PostHeaderIcon More Things I Do Not Understand

One might think that, given the conversations RE: AP, that I am some sort of government apologist. Let me assure you I am anything but. Ergo, the following confusion in my mind:

The outcry over the meanie Trump separating minor children from adult criminals at the border has now reached a new level of “theater of the ridiculous” in the growing call to eliminate ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).

Let us think about this a moment: ICE is a law enforcement arm of the executive branch of our government that is tasked with the enforcement of laws duly passed in our legislature and signed into law by presidents past. Admitting that ICE has its share of bullies, just as does any other group of humanity to whom some level of power has been conveyed… in the main, it attempts to do nothing more or less than enforce the law in a legal and proper manner and in the plain sight of the citizens they seek to protect.

Yet, thousands of loonies demonstrate and demand its dissolution. Well, our Constitution does give loonies the right to bay at the moon if they so desire.

Meanwhile, there is a clandestine organization in this same government that operates in the shadows and has been proven repeatedly to violate our laws by domestic spying on our citizens. I refer, of course, to the NSA (National Security Agency). Unlike ICE, these people are a real and present danger to the liberty and the right to privacy of our citizens. Yet, I see no demonstrations against them, no demand for their dissolution. Even after whistle blowers like Edward Snowden have shown us indisputable evidence of their crimes. Indeed, many of us have been brainwashed into thinking Snowden is the criminal rather than NSA.

Is there a point to this rant you ask? Yes there is. That point is to illustrate how disconnected we have become, how we constantly fail as the ultimate watchdog over our government and how easily we are easily misled by those with a vested interest in the status quo.

If WTS don’t get off our lazy butts and take back control of our government, we have only ourselves to blame. Despite what Jim and Dave think of those in power, they are doing exactly what most of us would do if we were in the same position. It is simply human nature.

Think about it – then flail me as you see fit.

Troy L Robinson

0

22 Responses to “More Things I Do Not Understand”

  • If WTS don’t get off our lazy butts and take back control of our government, we have only ourselves to blame.

    You are correct IMO
    Enter stage left Donald Trump. It has been years since I have seen anyone so driven to fix what can be fixed according to what the public mindset finds important or valid.

    Despite what Jim and Dave think of those in power

    Looks like the operative word here is power.
    Power is what exactly?
    When has this earth plane been without it? EVER HISTORICALLY?
    There has always been and most likely will remain those who MUST RULE … the sheeple who acquiesces to that rule.
    Then there are those who pay no attention to it at all, dance to their own tune and address a problem with the rule when it causes a problem on their own personal porch.

    So what about Jim’s AP … would it work?
    Perhaps, perhaps not … to date it is simply a speculative theory.
    A theory of what if’s … a theory that will never manifest in our lives for sure.
    So does it really matter and is it worth a debate?

    CT 😉

    0
    • Troy says:

      Power is what exactly?

      In human terms, I define it as the ability to make other humans behave in a way that is not in their best interest.

      So what about Jim’s AP … would it work?

      What Jim has devised is actually a way to get by with murder — at least for a while. Surely no one could really believe that those holding “power” would not use same to quickly find to way to counter AP.

      Having said that, when I watched Peter Strzok testify (and smirk) in the Congressional hearing, I almost wished AP were in effect right now.

      Troy

      0
      • Troy says:

        BTW… compelling people to act in a way that IS in their own best interest is called “leadership”, not “power”.

        Troy

        0
        • ◄Dave► says:

          Who the hell gets to decide what is in my own best interest? I suppose this explains why I have absolutely zero interest in following a ‘leader,’ and refuse to grant any SOB such authority over my life! 🙁 ◄Dave►

          1+
          • Troy says:

            Who the hell gets to decide what is in my own best interest?

            YOU of course — who else could possibly know? Most people actually know what is in their own best interest but, for whatever reason, need inspiration to get after it.

            Troy

            0
        • jim says:

          You use the term “compelling”. Try “convincing”, not “compelling”.
          Compelling is force.

          0
      • ◄Dave► says:

        Surely no one could really believe that those holding “power” would not use same to quickly find to way to counter AP.

        Any idea how the ‘powerful’ might accomplish that? If so, it would constitute the hidden flaw I and others have unsuccessfully sought for years. Please share… 😉 ◄Dave►

        0
        • Troy says:

          Any idea how the ‘powerful’ might accomplish that?

          How could I possibly know the answer to that? I only make the educated guess that they would be highly motivated to try. And, there is always a way even if it has yet to be discovered by me.

          Troy

          0
      • jim says:

        You refer to “murder”. Why not “self defense”? By using the term “murder”, you are presuming that the person who is killed didn’t aggress against other people.

        Also, you said: “The whole reason people like me prefer to promote tolerance rather than murder ”

        Why have “crimes” and “prosecutions” and “convictions” and “punishments” at all?

        0
        • Troy says:

          Why have “crimes” and “prosecutions” and “convictions” and “punishments” at all?

          These are the product of due process. However much said process may be flawed, it is still much better that a single person imposing a death sentence based on feelings formed while watching a “news” program.

          Troy

          0
      • In human terms, I define it as the ability to make other humans behave in a way that is not in their best interest.

        I agree therefore it is up to the individual to decide where you rebel or do not.

        Having said that, when I watched Peter Strzok testify (and smirk) in the Congressional hearing, I almost wished AP were in effect right now.

        I took a more feminine approach which would be to slap the smirk off his stupid face.
        But then I decided he might be a bondage freak and it would be doing him a favor. 😉

        So I leave it up to the “karmic bitch” who seems to be far better at meting out justice over humble humans.

        CT

        0
    • jim says:

      Certainly enough people have been exposed to the AP concept, through my essay, that somebody would have expressed an opinion that it would not or could not work: I can count on one finger such a person: Robert P. Murphy, who had a debate with his business partner, Robert Vroman in about 2002.
      http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=009ape

      And even that opposition was before the invention of Bitcoin in 2009, and before the widespread use of TOR. A lot of the early negative references were based on the idea, ‘the tools don’t exist to implement AP’.

      What does this lack of opposition say? In principle, people would say, hypothetically:
      1. AP couldn’t work.
      2. I have a better solution.

      Particularly now, in light of the existence of Bitcoin, people do not seem to be claiming AP couldn’t work.
      (Note: I am not saying that Bitcoin itself is suitable for implementing AP. Since Bitcoin is not truly anonymous, it is problematic.)

      0
      • Troy says:

        Particularly now, in light of the existence of Bitcoin, people do not seem to be claiming AP couldn’t work.

        It all depends on how one defines “work”. For my part, I have little interest in living in the kind of world you propose and I think many others would agree. So, for us, it does not “work”.

        The whole reason people like me prefer to promote tolerance rather than murder is that there is no universally agreed to definition of things like “right”, “wrong”, “good”, “bad:, etc ad-nauseam.

        Troy

        0
      • Jim … Yes it would work if it could be implemented.
        Will it ever be implemented in our life OR EVER.
        Not likely.

        The whole reason people like me prefer to promote tolerance rather than murder is that there is no universally agreed to definition of things like “right”, “wrong”, “good”, “bad:, etc ad-nauseam.

        I agree with Troy in WHO EXACTLY decides “right”, “wrong”, “good”, “bad:, etc ad-nauseam.

        Seems to me we are waltzing into Hatfield and McCoy territory here.

        0
  • jim says:

    Also, you are merely speculating on the “kind of world” you think would exist post-AP.

    0
    • Also, you are merely speculating on the “kind of world” you think would exist post-AP

      My speculation if we ended up with that “kind of world” there would be just enough to start the whole historical process over until we ended up exactly where we are today. 😉

      0
      • jim says:

        “My speculation if we ended up with that “kind of world” there would be just enough to start the whole historical process over until we ended up exactly where we are today.”

        How do you come to that conclusion?
        It was said long ago, decades, that while we don’t know what weapons World War 3 would be fought with, World War 4 would be fought with sticks and stones.
        https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/World_War_III Typically attributed to Albert Einstein, but it might originate elsewhere.

        Made a lot of press, that prediction, and perfectly reasonable, for that day. However, that was BEFORE my AP essay. Nobody (else) figured out how to force all possessors of nuclear weapons to give them up. Using the AP idea, nobody who possesses nuclear weapons will be allowed to keep them.

        That’s because anybody who lives in an area which could logically be threatened by a nuke would want to allow that to happen. Basically, anybody who lives in cities or large towns. They would all be willing to donate money to a fund to kill anybody who possesses a nuke, or anybody who defends that status quo. And THAT would be a far stronger force, in sum, than a person who owns a nuke.

        THIS is why discussions of AP are not “frivolous”. Anybody who agrees that nuclear weapons are dangerous and threatening has little choice but to admit that a solution to that problem is important and necessary.

        1+
        • How do you come to that conclusion?

          Fairly simple Jim. History!
          As we were we will eventually become after a reset.
          Can you point out a time where we historically have escaped to a new start and have not ended up where we (mankind) are today?
          I would say the start of this nation is a good example.
          Not to mention neither you or Dave have addressed exactly who decided who is bumped off.
          Who determines good, evil, right or wrong?
          I guarantee you that your right and wrong at some point are going to cross mine?
          Who wins?
          The first one at the switch?

          There was a time if someone walked into my home and threatened me I could shoot his ass dead as a door-nail without suffering regret or a jail sentence. Not so today.

          We are far past times where we could have a plot of land and without repercussion dispatch intruders.
          We got there because as Chris states it is “human nature” to avoid a fight unless provoked or seeking of order.

          How many people do you actually know willing to pick up a weapon and shoot someone else who is threatening them? I know a few and the rest would be diving for the first bale of hay for cover. Hoping to be saved by law enforcement or someone else. Both likely to arrive far to late.

          So we can chit chat forever about a “what if” theory.
          Personally I deal with “what is” and then only in relationship to my personal UTOPIA.
          And until “what is” lands on my front porch. Speculating about it is a waste of time IMO.

          CT

          0
          • jim says:

            “Fairly simple Jim. History!
            As we were we will eventually become after a reset.”

            I think you use a word, “reset”, which is a vague, unrealistic word that doesn’t actually define anything. Sure, “On the Beach”, by Neville Shute, was from that era where a nuclear war was going to “reset” everything, down to killing all life on earth. But reality was never going to match that Doomsday idea.

            “Can you point out a time where we historically have escaped to a new start and have not ended up where we (mankind) are today?”

            I have no idea what you mean by saying “we historically have escaped to a new start”. Has that kind of thing ever happened?

            “I would say the start of this nation is a good example.”

            No, I don’t think that “the start of this nation is a good example”!!
            Very little actually changed. That was certainly no “reset”.

            “Not to mention neither you or Dave have addressed exactly who decided who is bumped off.”

            That is part of the AP idea. The people who donate to the system are the ones who decide. Anybody can donate, but nobody is required to donate.

            “Who determines good, evil, right or wrong?”

            Everybody, anybody.

            “I guarantee you that your right and wrong at some point are going to cross mine?
            Who wins?
            The first one at the switch?”

            AP isn’t a good weapon against somebody (or somebodies) who are unidentifiable. Follow The Golden Rule, and people will usually be safe.

            “There was a time if someone walked into my home and threatened me I could shoot his ass dead as a door-nail without suffering regret or a jail sentence. Not so today.”

            That’s because there are laws which have an effect of deterring self-defense. That’s the system I want to destroy.

            “We are far past times where we could have a plot of land and without repercussion dispatch intruders.”

            AP won’t entirely result in a world where you can, without retribution, “dispatch intruders”. But there will be far more risk to those intruders than the current system provides.

            We got there because as Chris states it is “human nature” to avoid a fight unless provoked or seeking of order.”

            We got there because government has been allowed to take over our ability to defend outselves.

            “How many people do you actually know willing to pick up a weapon and shoot someone else who is threatening them?”

            Probably many. But that will have the obvious result: Potential offenders will be powerfully dissuaded from attacking.

            ” I know a few and the rest would be diving for the first bale of hay for cover. Hoping to be saved by law enforcement or someone else. Both likely to arrive far to late.”

            If people were freer to defend themselves, for example with gunfire, nevertheless it wouldn’t be necessary for everyone to carry a gun. The risks to the bad guys would simply rise to a high level. They’d have to start behaving, or risk dying young.

            “So we can chit chat forever about a “what if” theory.
            Personally I deal with “what is” and then only in relationship to my personal UTOPIA.
            And until “what is” lands on my front porch. Speculating about it is a waste of time IMO.”

            Ultimately, people will decide to adopt an AP-type system. It won’t have to be 51% of the population, nor 51% of the legislators. 1% of the people wanting to use that system will be plenty to free the rest.

            0
      • Chris says:

        Any and all theories regarding government or even lack of government fail to take into account the one variable that can’t be controlled or even predicted. That’s human nature. It is the failing of them all including anarchy. Human nature strives for order. Nobody has the same idea what order is or how much of it they want.

        1+
        • ◄Dave► says:

          Agreed… we all want order, Chris. The reason it took me so long to conclude that actual anarchy was preferable to any form of rule, was an intrinsic aversion to the risk of disorder. Once convinced that the chaos of democratic rule, by utterly stupid sheeple, was far worse, the decision was easy.

          What distinguishes the true anarchist from all forms of statism, or thuggery, is that we just wish to be left alone, to live our lives as we choose to live them, unimpeded by meddlesome busybodies, do-gooders, and outright thieves, who have their own notions of how our lives should be lived properly, by their standards, or for their benefit.

          The fact that the state even pretends to defend me from such predations, and actually forbids me from defending myself from them, is preposterous. The fact that most brainwashed sheeple expect me to respect their authority, is arguably what is most outrageous! 😈 ◄Dave►

          1+
    • Troy says:

      As are you.

      Troy

      1+

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