US Government Violently Assaults Hollywood Actor For Failing To Fund Illegal Wars, page 16

reply to post by jontap

---

In my country if you don't pay your taxes, your returns are confiscated until your paid up and your also garnished from your paycheck. Them getting the money from you is more important then imprisoning you. The USA is strange in this way, they make you pay and also label you a criminal instead of just being someone in debt.

Its ridiculous. He could make millions for 3 years doing movies and pay more taxes then a prison will afford. Matter of fact, the American Taxpayers will be paying for his stay there while he makes nothing for 3 years. Doesn't sound very smart too me...

Originally posted by CanuckCoder
reply to post by jontap

---

In my country if you don't pay your taxes, your returns are confiscated until your paid up and your also garnished from your paycheck. Them getting the money from you is more important then imprisoning you. The USA is strange in this way, they make you pay and also label you a criminal instead of just being someone in debt.

Its ridiculous. He could make millions for 3 years doing movies and pay more taxes then a prison will afford. Matter of fact, the American Taxpayers will be paying for his stay there while he makes nothing for 3 years. Doesn't sound very smart too me...

People normally aren't jailed in the US for underpaying their taxes. There is much more going on then he didn't pay enough taxes. The very first thing they say when they want more taxes is, "You owe us X amount of dollars and we accept checks, credit cards and money orders". After that, you can make payment arrangements.
So again, there's a lot more going on then what people are suggesting.

reply to post by jfj123

---

No. The vast majority of people who could pay would not.
Our system is not perfect but it ensures a certain level of service at the federal, state and local levels.

So if the majority of people wouldn't voluntarily pay for a government I guess that means the majority of people don't think they can get as much happiness for their money by giving it to someone else to spend for them than if they spent it themselves or saved it. If most people would be more happy not paying taxes then it is really only the minority getting more happiness from having someone else decide how to spend their money. I'm not really sure how you morally justify a minority organizing itself and stealing money from the rest of the population using the threat of violence if anyone resists the theft.

If the majority don't want to voluntarily give to federal, state and local governments then they also don't want the services those governments are forcing them to pay for. They would rather have the private sector provide these services at more efficient prices.

Without regulations, there would be no quality control and very little consumer protection. That's why.

So in your opinion the only thing the government should be enforcing is quality control? IMO it is up to the consumer to research his purchases. If people want quality and safe products the free market will provide that. This is the information age. Information and consumer reviews about nearly every type of product are readily available (more-so if there were less regulations). I already do this, I really don't want the government deciding what I want and thinking for me. I don't want their fluoride for instance, so I distill my water. In a free market any quality or safety incidents would be hugely damaging to the reputation of a company, so it would be in their best interests to provide a safe and quality product anyway. If there is a market for a cheaper, inferior product neither the party demanding nor the party supplying should be persecuted because there is no victim, the exchange has made both parties better off.

Anything that is enforced whether it be a regulation, law, ordinance, etc.. may need to be enforced with violence ONLY if there is non-compliance.

Sorry, I'll rephrase my question. Why are you compelled to use threats of violence (which you intend to carry out) to enforce a certain way of life on others?

Maybe. Maybe not.

If the private sector doesn't meet the demand it means consumers are not willing to pay the costs to supply the goods or services. That means there isn't really a demand for it. Using threats of violence to force consumers to meet these costs is reducing consumer happiness and only benefiting the corporations (which also have no motivation to provide the product at an efficient price).

And what about the poor, sick or infirm who simply could not afford to pay their protection fee? Do they simply not deserve to be safe?

What most of the poor are currently paying in taxes would more than cover it. Private security would be much more cost efficient than the current policing system. The sick could protect themselves with insurance. If insurance is not a priority for you you shouldn't then be able to threaten me with violence to pay for your insurance. For people that genuinely can't afford it I am certain there would be numerous charities to help such people with all their basic needs. I would give generously to those charities as I am both able to and doing so makes me happy. As helping the needy seems to be important to you I'm sure you would help fund these charities also. We are not a rare breed. The only difference between us is that I would leave it at just personally giving and encouraging others to do the same, whereas you prefer it being taken further to you personally giving then having goons threaten violence against those who don't give or don't give enough.

A state of political anarchy wouldn't suddenly cause its inhabitants to become brutal savages with no human compassion or emotions. Not only would the poor in America be looked after but starving children in third world countries would no doubt get a portion of the billions of dollars of military spending which is instead being used to make bombs to drop on villages and other weapons of war.

only the powerful would have the necessities and everyone else would be at best, indentured servants.

hmm that sounds more like today's system. The free market doesn't screw anyone who is intelligent enough to consider his transaction.

Sounds like you'd like to live in a completely lawless world where you keep what you can hold on to.

Lawlessness wouldn't mean everybody suddenly turns into a wild animal and loses all sense of morality and compassion. There would not be constant attempts by people to steal your television as soon as you look the other way. Peoples morality is what stops everyone from going around murdering other people, not some document written by a politician. You must feel quite uneasy going out in public if you believe the only thing stopping everyone from wanting to mug you is a law.

Keep in mind that someone else is always better armed, stronger, faster, more violent and WILL take what you have.

You mean like the current form of government?

Any other groups or individuals matching this description probably already have no respect for the law. The law is not preventing any of the people who currently make a habit of violence and theft. This is why there would be a market for private security. If I don't want to pay for private security because I can protect myself and have a German Shepard and insurance protecting my property then that should be my decision, and I shouldn't be forced to pay for yours to.

reply to post by Azp420

---

You mean like the current form of government?

Now you nailed it. There will ALWAYS be some most wealthy, most powerful and best armed entity in the society, unless everyone is exactly equal. Now it is the government, controlled by all or majority (more or less). Who will it be in anarchy? Will he answer to wide public, or a few private owners?

Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by jfj123

---

No. The vast majority of people who could pay would not.
Our system is not perfect but it ensures a certain level of service at the federal, state and local levels.

So if the majority of people wouldn't voluntarily pay for a government I guess that means the majority of people don't think they can get as much happiness for their money by giving it to someone else to spend for them than if they spent it themselves or saved it. If most people would be more happy not paying taxes then it is really only the minority getting more happiness from having someone else decide how to spend their money. I'm not really sure how you morally justify a minority organizing itself and stealing money from the rest of the population using the threat of violence if anyone resists the theft.

Well to start, I'm so tired of hearing about this threat of violence crap.
Now lets use your logic and apply it elsewhere. Since many people would also be more happy not following laws, should we also remove all laws?

If the majority don't want to voluntarily give to federal, state and local governments then they also don't want the services those governments are forcing them to pay for. They would rather have the private sector provide these services at more efficient prices.

Not true. People don't want to pay anyone let it be government or private sector. And again, what about those who simply can't pay? Do we just let them die ?

Without regulations, there would be no quality control and very little consumer protection. That's why.

So in your opinion the only thing the government should be enforcing is quality control? IMO it is up to the consumer to research his purchases.

Not reasonable. If you want to buy a toy for your child, are you going to call the manufacturer of each toy, find out how the toy is made and with which materials to determine it is safe? Now apply that for EVERYTHING you buy. Simply won't happen and you know it.

If people want quality and safe products the free market will provide that.

No it won't. That's why regulations starting appearing. For example, the paint industries in the United States had been using lead based paint into the 70's even while knowing that lead paint was dangerous in the late 1800's.

This is the information age. Information and consumer reviews about nearly every type of product are readily available (more-so if there were less regulations).

The problem is that consumer reports, many time are not accurate. There are simply too many products to research so they simply can't do it.

I already do this, I really don't want the government deciding what I want and thinking for me. I don't want their fluoride for instance, so I distill my water. In a free market any quality or safety incidents would be hugely damaging to the reputation of a company,

Not really. There are plenty of examples of companies not being permanently financially damaged by big incidents.

so it would be in their best interests to provide a safe and quality product anyway. If there is a market for a cheaper, inferior product neither the party demanding nor the party supplying should be persecuted because there is no victim, the exchange has made both parties better off.

So bp shouldn't be bothered with cleanup, reperations, etc... for damages they caused?
That's simply insane !

Anything that is enforced whether it be a regulation, law, ordinance, etc.. may need to be enforced with violence ONLY if there is non-compliance.

Sorry, I'll rephrase my question. Why are you compelled to use threats of violence (which you intend to carry out) to enforce a certain way of life on others?

Laws enforce a certain way of life on others. Are you suggesting we should elimate all laws ?

Maybe. Maybe not.

And what about the poor, sick or infirm who simply could not afford to pay their protection fee? Do they simply not deserve to be safe?

What most of the poor are currently paying in taxes would more than cover it.

Many of the poor, sick or infirm can't even afford to pay taxes. And there is no way the small amount they are paying assuming they have a job, would cover privatization costs.

Private security would be much more cost efficient than the current policing system. The sick could protect themselves with insurance.

And for those who can't afford but want insurance? Remember the insurance industry is privatized and there has not been much regulation until recently.

If insurance is not a priority for you you shouldn't then be able to threaten me with violence to pay for your insurance.

And what if health insurance is a priority for someone but they can't afford it? Or they get sick and their insurance carrier drops them? What then? Anyone going to another carrier with a pre-existing condition would pay enormous fees they wouldn't be able to afford.

For people that genuinely can't afford it I am certain there would be numerous charities to help such people with all their basic needs.

Really? Where would these magically pop up from and pay $1000.00 per month for a family of 4's health insurance x 35% of the country? And what about the children with autism? Insurance won't cover the cost of their treatment at all so any parent with an autistic child must pay for treatment out of pocket.

[qoute] As helping the needy seems to be important to you I'm sure you would help fund these charities also.
I do already.

We are not a rare breed. The only difference between us is that I would leave it at just personally giving and encouraging others to do the same, whereas you prefer it being taken further to you personally giving then having goons threaten violence against those who don't give or don't give enough.

To have a functioning government, we need to put money into it. If you know we must put money into a private business to make it run, you also know we need to put money into a public business (the government) to make it run.

A state of political anarchy wouldn't suddenly cause its inhabitants to become brutal savages with no human compassion or emotions.

Have you been to detroit, mi lately?????????????
That's exactly what's happening in that city and others.

Not only would the poor in America be looked after but starving children in third world countries would no doubt get a portion of the billions of dollars of military spending which is instead being used to make bombs to drop on villages and other weapons of war.

So you'd also get rid of our military????

only the powerful would have the necessities and everyone else would be at best, indentured servants.

hmm that sounds more like today's system. The free market doesn't screw anyone who is intelligent enough to consider his transaction.

So what about those who aren't as intelligent as you? Not all people are born with a high IQ. Are they just screwed too?

Sounds like you'd like to live in a completely lawless world where you keep what you can hold on to.

Lawlessness wouldn't mean everybody suddenly turns into a wild animal and loses all sense of morality and compassion. There would not be constant attempts by people to steal your television as soon as you look the other way. Peoples morality is what stops everyone from going around murdering other people, not some document written by a politician.

People break the law all the time now even with laws. Without laws, there would be complete anarchy.

Keep in mind that someone else is always better armed, stronger, faster, more violent and WILL take what you have.

You mean like the current form of government?

Yep. And if you don't like the current government, vote them out.

We got rid of bush because he committed crimes.
We'll probably need to get rid of many more for similar things.
A bad government is OUR fault. We've gotten lazy and don't want to be bothered with doing our jobs of running our government of the people, by the people, for the people. We've allowed the loonies to run the asylum for too long and this is what happens.

Any other groups or individuals matching this description probably already have no respect for the law. The law is not preventing any of the people who currently make a habit of violence and theft. This is why there would be a market for private security. If I don't want to pay for private security because I can protect myself and have a German Shepard and insurance protecting my property then that should be my decision, and I shouldn't be forced to pay for yours to.

edit on 13-12-2010 by Azp420 because: (no reason given)

Interesting so what happens if you can't afford to pay for private security? Who then do you call when someone kidnaps your child? Takes your child across state lines? etc...? You can't afford to pay for one private security, let alone pay for all the ones the kidnapper could have driven through.

You're just not thinking this through.
Think of all the things you'd directly have to pay for
private security
Emergency and fire
road maintenance
snow plowing
schools
libraries
etc...
etc...
etc...
and again, what about those who can't afford to pay? Will you help them pay? If so, that's what you're doing now by paying taxes.

reply to post by getreadyalready

---

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialist
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

First They Came - Pastor Martin Niemoller ( 1892–1984)

reply to post by Damacles

---

Thank you. Hardly anyone posts that in its entirety anymore, and I always love to read it.

That should be the fear that all of us have. Divide and Conquer. Keep me very comfortable with a lot to lose while isolating and targeting some other group. Make my status quo a little too good to risk giving up, so that I won't interfere as you violate the rights of others. Eventually my comfortable status quo will be in the minority, but there will be too few of me to fight. I can't imagine a more thorough and successful way of controlling a people!

If I were single, maybe I would martyr myself in the defense of others, but with a wife and two kids, and aging parents and in-laws, it would be selfish of me to endanger the status quo of all those around me in order to battle on the grounds of righteousness.

And even if I did battle, who would come to my defense and who would shrink back and wait to see my results? My chance of success alone would be nil, and my chance of garnering support during a losing battle would be even less. Just another insane criminal locked away while my family suffers.

I'm afraid we have already lost, unless TPTB make some egregious error, or get greedy or impatient. As long as they follow their steady pace they will win. It will take some tactical error on their part to make the common people unite against them. The ball is not in our court yet, and it might never be.

reply to post by jfj123

---

Well to start, I'm so tired of hearing about this threat of violence crap.
Now lets use your logic and apply it elsewhere. Since many people would also be more happy not following laws, should we also remove all laws?

You're tired of hearing about it? Sorry but that's the reality of government and what people have to live with everyday, especially for people who don't agree with their law. This threat is enough that most people won't even question their law. Yes, we should remove all laws. As I said, it's not a document written by a politician that prevents people harming others its a sense of their own morality. Each man has the right to decide his own moral code, not have someone else's violently enforced upon him to live by.

Not true. People don't want to pay anyone let it be government or private sector.

If people won't pay govt. or private sector that means they don't really want the goods or services at the prices offered. They shouldn't be threatened with violence and forced to purchase them.

Not reasonable. If you want to buy a toy for your child, are you going to call the manufacturer of each toy, find out how the toy is made and with which materials to determine it is safe? Now apply that for EVERYTHING you buy. Simply won't happen and you know it.

I already do this for everything I buy that is not mainstream/big brand (word will get out pretty quickly in that case). There's a lot of harmful crap on the selves currently available for purchase. The main motivations of their law is profits, don't think they have have your personal interest in mind.

No it won't. That's why regulations starting appearing. For example, the paint industries in the United States had been using lead based paint into the 70's even while knowing that lead paint was dangerous in the late 1800's.

Consumers therefore didn't care about their paint containing lead, else a company starting to sell lead free paint would have made a killing. This is probably because most consumers were unaware of the dangers. Nothing like this would happen in today's information age. It especially wouldn't happen if people knew there was no government to do their thinking for them.

The problem is that consumer reports, many time are not accurate. There are simply too many products to research so they simply can't do it.

I'm currently not running into any problems finding information about the obscure products I'm considering for purchase. It doesn't have to be an "official" consumer report. If many people are saying the same thing you can take that as being accurate.

Not really. There are plenty of examples of companies not being permanently financially damaged by big incidents.

Of-course. I would expect no different in today's regulated market. The psychology of consumers would change significantly if they realized they had to think for themselves and not rely on some politicians to do their thinking for them.

So bp shouldn't be bothered with cleanup, reperations, etc... for damages they caused?
That's simply insane !

BP didn't need to be coerced with the threat of violence to clean up. In a free market it would be in their best interest to clean it up. Consumers the world over were outraged at the mess they made. If they didn't clean it up there would have been severe boycotting of BP product.

Laws enforce a certain way of life on others. Are you suggesting we should elimate all laws ?

Yes, sorry thought that was obvious from my post. People who wish to enforce a certain lifestyle on me and regulate how I spend my ~70 years of existence disgust me.

Many of the poor, sick or infirm can't even afford to pay taxes. And there is no way the small amount they are paying assuming they have a job, would cover privatization costs.

Most people would have nearly twice their income after all the taxes they pay. Privatization is always more cost efficient than government. I covered the scenario for the few that genuinely can't afford it.

And for those who can't afford but want insurance? Remember the insurance industry is privatized and there has not been much regulation until recently.

It would be very few and I covered it.

And what if health insurance is a priority for someone but they can't afford it? Or they get sick and their insurance carrier drops them? What then? Anyone going to another carrier with a pre-existing condition would pay enormous fees they wouldn't be able to afford.

Again, covered for those who can't afford it. You should read my whole post before replying. It would not be in the best interest for insurance companies to get a reputation of dropping clients and not paying out in a free market of informed consumers.

Really? Where would these magically pop up from and pay $1000.00 per month for a family of 4's health insurance x 35% of the country? And what about the children with autism? Insurance won't cover the cost of their treatment at all so any parent with an autistic child must pay for treatment out of pocket.

As most people are already paying this (via taxes) and most people agree with taxation to pay this, there would be no reason for these people to suddenly disagree with paying to help the poor just because the channel through which they pay is now via charity than via government. Humans feel compassion for those less fortunate without needing to be coerced with the threat of violence. Most people already give more to the needy than their mandatory taxes call for. I see no reason for the amount they feel happy giving to change.

To have a functioning government, we need to put money into it. If you know we must put money into a private business to make it run, you also know we need to put money into a public business (the government) to make it run.

I don't want a government. The idea of using violence to enforce how people spend their short time on this planet is disgusting. People put money voluntarily in private businesses because they expect a return on their investment. The same should be true for any public business. If people don't want to put money in because the return on their investment is not worth it they should not be threatened with violence unless they cough up.

So you'd also get rid of our military????

Haha I love the shock of four question marks as if the military is a vital part of a country. I wouldn't get rid of the military. I'm just saying I shouldn't be threatened with violence if I don't wish to fund it to kill innocent people in illegal wars I don't agree with. They can exist all they want, but with voluntary funding they would actually have to act as the people desire them to. If people refuse to fund them because they go against the will of the people this is a good thing.

I personally don't believe there is a need for military. If there was no military messing around in other peoples countries there would be far less pissed off enemies wanting to do harm to USA. With a culture of population that refuses to be governed by any form of government or organization it would be impossible for the country to be taken over (especially with a well armed populace) by any establishment. The power is with the people and their wallets. There is no country that has the resources to enforce a way of life on a disobedient population of Americans and police the entire population into compliance. But that's just my opinion. Who ever wants to voluntarily fund a defense organization will be free to do so.

So what about those who aren't as intelligent as you? Not all people are born with a high IQ. Are they just screwed too?

So the intelligent need to be threatened with violence to protect us from ourselves because there are a minority of unintelligent people who don't know what's best for themselves? I'm a big fan of Darwinism.

People break the law all the time now even with laws. Without laws, there would be complete anarchy.

I disagree. That people break the law now shows that the law does nothing to prevent crime. Peoples morality not laws prevent people wanting to harm others. People tend to ignore laws they feel are unjust, therefore the law has little effect on peoples behaviour and their morals have large effect. I'm sure you wouldn't start going around intentionally harming people as soon as lawlessness was declared because you would still live by your moral code.

Yep. And if you don't like the current government, vote them out.

Do you want the puppet on the left or the puppet on the right? The system is corrupt. The huge funding needed for a campaign can only come from corporations who will only select candidates who have those corporation's back. A no vote should be interpreted as a vote for no government, but this will never happen as those in power wish to hold onto that power.

We'll probably need to get rid of many more for similar things.

Exactly, they're all the same.

Interesting so what happens if you can't afford to pay for private security? Who then do you call when someone kidnaps your child? Takes your child across state lines? etc...? You can't afford to pay for one private security, let alone pay for all the ones the kidnapper could have driven through.

As security is a necessity of life the needy would be helped by the same charities you and I would continue to give to. The only difference is you want to hire goons to threaten violence against those who are not charitable enough for your liking (the irony). When someone kidnaps your child you call a private investigator. There would be no state lines as they would have no function.

You're just not thinking this through.
Think of all the things you'd directly have to pay for
private security
Emergency and fire
road maintenance
snow plowing
schools
libraries
etc...
etc...
etc...

How do you think all those things are paid for at the moment? Everybody is already paying for all those things. The government isn't creating schools and libraries for free. If the money people pay in taxes now can pay for it then the extra income that would have been payed to taxes will still pay for it (and then some because the government wastes a lot of money and private business is far more cost efficient). Perhaps you need to think this through.

and again, what about those who can't afford to pay? Will you help them pay? If so, that's what you're doing now by paying taxes.

Yes. That is exactly my point. There will be little difference to what I'm doing now by paying taxes. There will only be two main differences:

-The money I pay will be voluntary rather than the result of the threat of violence against me.
-I will be entitled to only pay for things I support or agree with.

The power will be firmly back with the people and as public support would be the only way for any entity to be funded.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Azp420

---

You mean like the current form of government?

Now you nailed it. There will ALWAYS be some most wealthy, most powerful and best armed entity in the society, unless everyone is exactly equal. Now it is the government, controlled by all or majority (more or less). Who will it be in anarchy? Will he answer to wide public, or a few private owners?

edit on 14/12/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

If anarchy is established from the will of the people it will be because there is a culture of refusing to comply with violent entities. We don't negotiate with terrorists. It would be impossible to control the masses on large scale and on small scale you are able to hire private security to keep you safe.

reply to post by getreadyalready

---

Matthew 17:20 (King James Version)

20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

I too have children, but I also have high hopes. I hope to bequeath to my children a brighter world. I do not agree that you would be endangering your family's status quo, you would be ensuring a fitting legacy, a more secure and better world for them to live in. Surely that is your duty to them, rather than allowing them to be lost in the illusion.

I understand your uncertainty and doubts, but the first stage, before you do battle, would be to meet like-minded people and garner support. It would be more than a little foolhardy to attempt to defeat the beast alone. We the people don't need martyrs, we need people willing to stand together and agree that things are wrong and be determind that we can effect change. I have heard of a saying " Its a cinch by the inch, but its hard by the yard!" Start slowly, little by little and soon you will have momentum.

Here in the UK people are sick of how things are and are coming together to protest. Your country( I am presuming you are American) was a shining example of the power of the people to prevent and overcome tyranny, sadly you seem to have forgotten this, as have some of your fellow American humans, but it is there as a reminder whenever you choose to reacquaint yourself with it.

They have already made their error, they believe they can wear us down, they believe they can exstinguish the spark of truth that lies within us all, that which reveals our true nature. They have not taken into account the indomitable will of mankind. Their greed blinds them to anything but the material and so they will lose.

reply to post by Azp420

---

It would be impossible to control the masses on large scale

Just like powerful government controled by minority can control people on a large scale even when majority disagree (we have many examples of such situation in the history - the whole communistic bloc did it for 40 years), powerful private entity could do the same.

and on small scale you are able to hire private security to keep you safe.

If your opponent has more money than you, they simply wont keep you safe. Either he will offer them more than you can to join his side, or he will easily crush them with better private army than you can afford.

There will ALWAYS be those with more power and those with less power (and some entity would be the most powerful). There will be rulers and those who obey. The point is only who will be who.

reply to post by Maslo

---

Just like powerful government controled by minority can control people on a large scale even when majority disagree (we have many examples of such situation in the history - the whole communistic bloc did it for 40 years), powerful private entity could do the same.

Like I said, the only way for political anarchy to be established in the first place is from a widespread and strong-willed culture of refusing to comply with violent entities. A culture like this would not just bow down to the next party that tried to take the reigns. This culture was in no way present in the communistic bloc. The people still wished to be governed, even if the majority disagreed with the who and the what.

If your opponent has more money than you, they simply wont keep you safe. Either he will offer them more than you can to join his side, or he will easily crush them with better private army than you can afford.

There are some people who put principle before profits. This type of culture would also be very weary of any entity that appeared to be gaining power or control over fellow men.

So what is the objective of this mysterious opponent? To have control of the majority of the private security across the country in-order to violently enforce a certain way of life on the population? He'd better have deep pockets because as soon as someone looses their private security firm it's going to create a demand in the market for an alternate private security firm which will be filled. Assuming the ingrained culture did not prevent private security firms from selling their souls to this opponent, he would have to keep bidding up the price of private security until the majority of the population could no longer afford private security. There are very few entities, if any, that could sustain this for prolonged periods of time without it significantly draining their wealth. Even if this was achieved, then what? You try to enforce certain rules on a disobedient population using your army of private security while fighting with the remaining private security who are protecting their clients from this tyranny? You can bet on several assassination plots being formed against this opponent, even by members of his own army of private security. I don't think it's feasible this could be sustained or even get off the ground in a culture that has established anarchy and is ingrained with it.

There will ALWAYS be those with more power and those with less power (and some entity would be the most powerful). There will be rulers and those who obey. The point is only who will be who.

Even if that were true, it doesn't make a government morally justifiable. It doesn't put them above any other entity that wishes to have significant power over the people.

Exclusive - Obama\'s Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet: \'Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Haw
  Posted 10 days ago with 242 member flags

Ron Paul is NOT dropping out, the Mainstream Media is LYING.
  Posted 13 days ago with 111 member flags

Report: Romney Will Be Disqualified From Race Due To Fraud
  Posted 17 days ago with 105 member flags

Evidence of Vote Flipping in GOP Primary Elections
  Posted 5 days ago with 88 member flags

CNN Asks Ron Paul To Drop Out & Endorse Romney Despite His Chances To Win
  Posted 17 days ago with 70 member flags

Soldiers and Citizens alike, this is a must see.
  Posted 18 days ago with 69 member flags

Fox News Analyst: First American to shoot down drone will be a hero
  Posted 12 days ago with 68 member flags

US Military you are not fighting for your country
  Posted 19 days ago with 64 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: