The Irrelevance of the Death of Bin Laden

If that is true, how can anyone ever trust a government official again?

why do we still trust the same government that gave away all of our fortunes to banksters and kock brothers

if this were true Bush would have had a taxidermist stuff his body to put on display for Bush's edification

why don't you go to a better place, then?
Clearly, you're wasting your time here.

True, but that is not the irrelevant part that this story was exposing. I wish the families would also blame the nation building foreign policies of the last 50 years that led to 9/11.

Agreed

The only part of that i disagree with is saying U.S. was profoundly traumatized with PTSD "Directly" following the terror attacks.

Now maybe that collective shock was inevitable, but i think the 4 - 5 months direcly after the attacks were great. We had a small window of times where our small differences didn't matter, and we were acting more American than i've seen in my lifetime.
(and i'm not talking about flags on our cars, i'm talking about how we treated eachother)

except, of course, for all of the numerous Arabic-Speakers, turban-and-beard-wearers, Muslims, and Americans of West Asian and Near Eastern descent who got brutally beaten , their homes vandalized, and received death threats blaming them for 9/11

and the fact that, as i experience my self personally firsthand (i remember sitting in my seventh-grade english class when the news broke) for years afterward, questioning or in any way doubting any word spoken or action taken by any person anywhere in any part of the government was treated as being tantamount to an act of sedition and high treason against the United States and everyone in it.

(the names "Bill Maher" and "Politically Incorrect" leap immediately to mind off the top of my head)

That's your precious government. They do wonderful things, don't they? So, what went wrong? Americans did what they are supposed to do when government oversteps its bounds, and voted in a new majority. Yet, we still have two unending wars, the Patriot Act, Gitmo, bailouts, and now....now we officially target American citizens abroad for assassination, not to mention the other three countries we are actively bombing with Predator Drones. Government is grand, isn't it? You want it, you got it.

Stoneyroad, I agree. Not only were we acting well towards each other, but we had the world's sympathy. We could have used the world's good will to better use than to go to war.

Not so numerous were the victims of ignorant behavior after 9/11.

I know exactly what you mean. For a long while after 9/11--leading through he invasion of Iraq, there was this social pressure of masked propaganda through patriotism. At the time, I was too young to really make any judgments on it, but I remember my dad arguing with his dad and siblings at family gatherings--all of them ganging up on him, accusing him of being unpatriotic.

The propaganda machine went into overdrive via the media, the government and army exploited and demeaned the words, "liberty," "freedom," and "justice."

Can't seem to find it, but there's a quote essentially saying that people often do not recognize their own country's propaganda.

the "Government" you refer to was the Dick Cheney Regime, an unelected, and therefore illegitimate unconstitutional authoritarian corporate for-profit oligarchy that held an iron-fisted grasp on power over the Western world for the better part of a decade,
slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians all around the globe in their self-proclaimed "Crusade" [Evangelical Fundamentalist Religious Holy War] against the arabic-speaking muslim world of islam in the Near East and West Asia, an undeclared so-called "war against Terrorism" [War is, of course, a form of terrorism] that ultimately utterly failed in any and all of its stated objectives, and was counterproductive in alienating the rest of the by far and away much more prosperous and affluent developed "first-world" industrialized democratized nations of the western European world.

i put the word in quotation marks due to the fact that, in their eight years in power, the Cheney Regime never expressed any real interest in actually "governing",
preferring instead to operate in a manner very similar to the multi-billion-dollar for-profit trans-multi-national corporate conglomerations whose multi-millionaire, as well as multi-billionaire, current and former company executives made up the vast majority of the hierarchical power structure in the undemocratic ant-populist authoritarian Regime; systematically undermining and sabotaging the sociological "safety net" infrastructure that is the foundation of all known recorded human civilization as we know it
(a dismantling extermination that continues even to this very day by the wholly-privately and corporately owned and operated [bought and sold] supposed alleged "representative' legislators of the so-called "Republican" [they clearly have no interest in maintaining any at all recognizable variety of Republic] TeaBagger-ing party).

Zero. We do not create them.

You are right about that!

I, too, am willing to fight for my personal safety against a mugger, but peace is not here, you are arguing from a false premise. If the twin towers were still standing, the Pentagon was not attacked, and a foreign enemy on September 11, 2001 had not killed nearly 3000 people on U.S. soil, your argument would have some merit; however, reality dictates otherwise. The foreign enemy exists, there is no guise, no ruse or deception, and it is the Constitutional obligation of our federal government to protect and defend our country and its people.

If you cannot grasp them meaning of "Peace at too high a price" then you are either being intentionally obtuse, or you are just another ignorant product of our horrible government school system. Those who fail to learn form history are doomed to repeat it.

We make war that we may live in peace.
—Aristotle

A bad peace is even worse than war.
—Tacitus

Even peace may be purchased at too high a price.
—Benjamin Franklin

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
—Thomas Jefferson

If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for War.
—George Washington

I have never advocated war except as a means of peace.
—Ulysses S. Grant

The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
—Theodore Roosevelt

To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering.
—Barry M. Goldwater

It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war.
—John F. Kennedy

"For too long, the world was paralyzed by the argument that terrorism could not be stopped until the grievances of terrorists were addressed. The complicated and heartrending issues that perplex mankind are no excuse for violent, inhumane attacks, nor do they excuse not taking aggressive action against those who deliberately slaughter innocent people."
—Ronald Reagan

Now the world has to learn the lesson all over again that weakness in the face of a threat from a tyrant is the surest way not to peace but to war. Looking back over 12 years, we have been the victims of our own desire to placate the implacable, to persuade towards reason the utterly unreasonable, to hope that there was some genuine intent to do good in a regime whose mind is in fact evil.
—Tony Blair

I don't completely disagree with your points. Quite the contrary, I agree with you upon several principles. However, your reasoning is narrow at best. Simply because a person is important , or has accomplished admiral things, does not mean his words are absolute. An appeal to power only bears impact if it's content may explain a point better than you can. It seems as though none of these thoroughly explain your viewpoint, and your words fail to create a solid basis for you ideologies as well. Idioms and quotes are not substitues for valid arguments and rebuttles.
And a perpetual list comes across as slightly ridiculous, and decreases the relevance of your message.

You know on the eve of the collapse of the dollar, you may have a point. When we ain't able to buy a loaf of bread for a $100 US, we will still have superior fire power. I head that some parts of Mexico are not accepting dollars. Oh well, thank God Obama, I mean Osama is dead (sorry bro president) and for that matter, thank God Ronald Reagan and Walt Disney are dead. But who we gonna blame for the next 9/11? Beware of the normalcy bias.

PS Nice Latin

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
—Thomas Jefferson"

To which I respond..........

Who was it that said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel?" Oh, yeah that was Samuel Johnson.

And then there is, "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious." Oscar Wilde

Not to be forgotten, "True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else." - Clarence Darrow

And finally, "Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime." - Adlai Stevenson

I got better quotes than you.

Let's start a quote war. Less blood shed

You forgot: War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. - George Orwell

Really? That's all you got? One quote from Orwell? Dig deeper. Feel the burn. Bring it on. Let's make this effort blow "Glee" off the networks.

“There never was a good war,
Or a bad peace.”
-Benjamin Franklin

“There is nothing good in war except its ending.”
-Abraham Lincoln

“You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.”
-Albert Einstein

“Wars and revolutions and battles are due simply and solely to the body and its desires.”
-Socrates

“You either get tired fighting for peace or you die.”
-John Lennon

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
Will make violent revolution inevitable.”
-John F. Kennedy

“Sapiens men perceptum per alius mens erroris;
Fossor per suus.”
[“Wise men learn by other men’s mistakes;
Fools by their own”].
-Latin Proverb

Statism is a domestic war on peaceful individuals.

+^d - you win the battle of quotes , hands down

damn . . .and you take the trophy for Latin as well.
(clap clap clap)

Just so you know: there are many, many, many more where those came from:

They're all right here:
Living a good life and the relationship between money and success
http://judgian12365.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/living-a-good-life-and-the-relation...

23 pages of them

That's the spirit!!

WOW! YOU DID A GREAT JOB DEBUNKING ALL THEIR FACTS! I AM STILL IN SHOCK! THANKS FOR ALL THAT GREAT INFORMATION!

(sarcasm)

Should that not be horseshit given your icon......? Are you riding or are you ridden?

&@polochick Since you both contributed the identical amount..
Ditto!
-polo- when you have to identify sarcasm; it is totally ineffective- fyi

Hey bluestranger, now THIS guy is a neocon "conservative" statist. lol

A little quick on the judgement trigger, Mike. He just joined.

Just look at what he is posting... Patriot Act good, war was justified.... just saying. He follows the neocon platform. If it smells and looks like it, I don't need to taste it. lol

You cannot destroy an ideology with this strategy. There will be plenty of worse people that spring up to fight back, and this will only make them stronger. This is FAR from over...

I disagree. ANY ideology can be destroyed if enough people rise up against it. It will eventually fade into oblivion along with Zeus and Apollo worshipers. Religious extremism ALWAYS rises up around ONE charismatic person -- One Man who can attract enough sheeple to empower his agenda. That one man may have an inner circle of support, but eliminate them and the sheeple will wander off.

If enough people rise up against it, you don't have to do any fighting. How can an ax change someone's mind through education? It can't, all you can do is bust myths. FIGHTING for freedom, (a phrase you take too literally), will never bust statism, nor change people away from a brainwashed movement. Who is the ONE MAN in charge of statism? LMAO THERE IS NONE. Statism is a brainwashed ideal that people need violent politics to solve complex social problems. You can't win freedom back by killing a certain amount of these crazies over other crazies. You have to help your society become educated on REAL FREEDOM, individual rights. I will never justify the use of violence on peaceful people, as you do. I don't need your slavery.

The source.

Please, explain...

Explain spin? Look at the second sentence with the quotation marks on leader. I don't agree with a good portion of what the President does and I voted for him. Be honest Mike admit that this article is not about anything but conservative spin.

An anarchist? So are you telling me you're not a libertarian? Are Ron and Ran anarchist?

Actually, anarchists are libertarians, but not all libertarians are anarchists. Anarchism is actually the purest form of libertarianism. The dichotomy you fail to identify, is the negative correlation between conservatism and libertarianism. Conservativism is statism, and libertarianism is anti-state. They are like night and day to a person like myself.

Possibly conservative spin.

I do not think killing Osama is simply equates to cutting the head of the movement in the grand scheme of things.

And I'm not really a conservative...

Glad you got that off your chest. Feel better now?

I don't think it will stop religious fanatics from committing more atrocities either. At best it will possibly slow them down. Hopefully it will give some closure to those who have lost loved ones in this debacle.
I am a Liberal.

Do you drive on roads, I wonder?
Have you ever been to the hospital?
Did you attend any sort of kind of variety of school?
Do you own a home?
Do you own a car?
Have you ever been to a Library?
Have you ever called the Police or Fire Department?
Do you watch television?
Do you have Electricity?
Do you drink the water that comes out of your faucet (assuming, of course that you have running water)?

Anarchists, by definition, oppose any and all forms of any sort of government.
Anarchist, by their very nature, believe that there should never, ever be any variety of form of government anywhere, at any time.

If you answered "YES" to any of the questions listed above, then you are not an anarchist.
Anyone who answers "YES" to any of these question cannot, and should not, refer to themselves as an anarchists.
Nor would they, nor would you, if one were to care at all about what they words one uses actually mean.

I am of the firm believe the Anarchists do not, in fact, even really exist at all.
That there is no such thing as anarchist.
That no one in their sane right mind could ever possibly say truthfully, honestly, earnestly, or at all genuinely that they really actually do believe that there should be no government.
The simple facts are that, without government of one form or another, the overwhelmingly vast majority of all people presently alive and living right now today quite simply would not be.
Libertarians like to say that government stands opposed to individual freedoms and liberties.
When the reality is quite opposite.
Without some form of government, no one would ever have any liberties at all.
If for no toher reason than simply because, without government, there can be no such thing as laws.
And without the rule of law, whatever freedoms or liberties on might imagine that they might have are irrelevant, as there is nothing at all to prevent others from flagrantly violating those rights.

So in reality, Libertarianism is simply just another form of liberalism, and is even farther to the left of the political spectrum than those who self-identify as calling themselves "liberals".

Did a slave ever eat his master's bread? Then he liked slavery.

Hooray for logic fails.

So anarchy does not exists because of roads and running water and the government is the way to freedom? Lol we have a statist here!

Without government, freedom cannot exist.
Without government, rights do not exist.
Without government, there is no such thing as liberty.

There is no sane person on this earth who earnestly believes that there should be no government.
Because without government... well actually, there is nothing without government.
There has never been a culture or society in the known recorded history of the human species without some form of government.
We have no idea WHAT would happen without government, because no one has ever seen it...
except in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, where the United States Government, and indeed the United States of America itself, was nowhere to be seen.

Where was the freedom in New Orleans?
Where was the liberty in New Orleans?

The fact is that, without some form of government, such terms have no meaning.
Without government, there is no such thing as law.
Without Laws, there is nothing to prevent people from acing on their every base impulse.
Without law, there is only crime, and violence.
THAT is why any society that has ever existed in human history has instituted some form of government, if only to have laws.

Anarchists live in a world of delusional fantasy.
Those who believe that by destroying the infrastructure of government, the foundation of all human civilization, there will somehow be some sort of blossoming of freedom
exist in the same self-deluded fantasy realm that those who believe that, by inventing new and ever more destructive weapons of mass-death and selling them to the highest bidder, peace will break out.

that comparison is utterly irrelevant.
comparing government to slavery does nothing more than to reveal just how badly self-deluded, to the point of borderline-psychosis, alleged supposed so-called "anarchists" really are.

The truth is that EVERYONE likes SOMETHING about government: whether it be the hospitals they go to when they get sick, the police they go to when they get robbed, the fire department they turn to when their home catches flame, the electricity they use to make phone calls, the running water they drink out of their faucet, the schools they send their children to, or the roads they use to get places.

The reality is that none of those things would exist without some form of government.
Government heals sick people.
Government prosecutes guilty criminals.
Government puts out fires.
Government educates young people.
Government fixes roads.
Government makes water safe to drink.
Government makes air safe to breathe.
Government provides the infrastructure necessary to have electricity and running water.

Anyone who opposes any of those things, even while using them, is certifiably out of their mind, and should be ignored as such.

earnest anarchists don't exist within civilized society, because anyone who lives in civilized society cannot even claim to be an anarchist without also making themselves into a flagrant hypocrite.

if for no other reason than quite simply because without some form of government, no variety of civilization or society could possibly exist.
(this is why no society has ever existed without government)
making the world of "anarchists" one of badly self-deluded fantasy, with no real connection or attachment of any kind to anything ever witnessed in the real world.

If we "privatize" hospitals, then whichever corporate company owns the most doctors will GOVERN health care.
If we privatize police, then whichever corporation owns the most officers will GOVERN law enforcement.
If we privatize schools, then whatever company owns the most teachers will GOVERN education.

Corporate governance is still government.
But because it would be FOR-PROFIT government, it would not do anything that was not profitable, such putting out fires, solving crimes, teaching children, or healing sick people.
And because it would be government BY the largest corporate conglomeration, FOR the largest corporate conglomeration, no one who was not a part of a corporate company would have any input or recourse concerning policies OF the corporate conglomeration that they would not like.

That's one pretty goddamn bad form of government if you ask me.
How anyone in their right sane mind could possibly prefer that to even the most ethically/morally challenged and financially corrupted form of Democracy is quite far beyond my capacity to comprehend

The ink wasn't even dry on the Constitution when it was first violated with the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Oh, and no, Ron and Rand are minarchists, not anarchists. I also disagree with their support of minimal statism slavery.

[PEOPLE] heals sick people.
[PEOPLE] puts out fires.
[PEOPLE] educates young people.
[PEOPLE] fixes roads.
[PEOPLE] makes water safe to drink.
[PEOPLE] makes air safe to breathe.
[PEOPLE] provides the infrastructure necessary to have electricity and running water.

FTFY

You have no idea what "competition" means. When businesses compete, consumers and workers benefit. Those businesses that meet consumer demands stay in business. If one company gets too "greedy" there will be one that will provide the same service for less. If one company gets too "sloppy", another company will be there to provide better service at the same cost. Businesses hate competition, which is why they lobby the government for unfair competitive advantages. Name me one, just one monopoly that has ever existed without direct government interference in the market. I'll wait.

"Corporate governance is still government.
But because it would be FOR-PROFIT government, it would not do anything that was not profitable, such putting out fires, solving crimes, teaching children, or healing sick people."

LMFAO, is this guy serious?!? He is basically saying that without institutionalized VIOLENCE and ENSLAVEMENT, that we will all live in poverty!!! lol Unbelievable...

Government grows the food we eat
Government builds the houses we live in
Government makes the clothes we wear.
Government makes the iPads we buy.

Government builds the fighter jets, predator drones, guns, bombs, bullets, missiles, that kill people.

Any service the government supplies, the free market can provide more effectively, and more efficiently.

Government makes the food we eat SAFE for us to eat
Government ensures that the houses we live in don't get stolen away from us by criminals
Government makes sure that the clothes we wear are not made of toxic poisons
Government regulates the ipad manufacturers to make sure that they don't explode in your hands when you turn them on
Corporation mass-manufacture weapons of mass-death and destruction, because killing people is very possibly the most profitable industry in human history

Medicare is the most popular, most efficient, and most effective health care insurance program anywhere in the world in the known recorded history of civilized society
The administrative costs alone (the amount of the money that you pay in that does NOT go toward getting you medical care) are a fraction of a decimal of a percentage of the exorbitant fees that any private-sector insurance corporation charges in order to spend more of your money giving bonuses to its executives

If you want a picture-perfect textbook example of a for-profit fire department, there was a story just last year of a man's house burning to the ground while the local firefighters stand around drinking and watching the flames, because the man could not afford to pay the ludicrously absurd fees charged in order to have the fire department actually put out the fire.
If anyone needs an example of for-profit police officers: just google "Blackwater" (i believe they now call themselves "xe") essentially privately bought and sold armies of profiteering mercenaries and vigilantes, like what Scott Walker did in Milwaukee
If you want an example of how a for-profit corporation would do roads, i invite you the take a look (while you still can, while some of them are still there) look at the Minnesota Border's bridges across the Mississippi River (or what's left of them at any rate)

Does the United States spend well over half, several (at least half a dozen) hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, of its annual yearly federal government budget on the Department of defense at the Pentagon in Arlington Virginia because there are just THAT SO many different various threats aimed at the most powerful nation in the history of the world?
my best guess would be NO
its' because for-profit (its called war profiteering) Corporate conglomerate "contractors", only a very few of them home-grown American company's, many more of them wholly entirely foreign-based entities, keep on continuing to insist on being paid billions of dollars for jobs that were either completed decades ago, or never at all. (Does the name "Halliburton" ring any bells?)

over the past half of a century, the so-called "educational" system in the United States has been carried along on a steady, inexorable, though i must say not irrevocable, spiral toward a for-profit system and a corporate-centric curriculum.
The result has been a massive and rather abrupt plummeting decline in every quantifiable measurement of success.
The wholly taxpayer-funded and nationalized public educational institution of Northern and Western Europe predictably, regularly, and routinely whoop American student's backsides all over the place in every single measurement of academic success, performance, and excellence.
(amongst the first-world developed industrialized democratized nations of the world, the United States of America now ranks DEAD LAST in every single testable academic and scholastic field of mathematics and the sciences)

These people really are certifiably deranged, aren't they?
again with the comparisons of Government with Slavery.

I'm beginning to strongly suspect that neither of those terms mean what they believe they mean.
But history "education" isn't what it used to be, especially in increasingly corporately-owned and operated for-profit "school" institutions
[its kind of like going to a so-called "religious school" except substituting the shamelessly schilling endorsements for products and company ad campaign slogans instead of the blindly evangelizing indoctrination into dogmatic doctrine and fantastical mythology]

But even so, the comparison alone, all by itself, borders on schizophrenic psychosis.

even the implication of any reference to "institutionalized violence" in the context of government is quite beyond the rational human mind's capacity to comprehend.

The fact is that government is, always has been, and forever will be the only thing standing between the multi-billion-dollar trans-multinational for-profit corporate conglomerations and their ideal sociological "order": one in which there are only two groups of people: The rich, and the rest.

The fact is that there are so many uber-wealthy multi-billionaires in the world today that the trans-multi-national corporate conglomeration no longer need anyone EXCEPT the uber-wealthy to purchase any of their goods or services, and indeed have very little or no use for anyone, and everyone, who does NOT just so happen to have tens or hundreds of billions of dollars to throw around on petty vanity exercises.

Or rather they wouldn't, were it not for government.
Government, through meticulous and scrupulous inspection and regulation to trans multinational conglomerations, FORCES those corporations to give a good goddamn about people who buy things that they might someday actually eventually need.
And the conglomeration NEED to be forced to care, as caring, in and of itself, holds no inherent profit-seeking motivation whatsoever at all.

anyone who has any inkling that for-profit multi-billion-dollar corporations would have any incentive to give a flying... peking duck... about the "little people" [as British Petroleum's Tony Hayward so eloquently put it] desperately needs to go back and take high school MacroEconomics.

Government is solely wholly, and entirely responsible for lifting tens and hundreds of millions of people, men women and children, the disabled and the elderly, up out of abject destitution and poverty every single minute, of every single hour, of every single day, of every single week, of every single month, of every single year.

Wow I do not even know where to begin....

WITH government people are told what rights they should have. I smoke weed in my house, the government can kidnap me for this, and if i resist they can shoot and KILL me. That is LIBERTY right? That is totally SANE?! Government infrastructure? I think you are referring to roads and whatnot that PEOPLE built and were paid off by the government with STOLEN money (taxes). Where was the GOVERNMENT IN N.O.?! The Army core of engineers did a great job on the levees, they kept everyone safe and sound right? Obviously not! You cannot say that Katrina led to Anarchy, it led to people begging for help from the slave masters that had promised help, but never planned on giving it.

"Without government, there is no such thing as law." If by Law you mean the things government use to extort money from "citizens" and threaten people with violence for doing any thing the state decides is "illegal" even if it does not harm another person. Is that really so bad?

You live in a world of fantasy if you think for one second that the government cares about anything more than money and power for itself. Wake up.

Western Union (Price Gouging)
Standard Oil (Parent company of ExxonMobil and Chevron): 1911
US Steel: 1911
United Aircraft and Transport Corporation (Boeing and United Airlines): 1934
American Telephone and Telegraph (At&T): 1982
De Beers (the words "blood diamonds" spring to mind)
Deutsche Telekom [German Telecom] (known in the US as "T-Mobile")

perhaps the most famous example:
Microsoft: 2001, 2004, 2007, 2008

And one that does not get nearly enough attention:
Monsanto (100% of Commercial Seed Market)

New York seems to have some "issues" with monopolies:
Long Island Power Authority (LIPA)
Long Island Rail Road (LIRR)

Two famous monopolies that everyone still adores:
Major League Baseball: 1922, 2009
National Football League: 1960's, 1980's

and one quasi-government monopoly that everyone not-so-secretly loves, but that hardly anyone knows even exists:
Joint Commission (Medicare and Medicaid)

And of course the military has always been extremely incredibly fond of monopolizing, well... just about anything it can get its filthy paws on, really:
Exchange [Army and Air Force Exchange Service] (AAFES)

Government-endorsed Monopolies are indeed exceedingly rare:
British East India Company: 1600
Dutch East India Company: 1602
Societe des alcools du Quebec [Quebec Alcohol Corporation] (SAQ)

People can't do any of those things without infrastructure
Infrastructure which people alone. all by themselves, cannot provide
Infrastructure is made up of rules
Rules for a society are called laws,
and a system of laws make up a government

ever tried driving from Maine to San Diego on only dirt roads?
you can't
you need highways
highways which wouldn't exist if the government hadn't had them built where they are.
(btw: any argument that "government can't create jobs" just ended right then and there);

FYI: "people" are the ones making the air UNSAFE to breathe
and "people" are the one making the roads NEED fixing
and in many cases, its "PEOPLE" who START the fires to begin with in the first place

The only thing standing between mass-industrialization and a planet inhospitable to human life as we know it, is government regulation.
Because the tans-multinational conglomerations sure as hell don't give a flying... peking duck---whether we can breathe or not

a for-profit corporation will shut off your power AND your water if they think you're using too much (if its costing them too much to supply it to you), or if they just don't particularly like you, your family, or the neighborhood of town where you just so happen to live.
without any sort of regulation, what's to stop them?
as long as you pay your dues, government will supply you with all the power and water you need, no matter how much you use.

[PEOPLE] are [The Government]

It's time you Chicken Littles with your bogeyman fears of the government realize this

we are a capitalist country
no one can do anything without money
that includes the government.
where else is the government going to get money except from taxes?
that is why every society in the history of the human species has had a government,
and every government in the history of civilization has had taxation.

Government is the ultimate Not-for-profit charitable philanthropic organization.
the government is the only organization in the world in history that spend more money than it takes in.
any for-profit corporation that did that would collapse and implode in upon itself and crumble.

That's how you know that the government has absolutely positively no interest of any kind whatsoever in making money at all.

There's no profit in government.
The only reason that there is any money or profit in a person being IN the government is that the government itself is increasingly corporate

people are GIVEN rights
Rights are GRANTED, not dictated
NO right is self-proclaimed
People cannot simple claim to have a right, just because they want to have it
they aren't told that they can have rights
people HAVE rights
Rights are privileges,
but no right is absolute

if the freedom to practice of religion was an absolute right, then literally anything and everything could be claimed as a religious practice; including, but not limited to bestiality and human sacrifice.

resisting arrest is not a capitol crime, i'm not sure what sordid universe you've been living in

the fact is that the highways would never have been built at all if the government hadn't ordered it.
people don't do that on their own.

New Orleans after hurricane Katrina was violence, looting, rioting, vandalism, random muggings, brutal beatings, torching buildings, robbing, thieving, stealing, burning, smashing windows, doors, and walls.
THAT's called anarchy. THAT's what anarchy is.
THAT's what anarchists advocate for.
THAT's what anyone calling themselves an "anarchist" supports.

I would re-consider my labeling of myself if i were you.

"This is a capitalist country"
You have to be kidding me, you think we have free markets? We have controlled markets, controlled by the corporatist statists, not free market capitalism. The very essence of government itself destroys a free market, freedom. We don't need you pointing guns at peaceful people!

You are mistaken about the fire. Severely mistaken. It was not a private fire company. It was the Fulton city fire department that refused to put out the fire.

"Residents of rural Olbion County, Tennessee must contract indivdiually with nearby Fulton city for fire protection. The annual fee is $75. An Olbion County resident failed to pay the fee (he says he simply forgot and had paid the fee for the previous two years) and his house caught on fire after his grandson lit trash near the building. The owner called 911 and ***offered to pay the fee and, later at the site of the fire, offered to pay the fire department whatever it would take to save his home***. The firemen - part of a municipal force - refused because of rules preventing such action. They were on hand to protect the house of a neighbor who was up to date in terms of fees."

***My emphasis.

You are confused. You have been lied to, or are intentionally lying, yourself. Get your facts straight, statist scum.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/06/let-it-burn-or-not-fulton-fire

Intellectual property rights. Ring a bell? IP is a state granted privilege. That knocks about 2/3 off your list. The rest can be handled by regulations. Yes, regulations help create monopolies. Look at the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Standard Oil rose to monopoly status by employing unfair business practices on their competitors. The courts and judges were bought off. But even with their "monopoly status", the price of kerosene went down 90%. That meant that poor people could afford to light their homes.

How can you possibly list AT&T as NOT being a government created monopoly. What planet are you from? That is the most glaring example.

You really are backwards. You need to get your facts straight.

In the late 70s, Jimmy Carter started deregulating trucking/rail, airlines, communications, and beer. What happened? I'll tell you what happened. Prices went down, and service went up.

Look at Wall Street. The bankers have been in bed with government for over 100 years. Look at where we are. Maybe the government should give them another bailout? What do you think?

You have proven just how misinformed you are. You haven't a clue. In all of my travels across these internets, I have never heard such drivel. You are an example of everything that is wrong with the world. You are misinformed. You do not know what anarchy is, you do not recognize the evils that government has done. You don't even realize how many of your Natural Rights have been stolen by government. You want to be controlled. You need to be controlled. You make an excellent Drone

Everything the government has, it had to take from somebody else. The tool government has, is the use of force. The [PEOPLE] in the [The Government] have the ability to initiate force against anyone, for whatever reason with little or no fear of repercussion. How many of your rights have you willingly handed over to government? How many have they taken from you? What happens when the government forces you to give something that you are not willing to give?

an·ar·chy noun \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\
1 a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder

an·ar·chy [an-er-kee] –noun
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control:

anarchy (ˈænəkɪ) — n
1. general lawlessness and disorder, esp when thought to result from an absence or failure of government
2. the absence or lack of government
3. the absence of any guiding or uniting principle; disorder; chaos

anarchy
American Heritage Dictionary:
an·ar·chy (ăn'ər-kē)
n., pl., -chies.
Absence of any form of political authority.
Political disorder and confusion.
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

anarchy
n Definition: lawlessness; absence of government
Antonyms: lawfulness, order, rule

an·ar·chy (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

anarchy [ˈænəkɪ]
n 1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) general lawlessness and disorder, esp when thought to result from an absence or failure of government
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the absence or lack of government
3. the absence of any guiding or uniting principle; disorder; chaos

anarchy
an absence of government and law; political disorder, often accompanied by violence. See also order and disorder.

Noun 1. anarchy - a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)
lawlessness

anarchy
n anarchy [ˈӕnəki]
1 the absence or failure of government
2 disorder and confusion.