I.B.M. and the holocaust ... more proof that corporations will kill you.

Lol, thank you for that history lesson.

So what are you saying? There is no news here? We should not talk about it? It does not matter what they did to the Jews, Gays, Gypsies and political prisoners? We must never forget and never be silent. Corporations are the enemy of Democracy. Corporations were the friends of the Nazis. Or are you against Freedom as well? Maybe you would like all the women in a Burka and men slaving them? No there is no news here folks, just the usual might makes right mentality. Psychopathic.

its that blazay attitude about where our money is spent that assures what you dont want to happen, will, and you financed it.
if you are pro choice dont eat dominos pizza, cuz a portion of your money spent on theyre greasy goodness ends up in the hands of lawyers who are working towards overturning roe.

if you dont mind a lil genocide by all means support those who have a history.but if you dont, let your money do the talking, as it is our only voice anyway

Are you really going to follow me around with your completely batshit replies?

This story came out in 2002. The name of this website is CURRENT news, lol.
I'm saying there is nothing new here; same old corporate greed.

Pull your head out of your ass and work on your reading comprehension skills.
http://www.rhlschool.com/reading.htm

Of course.
Buying power is the only form of democracy in the corporate world.

No one forced IBM to make the machines, they just wanted the money.

Mike, your increasingly desperate attempts to evangelize your Libertarian religion are annoying.

Governments aren't evil, corporations aren't evil. PEOPLE are evil. And these people use the means available to them to pursue whatever it is they are interested in.

This happens in every society regardless of how you set it up. You think getting rid of the government protects your right? I invite you to read up on the wonderful Gilded Age and all the wonders the free market produced for average workers.

Read up on the Jungle and decide for yourself if having no government regulation really prevents oppression, destruction and malice.

Your ideology, like Marxism, refuses to examine the world in a practical way. You assume hypotheticals as reality and latch onto beliefs you hold to be natural law but are nothing more than faulty assertions. For you, it's taxes that are theft and states the guarantor of evil, forgetting of course that property can't exist without the state and can't exist in a vacuum from politics, culture and history.

Mike- I think you have lots of valid points. You seem to be pretty aware and you obviously have a dog in the fight. I know it can be frustrating and sometimes we feel as though we can't tap people on the shoulder anymore, but rather hit them in the face with a bat to wake them up and get their attention. You might want to try choosing your words a bit better though as the point will be missed by those who you are trying to reach. I understand what you are saying, but it is wasted if they cannot hear the message because they are being attacked.

There's a difference between being a minarchist and an anarchists. You should look it up.

It wasn't IBM that killed the Jews, it was the Nazis. It's like blaming the weapons manufacturer for a war. Ridiculous.

Excellent point Saladin. So let me get this straight. You feel as though the government represents you, your beliefs, and ideals?

The Nazis could not have done it near as effectively without IBM . Acomplices , they are accomplices ,pure and simple .

Mike the only person that is clueless is you. Your claim to be a slave is ridiculous. Your libertarian philosophy is juvenile. You seem to be a fairly bright guy, but you fail to grasp the big picture, and live a simpleton's delusion.

Oh boy, it seems like I can't say anything on current without someone misrepresenting me. Before I get to mike's argument, let's deal with these two posts.

The first one.

"There's a difference between being a minarchist and an anarchists. You should look it up."

Firstly, anarchists are not libertarians, they cannot be. Without government there can be no property and therefore no legal commerce except by consent, which NO ONE is mandated to follow, therefore making it a waste of time.,

Anarcho-capitalists are like Communist-Nihilists, the concept makes no sense. You can't have capitalism without government.

Minarchism, therefore, is the only actual form of Libertarianism that exists. Minarchism suffers from a lack of properly defined terms which leads to two grounds of failure, either total barbarism or total irrelevancy. Let me explain.

Before I begin, let me note that I'm trying to summarize the failings of an entire complex ideology in one post, obviously, I can't address everything or everyone who considers themselves a Libertarian or a minarchist, I can only deal with definitions I see consistently. With that, let's begin.

If minarchism is supposed to mean that that the government doesn't exist except to provide the legal protection for property laws and pre-determined rights, then we already know what kind of society results from that. Contractual slavery is permissible, unions are banned, wages are totally set by the employer, there are no engineering codes, lack of public infrastructure means poor children work instead of going to school, 14 hour or even 24 hour days., etc. etc. etc.

In a society in which it is FORBIDDEN to legislate the private sector and forbidden to provide public utilities, the private sector roams free.

This minarchist is just a pussy anarchist. One that demands that the government lay his hands off his faulty engineering codes, his enslavement of the poor, his environmental devastation, his dictatorship of essential utilities like water, food and security but that when the poor get fed up and are ready to burn him at the stake, a police and a military be present to protect him and his property from their retribution.

Contrary to incessant whining form Libertarians, this society HAS existed in many places both past and present. The U.S. was like this for the most part in the Gilded age and in the Roaring 20's. You could even argue slavery in the south was libertarian since slaves were considered property. Nothing forbids it, since legislation of the private realm is forbidden and most libertarians are states'-rights activists.

This isn't even addressing how a court system is supposed to remain objective in a world in which no laws prohibit them from receiving on the money on the side, etc. Who in the fuck wants to LIVE in a country like that?

"But wait," you say, "in Libertarian society that could all be forbidden! That doesn't have to be true."

Well then you're the second kind of Libertarian, the irrelevant one.

If you think that parts of society can be legislated for protection of the public, how are you a minarchist? If the government can do things beyond basic enforcement of the law, what makes you anything more than a fiscal conservative?

In fact, this kind of minarchism makes no sense. If we move beyond the strict limitations of government considered to be "objective" and "natural" by people like Ayn Rand, then on what basis could minarchism be defined?

It could be anything, hell I could be a minarchist. All I have to do is set the line somewhere and say "only this far government and NO further!" A socialist could be a minarchist, it's that vague.

If you're the kind of Libertarian who says child slave labor and all that other nasty industrial shit won't exist anymore because the Fed will be gone and blah blah blah, you have to realize this is a total fantasy based on the assumption that classical economic is religious dogma.

It's not. Supply and demand, no barriers to entry, a free market, perfectly rational consumers; these things are observations of how an ideal society SHOULD work, not an observation of how things DO work. But people and societies don't and can't work that way.

The same is true of this tiresome argument about "the founding fathers." There is no such thing, there were about 40 of them who couldn't agree on anything who made a massive compromise called the constitution. Furthermore, none of them thought that their vision of America should dictate our lives, they invented the Republic so that we could decide to a certain extent. Plus, this document is designed to be changed and interpreted, and therefore cannot be taken literally.

"It wasn't IBM that killed the Jews, it was the Nazis. It's like blaming the weapons manufacturer for a war. Ridiculous."

No one said they did. But if you think manufacturers have no role in wars, that's equally ridiculous.

If you sell a gun to a serial killer, you're telling me that you have no responsibility for what he does with that gun? And before you whine, I'm not talking about legal responsibility.

You seriously find ZERO fault at IBM for providing the Nazis with the tools to commit the Holocaust? Really? It isn't even SLIGHTLY immoral that they profited off of the death of 12 million+ people and didn't give a shit about what they were doing?

Make sure you know what you're saying here.

"Excellent point Saladin. So let me get this straight. You feel as though the government represents you, your beliefs, and ideals?"

=|

Are you serious? Did you actually make this post with any cognitive effort?

I said that nowhere, I implied it nowhere, I insinuated it nowhere and even if I did, it's not even a point that's relevant to this discussion.

Moving right along.

Ok, there are going to be a shitload of things in caps in this post. But know that I do it for emphasis, and not because I'm trying to yell or anything like that. I'm simply trying to emphasize, as much as I can, the things I don't think you understand. Ok, let's begin. =)

Here's the thing Mike, I think you know I'm right, we don't actually disagree on that much. I just think you have your solutions to these problems ass fucking backwards. Let me explain.

Now a lot of things you said weren't true, namely the SEC colluding with Bernie Madoff. That's total shit, they just fucked up a bunch of times. But I'm not even going to contest it because I want to show you the depth of just how wrong your conclusions are. And here it is right here.

"I've read Upton Sinclair's works and the guy even admitted on his deathbed that most of the regulations he helped create went to the benefit of big business and to their lobbyists, not towards the consumer."

Let's assume this is true. Let's assume the regulators generally favored their industry and not the consumer.

Was it BETTER to let them do whatever the fuck they wanted?

Let me repeat that.

Is it BETTER to have a society which ALLOWS people to, as in Sinclair's book, fall into vats of acid to be melted alive and end up in the food supply than it is to have a society which at least TRIES to stop it? Even if sometimes that organization is corrupt?

Furthermore, they DID those horrific, AWFUL things WITHOUT the interference of government.

Again, WITHOUT government, PRIVATE business DOES do awful things that none of us consider acceptable.

Take your own example.

"The FDA even covered up the blood tainted HIV virus for Bayer!"

Assuming this is true, is this an example of GOVERNMENT corruption or BUSINESS corruption? Who is to blame here?

If it's GOVERNMENT, then should we ABOLISH the FDA and let Bayer do WHATEVER the fuck it wants?

Maybe the FDA did cover it up, but without them, it would go on all the time and NO ONE WOULD KNOW.

Are you aware the before the FDA, children's medicine contained fucking OPIUM?

Was it a BAD thing to FORBID that?

The problem with your ideology Mike is that it takes classical economic principles, which are useful in some respects, and turns it into a Fundamentalist Religion.

Even if government is wrong A LOT of the time, hell, even if it is wrong MOST of the time, it is not wrong ALL OF THE TIME.

Do you understand the distinction here? It's fucking essential, it's what makes Libertarianism so dumb. It's the TOTALITY, the ALWAYS part of the argument, that is OBVIOUSLY WRONG.

The dogma states that government is ALWAYS wrong when it clearly ISN'T. There are at least SOME times when it does at least ONE good thing. But under this cult, you are FORBIDDEN from ever admitting that.

An example :

"Most of the regulations were slanted not years later to help these big businesses keep out competition and to create barriers to entry into the industry."

And you're saying that without these regulators, Big Business WOULDN'T have acted as a barrier to entry?

Mike, business IS A BARRIER TO ENTRY. It does not NEED the government to push out competitors with unfair practices! Hell, it doesn't even NEED unfair practices, the size of the institutions alone acts as a barrier to entry and competition.

Assuming a perfectly free market in the REAL WORLD is like doing a physics equations for gravity on a feather and negating air resistance. You can't do that! The world doesn't work like that. You're going to draw totally wrong conclusions.

Classical economics is NOT a science, it's a series of observations about how markets SHOULD work, not how they DO work.

Things like externalities, transaction costs, irrationality, herd mentality, unfair practices, acts of nature and other variables are the air resistance and friction to classical economic's physical principles.

The world is more complicated than that and your ideology does not account for this. It's bad science, it assumes its own conclusions and refuses to readdress its own assumptions when reality does not behave as predicted.

So, to wrap this up real fast.

No matter how fucked up the FDA is, is it really BETTER than a society which allows opium in children's medicine in the name of "the free market?" And you can't argue that this wouldn't happen in a free market because it DID and DOES.

And if a government regulator has been BOUGHT OUT by big business, is that because the government is TOO STRONG or is it because it is TOO WEAK? And, as a question of ethics, who is the main person to blame? The BRIBER or the RECIPIENT of the bribe?

Consider these things, then get back to me.

That had to be the most epic post I've read on current. I also think you're the first person to take the time to actually think everything through, including counter-arguments and assuming the other persons argument as true, only to prove it just can't be so. Excellent. Win.

That being said, I can't agree with you more. As much as i hate most of government, there are necessary things that need to be regulated, and the problem isn't typically the law or the organization, it's the people that run them and poor execution due to a lack of understanding and fear from misunderstanding. The best way to combat this (in my opinion) is education. period. The problem is, you just can't fix willful stupid or ignorance.

I think you fail to grasp what libertarianism is. We are not advocating the complete dismantling of government. To the contrary, libertarians believe that government's primary purpose is to secure individual rights--not corporate rights, not bureaucrats' rights, and definitely not an amalgamation of corporate bureaucrats who collude with elected officials to advance a self-serving agenda.

What could be more practical than leaving power in the hands of people? You, yourself, claimed that people are evil. So why would you wish them to wield the power and force of the state?

As a descendant of immigrant slaughterhouse workers, I take offense to your naive use of a single book to describe a situation that was much broader in context than employment during the Gilded Age. Perhaps you should research how corporations colluded with government to prevent workers from organizing (just research how state police departments were formed). Perhaps you should research why those slaughterhouse workers came to America in the first place.

All political ideologies are assumed in hypotheticals--including governmental regulatory schemes. And existing in a vacuum is your notion that government does more good than it does bad.

I don't get the idea that someone is blaming I.B.M. rather than the nazis. This is only to point out the huge role they played in the tragedy. I can't recall anyone saying the nazis are off the hook.

I might actually argue that it's not the government, but the billionaires and titans of industry who are the one doing the enslaving, not the governments. They are the one who biought and own the governments. Yah. I'm saying it. You may be able to turn back their progress through participation in state and local government, but they're the real villains.

his people?

well, if you found out, out of all the cell phone companies, one in particular chose to divulge its information for the purposes of genocide, and continued doing it while the genocide was occuring, you wouldnt be upset at said cell phone company?
you would still buy thier product, despite them caring more about the dollar than your ability to exist in order to spend it with them?
ibm created a great deal of the technology used by the nazis to commit the holocaust.if not for ibms ability to process data, exterminating 6 million would have been impossible.

The way you worded this post shows me that you don't understand what my point is.

First off, if you don't think government should be dismantled, then you're not a Libertarian. Period. Sorry, that's par for joining the club.

And isn't something like an 8 hour workday or a safe working environment an individual right? How about the right to go to school? If you think these things are good things, why don't Libertarians support them?

Secondly, you fail to understand that a corporation is just an expression of individual power. Before Pacific Railroad vs Santa Clara County, privately owned businesses did the same kind of thing and it was their funding that made corporate personhood and the corruption in the era to follow possible.

You think that bought out state militias shooting protesters -wouldn't- have happened in a Libertarian world?

Ever heard of the Pinkertons? The government didn't make them shoot strike breakers, private business did that all on its own.

And what I said earlier about people being evil was not a meant to be a totality, simply an exclamation as to where evil comes from. Evil does not come from STRUCTURE, it comes from the individual.

If you paid attention, right after that I said that's why it doesn't matter what kind of institution you have, you can't prevent people from acting shitty. Whether a statist society or a nearly anarchist society, people will find ways to screw each other over to benefit themselves.

The problem you're having here is you're being offended because you think I've attacked your personal beliefs about politics, but what I have actually attacked is the notion that zero government intervention is superior to some government intervention.

The problem here is not my argument, which is perfectly sound. The problem here is that you've called yourself a Libertarian, and you're not.

Saladin, I appreciate your reasoning on many levels. It's good to have some intellectual merit behind assertions of how things ought to be, and there's plenty of room for disagreement without turning a good topic into a pissing match...and no, I'm not offended by differing views so long as there's some substance behind them.

But you are incorrect to assume that all libertarians believe in a purely lawless society though. I maintain that there is a great distinction between a libertarian system of governance and pure anarchy (not every libertarian mind buys into catchy terms such as anarcho-capitalism (oxymoron) and minarchism).

Ultimately, libertarians embrace personal freedom and personal responsibility over an overreaching government. And you are quite right to believe that a purely libertarian society is as naively idealistic as a purely Marxist society. But it's a good thing to cherish and hold on to our ideals, right?

One of the big reasons libertarians don't get elected into even the most petty of offices is that there is considerable disagreement as to the proper role of government--I have my ideas which run contrary to many libertarian thinkers. (I, for example, am in favor of antitrust laws at the federal and state levels where a majority of my peers oppose them). Many libertarians draw distinctions between the roles of federal, state and local governments.

You, yourself, identified what many libertarians believe to be the central tenet to modern libertarianism--property rights. And unless humanity has a massive paradigm shift towards a propertyless society, a proper function of government is to protect property rights (whether tangible or intangible). You said it best that people will always do shitty things to one another, and that is why we need government. However, there should be limits to the powers of government--and those limits should ensure that people shall have the utmost capabilities to live their lives as they choose without causing harm to others.

Most libertarians, however, do not accept that there exists some inherent right to an education or a right to an 8 hour workday. We tend to take a more simplistic stance. Most would agree that human beings, as a basic condition of their existence, have a right to come and go as they please and can associate with whomever they choose. From those basic rights comes an ability to obtain an education (or refuse one), or to go to work or not to go to work. Creating arbitrary rights to suit the needs of the proverbial here and now only creates creates further arbitrary rights--which can be revoked at the whim of a democratically elected majority. Why shouldn't everyone have access to an XBox 360? Why shouldn't Rush Limbaugh be banned from the airwaves?

I also appreciate your take on corporate personhood, and this debate will continue. You will find no disagreement from me with regards the abuses of big business under this legal fiction. While many continue to think that the Citizens United v. F.E.C. holding settled the issue in the world of American jurisprudence, I disagree. That case had more to do with corporate speech than it had to do with corporate personhood.

One thing you and I can find much common ground is the golden rule though--that people should simply treat people the way the want to be treated. And I get that that is the point that you are attempting to make: That our society is greatly lacking in this fundamental rule. And our world would be a much better place if we just got back to the basics.

I get where you're coming from and it makes sense, our only disagreement is over how far the government should be allowed to go.

The problem is, as per my argument, that Libertarianism the way you've defined it is really really vague. It basically just means someone who is very fiscally conservative in some respects.

If this is how most Libertarians are, that's fine. But it's neither been defined to me that way nor has it been my experience that most Libertarians believe in some limited government intervention.

With that said, there was one thing I disagreed with in your post, and that was this.

"Creating arbitrary rights to suit the needs of the proverbial here and now only creates creates further arbitrary rights--which can be revoked at the whim of a democratically elected majority."

All rights are not only arbitrary, they're just a made up idea. And without proper legal enforcement, they're meaningless even if they're in the constitution clear as day.

No one actually has "rights," a right is an expectation from the people that a government may not infringe upon, or must enforce, a specific clause in the constitution.

But it doesn't actually have to do that, and even principles as concrete as free speech and property can be ignored or even voted away!

In that sense, there are no "objective" rights. Even things as sacred as free speech are arbitrary, they can be taken away just like anything else.

It's important to understand that. The idea that rights are sacred, inviolable and always present is democratic propaganda, similar to the way Divine Right is monarchical propaganda. Neither are true, but they're a required assumption for the system to have legal validity.

What's important, in the end, is that we have expectations for human welfare that must not be violated, whenever possible, by the state or the private sector.

Korematsu v. United States...the worst Supreme Court decision ever decided IMO. Plus, I couldn't agree more with what Mr. Carlin, may he rest in peace, stated at the end.

We'll definitely find time to discuss issues further...peace.

I personally think that the Nazi's would have been capable of doing it without the computers.

They treated the Jews like Cattle. You can round up cattle with fancy branding and IDs, but you can also do it without those things.

I believe you misinterpreted what I meant. You were making the implication that Libertarianism wouldn't work in the world because of anarchy-like principles, when really it would with a minarchist's approach.

"You can't have capitalism without government."
Yes you can. If you do, the capitalism becomes the government. That's called Fascism, buddy.

You're assumption of Minarchism is misguided. A Libertarian Minarchist cares about having government to exist only to protect the people and their rights (In your rebuttal about rights and the George Carlin Video, I'd just like to tell you that George Carlin is an entertainer/comedian, what he says in a performance can't really be taken seriously. But his point was pretty cool: Rights are an idea, and they can take them away. I’m pretty sure the term for this is “Violation of Rights.” What he said doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t live in a world that cares about protecting those rights.), not control the people, not protect anything else.

"In a society in which it is FORBIDDEN to legislate the private sector and forbidden to provide public utilities, the private sector roams free."
Legislating the private sector is necessary; who said it wasn't? If the governments don't keep the corporations in check, the corporations in essence can become the government.'

"This minarchist is just a pussy anarchist."
With that logic, the socialist is just a pussy Communist.
Lolwat? In a lot of things, moderation is better than taking a lot at once. I’m pretty sure this concept applies to governments as well.

"You could even argue slavery in the south was libertarian since slaves were considered property."
I could argue that slavery violated people's rights, so that really isn’t Libertarian. Wait, where is this going?

"and most libertarians are states'-rights activists."
I don't know about most Libertarians, but I'm about giving most of the power to the people and the government existing to protect the rights of the people. The states and the federal government need LESS power.

"If you think that parts of society can be legislated for protection of the public, how are you a minarchist? If the government can do things beyond basic enforcement of the law, what makes you anything more than a fiscal conservative?"
Fiscal Conservatives legislate beyond what Libertarians want to. I'd also like to point out that most ‘Fiscal Conservatives’ don't ever live that principle out to the fullest.

"You seriously find ZERO fault at IBM for providing the Nazis with the tools to commit the Holocaust? Really? It isn't even SLIGHTLY immoral that they profited off of the death of 12 million+ people and didn't give a shit about what they were doing?

Make sure you know what you're saying here."
I could get all moral about the argument, but in truth, what they did was just create a tool. They did what any other business would do, - go with what's profitable. I don’t see what’s so shocking.

The War in Iraq is all about trading people’s lives for privatized wealth. It absolutely disgusts me. Why can’t we focus on the issues that ARE important right now, instead of something that happened over fifty years ago?

No one said they couldn't have done it without IBM.

But they sure made it a hell of a lot easier.

If you had to kill millions of cattle and all you had was a rope and a hammer, it would take a long time and you probably wouldn't get them all.

But if you fenced them all in and had an industrial slaughterhouse, you could be done fairly quickly and you wouldn't miss many.

But that isn't the point either. The point is that IBM did not CARE that what they were doing was vastly assisting the Holocaust, they just wanted to make some money. How much more sociopathic can you get than working with the Nazis for an extra buck?

I'm going to deal with your points in order, paragraph by paragraph. It's easier that way.

There are no such thing as "anarchy-like" principles. Anarchism is a totality, you can't be "like" anarchism the same way you can't be "like" dead. You either have no government or you do, end of story. Having less, even a lot less, is never going to be the same as having none. In fact, since an anarchist doesn't even have enforceable principles, it's ttoally irrelevant what they believe since they couldn't make it happen.

No, capitalism becoming government is not fascism. That's a vast oversimplification of a complex political system. Fascism is a conservative, authoritarian, militaristic phenomena in which paramilitary groups overrun police forces and establish martial law through the supremacy of their dictator. Mussolini and Hitler were supported by big business because the model is advantageous to corporate profits, but the state is the one with the power. And since fascism was created in the Depression, it is necessarily hostile to capitalism to some degree. Even if none of that were true, if big business is your government, ala Shinra in FF7, you HAVE a government, that's not anarchy.

By your next three paragraphs, you fall into category two of the minarchist, the irrelevant one.

You're not a libertarian if you think people deserve rights beyond the most basic of things, that's what the whole second half of my argument, the one you didn't respond to, was about.

Minarchist Libertarians are either undefined, and therefore vague as hell (I could be one) or they are defined well and are evil as hell.

And that's exactly what you've done here, made yourself completely vague. If you can't draw a specific line as to where the government should and should not be allowed to go, then what makes you any different from anyone else to who subscribes to the left/right paradigm? That's what I meant by a fiscal conservative, who you now have self-admitted went too far even for you. If that's the case, you definitely aren't a Libertarian and I don't know why you think you are.

If you think you are because government needs "less" power, you need to define WHAT power it needs "less" of. Because Libertarians think EVERYTHING, including good things like public schools or regulation of the environment, should be scrapped or at least cut down to bare bones.

Go to their party website and see how much you actually agree with. One of their uglier talking points is that the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act never should have passed because governments trying to stop racism is worse than racism itself, even though it succeeded, according to them. Also, they believe has the right to discriminate.

Moving on, this : I could get all moral about the argument, but in truth, what they did was just create a tool....." cannot mesh with this : "The War in Iraq is all about trading people’s lives for privatized wealth. It absolutely disgusts me."

That's a direct contradiction. If the trading of life for money in Iraq disgusts you, then what IBM has done should be exponentially more disgusting. They traded in GENOCIDE for money, the worst in known human history. If what IBM did doesn't disgust you, think about it in terms of how you feel about Iraq.

As to why it's important, well, most people don't know about it. And obviously just because something is older history doesn't mean it isn't relevant today.

We do focus on issues that are important right now, and since you just made the Iraq analogy, clearly this is an issue that has been affecting us for quite a while beyond the past decade or so.

"But that isn't the point either. The point is that IBM did not CARE that what they were doing was vastly assisting the Holocaust, they just wanted to make some money. How much more sociopathic can you get than working with the Nazis for an extra buck?"
Corporations do immoral shit all the time for the extra buck. Get used to it. An example of this is Microsoft (who was spawned from the free market) using it's powers now to help China with censorship.
Fuck people who trade their moral values in for the extra buck, but I still think the people who are paying them that buck are worse.

"No, capitalism becoming government is not fascism."
Yes it is. Fascism is essentially when corporations become the government. The United States is pretty fascist, to be honest.

"When fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be with jack-boots. It will be Nike sneakers and Smiley shirts."

"You're not a libertarian if you think people deserve rights beyond the most basic of things, that's what the whole second half of my argument, the one you didn't respond to, was about."
Since when did you define what a Libertarian is? You seem to be fond of extremes, mister. For you there is no middle ground, and that sort of pisses me off.

"Minarchist Libertarians are either undefined, and therefore vague as hell (I could be one) or they are defined well and are evil as hell."
Libertarians are economically Republican and socially Democratic. Is it really that hard to define?

"If you can't draw a specific line as to where the government should and should not be allowed to go, then what makes you any different from anyone else to who subscribes to the left/right paradigm?"
You're oversimplifying a complex system with no specific answer; you can't do that and expect a clean answer.

"If you think you are because government needs "less" power, you need to define WHAT power it needs "less" of. Because Libertarians think EVERYTHING, including good things like public schools or regulation of the environment, should be scrapped or at least cut down to bare bones."
Less military spending, less taxes, no more war on drugs, et cetera.
The Public Education system needs a lot of work. Probably should be scrapped and privatized. But what brought this up? You seem to think that everyone in a political party agrees on everything. They don’t have to. Ron Paul (A Libertarian) is anti-abortion, while most Libertarians are pro-abortion. Does that mean he’s not a Libertarian?
Ecological awareness is important to me, that is why I think environmental regulation should still exist to a point. But sometimes, too much regulation damages the environment, EG: Nearly 3/4 of Yellowstone burning up.

"That's a direct contradiction. If the trading of life for money in Iraq disgusts you, then what IBM has done should be exponentially more disgusting. They traded in GENOCIDE for money, the worst in known human history. If what IBM did doesn't disgust you, think about it in terms of how you feel about Iraq."
I'm blaming the government power (Or lack thereof...) for Iraq, not Blackwater or other private corporations. I blame the Nazis for the extermination of Jews, not IBM.

In order again.

I don't have to get used to corporations doing immoral shit for an extra buck, it isn't even remotely an unreasonable demand to legislate or otherwise prevent them from doing that. Nor should be an acceptable standard that because someone runs a business they could or should do whatever they want to make money.

You didn't address my argument about fascism and your quote is a cop-out. Fascism is a SPECIFIC ideology with SPECIFIC goals, agendas and structure. We don't have a dictator, we don't have a hyper-militaristic society (although we are close), we don't exclaim that we're the master race, we don't have a paramilitary force running martial law in the streets (although blackwater is close) and corporations, as bad as they are, don't get to send in goons to murder strike breakers or otherwise use the state to pursue their business interests.

So no, I don't care what your quote says, we're not fascist. We may have aspects of fascism, we may have slipped into fascist stuff here and there (California in the 30's and the Nation during World War I) but we are NOT a facist state as could be compared to Italy or Germany. It simply isn't applicable.

Fascism isn't anarchy with corporate control, sorry. You don't get to make up your own definitions.

I equated minarchist and Libertarian, snice they are equal, and defined them as being an ideology which believes that the government should only exist to protect property rights, free speech and other very basic constitutional rights.

Your "middle-ground" claim is meaningless. We're talking about an ideology that's clearly defined. There is no middle ground, You can't call yourself a Nazi if you're not a white supremacist. You can't call yourself a Communist if you believe in property. You can't call yourself a Democrat if you believe we should have a dictatorship.

There is no middle ground in any of those where you could believe those things and still be in that category.

Furthermore, Libertarianism IS an EXTREME ideology. It is by no means modest or accommodating. It says the government is evil, all the time. And that the private sector should never be regulated. It claims, as it is in like with the Austrian school of economics, that EVERY depression, ecological disaster or other economic harm in HISTORY was caused by the government and not at all by the private sector.

There is no middle ground there, it's a totalitarian position.

Similarly, you can't be a Libertarian if you believe in those things that I mentioned. If I'm wrong and Libertarianism shouldn't be defined that way, then how in the hell should it be defined such that isn't vague and meaningless? You do that later on, I'll deal with it then.

"Libertarians are economically Republican and socially Democratic. Is it really that hard to define?"

This is a tired old line, Libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. That was their election slogan in 2009. But this isn't true. T Democrats have certain social programs they support for various reasons, abortion for feminism, etc. But the Libertarian just doesn't give a shit, they don't think anything beyond basic law is morally impermissible for any reason. And Republicans are fiscally conservative, or at least they're supposed to be, because they don't think governments should waste money on things that don't work or aren't worth it. But Libertarians don't believe in ANY government spending, even if it's obviously a good thing, except out of straight necessity.

So no, they're socially indifferent and fiscally nonexistent. It's very different.

"You're oversimplifying a complex system with no specific answer; you can't do that and expect a clean answer."

What's complex about it? Libertarians tout as to having a simple ideology. If they can't do this, then they're more complicated than even really complex platforms like the Green Party.

It doesn't have to be cut and dry, but it has to be a HELL of a lot more specific then, "government is bad, let's get rid of it. But not all of it, some of it we like."

"You seem to think that everyone in a political party agrees on everything. They don’t have to. Ron Paul (A Libertarian) is anti-abortion, while most Libertarians are pro-abortion. Does that mean he’s not a Libertarian? "

No, they don't have to agree on everything. There can be contradictions for various reasons.

But one, they have to agree on the fundamentals of the party and two, they have to EXPLAIN WHY they have contradictions to party doctrine.

The case of Ron Paul is a perfect example. If Libertarians believe in freedom, it's a big fucking contradiction to say that we shouldn't legally teach evolution or allow abortions because of his personal religious belief. If that was his private belief, it wouldn't contradict Libertarianism. But that isn't what he believes, he believes it should be legislated that way.

Now that would be his fault for not addressing part two, but Libertarianism is an extreme ideology and it runs into problems with part one as well. According to Libertarian ideology, Ron Paul hates that kind of freedom. No ifs ands or buts about it. He may be a Libertarian in all other respects, but his ideology can't respect that position of his.

And this is where you run into problems.

"Ecological awareness is important to me, that is why I think environmental regulation should still exist to a point."

Then you're not a Libertarian. You can't be.

This is a primary tenet of their belief system, the private sector can't be regulated, ever. Not only do they feel this way, they also feel that government regulation is the ONLY cause of environmental destruction and that if private business was left on its own it would never happen.

This isn't a small concession like abortion is, where contradictions can be accommodated, this is huge.

This is not a comprising position on your part, it is just like being a Communist and believing in some kinds of property.

Then you're not one. Period. There's no arguing there. Figure out a new name or something.

"I'm blaming the government power (Or lack thereof...) for Iraq, not Blackwater or other private corporations. I blame the Nazis for the extermination of Jews, not IBM."

Well now who's working in extremes?

Of course the Nazis carried out the Holocaust and Bush perpetrated the Iraq war. But you're seriously going to tell me that there is ZERO blame to be laid at the feet of IBM or Blackwater for what they did?

Why must blame be a totality? You can't have multiple parties responsible? Imagine a bank robbery, the person driving the getaway car is liable as an accomplice. IBM is the getaway driver. Sure, the Nazis could have run out of the robbery on foot and maybe still have gotten away with it. But under your definitions, the DRIVER isn't guilty either?

I don't think you think that, which is what we're say when we say IBM shares the blame.

I'm going to skip around a bit, because it'll make this paragraph better.

"I don't think you think that, which is what we're say when we say IBM shares the blame."
I say blaming the gun manufacturer is pointless if someone else is the one pulling the trigger.

"I don't have to get used to corporations doing immoral shit for an extra buck, it isn't even remotely an unreasonable demand to legislate or otherwise prevent them from doing that. Nor should be an acceptable standard that because someone runs a business they could or should do whatever they want to make money."
Notice that in this example, and my example that both cases are because governments allowed them to. If the government's immoral, then government legislation isn't going to fix anything.

"Fascism isn't anarchy with corporate control, sorry. You don't get to make up your own definitions."
I'm going to quote the first two lines of Wikipedia's article on Fascism:
"Fascism is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy."
How DOESN'T the United States fall under this?

"There is no middle ground there, it's a totalitarian position.”
You're making it a totalitarian position when it doesn’t have to be. Are you Darth Vader or something? Obi-Wan Kenobi warned me of people like you: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."

"Similarly, you can't be a Libertarian if you believe in those things that I mentioned. If I'm wrong and Libertarianism shouldn't be defined that way, then how in the hell should it be defined such that isn't vague and meaningless? You do that later on, I'll deal with it then."
Libertarianism is the closest political belief I can go with and not be against half of the Party's policies.

And now as a conclusion to all your attempts to say I'm not Libertarian...
I believe in freedom, bacon, and LIBERTY!
*BITCH*
:D

vidrinejacob , People are not cattle , many more would have escaped because it would have taken longer , paperwork would slow things up , get misplaced either deliberately or on accident . Far less people would have died . It would have given sympathetic germans a chance to help them and catch on to what was happening . Compassion would have had a chance .

In order again.

Is blaming the gun manufacturer pointless if they sell the enemy our guns in the middle of a war and they didn't have guns before that? If a military manufacturer sells Al-Qaeda ground-to-air missiles to shoot down passenger planes where they once never had them. You're seriously going to tell me they aren't to blame for that AT ALL? Not even a little bit?

Government legislation won't fix anything? Really? So government legislation won't fix environmental problems? This is what I'm talking about, clearly Libertarian dogma doesn't suit you since you're obviously aware that legislation DOES stop some types of bad behavior. On point, government legislation fucked over a lot of corporations who traded with the enemy, standard oil and others in particular got fucked while there wasn't enough evidence at the time to go after IBM.

I don't care what wikipedia has to say about fascism. It's not academic, it's amateur. Plus, that definition is so vague that practically anyone could be fascist. It's beyond an authoritarian nationalist police, it's arguably a totalitarian, militarist, jingoist political system which believes itself to be the master state, superior to all other nations and with the right to dominate them. The "corporatist" point is fair, but vague. Was Hitler's antisemitism a corporatist position? How about Mussolini's anti-catholic position? What about both of their opinions on Gypsies and gays? Clearly, there's more to fascism then whatever random internet expert wrote the wikipedia article.

No, Libertarianism HAS to be a totality because it defines itself that way. To use your own metaphor, you're someone who says you're a sith but believes that the light side of the force has some merit. Well, then you can't be a sith. Libertarianism requires the rejection of government except as a means to prop up private accomplishments. Firefighters, libraries, public schools, social security, medicare, environmental protection, food and drug safety, etc. etc. None of those things are allowed in Libertarianism and all the founders, people like Ayn Rand, are very explicit about that.

Freedom and liberty have practically the same definition, and they're both vague as hell. Clearly you don't believe in liberty from sexual consent, or freedom to murder whoever you want.

This is something Libertarians don't realize, but that is the most arrogant, axiomatic, asshole statement they could ever make to anyone outside of their party.

If you guys believe in that, what do the rest of us believe in? Oppression and slavery? We live in a Democratic-Republic, we fucking ALL believe in freedom and liberty. It's just about how much, what kinds of freedoms and whether the government needs to be involved or not to secure them.

Social Contract theory, look it up.

You think it would take longer under the false presumption that in the early 1900's they relied on computers a lot. In pretty much every documentary, movie, or photograph taken of or pertaining to the Holocaust, I don't remember "German Soldiers going to go punch in a Jew's ID number in some large computer "being mentioned ANYWHERE, it obviously wasn't that widespread. There is no science in your post at all.

"Is blaming the gun manufacturer pointless if they sell the enemy our guns in the middle of a war and they didn't have guns before that? If a military manufacturer sells Al-Qaeda ground-to-air missiles to shoot down passenger planes where they once never had them. You're seriously going to tell me they aren't to blame for that AT ALL? Not even a little bit?"
You're defining it as black and white, guilty or not. Did the gun manufacturer know who they were selling too? Was all the corporation bad, or were just a few individuals who were responsible for the sell? Did they know that the weapons were being used for terrorism? There are a lot of questions you have to ask yourself before labeling a corporation as an accomplice. Jesus Christ.

"Government legislation won't fix anything? Really? So government legislation won't fix environmental problems? This is what I'm talking about, clearly Libertarian dogma doesn't suit you since you're obviously aware that legislation DOES stop some types of bad behavior. On point, government legislation fucked over a lot of corporations who traded with the enemy, standard oil and others in particular got fucked while there wasn't enough evidence at the time to go after IBM."
Some legislation works, some doesn't. Again it's not black and white like you seem to think it does. Minarchists (Libertarians) believe in some legislation, just not Statism - where government regulates as much as it wants to. A political party is continually, you just don't seem to comprehend that individuals can have different beliefs and share the same party.

"I don't care what wikipedia has to say about fascism. It's not academic, it's amateur. Plus, that definition is so vague that practically anyone could be fascist. It's beyond an authoritarian nationalist police, it's arguably a totalitarian, militarist, jingoist political system which believes itself to be the master state, superior to all other nations and with the right to dominate them. The "corporatist" point is fair, but vague. Was Hitler's antisemitism a corporatist position? How about Mussolini's anti-catholic position? What about both of their opinions on Gypsies and gays? Clearly, there's more to fascism then whatever random internet expert wrote the wikipedia article."

You're mixing the social factors (Which are what most people like to focus on when defining Fascism) with the economic ones.
I hope you don't mind looking up the Economics of Fascism (Look back to Italy specifically, where Fascism originated)
I'll leave this link here, but won't expect you to check it out because you disregard Wikipedia without basing your opinion on its content.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism

And your ignorance is more visible with your blatant rejection of Wikipedia as a valid source of knowledge.
Academics use Wikipedia (In my opinion, anyone can be an academic - not just "professors" with fancy degrees), it's just the stuck up academics don't like it because anyone can do it, there's no social class to it.

"No, Libertarianism HAS to be a totality because it defines itself that way. To use your own metaphor, you're someone who says you're a sith but believes that the light side of the force has some merit. Well, then you can't be a sith. Libertarianism requires the rejection of government except as a means to prop up private accomplishments. Firefighters, libraries, public schools, social security, medicare, environmental protection, food and drug safety, etc. etc. None of those things are allowed in Libertarianism and all the founders, people like Ayn Rand, are very explicit about that."
I'm totally going to continue this Star Wars metaphor. Only a naive Force User defines the force as solely as Darkness and Light. Two prominant Star Wars games, Knights of the Old Republic and Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy shows this, where you can shift to one side of the force or the other - or stay in the middle and use both sides equally. In the movies, my favorite Jedi, Qui-Gon Jin didn't see the force this way. He often used unethical techniques to reach his goals, but his motives were good.

You used Ayn Rand as an example: I agree with some of her points of view and ideas – but disagree with others, while I personally look more towards Adam Smithand Thomas Jefferson.

"If you guys believe in that, what do the rest of us believe in? Oppression and slavery? We live in a Democratic-Republic, we fucking ALL believe in freedom and liberty. It's just about how much, what kinds of freedoms and whether the government needs to be involved or not to secure them.

Social Contract theory, look it up."
Social Contract theory is a vague idea, sort of like Libertarianism. ;)
I'm not saying you guys believe in oppression and slavery, but ignorance and laziness can lead to those things.
Two good quotes on this.
“Ignorance and inconsideration are the two great causes of the ruin of mankind" - John Tillotson
“Ignorance is not bliss - it is oblivion” - Philip Wylie quotes

No, no one said that, anywhere.

The people at the time, namely the CEO Watson, were involved in perpetrating the Holocaust because made them a shitload of money. IBM's shareholders, then and now, are not responsible for something they didn't know about.

And really? No one knows history except the people who were there? The NEVER talk about history again since, after all, you weren't there.

This is flagrant denial based on internet arrogance. Read the book, check the sources or read a review. Then criticize.

But to come up here and make blanket bullshit statements because you don't like the claim is garbage. You have no justification to deny something you haven't bothered to consider, let alone refute.

Actually, it's pretty much there in black and white if you are open to it. Research for yourself about the genesis of Fanta orange soda and you will see.
"You will never get a man to understand something, when his paycheck depends on him not understanding"

No it isn't, it's self-defeating.

You've claimed that nothing can be known about history and therefore you're going to believe whatever you want?

And your other point was refuted since no one actually said that.

I don't think you understand what valid means.

It's not the internet. He's a PhD Historian, well respected in his field, who wrote a book. No one disputes his book EXCEPT internet badasses who haven't done any research. This is easily accessible knowledge to anyone who reads into this field.

And yes, the source documents are both in the book, cited in the book and they're even RIGHT FUCKING BELOW YOU IN THAT VIDEO.

Yes, the internet is a dubious source of knowledge. That's why I don't read wikipedia or other nonsense and expect it to represent reality entirely.

But you're guilty of your own assertions! What, because you're online you can have an opinion? You haven't read anything about it.

Furthermore, you already DENIED that historical proof CAN exist, negating the -ability- for you to even HAVE an opinion.

No it's fairly well documented....but thanks for playing.

this stuff is well documented long before the prominance of the internet.

That's exactly what the book does prove, and what you didn't bother to read in the rest of this thread.

IBM not only leased the machines, it designed, operated and performed regular maintenance on them.

Watson received the Golden Eagle from Adolf Hitler himself.

And I'm so glad you think that profiting off of the Holocaust is not problematic, I'm sure you'd make an excellent Libertarian.

I read the entire thread before I posted.
I also clicked on the link and read what was there.

So what I want to know did the Nazis go to IBM and say,
" hey we need a machine to catalog and keep a check of all the Jews we are planning to kill."

If so, did IBM reply: " yeah we have an app for that."
If you show me this then you have proved your case, beyond a reasonable doubt. If not, it is all speculation
.

They were working with nazis... There's really nothing to speculate about.

No, you didn't read the thread because that question is answered in a video below.

And I'm not going to sit here and show you proof of something you won't bother to read. Read the damn book, read a review, read a criticism, watch a synopsis. It's not my job to regurgitate facts you're too lazy to look up, many of which are right here in this thread.

yes they knew it was being used by anantisemetic regime for the purposes of distilling jews from the general population.gotta give them credit though, they were assholes to jews, but stand up guys for germans.

you want context."its not just good old antisemitism, its policy now." said by many nazis many times to justify theyre actions, and sell it as acceptable to companies like ibm.

if the united states of america asked, lets say intel pentium, to create software for the express purpose of identifying muslums from therest of the population, would that be ok?would that not(within the context of our society) ring a huge fucking bell that a problem is brewing?

It was news to me. I didn't know about this part of the story. I find it rather relevant in today's world seeing how technology is constantly being used to enslave us, especially with Obama's 'cyber-security' laws which will label each of us in much the same manner. Maybe this can serve as a decent reminder about where we could be heading if we're not careful.

Hear Hear! While I don't like the use of Nazi analogies, the story does get to the heart of an issue that our nation faces--that of corporate corruption.

I agree 100%

Word. i will never buy a ford.

Excellent information.
Next time I see a ford Ad on the street ill think of how much blood the have on their hands.

Although.. computers were originally designed from IBM didnt they?

Well, I don't think it's fair to criticize the business today for what it did in WWII.

None of the people who run it today came from that era, so it's not like they share responsibility. And they're not going to come out and admit it because it would destroy their credibility. Corporations need PR and ratings just like politicians do.

But yeah, IBM was one of the first companies to design computers. They basically invented them.

really?i pegged you a volkswagon, krupps coffee machine type

fix or repair daily

lol nope. i'm more of the jeep type. i like nature, but that doesn't mean i'm a hippy. i'm one of those 2nd amendment dems.

oh and and no one saw the huge Japanese Naval fleet headed across the ocean to attack Pearl Harbor either. What about the Gulf of Tonkin?

Actually no, they didn't.

The fleets were operating on strict radio silence and radar didn't exist yet. The only way they could have been spotted would be with the naked eye, and NO ONE thought Hawaii was going to be targeted. Wake Island, the Philippines or other pacific locations maybe, but Hawaii? No one considered that.

Plus the political situation made the claim ridiculous. There were reports of a Japanese fleets on the way but the Japanese were in Diplomatic talks with us at the same time and no one believed that they would plotting an attack while openly attempting to sue for peace.

Seriously, who would assume that someone arranged peace talks with you AS A CHARADE to actual invasion? It's something that's just not done.

Plus, the Pearl Harbor attacks came literally days after the conference ended and the Declaration of War happened only a few hours after that. The idea that we were just sitting and waiting for it to happen is completely ridiculous.

And finally, it's not as if the attack was advantageous! It only got us started in the war with JAPAN. Contrary to popular opinion, Pearl Harbor did NOT give sentiment to a war in EUROPE, America was still firmly against that. It was only when -Hitler-, like a moron, declared war on the United States a couple of weeks later that we had sufficient justification.

The "we let Pearl Harbor happen" talking point is total shit. It makes no sense even according to its own logic and is demonstrably wrong according to the facts.

Yes, the Lusitania, the Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin and Weapons of Mass Destruction were all lies, Pearl Harbor was not.

Thanks for posting this, it said everything my post did and more.

It always makes me wonder what would have happened if Hitler was a nice guy and used his power for good instead of maniacal murder and onslaught. I also wonder if he never became hooked on a bunch of drugs, how different the war may have turned out. We could all be speaking German!

Right out of the book.

Not at all, one of the great misunderstandings about World War II is that "if the Germans had only done X differently, they could have won."

There was no way, period, for them to win. Russia was going to beat them no matter what happened. Even if they weren't, the combined military might of the entire world was in NO WAY, something that a few million German soldiers could ever fight against, win and then maintain control over.

Even if they could, America would have dropped nukes on them by '46. They simply never had a chance to begin with.

Even if that didn't happen, how exactly could Germany maintain military supremacy over the ENTIRE planet? Terrorism in France from the resistance was enough to keep them seriously occupied, let alone the whole world.

no no no, it's not terrorism if you're fighting an occupying foreign enemy, that's being a freedom fighter.

btw, good to see you around!

Meh, I didn't really think they COULD win, but I'm nonetheless curious as to how things could have played out under different circumstances.

Them Russians had waves of bodies to keep hurlin at the enemy, and those pesky french terrorists (i lol'd). That, and the fact that Germany was running out of soldiers, and using kids and old men to fight (sounds a bit familiar). Oh and the constant bombing... Yeah I see what you mean how they just couldn't have won. Maybe if japan hadn't raped China and helped Germany more... I don't really know, but its fun to speculate.

I can't imagine us dropping nukes in Europe, my god, the world can't get over Japan, just imagine the uproar...

there is a movie somewhere i saw once.i couldnt for the life of e remember the name but it was a take on that.an alternate reality where hitler conquered europe and that was it, no one ever found out about the holocaust.it was like a movie of the week quality but interesting none the less.
if ya find it lemme know, i saw it when i was like 12

Call whatever you want... but at least google it and research for your self. Wake up Sheeple.

I say you are a sheep if you believe every crazy conspiracy theory that comes along.

It isn't BS, it's just not a widely known fact.

You would be VERY surprised to hear how many ugly things have been withheld from you in regards to history, especially in this regard.

Corporate involvement with the Nazis is one of the most disgustingly untold stories in history, but the facts are all there to anyone with the stomach to look.

Derp, because they aren't REPORTED.

The same way people knew Iraq didn't have WMD even though everyone was insisting that they did.

The facts are there for those who LOOK for them, no one is going to come out and tell you things that make them look bad. But it's all sitting in a shelf at your local library, government database or university archives.

I call LOL on you

You do recognize that your post are on this tin hat site correct?

its not a conspiracy theory cuz it happened before the electronic age.
thier are shitloads of companies still around today who profited of the death of the jews tovarying degrees, from krupps coffee machines to henry ford, who was a big contributer by the way to the nazi party.

internal corperate documents dont exist of course, but siezed nazi documents prove it.also thier is the question of the money boom that certain companies had during that time.not to mention first hand accounts from individual jewish slave labor workers who were forced to work for these companies at the time.

this is the stuff that when the holocaust comes up society chooses to ignore under the guise of jews are just bitching, like when we change the channel when roots comes on, cuz we are tired of hearing about how "they" suffered back "then".

it doesnt make it untrue.we set ourselves up to ignore the truth.personaly i blame the history channel.if i werent jewish, and grew up with a channel dedicated to all things hitler from his secret footage (of him and ava) to hour long interviews with his driver, i also would be like "fuck off already".
but the substative stuff needs to get through.not for us as jews.we already got our ass's handed to us.but for the rest of you, so you can see the markers of tyrany coming before they take root.
dismissle is your own (collective) willfull demise