Community | August 09, 2011 | 194 comments

S & P Downgrades US Treasuries, DOW Gets Pummeled: SOLUTION - Voluntaryism

source: http://peacefreedomprosperity.com/5479/s-p-downgrades-us-treasuries-dow-gets-pummeled-solution/

Image
shanklinmike
Though many still like to scoff at the idea of a complete economic collapse, it does not change the reality that it will happen as no one in congress, the senate, or presidency will ever admit to the people that they messed up, and will have to drastically cut their payouts. In their eyes, it is the knowledge that it is either a major economic collapse, or a severe civil uprising. In the case of the prior, the blame game option is still on the table and more plausible. In the latter, it will have to admitted that it was the cause of the whole mess – a political mass suicide that none of them will ever want to go through.

First of all, we need to be honest with ourselves as a nation, and admit that what we are going through now is the general sum of failure in all systems; failure in economic, foreign, military, educational and domestic policies. If this can happen, the even more important question can be addressed – what now?

Well it’s actually pretty simple, and we can start with the idea of centralization. People tend to gravitate toward a centralized entity as it as seen as being the calm in the storm so to speak. This holds true in small meetings just as it does in presidential elections (as far as group thought anyway). In small arenas there is nothing wrong with centralizations as the collective is small and interests limited. This means that you have simplicity which makes any policy emitted as being understandable and thus easy to follow.

Expansion of either the size of the collective or its interest is where things start getting complicated. People can only have a reasonable understanding of so many various topics before they run out of room so to speak. For instance a laborer will understand labor, but would not be suited well towards building a communications network. Likewise a network engineer will have little understanding of how to lay a solid concreted foundation. Hence the more items or services you have used for the ‘good of the collective’, the less understanding the collective will have as to how things work. The one and only solution to this is by committing to expansion very slowly, so that the individuals that make the collective have time to develop an understanding of the new interest or social group.

In the interest of the above two points, there is nothing small minded or unenlightened about bending ones focus upon their locality. In actuality, it is the globalists who think themselves wise to the world that continue to overlook the obvious sink holes in their own backyard. The fact of the matter is that I cannot think of a single locality that is not only self sustaining but more than capable of establishing itself and prospering. The reasoning here is simple as well. In most localities you can have farmers markets, a local sewage treatment plant, etc. What one locality may lack in terms of natural fuels or other resources, they could easily trade to another locality for something else. It really is not hard at all.

As to money, it would take some time to adapt to a new system, but it is still easily possible. Everyone complains about the big evil banks, so why have them? Seriously, why have them? If local banks were in place, and you could use any currency you wanted to (or not all for those gifted in trading), then their failures would not have to translate into a tool of fear that can be used against you. In addition it..................

http://peacefreedomprosperity.com/5479/s-p-downgrades-us-treasuries-dow-gets-pum...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHe4OQ4bY4o

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=210&pictureid=4877
  1. groups:
    Community,   Liberty
  2. tags:
    Economy,  War,  World,  Government,  35 more
  3.     
    |

194 comments // S & P Downgrades US Treasuries, DOW Gets Pummeled: SOLUTION - Voluntaryism

  • figgdimension
    • -1
      figgdimension  

    • ...or we could tax the rich?! Why throw off our Democracy when all thats missing is some good ole fairness and integrity... ? and perhaps the will to change... thanks Mike nice thoughts good post

    • 10 months ago
  • cwebbpt4
    • +1
      cwebbpt4  

    • If you guys could present your argument without it being propped up by straw men and semantic ambiguity that would be totally awesome.

    • 10 months ago
  • shanklinmike
  • cwebbpt4
    • +1
      cwebbpt4  
    • shanklinmike:

      Wow, you literally responded to my post calling out your logical fallacies by using those exact logical fallacies. I dont even have to argue my side, you do a good job of invalidating your own claims yourself.

    • 10 months ago
  • ReMarker
    • 0
      ReMarker  

    • WalterKovacs said to me, "Instead of cheap attempts to discredit someone why not civilly discuss what exactly you find to be faulty.... Or are you one of those of lemmings that prefer to label discourse and dialog as terrorism?"

      I replied to WalterKovacs, "I'm one of those "lemmings" (your word) that has no intention of wasting my time trying to discuss what is obvious and factual with someone interested in making up new rules for my country instead of accepting our Constitutional government and working within the system (like upwards of 80% of our citizens) to make needed ADJUSTMENTS for making our country better.

      Most people don't want and arguably we don't need a new government or a new money system. That seems to be this article's proposition and people that buy into that thinking have been manipulated by Republican oligarchs.

      A government based on your proposals can NOT stop the Republican oligarchs, theocrats, and plutocrats.

      I want the oligarchs, theocracts, plutocrats, etc. STOPPED!!! Your propaganda helps them. Get a clue. Or maybe you have a clue and intentionally help the Republicans. Either way, I am not convertable, nor are you and I don't like wasting my time. Be who you want to be, I don't care. I'll continue to be an American."

      I thought this exchange may interest some of you.

    • 10 months ago
  • shanklinmike
    • +3
      shanklinmike  
    • ReMarker:

      What are you talking about? We aren't talking about party politics, we are talking about ending human political ownership. We are trying to end the republican statists also. They support central banking, and social security, and, well,.... most of the things we see today in government. They will point guns and arrest people over taxes and they bomb innocent women and children overseas while oligopolizing industries.... listen, we get it, republicans suck.... now take the next step... realize ALL politics is nothing but THREATS OF AGGRESSIVE VIOLENCE on PEACEFUL people who simply DISAGREE.

    • 10 months ago
  • cwebbpt4
  • ReMarker
    • 0
      ReMarker  
    • shanklinmike:

      I was explicitly clear in my comment.

      I will take you at your word about not being a Republican operative.

      For the sake of my point, I will accept your premise of how short our government comes from doing what is needed to acquire a utopian society.

      My point is; your proposal is no better than the Republican's proposal for making our society better. Bad government and no government are mutually counterproductive for the majority.

      Utopia for all, is unattainable. To believe otherwise is to fall into the radical religious fundamentalist's and Republican's 'do NOT compromise' trap. In other words, anyone believing there is only one 'way' for all of us, is mistaken (I'm being nice).

    • 10 months ago
  • AaronMcDevitt
    • +2
      AaronMcDevitt  
    • ReMarker:

      We all know utopia is unattainable. The article even responded to that, if you read it.

      But one doesn't need to be deluded into thinking utopia is attainable in order to know it's bad for society to allow mass violence, and mass theft of trillions of dollars.

    • 10 months ago
  • AaronMcDevitt
    • +2
      AaronMcDevitt  
    • cwebbpt4:

      Talk about straw-men. The post you responded to didn't mention putting anyone's mom in a cage. However, if you don't believe in the threats, why obey the "law" or pay taxes? Or do you really understand that there are threats behind them?

    • 10 months ago
  • ReMarker
    • 0
      ReMarker  
    • AaronMcDevitt:

      The faulty logic of the article is, it suggest a utopian type, universal solution to our problems. It's good to know you don't believe utopia is attainable.

      You say, "if you read it" implying I may not have read the article. Please know, I read the article as well as visited the linked website and read the information on that site BEFORE I made and posted my "faulty logic" conclusion to the article's and website's propositions.

      Just so you know, just because I disagree with your position (support for the article's propositions), that doesn't mean I DON'T know "it's bad for society to allow mass violence, and mass theft of trillions of dollars". Of course I know mass violence and mass theft is bad for society. Why would you imply that I don't? (This is a rhetorical question. We all know why you would imply that.)

      As a matter of fact, mass violence and theft are the main reasons I believe this article's logic is faulty.

      It would take years and years for a non-mainstream political "movement" to acquire the political power to effect progress toward timely solutions for those problems. Observe how long it is taking the fundamentalist religious right to acquire their objectives, even after hijacking the Republican Party.

      Talk about delusional....

    • 10 months ago
  • cwebbpt4
    • -1
      cwebbpt4  
    • AaronMcDevitt:

      I love how you silly little ones have to play with semantics just to make a point. If Laws=Threats, then according to your logic there must be no laws at all, from the state or privately, since a threat is a threat is a threat is a threat.

      P.S. if you somehow missed the exact place where shanklinmike used a comment to equate laws to throwing someone in a cage for "disagreeing" then all you have to do is open your eyes on the comments section for more then 5 seconds" lol seriously, he uses it a lot, and if you seriously haven't noticed then i feel sorry for you

      Heres one: "The fact that taxation is involuntary... that if you do not pay this extortion, that the government will tackle peaceful people who simply disagree and throw them in a cage."

      So do you understand what a straw man argument actually is, or were you just making a failed attempt at talking with the grown-ups?

    • 10 months ago
  • AaronMcDevitt
    • +1
      AaronMcDevitt  
    • cwebbpt4:

      I did find that comment, but it wasn't on the current post you responded to. I assumed you had seen it elsewhere, or you simply wouldn't have realized that caging is the punishment. Of course it is fact that government WILL put you in a cage if you refuse to be a victim of theft and the retaliatory violence.

      Again, I will ask you: If there is no threat behind the laws, then why obey them? Anyway, we all know that they threaten punishment if you disobey.

    • 10 months ago
  • shanklinmike
  • shanklinmike
  • SandyBerman
  • shanklinmike
  • SandyBerman
  • shanklinmike
  • 12th_man_syndrome
    • 0
      12th_man_syndrome  

    • Hey sandy, want everything centrally planned and to lose all your human rights to the collective good, move to North Korea. That place is a utopia for people like you.

    • 10 months ago
  • 12th_man_syndrome
    • 0
      12th_man_syndrome  

    • Oh and TV isn't run by by the government, its just censored by them. Same with hospitals, there for profit businesses. As far as them being YOUR roads, my tax dollars payed for those as well. That system pays for itself more or less with vehicle registration. There is no reason why different companies cant compete to build these roads and register your car for cheaper then the other one. Why have monopolies? Furthermore why do you stigmatize growing your own food, and do you think food wouldnt exist without a USDA? What did people do before it existed? If your ok feeding your children genetically modified food, pesticides, meat raised on growth hormones and washed down in bleach be my guest, ill stick to my saturday markets, food co-ops (not USDA approved) and friends and family thank you. And I live in the city in an apartment. museums are mostly for profit, and the ones that aren't you still pay to get in. Drugs are made by PRIVATE companies. Sure there evaluated by the FDA, but then why are there class action lawsuits on late night (private) tv all night long? the FDA and drug companies couldnt possibly be in bed with eachother? Yes it should be my choice if I want to pay to be able to call 911. If I don't my house could burn down. What exactly does that choice have to do with you? And why is it that I cant choose which fire station company I want to choose? you still never answered me about sharing grades in school.

    • 10 months ago
  • Vic_Romano
  • JohnA
  • shanklinmike
  • shanklinmike
  • shanklinmike
  • Jesse_Gossett
  • Paratus
  • cwebbpt4
    • 0
      cwebbpt4  
    • shanklinmike:

      This whole idea of slavery seems to be base on the idea that citizenship isn't voluntary. If you dont like taxes then you are more then welcome to revoke your citizenship and live somewhere where people have voluntarily agreed to live by your "utopian" standards. Somehow I dont think you care at all about finding that place, I think you just want to spread your propaganda

    • 10 months ago
  • AaronMcDevitt
    • +1
      AaronMcDevitt  
    • cwebbpt4:

      "If you dont like taxes then you are more then welcome to revoke your citizenship and live somewhere where people have voluntarily agreed to live by your "utopian" standards."

      Excuse me? Who are you to tell people where they can and can't live? Who made you God? Why can't we live where we want to live, and not have your hired politicians threatening and pillaging us?

      Would you enjoy it if I gathered a few of my friends and robbed you? How about if I gathered a few of my friends and you and put it to a democratic vote? If you don't want us to, then why should you get the privilege to do so to us?

      I would really love to see your answers (you don't have to answer who made you God, but I sure would like to know), but people tend to dodge these questions and resort to name calling.

    • 10 months ago
  • cwebbpt4
    • +1
      cwebbpt4  
    • AaronMcDevitt:

      Im sorry you dont like the rules in the country you were born in, but just because you dont get everything you want does give you justification to act outside the agreed upon rules of said country. Im not telling you where you can or cant live, I'm informing you of your options available to you.

      Do you understand what a Straw Man argument is? It occurs when one continually props up their opponents argument in an image of what they would like it to be in an effort to make that argument look weak. That is exactly what this whole "how about if my friends and I robbed you" BS is. You and you friends robbing me does not equal taxes because you and your friends a). have no written authority from the citizenry of this country to do so b) have no intention of using what you rob from me for the benefit of said citizenry, c) you and your friends are not a democratically elected body by the citizenry, even if you made your decision "democratically" and d) even if you were democraticallly elected officials with written authority, you have no oversight, and there are no checks and balances to regulate your decisions.

      So I hope you get it (though I doubt you care). I hope This little lesson has let you and your people understand the infantile logic you like to exploit in order to make your emotional, throw-my-grandma-in-a-cage comments on this page. Fail Fail Fail

    • 10 months ago
  • AaronMcDevitt
    • 0
      AaronMcDevitt  
    • cwebbpt4:

      It is not a straw man. You defended taxation. Taxation IS you and your "friends" robbing me. Fact.

      a). have no written authority from the citizenry of this country to do so

      Alright, I will get my friends together, call it a country, include you in the "country" without your consent, and give ourselves written "authority" to rob you. Better? Explain which part of this is unlike taxation.

      b) have no intention of using what you rob from me for the benefit of said citizenry,

      Who is to say the government has any intention of using their stolen money for anyone's benefit except their own? Anyway, regardless of any intent, it's still robbery. Even if my friends and I intended on using your money for our subjective definition of good, I doubt you would approve.

      c) you and your friends are not a democratically elected body by the citizenry, even if you made your decision "democratically"

      How so? Me and my friends + you are the citizenry, in this case.

      d) even if you were democraticallly elected officials with written authority, you have no oversight, and there are no checks and balances to regulate your decisions.

      So... if we install "checks and balances" for ourselves, we may then steal from you?

    • 10 months ago
  • cwebbpt4
    • 0
      cwebbpt4  
    • AaronMcDevitt:

      If you don't understand why equating something as complex and variable as the system of government outlined in the constitution of the United States to 'you getting together with some friends and robbing me' is a straw man then there is no reason to try to compel you otherwise. You are either intellectually incapable of learning or just a propaganda troll.

    • 10 months ago
  • 12th_man_syndrome
    • 0
      12th_man_syndrome  

    • I have serious issues with a quote from you. "The world needs a new army of critical and passionate messengers alert to the need for progressive social solidarities" So once these solidarity's are determined who will enforce them? How will they be enforced? What happens to the people who don't want any part of these newly structured programs that tell them what to do and how to live? Are they to be exterminated in the name of progress? Furthermore The first thing those people in the gated communities would do is pick the people in this army. Then they would lobby the members of it, and bribe them to come to the "right" consensus. Isn't what your talking about the system we already have in place? What I am proposing is a system where everyone is the army. Each indavidual person, on a daily basis makes these decisions by funding or buying things as they see fit. Rather then a small group of people with the power to speak for everyone deciding these things for people. You seriously controdict yourself. If your issue is with inequality, then why are you lauding the virtues of a system of systematic inequality. A system where failure is rewarded at the expense of the successful. I don't mean welfare or anything like that, I mean picking winners and losers in the market place. I mean subsidization in the context of propping up things that would otherwise fail by taking the tax dollars from things that are not in danger of failing. Equality means everyone gets the same opportunity. Failure is not always a bad thing, and it HAS to exist in order for an economy to exist. Take a look at the average of living standards in countries ranked highest in economic freedom, and the ones ranked the lowest.

    • 10 months ago
  • JohnA
  • SandyBerman
  • shanklinmike
    • -1
      shanklinmike  
    • JohnA:

      That is not true... Herbert Hoover was IN government... how can a person who goes against voluntaryism be a voluntaryist?!? That makes no sense whatsoever.... Herbert Hoover even went against his "free market" Treasury Secretary.

      In fact, FDR's vice president running mate John Garner Nance stated that Herbert Hoover was taking the country, "down the path of socialism"...

      How do you get an anti-government supporter from Herbert Hoover?!? You are dead wrong.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-qWILwGC8U

    • 10 months ago
  • shanklinmike
  • shanklinmike
  • JohnA
  • JohnA
  • JohnA
  • shanklinmike
  • shanklinmike
    • 0
      shanklinmike  
    • JohnA:

      "Volunterism was Herbert Hoover's idea. We know how well that worked out."
      ~I still don't understand what you meant by this. Voluntaryism and Hoover had nothing to do with each other...

    • 10 months ago
  • JohnA
  • SFirman
    • -1
      SFirman  
    • JohnA:

      I was on another thread that called President Obama GW, now he's Hoover. He must be quite a president to be all in one. He won't need to campaign. He'll have votes from both sides. Thanks johna. Now I know he will win in 2012.

    • 10 months ago
  • JohnA
    • 0
      JohnA  
    • SFirman:

      Unfortunately he hasn''t been any of the good ones. It is an interesting comparison. The parties were quite different than they are today, understand. Hoover was a staunch progressive, in the vein of Teddy Roosevelt, not like Republicans today. He was an ideolouge who could not bring himself to break out of his ideology to confront the problems in front of him. FDR was one of the rich elite, from New York, a child of money and leisure, not like Democrats today. But FDR was a centrist pragmatist, he sought to solve problems, and a lot of programs he started still stand today. So who would you rather have, the progressive ideolouge, Obama, or the centrist pragmatist, Clinton?

    • 10 months ago
  • 12th_man_syndrome
    • +1
      12th_man_syndrome  

    • Im sorry if that was your response, it had the feel of a copy and paste sort of thing. You still have yet to tell me why you feel the need to force people to live the way you want them too. I get that you want to live the way you want, and to have these things available to people. But why do you want to force people into it? Why do you feel its alright to threaten people to accomplish what you think it is the world should be like?

    • 10 months ago
  • SandyBerman
  • AaronMcDevitt
    • 0
      AaronMcDevitt  
    • SandyBerman:

      Or... how about you stop hiring people to force us to contribute to your little pet projects. How about we live right where we are without your violent threats against those who choose not to donate to your cause. How about you leave peaceful people alone.

    • 10 months ago
  • 12th_man_syndrome
    • -1
      12th_man_syndrome  

    • The only thing I can hope happens to people like you is that you are audited, lose your government job, have your property taken from you by means of imminent domain, get arrested for smoking pot, get fined for having out of date tags on your car, get put on a no fly list, get sent to Guantanamo bay as a potential terrorist with no legal recourse, or lawyer, or even an a charged crime, and if your finally let out of there, which I hope your not, I hope its under a court ordered regiment or psychotropic drugs, and counciling, and that your forced to wear an ankle bracelet with an rfid chip in it, and that you have to meet with a PO on a regular basis.

    • 10 months ago
  • SandyBerman
  • shanklinmike
  • SandyBerman
  • shanklinmike
  • 12th_man_syndrome
    • 0
      12th_man_syndrome  

    • How about responding to me directly instead of trolling. With all the wasted money, and job killing legislation gone, these people could get jobs. You seem to want people to be dependent on the state, rather then create a livelyhood for themselves. Government does this to ensure that these people will always vote and give them moral sanction for the things they do. They literally have it in there best interest to have as many people as possible dependent on them. What that means is these people have no means of supporting themselves, and live or die by the policies and fiscal responsibility of there government. It seems like your government wanting to make you poor so that you don't stand up and challenge them would be a bad thing... I really don't see what you have invested in this system. The only thing I can think of is that you work for them, which makes you no better then a tobacco lobbyist commenting on weather or not smoking is bad for you. You don't care about people, or freedom, you care about your own livelyhood. It doesn't matter how many people are forced into being poor, as long as it works out for you.

    • 10 months ago
  • SandyBerman
    • SandyBerman  
    • This comment was removed as a violation of community guidelines.
  • JohnA
    • -3
      JohnA  
    • SandyBerman:

      That was a bit deep for me, but I don't believe a new language of public purpose, rationality and formative culture embedded in democratic public values, collective struggles and a social movement willing to fight, is neccessary. I would say The Constitution of The United States of America sums it up quite well. I'm not as smart as you, of course, so I'll just go with that.

    • 10 months ago
  • shanklinmike
  • JohnA
  • JohnA
  • shanklinmike
  • shanklinmike
  • SandyBerman
    • SandyBerman  
    • This comment was removed as a violation of community guidelines.
  • JohnA
    • +1
      JohnA  
    • SandyBerman:

      You are quite wrong, what I seek is personal responsibility, an attribute quite lacking in American society today. I do realize that I benefit from the system that I am forced to pay into, I don't want to police the streets or inspect meat, but not nearly as much as I pay in, and no where near those that pay nothing. It is easy for you to call me lucky because I have been forward thinking and saved money, but it was not luck that allowed me to do that, it was my work, my sweat, blood, and tears. So why do I owe any to those who have shed none? The ill and the impovershed should be looked after in a civilized society. But in American today, 47% pay no federal income tax at all. 15% of the people are on food stamps. Where does it end?

    • 10 months ago
  • SandyBerman
  • AaronMcDevitt
  • JohnA
  • 12th_man_syndrome
    • 0
      12th_man_syndrome  

    • The problem with your world view is that you would be thrust into this "jungle law" system with no safety net if enough of these people ever got together and voted that way. These opportunities you speak of are bribes. They take money from you and from other people, then give you a portion of them in order to buy your support for the racket there running. Do you believe its ok for a gang to go to a convenience store owner, rough up his store, threaten him and his wife with a bat, and then offer there "Protection" from other gangs? The government works exactly like the mob, and if you don't think the mob, or a drug cartel has ever done anything good for there communities, then your diluted. They need to win hearts and minds just like anyone. If you don't pay, they will come and at the very least steal the money from you anyway, at worst harm you and put you in a cage. You say I'm a leach, but I don't have a choice. The government literally has a gun to my head telling me I NEED to pay for these "opportunities" for myself. Rather then letting me choose which ones I need and which ones I feel are morally objectionable or waist full. No opportunity provided by government has ever been provided without taking an opportunity away from someone else. Do you believe grades in school should be averaged or shared because its probably in the collective good, and some less fortunate people may need better grades in order to make a better life for themselves? I'm not asking you to give up any of the things you are accustomed to, I just want my opportunity to opt out, or not too. More freedom is always better then less.

    • 10 months ago
  • SandyBerman
  • JohnA
  • SandyBerman
  • JohnA
  • SandyBerman
  • shanklinmike
  • SandyBerman
  • shanklinmike
  • SandyBerman
  • AaronMcDevitt
    • +1
      AaronMcDevitt  
    • SandyBerman:

      "Involuntary, as it should be"?

      Ok then, I am taxing you. I expect the check to be 30% of your income. In return, I will force you to use my products. Oh, and I will jail anyone who tries to produce similar products.

    • 10 months ago
  • SandyBerman
    • SandyBerman  
    • This comment was removed as a violation of community guidelines.
  • shanklinmike
  • 12th_man_syndrome
    • +2
      12th_man_syndrome  

    • Why is it such a stretch of the imagination for people to accept the idea that the world would be a better place if we were not forced to do anything we didn't want to. For starters taxes, everyone should get a bill in the mail with a bunch of check boxes. Defense, School, Transportation, Low income housing and welfare etc. The ones you feel you need, or the ones you believe are beneficial, you pay for.

      The first thing this would do is to eliminate government favoritism and pet projects, while forcing high levels of competency and efficiency. While this may lead to some politicians being up a creek as far as dolling out unlimited tax dollars to campaign donors, it would be extremely beneficial to the average person. What the government gets, the government spends, nothing else to it.

      A misconception about volunteerism is that all these things people have grown accustomed to will suddenly go away. This is not the case, its the dynamic of how you are treated, and how these civic programs are run that changes. All of a sudden the police have a new found focus shift from harassment and raising revenue, to keeping people safe, and preventing crime. after all every traffic stop becomes like getting re-elected.

      suddenly you are a "civil servant" not an overlord. Good headlines in the papers and on the local news become necessary for the survival of there careers. If there was no such thing as a victimless crime, and the police were not looking at me as a means to make payroll, then I would welcome the police patrolling the area I live in. All of a sudden there here to make sure I'm not robbed, and that friends and relatives aren't raped.

      And There will be genuine consequences of not paying for these services. If you don't pay for the fire or police department, you have no right to there services. Its like in unincorporated areas where the fire department will watch your house burn down if you don't pay. Why does anyone feel the need to tell anyone that they HAVE to have access to these things if they don't want them?

      The fact of the matter is, many of the public sector services like these will die out without guaranteed money coming in. Private companies can do the job far more effectively and efficiently without the middleman that is Government. But the option to use it and support it WILL be there for those that want it.

      I read in an earlier comment that people like there public schools. The same teachers would work at the same schools, teach from the same books, the children would play sports on the same fields and in the same gyms, and there still wouldn't be any children left out. The difference would be that it would all be done at a much smaller cost.

      The US is far and above the highest spending country in terms of what each student costs each year, and yet we are only the 14th ranked country in terms of education in the world. Not only are we ranked that low, we are in free fall. Ten years from now we will not be ranked 14th, its getting worse. What we need is competition. Any entity with guaranteed existence will NEVER reach the potential of one that has to throw its chips in with other entities who are also fighting for survival in a market place. You can get a far better education in a private school, and that school spends a fraction of the money per student as its government counterpart.

      Those left leaning individuals out there chomping at the bit to crucify me as some sort of right winger or something, ask yourself a question. And I know what you have been programmed to respond on this blog, but I hope the rhetorical aspect of this challenges you . Deep down in your soul, do you care more about the education of the children in the schools, or the educational system itself? Do you love the quality education they are getting, or do you love the top heavyness, the political power it yields against others, the unions, and the fact that something that large gets to basically have a monopoly on truth and virtue?

      So now banks, I will make this very simple. Banks would not be the evil they are today if they were not propped up by money taken from other people. A few years before the great depression there was another collapse that was in many ways more severe then the one that caused the great depression. You never hear about it because the market was allowed to correct itself. Many people lost there asses and livelyhoods, many banks went out of business, many people lost there jobs. Other investors came in, bought the toxic assets at pennies on the dollar. Opened new banks in the buildings the old banks were housed in, and we were back to normal in a few months. Government intervention is the problem.

      Corporations are not evil, they are machines. A machine can be good or bad depending on how its used, and what it does. There is nothing sentient about a corporation, they are programmed to survive and grow. Knowing that they have this robotic quality to them, what needs to happen is there ability to exploit government needs to go away. Without the governments legislation propping up its evil and unfair ways Corporations go back to just being businesses. Take Monsanto for example, if there was no such thing as intellectual property, or patent laws, they would not be able to go after farmers for saving there seeds, or for breaking patent laws because seeds came into there fields by way of wind. Monsanto is only an evil corporation because there is government, who is lobbied by Monsanto, to create an uneven playing field in there favor.

    • 10 months ago
  • SandyBerman
  • shanklinmike
  • Vic_Romano
  • shanklinmike
    • 0
      shanklinmike  
    • Vic_Romano:

      Seriously, every time you post something off the wall and childish like this, it only shows that you cannot debunk the facts we present (such as, taxation is involuntary/theft, that corporations are created, licensed, backed, and protected by the state and would not exist in a free market....and that the military industrial complex is only possible because of statism slavery).

      You are showing how little you actually know...

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQFhm4s_-Pk

    • 10 months ago
  • Vic_Romano
  • shanklinmike
  • Vic_Romano
  • shanklinmike
  • PigFarmington
  • shanklinmike
  • PigFarmington
  • AnarchoPeaceGun
    • 0
      AnarchoPeaceGun  

    • "In the interest of the above two points, there is nothing small minded or unenlightened about bending ones focus upon their locality. In actuality, it is the globalists who think themselves wise to the world that continue to overlook the obvious sink holes in their own backyard." Best statement in the article... Statist are so concerned with helping people (that they don't know and will never meet) that they will use violence against peaceful people to attain their version of "morality." It is lunacy. Worry about yourself, your family, your friends. Be nice to people, don't hire thugs (the state) to carry out violence and coercion in your name because you disagree with another persons peaceful actions.

    • 10 months ago
  • shanklinmike
  • shanklinmike
  • shanklinmike
  • Nick19
    • -2
      Nick19  
    • Image

    • Note to Shanklin, stop spamming your blog. No one gives a shit unless they're people from the site itself. You ask people from your site to come here to spam this up to the top article. Most of your comments should be considered spam as well Shanklin since you spam your egotistical self-imagery constantly. Your ideas are nothing but imaginary wishful thinking that the World will be a better place if we all just got along. Human civilization has always been in perpetual wars and conflicts of other sorts. We are at a moment in human history where the need to invade and kill each other has been less constant than in the past as we find ourselves more interconnected globally in this globalized economy spurred by the interests of developed nations unfortunately. The MAIN PROBLEM is how we have developed our World economy and has nothing to do with the so called "aggressive nature" of the state. WE HAVE A STATE BECAUSE OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY and thus means when we have things like a constitution, we voluntarily give up certain rights from the STATE OF NATURE and move into a society that secure other rights such as freedom of speech and takes away others such as the "freedom" to kill. This is philosophy 101 when I get into someone like John Locke. You have to discredit John Locke and the Social Contract if you're going to attempt by any means discredit the Nation State. If the Nation State is repressive and unpopular, people have a RIGHT to overthrow it via elections or the barrel of a gun. The Non-Aggressive Principle is cartoonish to say the least as you suggest that the nation state is naturally a repressive institution as they want you to give taxes to things like healthcare and helping the elderly. Now, you know whats more repressive? Disease, ignorance (without public education), and economic favoritism as private institutions would hold all the power since they hold all the capital needed to profit off people while the people struggle against a lifeless institution such as corporations. CORPORATIONS have LARGE AMOUNTS OF PRIVATE CAPITAL and can use such capital to oppress both the people and the government likewise in our society today with lobbying firms. I will rest my case here for now.

      Keep on the political trolling Shanklin:

      http://charlespemquin.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/trollface1.png

    • 10 months ago
  • shanklinmike
  • Nick19
    • -1
      Nick19  
    • shanklinmike:

      Oh I feel so repressed paying taxes to help people who need support. Lets get this straight, posting a video of yourself means nothing. What you do is create this imagine interpretation of what violence is. Violence to you is when you have to pay taxes for the state so that our society can even function. You're so fucking lucky that you're even on the internet enjoying your mansion somewhere in the Carolinas getting that degree in Business. If we paid no taxes, then you wouldn't have clean streets, proper internet, mail, basic social services, and on and on and on and on. Without those things, I could only imagine a society that is truly more repressive. Now don't blab on that I'm some indoctrinated idiot not worth talking to since I have obvious points to make. For example, if we took away the state, who survives? Well those with the most capital and the most resources on hand. Now, those with the most resources on hand, will they just be peace harmless people or cold and calculated? As Karl Marx stated, society has been one of those with and without power. Throughout human history, people reign as kings, emperors, warlords, etc. There has always been people at the helm of power. You cannot rewrite history and come up with something cartoonish as, "Oh, we will all be happy peaceful friendly people living in our so called imagined utopian society". There have been many attempts, especially in the 19th century, of people trying to set up utopian societies only to fail. What you sell Shanklin is nothing but worthless hopeful snake oil. Whether you like it or not, history has been full of violence between people of different beliefs, and at no time have people lived in this fantasy of utopianism.

    • 10 months ago
12
1 - 100 of 194
more from Community:
from the community

top videos