bill in which we had our property taxes lowered, returning "surplus". We got our $100 "Jesse" check last year. He basked in the glory. Then he mishandles labor negotiations (his tactic is to name-call and make a he-man pose) and was hit with a major strike of government workers whose health benefits he supported cutting. He negotiated only when access to recreational parks/ fishing was jeopardized over the July holiday..but by then millions had been wasted in emergency contingency plans and lost construction time.
Then he takes on education. Now MN has high taxes, they also have some of the best schools, nursing homes, hospitals, museums and other service institutions I find pretty important, and yes, to be protected and supported under the legitimate functions of Government. But the budget is passed with historically deep cuts. Schools are particularly hit. One district plans a 4-day week to keep classes small and save teacher's jobs. Others of course must cut art, music, phys ed, you know the "frill" areas of study that make us human.

So Jan 2002- its the state of the state address- Severe Budget crisis-$1.95-billion deficit. Jesse's checks = Jesse’s Deficit. Jesse of course needs to deal with his high disapproval rating, he needs to re-convince us that he had nothing to do with this mess, it’s the evil legislature. He'll get in there and stand tough for us, his people. He was a Navy SEAL. (I can't stand to hear his deep nasal, mouth breathing blathering anymore)

This is what I read in the paper yesterday "Under the recommendations Ventura released Thursday, your gasoline could cost a nickel a gallon more as soon as March, with further increases tied to the rate of inflation. Your smokes would go up 29 cents a pack. Your kids' schools would get slightly less, and your property tax might be higher because state aid to your city and county would go down. If you work for the state, you might be laid off." Can't I just give my Jesse check back?
Oh, have you heard? Jesse was a Navy SEAL. Of course there is more to bitch about, his personal expenses well above any former Gov., his labeling of the media as "Jackels" and making them wear tags that say that. His ignorance.

I’m grumpy, but its good to get it out, eh? November elections come on!