Your original assertion is things have gotten so bad in America that it is time to cast of this Democratic system and enforce your political ideology on the rest of us through violent revolution.
To justify that assertion you quoted the hunger problem in America. When I asked how many people die of hunger, your response is essentially that no one dies of hunger. However, you qualify your response by saying that there is a vast nationwide conspiracy to hide hunger related deaths by the millions of private practice doctors and nurses who run our private healthcare system. Is this essentially correct?
You seem to have backed off your next point, that the US has become Nazi Germany, and admitted that there are no death camps. But you quote the War in Iraq as some sort of illegal war. How did the War in Iraq violate the Geneva Conventions, exactly? What UN resolutions were put forth or sanctions taken against the US for this illegal war? How many UN resolutions were passed condemning the regime of Saddam Hussein before the war?
As to the Federal Referendum -- there is nothing stopping your from creating a State referendum that either 1) nullifies some portion of the law you don't like locally or 2) asks your local legislature to hold a constitutional convention or 3) prohibits local funds from being spent on enforcement. Barring that, you could ask your Attorney General to challenge the law as unconstitutional -- if it is indeed unconstitutional. Barring that, you could start a referendum to recall any of your Senators that supported the law.
But I get it, you don't believe in the Democratic process any more, right? Violence is the answer, right?
Which makes me wonder -- do you know what Facism is? It isn't a term you throw around to label people who do things you don't like. It has a lot of diverse meanings, but one common theme: dictatorship. You state that on one hand the US has become a Facist regime -- but then you seem to want to impose a Facist regime under your ideological standpoint as the solution. You seem to think that people are too stupid or too distracted to make good decisions -- so you will make those decisions for them.
Technically, you can pass a referendum asking your legislature to hold a constitutional convention. Regardless, your state can pass a referendum that has any number of provisions that would apply to your electorate such as non-enforcement. California has medical marijuana laws in contradiction to federal laws and held non-smoking laws in contradiction to supreme court rulings for decades. Arizona once withdrew from the Union over CFC laws.
It sounds to me like you have given up on the system. If you truly believe that people are too stupid to think for themselves and that the elected officials have no connection to their electorate, then why have Democracy at all? Why not just move to the China model?
How many people, exactly, die of starvation related diseases?
Were the people in Iraq put to death in extermination camps? How many were killed by American forces and how many were killed by other Iraqis? Whatever your numbers, how does this make the US "modern day Nazis"?
Lobbyists act on Congress. Referendums are implemented and voted upon by the people. How do those armies of lobbyists prevent you from creating a referendum and collecting the signatures needed to get it onto the ballot?
I see a ton of people angry at the banks (Occupy Walls Street) but I haven't heard a single one advocating for a solution to the problem. Why not start a referendum to break up any bank with more than 10% market share?
How does killing 3 people over the course of 10 years make Guantanamo Bay a "Death Camp" and by extension the US "modern day Nazi's"?
Facebook, Groupon, Forever 21, and Farmville. None of these business models were all that revolutionary. All mimics existing businesses. Software patents didn't prevent any of these people from winning. Is it possible that software patents is just an excuse?
Ignoring the possibility of becoming a billionaire, how many signatures does it take to get a referendum on the ballot in your county or state? Why does it take a billion dollars to collect those signatures?
If it is easier to force your will on people through violence than to convince them to acquiesce through logic, doesn't that indicate a failure somewhere on your part?
How many people have been killed in Guantanamo? How many US citizens are currently being held there? How do these number make the US the new Nazi's?
Software patents cover existing technologies, what stops you from creating something new? Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook in the last decade -- why didn't software patents stop him?
If SOPA is so egregious that it warrants a violent revolution then it seems like it would be easy to collect the signatures to start a referendum, right?
If one individual or corporation falsely accuses another of a crime isn't that called libel? Wouldn't the offended party have recourse under existing libel laws? Wouldn't the offending party be guilty of a crime?
If the bill was reworded to have more judicial oversight, would that solve the problem for you?
How many people starve to death in America each year, not including anorexics? How many people does the "facist government" put to death in concentration camps each year?
In the last 30 years I remember a ton of new billionaires being created out of their own new talents. What stops you from doing the same and changing things?
Even if you don't have the intelligence or capabilities to succeed, why don't you simply start a referendum to have the bills you don't like repealed?
There is no shortage of people placing blame on one side or another. If the criticism has no mitigating advice tied to it, then how is it any more valuable than the other blame placers?
How? What language in the bill, specifically, will allow this to happen? If that language was removed would you support the bill? Or, is all copyright enforcement immoral in your eyes?
Why are you so angry? Compared to my memories of earlier years things are going pretty well. There are no Nazis, no Soviets, no Osama bin Laden anymore. No race riots. No soup kitchens or bread lines. Even the Arabs are awakening. Life seems to be pretty good.
What exactly is going on that is so incredibly intolerable? Are you mad that you can't get music for free? Pandora is great for free music or even a simple YouTube search often returns the song. Are you this mad because you can't advocate for the overthrow of the US government by violent means?
Who is the ruling "they" that comprise the rulers of this country? Who is the "they" that is making you so angry? What stops you from becoming one of the "them" and changing things?
After Solyndra there will be more failed green energy companies backed by socialist spending. One of my client's, a silicon crystal grower, is busy buying up equipment from green energy companies as they liquidate and pay back the original investors using taxpayer money.
Unpopular as it may be with the Slashdot crowd, the government is not smart enough to pick winners. The government should not be in this business. Taking tax money to invest in initiatives like this is at best foolish and at worst theft.
This was $529 million dollars taken from Americans and given to Obama's cronies. Where did that money come from?
Top 10% of earners: ~$365 million dollars Top 50% of earners: ~$520 million dollars
If that money had not been taxed and wasted it would have been wasted mostly by those in the upper middle class and the rich. It would have gone to support private schools, yoga teachers, golf courses, 5 star restaurants, designer stores, etc. Each of those business provides jobs and incomes for the service industry: the bottom 50% of earners.
If you want to create more jobs in America then stop taxing Americans.
The debate should not be about the existence of global warming -- that debate is pretty much closed. The question should be, "What should be done?"
Nothing. Absolutely nothing should be done to mitigate global warming and here is why
1. It will be economically cheaper to relocate those people who live by the coasts. Most of the people who have beach front property in the US don't need assistance anyways.
2. The cost to freedom of giving the government powers to regulate carbon emissions is too great. Everything from the number of pets you own, to the food you eat, to the number of children cause carbon emissions. Giving the government power to regulate carbon emissions gives the government power to regulate everything.
3. Models show that increased carbon in the atmosphere will contribute to increased plant growth and after a brief adjustment period biomes will adjust to the changes.
Global warming is about control and power. If you want to do something about it: plant a tree.
Those banks that are "too big to fail" need to be split into smaller pieces that do not represent a systematic threat.
The government has split up AT&T in the 1970s, Standard Oil before that and had anti monopoly laws in place that should be used to prevent another bailout.
The protesters should advocate breaking up the largest banks in this country. By the governments own admission, the big banks are too big to fail. The government should use existing anti-monopoly laws to break them up into pieces that do not represent a systematic threat. Precedent has already been set: AT&T in the 1970's, Standard Oil before that, and dozens of other large corporations were broken up because they were too big.
Break up the banks so we never have to bail them out again.
I am not specifically talking about the Judeo-Christian god in saying that the Garden of Eden is a an allegory for the evolution of free will. If you are familiar with Zoroastrianism, then you may be familiar with idea that the Jesus story was lifted from Zoroastrianism. The bible is more than a single tribe's religion, it is an Anthology of Religion's Greatest Hits from ~100,000 BC up to about 100 AD. The first four books of the bible, including Genesis were supposedly written by Moses but they are more likely an amalgamation of religious ideas that have been around for many millenia.
On a personal note, why are you hostile to Christianity? If not Christianity, is there any religion you could subscribe to? I have no desire to convert you but I have to make two points: 1) as a herd animal you would find a tangible benefit by subscribing to a herd philosophy and 2) don't let idiots who say things like "Fossils are the work of Satan" turn you off from something that has served mankind well.
Your comments, "Cool story bro" and "This is probably a mistake on my part to be expecting a rational discourse" are quite dick-ish. There is a tendency I see in people towards blind criticism, that is criticism that does not seek to improve or replace but only serves to tear down. Do not confuse blind criticism with intelligence -- it is a fools crutch. Check yourself, you are not seeking knowledge right now -- you are trying to "best" via reason and make yourself feel higher in the herd's hierarchy.
> but all atheists that I have ever known and most information that I read about tends to be that atheists are less violent and have a great appreciation for others... i.e. do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself.
You feel this way precisely because you do not understand my comment. I addressed this point:
"To the second point about atheists. What happens if you apply a selective pressure to an evolving system? The system will respond in way that those most adapted to that pressure out compete those who do not. For the last 7000 years there has been a selective pressure on humans: religion. Those who were most able to adapt to the selective pressure of religion had access to more mates and out breed those who did not. Your genes are shaped by that evolutionary pressure. If your ancestors had a genetic pre-disposition towards blind violence or raping they were more likely to be removed from the herd."
In other words, modern day atheists are people who have evolved enough, in the presence of a herd management philosophy (religion), that they have internalized these behaviors so that they feel like they no longer need the herd management philosophy anymore. But, if you understand evolutionary theory, then you will realize that no characteristic of a species will be preserved indefinitely if it is no longer selected for.
Also, you must realize that not everyone is like you. Just reading Slashdot alone puts you in the top 1% of informed people. Most of the breeding populace have not internalized these behaviors. No matter how good you are, you live in a democracy that can easily bring society to its knees through their animal behaviors -- look at Britain two weeks ago.
> The cities themselves were already polytheistic.
I feel like you must have skimmed my comment because I addressed this:
"As a herd animal with a strong need for hierarchy, human societies go through 4 stages of religion: animism, polytheism, monotheism, then atheism. "
Polytheism necessarily predates monotheism. Each society starts by worshiping the elements. As you said
> "thought that the various gods from other civilizations were equivalent to theirs with different names... the god or goddess of farming in Syria or Egypt might have been called by a different name, but they didn't think of them as a different god."
Why do you think they enjoyed this flexibility? Because we are herd animals with a strong need for hierarchy. Without it, we would not have the capability of combining gods and societies and growing larger and large civic structures.
> I would argue that governments and contracts can also do the same. Religion isn't a requirement, and hence societies can be atheist and still have such a tool to keep people from harming one another. Remember, the USSR and China were/are officially atheist societies
Lets ignore my points about evolutionary theory for a moment and my point about modern atheists enjoying the benefits of evolution. Also ignore the fact that the USSR and Red China are gone after only 3 generations. Also ignore the fact that these societies quickly descended into pure violence when they tried to replace one herd management technique (religion) with another (communism). Lets just look at other herd animals.
How does every herd animal except for humans operate?
Baboons & Chimps (primates with a strong hierarchy) - through violent conflict, infanticide and constant rape.
Slashdot Mirror
Your original assertion is things have gotten so bad in America that it is time to cast of this Democratic system and enforce your political ideology on the rest of us through violent revolution.
To justify that assertion you quoted the hunger problem in America. When I asked how many people die of hunger, your response is essentially that no one dies of hunger. However, you qualify your response by saying that there is a vast nationwide conspiracy to hide hunger related deaths by the millions of private practice doctors and nurses who run our private healthcare system. Is this essentially correct?
You seem to have backed off your next point, that the US has become Nazi Germany, and admitted that there are no death camps. But you quote the War in Iraq as some sort of illegal war. How did the War in Iraq violate the Geneva Conventions, exactly? What UN resolutions were put forth or sanctions taken against the US for this illegal war? How many UN resolutions were passed condemning the regime of Saddam Hussein before the war?
As to the Federal Referendum -- there is nothing stopping your from creating a State referendum that either 1) nullifies some portion of the law you don't like locally or 2) asks your local legislature to hold a constitutional convention or 3) prohibits local funds from being spent on enforcement. Barring that, you could ask your Attorney General to challenge the law as unconstitutional -- if it is indeed unconstitutional. Barring that, you could start a referendum to recall any of your Senators that supported the law.
But I get it, you don't believe in the Democratic process any more, right? Violence is the answer, right?
Which makes me wonder -- do you know what Facism is? It isn't a term you throw around to label people who do things you don't like. It has a lot of diverse meanings, but one common theme: dictatorship. You state that on one hand the US has become a Facist regime -- but then you seem to want to impose a Facist regime under your ideological standpoint as the solution. You seem to think that people are too stupid or too distracted to make good decisions -- so you will make those decisions for them.
How is your solution not Facism?
Technically, you can pass a referendum asking your legislature to hold a constitutional convention. Regardless, your state can pass a referendum that has any number of provisions that would apply to your electorate such as non-enforcement. California has medical marijuana laws in contradiction to federal laws and held non-smoking laws in contradiction to supreme court rulings for decades. Arizona once withdrew from the Union over CFC laws.
It sounds to me like you have given up on the system. If you truly believe that people are too stupid to think for themselves and that the elected officials have no connection to their electorate, then why have Democracy at all? Why not just move to the China model?
How many people, exactly, die of starvation related diseases?
Were the people in Iraq put to death in extermination camps? How many were killed by American forces and how many were killed by other Iraqis? Whatever your numbers, how does this make the US "modern day Nazis"?
Lobbyists act on Congress. Referendums are implemented and voted upon by the people. How do those armies of lobbyists prevent you from creating a referendum and collecting the signatures needed to get it onto the ballot?
I see a ton of people angry at the banks (Occupy Walls Street) but I haven't heard a single one advocating for a solution to the problem. Why not start a referendum to break up any bank with more than 10% market share?
How does killing 3 people over the course of 10 years make Guantanamo Bay a "Death Camp" and by extension the US "modern day Nazi's"?
Facebook, Groupon, Forever 21, and Farmville. None of these business models were all that revolutionary. All mimics existing businesses. Software patents didn't prevent any of these people from winning. Is it possible that software patents is just an excuse?
Ignoring the possibility of becoming a billionaire, how many signatures does it take to get a referendum on the ballot in your county or state? Why does it take a billion dollars to collect those signatures?
If it is easier to force your will on people through violence than to convince them to acquiesce through logic, doesn't that indicate a failure somewhere on your part?
OK, excellent. You have identified the problem and a potential solution.
What are you going to do next? Perhaps spearhead a referendum to get those changes implemented in your electorate?
How many people have been killed in Guantanamo? How many US citizens are currently being held there? How do these number make the US the new Nazi's?
Software patents cover existing technologies, what stops you from creating something new? Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook in the last decade -- why didn't software patents stop him?
If SOPA is so egregious that it warrants a violent revolution then it seems like it would be easy to collect the signatures to start a referendum, right?
What are you so angry about?
If one individual or corporation falsely accuses another of a crime isn't that called libel? Wouldn't the offended party have recourse under existing libel laws? Wouldn't the offending party be guilty of a crime?
If the bill was reworded to have more judicial oversight, would that solve the problem for you?
How many people starve to death in America each year, not including anorexics? How many people does the "facist government" put to death in concentration camps each year?
In the last 30 years I remember a ton of new billionaires being created out of their own new talents. What stops you from doing the same and changing things?
Even if you don't have the intelligence or capabilities to succeed, why don't you simply start a referendum to have the bills you don't like repealed?
There is no shortage of people placing blame on one side or another. If the criticism has no mitigating advice tied to it, then how is it any more valuable than the other blame placers?
So what is your solution?
What happens to the Israelis?
What is my bias?
Great post.
How? What language in the bill, specifically, will allow this to happen? If that language was removed would you support the bill? Or, is all copyright enforcement immoral in your eyes?
Why does a copyright law make you want to overthrow the government?
Why are you so angry? Compared to my memories of earlier years things are going pretty well. There are no Nazis, no Soviets, no Osama bin Laden anymore. No race riots. No soup kitchens or bread lines. Even the Arabs are awakening. Life seems to be pretty good.
What exactly is going on that is so incredibly intolerable? Are you mad that you can't get music for free? Pandora is great for free music or even a simple YouTube search often returns the song. Are you this mad because you can't advocate for the overthrow of the US government by violent means?
Who is the ruling "they" that comprise the rulers of this country? Who is the "they" that is making you so angry? What stops you from becoming one of the "them" and changing things?
If your criticism is not tied to some constructive input what value does it have?
What is your solution? To remove Israel from the map?
After Solyndra there will be more failed green energy companies backed by socialist spending. One of my client's, a silicon crystal grower, is busy buying up equipment from green energy companies as they liquidate and pay back the original investors using taxpayer money.
Unpopular as it may be with the Slashdot crowd, the government is not smart enough to pick winners. The government should not be in this business. Taking tax money to invest in initiatives like this is at best foolish and at worst theft.
This was $529 million dollars taken from Americans and given to Obama's cronies. Where did that money come from?
Top 10% of earners: ~$365 million dollars
Top 50% of earners: ~$520 million dollars
If that money had not been taxed and wasted it would have been wasted mostly by those in the upper middle class and the rich. It would have gone to support private schools, yoga teachers, golf courses, 5 star restaurants, designer stores, etc. Each of those business provides jobs and incomes for the service industry: the bottom 50% of earners.
If you want to create more jobs in America then stop taxing Americans.
The debate should not be about the existence of global warming -- that debate is pretty much closed. The question should be, "What should be done?"
Nothing. Absolutely nothing should be done to mitigate global warming and here is why
1. It will be economically cheaper to relocate those people who live by the coasts. Most of the people who have beach front property in the US don't need assistance anyways.
2. The cost to freedom of giving the government powers to regulate carbon emissions is too great. Everything from the number of pets you own, to the food you eat, to the number of children cause carbon emissions. Giving the government power to regulate carbon emissions gives the government power to regulate everything.
3. Models show that increased carbon in the atmosphere will contribute to increased plant growth and after a brief adjustment period biomes will adjust to the changes.
Global warming is about control and power. If you want to do something about it: plant a tree.
Those banks that are "too big to fail" need to be split into smaller pieces that do not represent a systematic threat.
The government has split up AT&T in the 1970s, Standard Oil before that and had anti monopoly laws in place that should be used to prevent another bailout.
The protesters should advocate breaking up the largest banks in this country. By the governments own admission, the big banks are too big to fail. The government should use existing anti-monopoly laws to break them up into pieces that do not represent a systematic threat. Precedent has already been set: AT&T in the 1970's, Standard Oil before that, and dozens of other large corporations were broken up because they were too big.
Break up the banks so we never have to bail them out again.
Thank you I appreciate the kind words.
I am not specifically talking about the Judeo-Christian god in saying that the Garden of Eden is a an allegory for the evolution of free will. If you are familiar with Zoroastrianism, then you may be familiar with idea that the Jesus story was lifted from Zoroastrianism. The bible is more than a single tribe's religion, it is an Anthology of Religion's Greatest Hits from ~100,000 BC up to about 100 AD. The first four books of the bible, including Genesis were supposedly written by Moses but they are more likely an amalgamation of religious ideas that have been around for many millenia.
On a personal note, why are you hostile to Christianity? If not Christianity, is there any religion you could subscribe to? I have no desire to convert you but I have to make two points: 1) as a herd animal you would find a tangible benefit by subscribing to a herd philosophy and 2) don't let idiots who say things like "Fossils are the work of Satan" turn you off from something that has served mankind well.
> First of all, I wasn't being a dick
Your comments, "Cool story bro" and "This is probably a mistake on my part to be expecting a rational discourse" are quite dick-ish. There is a tendency I see in people towards blind criticism, that is criticism that does not seek to improve or replace but only serves to tear down. Do not confuse blind criticism with intelligence -- it is a fools crutch. Check yourself, you are not seeking knowledge right now -- you are trying to "best" via reason and make yourself feel higher in the herd's hierarchy.
> but all atheists that I have ever known and most information that I read about tends to be that atheists are less violent and have a great appreciation for others... i.e. do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself.
You feel this way precisely because you do not understand my comment. I addressed this point:
"To the second point about atheists. What happens if you apply a selective pressure to an evolving system? The system will respond in way that those most adapted to that pressure out compete those who do not. For the last 7000 years there has been a selective pressure on humans: religion. Those who were most able to adapt to the selective pressure of religion had access to more mates and out breed those who did not. Your genes are shaped by that evolutionary pressure. If your ancestors had a genetic pre-disposition towards blind violence or raping they were more likely to be removed from the herd."
In other words, modern day atheists are people who have evolved enough, in the presence of a herd management philosophy (religion), that they have internalized these behaviors so that they feel like they no longer need the herd management philosophy anymore. But, if you understand evolutionary theory, then you will realize that no characteristic of a species will be preserved indefinitely if it is no longer selected for.
Also, you must realize that not everyone is like you. Just reading Slashdot alone puts you in the top 1% of informed people. Most of the breeding populace have not internalized these behaviors. No matter how good you are, you live in a democracy that can easily bring society to its knees through their animal behaviors -- look at Britain two weeks ago.
> The cities themselves were already polytheistic.
I feel like you must have skimmed my comment because I addressed this:
"As a herd animal with a strong need for hierarchy, human societies go through 4 stages of religion: animism, polytheism, monotheism, then atheism. "
Polytheism necessarily predates monotheism. Each society starts by worshiping the elements. As you said
> "thought that the various gods from other civilizations were equivalent to theirs with different names... the god or goddess of farming in Syria or Egypt might have been called by a different name, but they didn't think of them as a different god."
Why do you think they enjoyed this flexibility? Because we are herd animals with a strong need for hierarchy. Without it, we would not have the capability of combining gods and societies and growing larger and large civic structures.
> I would argue that governments and contracts can also do the same. Religion isn't a requirement, and hence societies can be atheist and still have such a tool to keep people from harming one another. Remember, the USSR and China were/are officially atheist societies
Lets ignore my points about evolutionary theory for a moment and my point about modern atheists enjoying the benefits of evolution. Also ignore the fact that the USSR and Red China are gone after only 3 generations. Also ignore the fact that these societies quickly descended into pure violence when they tried to replace one herd management technique (religion) with another (communism). Lets just look at other herd animals.
How does every herd animal except for humans operate?
Baboons & Chimps (primates with a strong hierarchy) - through violent conflict, infanticide and constant rape.