PostHeaderIcon Can A Second Civil War Be Avoided?

It should be quite clear to anyone paying any attention that the massive protests over everything Trump related get ever closer to outright violence. I lived through the Vietnam War protests and clearly remember students being shot by folks in uniform before the then president shirked his duty and surrendered.

Even though the shots are not ringing out (yet), this seems to me a far more polarized situation than we have experienced since our first Civil War.

One factor that the protesting progressives seem to have overlooked (despite the growing evidence) is that we clod-heads in “flyover country” are heavily armed and, usually, well skilled in the use of said arms. Do these coastal fools really think they can unseat a duly elected president and complete the destruction of our Republic without serious resistance?

Not going to happen. Will there be a “winner” in the coming conflict? I can’t see how there could be. As soon as serious blood begins to flow, our enemies will be picking over our dead and wounded bodies worse than the Arabs during the WWII campaigns in North Africa.

Then there is the matter of what our military will do once it hits the fan. My suspicion is that divisions of opinion within the military will mirror those of the nation in general. No idea how that will play out.

Point is, I truly think we are heading into a situation that will produce only losses – losses that could be easily avoided by talking rather than screaming at each other. That said, the intentional destruction of our national education system is surely about to pay the predictable dividends.

The fact that this is taking a bit longer to materialize than I predicted in earlier articles does not change the reality I think I see all around me. The other thing that I see is that the “good people” for the most part are silently hunkering down hoping the whole thing will simply go away. As it such problems ever do.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

36 Responses to “Can A Second Civil War Be Avoided?”

  • Jim Bell says:

    I frequently point out that the MSM (mainstream media; at least, the liberal/Democrat part of it) probably gave Trump $1-2 billion in free publicity prior to the Republican convention in 2016. In effect, they threw the Republican nomination to Trump.

    This process was made easier because the Republicans started out with 17 candidates, rather than 2 or 3. At each stage, some candidate(s) was/were going to be winnowed, and usually that winnowing was caused by lack of money or interest. Trump was never going to lack money, whether or not he chose to spend it, and the MSM ensured that he had at least apparent interest. This was intentional.

    Not, of course, that the MSM wanted Trump to be elected; my hypothesis is that they wanted to have him be the easiest-to-beat candidate of those likely to be nominated. Well, they got what they asked for, even if they didn’t want him to be President.

    I say all this, in large part because I feel certain that the “civil war” talked about is far less likely to occur, if the MSM/Left/Democrats are outed as having been responsible for Trump’s nomination. And ultimately they bear responsibility for Trump’s eventual election.

    While I, as a lifetime libertarian, would have still voted for whichever libertarian the LP chose, I would have been much happier if the Republicans had chosen Rand Paul or maybe Ted Cruz.

    So, blame the MSM. I do. If the public is aware of how much, and which direction, they manipulated the nomination of Trump, they will be far less likely to blame each other for the ultimate outcome.

    Users who have LIKED this comment:

    • avatar
    • Troy says:

      I frequently point out that the MSM (mainstream media; at least, the liberal/Democrat part of it) probably gave Trump $1-2 billion in free publicity prior to the Republican convention in 2016. In effect, they threw the Republican nomination to Trump.

      I think this was mostly because Trump made “good copy”. What the MSM wants most of all is to be watched/read, taken seriously and covering Trump made that happen.

      I also think there is little doubt that the MSM mostly saw Trump as some sort of buffoon who would never be taken seriously in a general election — especially when running against the crown princess herself. Thankfully, a sufficient portion of the nation saw said crown princess as a generally unwashed self-serving crook who is incapable of telling the truth about anything. Like, perhaps, why her daughter is the spitting image of Webb Hubbell rather than her “husband” who is incapable of making babies. I’m thinking this sham “family” needed a child to complete the phony public image, Bill was shooting blanks (if, indeed, he ever even aimed Hill’s way in the first place), good old Webster had a poor sense of smell and no taste in women, and voila, problem solved!

      Gosh, I am a terrible person. Accurate but terrible.

      And, I will repeat for the umpteenth time, there is no “popular vote”. Our president is elected by the States, not by the mob. Just had to toss that in.

      Troy

      Users who have LIKED this comment:

      • avatar
  • Bill do you still think Rand Paul or Ted Cruz would have done better than what Trump has so far accomplished? 😉

    Users who have LIKED this comment:

    • avatar
    • jim says:

      “Bill do you still think Rand Paul or Ted Cruz would have done better than what Trump has so far accomplished?”

      [more on “Bill” later]

      You are apparently assuming that each candidate could, and would, have been elected, if nominated. That assumption seems valid enough, in hindsight.

      Yet, Trump ALMOST didn’t win! Had he lost, he wouldn’t have done “well”, obviously! We are fortunate that Hillary Clinton amassed so many serious scandals that she lost. I think that Rand Paul or Ted Cruz would have been more likely to win the election, against her.
      If we somehow “know” that the “Republican” candidate would definitely win, we can choose which one we’d prefer. I’d choose Rand Paul, because while he isn’t quite as libertarian as his father, Ron Paul, I think he’d do quite well.
      But, I think it was more likely that either Paul or Cruz would have won, which is why I would have preferred to see the Republicans run them.

      [on “Bill”: In my 60+ year life, when I am called by other than “Jim Bell”, it almost always is “Bill”. Interesting coincidence; but one time, about 30 years ago, my FATHER called me “Bill”.]

      Users who have LIKED this comment:

      • avatar
      • Sorry Jim… maybe in my old age Jim = Bill for some reason?

        You are correct it is an assumption that either Paul or Cruz would be chosen by the public over Clinton.
        My educated guess would be they would. It appears the public was simply fed up FINALLY.
        Perhaps it is divine providence if there really is such a thing. 😉

        So the question stands do you think either of Paul or Cruz had the ability to out perform Trump as it stands today?

        Users who have LIKED this comment:

        • avatar
      • Troy says:

        “Bill do you still think Rand Paul or Ted Cruz would have done better than what Trump has so far accomplished?”

        While I really like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul (although my estimation of Rand has declined a bit lately), and, my name is not Bill (or Jim), I seriously doubt that either could have come near to Trump’s accomplishments. They are simply too “establishment” beholden. (For the record, I supported Governor Johnson in the last election and had serious doubts about Trump.)

        For whatever reason, Trump’s “take no prisoners” style seems to be exactly what the situation needed. If the progressives would just settle down a bit and start behaving like loyal citizens, we might actually get the nation back into working order. Then again, if elephants could fly…

        Troy

        Users who have LIKED this comment:

        • avatar
        • Paying attention to what Trump has accomplished so far I see no one who could have accomplished the same.

          I often wondered why business men were not running the country instead of lawyers (for the most part).
          To top that off Trump’s personality is perfect for what needed to be done. I look at him and am actually astonished he has not flipped a number of these guys the middle finger. There is little doubt in my mind he thinks that. I admire his restraint.

          It all is fun to watch actually. Especially the progressive media melt down. None of these half-wits appear to have a clue what fools they are making of themselves.
          I keep thinking at some point career self preservation will kick in … but apparently not.

          Users who have LIKED this comment:

          • avatar
      • Chris says:

        Either Cruz or Paul were capable of accomplishing what Trump has save one factor. Neither would have been able to withstand the kind of progressive leftist and media pressure that Trump has. Paul would have wilted like a spring flower and Cruz would have taken the Bush approach and ignored it assuring only one term. Some would say that the liberal gyrations are because it’s Trump. That’s a crock. Obama’s minions and Pac are behind it all with a complicit media. It would be happening no matter what republican were in office. Of course there wasn’t supposed to be. Nobody could outperform Trump because anybody else would be broken by now.

        Users who have LIKED this comment:

        • avatar
        • It would be happening no matter what republican were in office. Of course there wasn’t supposed to be. Nobody could outperform Trump because anybody else would be broken by now.

          I believe you are correct Chris. The powers THAT WERE somehow were overthrown unexpectedly. Clearly the shock remains today.

          Personally I find it immensely entertaining … almost as entertaining as the cute kitten themes on my browser which makes me smile with each change 😉

          Users who have LIKED this comment:

          • avatar
          • Chris says:

            Entertaining? That dear lady is an understatement. I’ve been laughing so hard I have to go in for hernia surgery next month.

  • I remember Kent state also.
    The moral of the story was it did not have to be repeated.

    I have said all along … put a sniper on a rooftop … pick off a couple protesters who are masked, dressed in black and see exactly how committed they are to beat the opposition over the head with locks for crow bars.

    It is called behavior modification actually. 😉

    Users who have LIKED this comment:

    • avatar
    • Troy says:

      I have said all along … put a sniper on a rooftop … pick off a couple protesters who are masked, dressed in black and see exactly how committed they are to beat the opposition over the head with locks for crow bars.

      It is a known fact of war that, sometimes, killing a few avoids having to kill many.

      Troy

      Users who have LIKED this comment:

      • avatar
      • ◄Dave► says:

        Isn’t this precisely the principle behind the efficacy of Jim Bell’s elegant Assassination Politics proposal? Sacrifice a few particularly disagreeable state functionaries, to deter any further participation in tyranny by others, which then precludes the necessity of a more costly revolution/civil war (same thing)… 😉 ◄Dave►

        • Troy says:

          Dave, in the referenced comment, I was referring to an open state of conflict where the lives and property of potentially innocent people are already at risk. While you will, no doubt disagree, if only in an attempt to irritate me, this is different from political assassination which, IMHO, is always wrong.

          Let me try to explain with a simple illustration — you know from many past contributions that I truly think that Obama gave aid and comfort to our enemy, thereby committing high treason. We also know that the customary penalty for high treason is death by execution.

          Having said that, I would not perpetrate Obama’s execution, either with my own hands or by paying some murder-for-hire thug via pretend currency. Instead, I would propose that he be publicly confronted for what I believe are his crimes, in a court of law and subject to due process.

          My reason for this stance is that if the decision and its follow-on are left totally to me, there is simply too much chance that I might be wrong, however right I believe my conclusions to be. Obviously, I form my personal decisions without access to critical evidence and my opinions are biased by my own preconceived notions. That is why we have attempted to replace “vigilante justice” with due process under the law.

          Now you may well respond that the system is currently too corrupt to render justice for the powerful and you are probably correct. To me, the answer is to fix the system rather than to revert to the law of the jungle.

          At this point, I will drop out of what I think is a frivolous conversation.

          Troy

          Users who have LIKED this comment:

          • avatar
          • jim says:

            ” To me, the answer is to fix the system rather than to revert to the law of the jungle.”

            You said, “the answer is to fix the system”.
            That reminds me of a joke, a few decades ago, of a (fictional) book Titled, “How to be a successful millionaire”.
            The first page of the book said, “First get a million dollars”.
            See the problem? Many things are easily stated: “fix the system”. But how?
            Can you explain how to solve the problem? How to “fix the system”?
            Prior to 1995, I had no easily explainable solutions. After I wrote my AP essay, I could point to it as a relatively straightforward way to “fix the system”.
            If you can actually describe ANOTHER way to “fix the system”, explain it and explain why it’s better than AP. If you can’t do that, then you don’t have a solution. You are merely hoping that another solution exists.

            Users who have LIKED this comment:

            • avatar
          • jim says:

            Let me add, that you said: “At this point, I will drop out of what I think is a frivolous conversation.”

            It isn’t “frivolous”. In the 20th century, governments killed an estimated 250 million people. (some people get a lower number by not counting people killed in wars: Why, it isn’t clear!})
            Unless you think people HAVE to be killed by governments, then you are morally obligated to consider how to avoid that outcome. Do you have any proposed solution? Do you have any proposed solution to solve the problem represented by nuclear weapons? Thousands, maybe millions of very intelligent people have been thinking about how to solve that problem since 1945. No solution in sight.
            Except one. My AP essay. Tell me why you think it won’t work. If you concede it will work, explain why you aren’t advocating it right now. Do you have a better, faster, cheaper, safer alternative? Describe it.

            Users who have LIKED this comment:

            • avatar
          • ◄Dave► says:

            …via pretend currency.

            LOL! You know very well that ALL currency is pretend money, including and especially Federal Reserve Notes. US FRN’s, Zimbabwe Dollars, Venezuelan Bolivar, Mexican Pesos and stateless Bitcoins, are all just tokens, worth precisely and only what someone is ready and willing to trade for them. The moment traders refuse to accept any of them, they become utterly worthless, no matter how much their state promotes them as ‘money.’ See: “Money.”

            At this point, I will drop out of what I think is a frivolous conversation.

            A pity. It bespeaks a lamentable failure of imagination. You can’t imagine the possibility of a world without tyranny, while Jim and I permit ourselves to conceive of such, and are willing to explore, refine, and debate ideas for promoting a society without rulers. While I will grant that I will never see this miracle in my lifetime, as we discussed hereabouts two years ago, I contend that the chances of ultimately abolishing tyranny with technology, are infinitely greater than somehow ‘fixing’ the current Incumbrepublocrat mob-rule duopoly, while continuing to sanction the ruling class with enthusiastic participation in their sham elections.

            As for ‘vigilante justice’ and the ‘law of the jungle,’ I personally wouldn’t hesitate to join in any serious new revolution/civil war (same thing) effort to violently overthrow the tyranny ensconced in Sodom on the Potomac. It is infinitely more oppressive than King George’s ever was; but now as then, there are loyal Tories who wish to continue to try to petition for redress, rather than upset the status quo.

            I would suggest that there is now a considerable contingent of dissatisfied Americans, on both extremes of the political spectrum, who could be persuaded to join such an effort. With that in mind, I submit that Jim’s AP idea would be considerably less violent, with infinitely less bloodshed overall. It has the added benefit that it does not promote a new crop of tyrannical politicians, just itching to get their own hands on the levers of government, to dispense retribution, which would just perpetuate the ills of this society. I reckon it is worth a try. ◄Dave►

    • Chris says:

      It may be necessary CT. Right now we see little ill prepared ANTIFA masked sissies (I’ll use that term in mixed company) that turn and run when confronted and aren’t capable of taking a punch without collapsing in a heap. They are useful idiots. It’s a bait and switch coming. These sissies are being used to desensitize people to the threat so nobody will take them seriously. Trust me the agitators have far more “competent” people at their disposal that will sooner or later be filtered in. How many inmates are now free from prison because of a certain “community organizers” early release program when he was president? How many of them left prison and found shelter and help within the nation of Islam? If it isn’t stopped it will get bloody and having the false sense of security that it will just be the nose of a yapping snow flake is delusional. They are just the primer.

      Users who have LIKED this comment:

      • avatar
      • I am afraid we are heading in that direction faster than any of us expected.

        This ramping up the mob rhetoric is not a good thing IMO.

        Mob/group action is an interesting thing. How one gets caught up in it is even more interesting to me … since it did in fact happen to me. Nothing more sinister than a self professed Shinto master coaxing a group of about 20 to walk across a bed of hot coals (i.e. firewalk).

        Sound stupid? Indeed it was! Much to the objection of my brother and my firefighting cousin … before I knew it I was trudging across a hot coal pit about 8 feet wide and 10 feet long. Landing in a puddle of mud being gently greeted by a Shinto helper who whispered something I will never forget.
        You completed a challenge most people will never try.
        He did not include “sane” in the sentence.

        When I got home my husband heard my brother recount the story. My husband said I never thought you would ever be that stupid. Frankly I never thought I would either.

        The interesting thing was I only suffered a tiny burn where a coal apparently got lodged under my little toe. My cousin Lorna got no burn at all … amazing … she must certainly been more spiritually minded than I was. That being said it hurt like hell. A solid reminder to never to that again.
        Lucky I have video of the whole thing or I would not believe I was that stupid either at this late date in life.

        The fascinating part of the whole incident for me was of the 4 of us. I my cousin Lorna, her brother and my brother … it was the 2 woman that for whatever reason actually did the walk. Had anyone ever said in the beginning … hey guys we are going to walk on bed of fire today there would have been a unanimous WE PASS from all of us!

        Walking around with my foot in a bucket of ice while preparing for a dinner party at my house that evening was not fun. It was however memorable in that I was now a firewalker.

        Through the years I have pondered that situation and why I actually chose to go through with the walk. No one pressured me (in fact the opposite from by brother and cousin telling us both we were crazy). I was fully cognizant of what was occurring. I was in the middle of a line where I could have stepped out of line at any time. Perhaps my cousin Lorna being directly ahead of me in line? I do not know. Before I realized it there I was facing a bed of hot coals and thinking best not panic now.

        So am I surprised at what happens in a large group or crowd?
        NO!
        It takes but one leader to start the charge and before you know it the sheeple will follow.
        The moral of the story you better decide to be a sheep dog ahead of time.

        Users who have LIKED this comment:

        • avatar
        • ◄Dave► says:

          Fascinating story, CT. Thanks for sharing. 🙂 ◄Dave►

          • You are welcome Dave. 😉

            For me there was a rather interesting psychological outcome I suppose. Challenge in life became less challenging some how. That is where I quite looking at life through an emotional prism and disciplined myself to make all further decisions from a clinical perspective.

            Funny how emotion seems to offer little or no solution to fixing things but clinical perspective offers an immediate fix every time.

            An adequate fix according to ??? I suppose would be the question. Clearly to the clinical thinking decision maker it would work. The rest of the world? Who knows and would it matter?
            For me? My perspective has changed to something simple. I am headed in this direction. If you want to come along we can walk hand in hand. If not I refuse to drag your ass.

            You might recall in the beginning a tiny discussion over how satisfied we all were with our current lives and I said mine was very good. It is that way because total freedom to be exactly what you choose in life is pretty heady stuff. Those who accept being free tend to get along and are happy. Those who do not make that choice … well they can freely move in a different circle.

            So where does Jim Bell’s AP fit into that scenario?
            In the long run universally?
            Probably perfectly for a sheepdog.
            For a sheep? Not so much.
            At that point we are headed in a whole different behavioral/psychological direction.

            Look at your own life Dave does any of what is going on out in the world alter your life at all?
            It certainly does not alter mine one whit.

            Long ago I adopted an outlook that is my creed so to speak. “The world is what you perceive it to be so why not let that be light?” (light being good according to my personal perspective.)
            So fair warning … lol … step into my world and muck up my UTOPIA and see clinically what happens to you. (You being anyone with the guts or means to try)

            Make sense?

            Users who have LIKED this comment:

            • avatar
          • BTW Dave if you did not catch Jordan Peterson on Joe Rogan’s podcast it is always interesting to watch someone with a like mind IMO.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Xc7DN-noAc

            Also Sam Harris will be on Ben Shipiro today
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdUC8nRVyYY&t=9s
            Somehow I get the inkling Sam has left his tried and true atheist tangent into some new esoteric “how to live a better life” money making scam (that is hinged on “common sense” for FREE basics).
            I will see … lol

            Users who have LIKED this comment:

            • avatar
          • ◄Dave► says:

            I can’t thank you enough for the links, CT. Particularly the Rogan/Peterson one, which I think may have been the most riveting 3+ hours I ever spent in front of a screen. This new “long form”/”intellectual dark web” business is utterly fascinating, and the lengthy discussion of it on both videos was remarkable. Out of curiosity, I will be exploring it further. Thanks again! ◄Dave►

  • Troy says:

    Dave and Jim/Bill,

    OK – despite my better judgment, one more try…

    Unless I seriously misunderstand the AP proposal, it seems to be based on the notion that if you eliminate a few of what you consider the “bad guys”, the rest will suddenly wake up and think “wow, we had best clean up our act before they come for us too”.

    An interesting theory that just might work – in a vacuum.

    One major flaw that I see is that no one gets into a position of power without a constituency of some sort. And, the more corrupt the person in power, the more corrupt the constituency. So, what I really see happening is that you eliminate a “bad guy” and his/her constituency does not like it one bit. In fact, they will surely have to take out some on your side to even the score. And, on and on it goes and nothing has really changed except the excuse for the killing.

    The alternative is to repeat what happened in the American colonies and again in France where to common people stood together and to tell the powerful “we are not going to take it anymore” followed by whatever action best suits the circumstance.

    Our Founders stated such grievous claims, defeated the most powerful military of the time, then established a Constitution in an attempt to place rigid bounds around the inevitable government that followed. All that is required of the rest of us is that we defend the Constitutional notion and demand its strict enforcement. This we have failed to do for more reasons than I care to list.

    I honestly think that most of those reasons could be negated by a combination of a restored education system along with a return to compulsory national service (the latter as a way to instill much needed discipline into young plastic minds and bodies). And, no, such change will not be easy but, IMHO, without it, no other solution can have lasting effect.

    For those of you who prefer to shoot your way out of the problem, I say “fire away” – just don’t pretend surprise when the other guys fire back.

    As for the number of people killed in the last century’s wars, I might note that since mankind has used its ingenuity to reduce famine and epidemic but has done little to reduce the overall birth rate, war and climate seem to be nature’s only means of population control. Inference: if we stopped out-of-control reproduction, there would be far less reason to kill each other (or for nature to kill us) in the never-ending quest to control resources.

    Troy

    Users who have LIKED this comment:

    • avatar
    • jim says:

      “One major flaw that I see is that no one gets into a position of power without a constituency of some sort. And, the more corrupt the person in power, the more corrupt the constituency.”

      You seem to be assuming that in a post-AP world, there will be “positions of power”, just like current society. Why? There will be no “authority” that is deemed to be granted by the public, as in some sort of a vote.
      People will be able to get into positions (jobs) where they do things, but if they piss people off enough they will have to leave those positions.

      For a few months or years, there might be a bloodbath, where people who have grudges take their revenge, but I see nothing wrong with this concept. Soon enough, society will probably be very ‘boring’, at least their will be a minimum of dispute, no war as we know it.

      Users who have LIKED this comment:

      • avatar
    • For those of you who prefer to shoot your way out of the problem, I say “fire away” – just don’t pretend surprise when the other guys fire back.

      Actually I think the same thing every time I see Moron Maxine busy ramping up a riot against others.

      I seriously wonder how long it will be before someone burns a cross on her front lawn. Then she will really have something to gripe about.

      Users who have LIKED this comment:

      • avatar
    • ◄Dave► says:

      one more try…

      Thanks for continuing to engage, Troy; but I can see that you still don’t quite grasp the elegance of the remarkable potential for Jim’s idea.

      Unless I seriously misunderstand the AP proposal, it seems to be based on the notion that if you eliminate a few of what you consider the “bad guys”, the rest will suddenly wake up and think “wow, we had best clean up our act before they come for us too”.

      That is too simplistic. To me, the “bad guys” are any and all persons claiming authority to rule, regulate, and/or enforce their model of how the world should behave, over free, sovereign, independent, individuals, who choose not to recognize any such authority. This would necessarily include any coercive agents of any government, including all law enforcement officers or military personnel. Thus, “bad guys” would have to do more than just clean up their act for self-preservation, they would need to find a different line of work.

      In fact, they will surely have to take out some on your side to even the score.

      You seem to misunderstand that once implemented, there could be no “sides,” competing for power to rule over each other. Laissez faire would reign supreme.

      The alternative is to repeat what happened in the American colonies…

      Are you suggesting that another revolution would be a better alternative to AP? Why? Such, even if your preferred side won, would do nothing to end the us-against-them paradigm — only perpetuate it.

      …the inevitable government that followed.

      They desired to continue in international commerce on the high seas, so they deemed it wise to join their existing colonial governments into a federated nation for international respect. Since there was no international internet or cryptographic blockchain technology at the time, they must be forgiven for this failure of imagination. Today, technologically competent libertarians have no such excuse. 😉

      I honestly think that most of those reasons could be negated by a combination of a restored education system along with a return to compulsory national service (the latter as a way to instill much needed discipline into young plastic minds and bodies). And, no, such change will not be easy but, IMHO, without it, no other solution can have lasting effect.

      Yikes! Improved compulsory indoctrination system and compulsory conscription? Are you sure you are still a libertarian? Besides, neither has a snowball’s chance in hell of ever happening anytime soon, so dreaming of them as some sort of lasting solution to what ails America is utterly futile.

      AP, on the other hand, not only offers a solution with a lasting effect, it is inevitable that it will eventually be implemented. As I predicted two years ago in “Eliminating Authority“:

      I reckon that it is only a matter of time, before a workable, automated, and unstoppable worldwide system is designed and implemented. If TOR can already circumvent the Great Firewall of China, how could it be stopped, and by whom? Moreover, while mass retirements of politicians, bureaucrats, police, and military officers would undoubtedly soon follow, I don’t see it as being limited to government functionaries. Why not Jihadist leaders and their radical imams? How about dishonest used car salesmen? There could easily be multiple prediction markets, to eliminate all manner of uncivilized behaviors. 

      Being an unpleasant jerk and pissing people off, could become extremely dangerous. If one did something to provoke getting one’s name on a ‘hit’ list, with a sufficient reward to tempt a friend or associate, one’s life would never be the same again. Since the reward funds are donated up front, as anonymously as the ultimate recipient of them, there would be no way to cancel a ‘contract’ once initiated.

      Yikes! I predict a very polite society in the future of mankind. Those believing that gangs of thugs would naturally terrorize society in the absence of government, need to think again. They wouldn’t dare have any leaders either! Who could a gang leader possibly trust, with a sufficient price on his head? For their bloodthirsty lot, it wouldn’t even need to be a very high price, since it could be collected completely anonymously, with a few keystrokes on a smartphone.

      Once this genie is out of the bottle, and anonymous cryptocurrency use becomes ubiquitous worldwide, I predict that eventually all oppressive governments will fail, and all military organizations will cease to exist. I am unsure what individuals will then do with their lust for power, when none is available. I suppose they might have to settle for becoming well-paid assassins; but even that would be destined to become a dead-end career, as the survivors did their very best to avoid provoking anyone, in any way. 

      Now, if you have absorbed Jim’s entire essay, please show me the hidden flaw. I can’t find it! ◄Dave►

      So far, other than personal emotional outrage at the idea, no one has been able to expose a flaw. Perhaps there isn’t one… 😉 ◄Dave►

    • jim says:

      You don’t seem to want to reply, huh? You used the term “frivolous”, TWICE, but you cannot show that the issue (the problem of the existence of government) is of no or little consequence. Chances are you discovered that you couldn’t challenge the issue, both of importance, but also you couldn’t challenge the idea that if implemented, my AP idea would work.

      Users who have LIKED this comment:

      • avatar
      • Troy says:

        I have ceased participation in this conversation for several reasons:

        First, it has gotten far too contentious for my taste. I simply do not take myself (or anyone else) that seriously.

        Second, you have decided you are correct and will not consider any alternatives so why offer any?

        Third, this is simply not fun or mentally stimulating — the only reasons I participate in this blog.

        Troy

        • jim says:

          You started off by claiming, TWICE, that the subject was “frivolous”. I could define “frivolous” as being “without importance.
          Yet, do you really think that the issue of the ultimate elimination of government is “without importance?
          Governments killed 250 million people in the 20th century. Do you really think that the lives of those 250 million people are without importance?
          I think you were just trying to avoid the discussion, which you knew you would not win.

          “First, it has gotten far too contentious for my taste. I simply do not take myself (or anyone else) that seriously.”

          Another example of trying, under different words, to call the issue “frivolous”.

          “Second, you have decided you are correct and will not consider any alternatives so why offer any?”

          I suggest that this describes virtually any discussion or debate. And, the fact that I wrote my AP essay 23 years ago, and I have been carefully paying attention to references to it, certainly justifies me “deciding I am correct”.

          You also haven’t attempted to provide any “alternatives” yet. While people continue to die, you won’t explain how to solve that problem.

          “Third, this is simply not fun or mentally stimulating — the only reasons I participate in this blog.”

          Generally, it is painful for everyone to discuss on the losing end of a debate.

          • Troy says:

            I think you were just trying to avoid the discussion, which you knew you would not win.

            Jim, we have very different worldviews and concepts. To me, the notion of “winning” or “losing” suggests life is some sort of game. I refuse to accept this concept.

            For me, the main two reasons to live are: 1. To enjoy simply being alive, and, 2. To learn. Since I assume most others have some form of these same ideas, even though they may state them differently, I also adopt a “live and let live” approach which I try to implement through tolerance of people who do not think exactly like I do.

            Alas, I find myself lacking any grand solutions and, as stated elsewhere, I simply do not take anyone that seriously.

            I find it somewhat odd that while you bemoan the number of people “killed by governments”, your solution seems to be even more killing, albeit more selective killing than that done in war.

            Troy

  • I think may have been the most riveting 3+ hours I ever spent in front of a screen.

    Any time Dave 😉

    Peterson/Rogan was also my favorite. I have seen so much controversy over what Peterson says of late.
    Frankly what people think he is saying astounds me.
    It only reinforces my theory people hear what they want to hear no matter what is actually said to them.
    I was particularly intrigued when Peterson said something like “this is the first time in history where the spoken word is more important than the written word” … all because of the “intellectual dark web”.

    All of these guys are slowly putting newspapers and TV out of business.
    Rogan had an interview with Candace Owens and Ted Nugent this month too. Both interesting IMO.
    A 3 hour show with one person is pretty telling no matter how many short clips one has seen in the past.

    Users who have LIKED this comment:

    • avatar
    • ◄Dave► says:

      Just finished the JRE/Candace Owens one. Wow! Excellent… ◄Dave►

      • Glad you enjoyed JRE/Candace Dave 🙂
        . I have liked her from the beginning when she cropped up.

        This has been a rather interesting month for me … where suddenly I run across information that causes me to really think and wonder what if. Today was one of these special days. I have thought for a very long time … how egotistical for humans to believe we are the only thinking intelligence in the universe. Looks like perhaps not if one is to believe there is an actual area 51 and perhaps a crash at Rosewell in 1953.

        Somehow I happened onto a youtube video with Ron Garner talking about his life’s research of Area 51. It was his last interview before his death. One of the people he talked about was a Dr. Dan Burisch who reportedly has an IQ of 200, a trained microbiologist … recruited because of his skills to S-4 of area 51.
        Part of his job was the study of one of the crash victims called J-ROD who had a degenerative disease.
        This is a 1 to 12 part series of which I have watched the first 2 so far.
        Interesting IMO
        Perhaps to others here also 😉

        • I have now watched episodes 1 – 2 – 6 – 7 and part of 9.
          I have given up watching because it appears that they have simply chopped up the rest into what was already covered.

          Burisch seems credible enough. I found it odd that the government allowed this to go on and on. Perhaps they have not since I find nothing after these interviews about him at all.

          By 6 – 7 things were getting a little far out.
          Time travel back and forth, multiple dimension slipping, mental telepathy all fascinating and possible I suppose.
          Most likely I would have to experience it myself to be a gung-ho believer.
          Perhaps after I rest my mind I will finish the series just out of curiosity for whatever else of might be lurking out there 😉

  • I have to go in for hernia surgery next month.

    Oh My Chris … hope the hernia part is not for real but if by chance it is good luck.
    My hubby had to have that surgery and came thru with flying colors twice 🙂

    The laughing part? I look at it this way the more we laugh and smile the less wrinkles we get … LOL

    Are you enjoying the Peter Strzok BBQ Grill sequences?
    The democrats put on quite a show.
    Talk about nailing the coffin lid shut.
    I have long thought Trump caused these wing-nuts to lost their collective marbles.
    Now I realize they never had marbles to lose.
    What does that say for those who voted them into office?

    Would love to see some charges come out of all this.
    The country needs to see corrupt people in the “county clink” for some of their misbehavior.

Leave a Reply

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle
Archives
Blogroll
Internal Links