No We Do Not Have to Shrug... Do We?

Posted by net5000 11 years, 3 months ago to Philosophy
18 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

So do we shrug or do we take back the ship, plug the holes and make the Looters walk the plank? Who's territory is it. Do we have to leave or do they? In 1776, the Producers sent the Looters back to England. Looters and their Royal sympathizers got on ships and evacuated the 13 states. Then a home grown crop of Looters burrowed their way back in with the same promises. Always promising "Protection and Safety". "Protection and Safety". "Protection and Safety". "Protection and Safety". "Protection and Safety". Layer after layer of "Protection and Safety". Not even a promise they could keep no matter how much money or freedom they extract as the price. Never trust the promise of "Protection and Safety". It is the "Stone Soup" tale over and over again.

All Comments

  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    yes, but it's all in the HOW. similar to those who confuse a gun with who is operating the gun
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lostinaforest 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm not a greenie :-)

    I certainly do not agree with the quote by Strong, and while I agree your proposed methods are different to his, the notion of "sinking the ship" being the fastest or most efficacious means of restoring the world to some utopian state is common to both.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    completely different.
    1.according to Strong: one would force industrialized civilizations' collapse. I suggest voluntary removal of one's production/support
    2.rabid, anti-human nut job who once proposed one would have to obtain a license to have a baby. environmental nut jobs in the legislature making laws and regulations based on untruths are partially why I suggest sinking the ship, so to speak
    lost, are you a big greenie?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by net5000 11 years, 3 months ago
    Even better take their right to vote away. They have proven to be irresponsible as representatives in almost every way. Like a bunch of high schoolers on spring break with Daddy's credit card. Oh when they get home...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by net5000 11 years, 3 months ago
    $100,000 a year is about $78,000 less than every one of those pea pickin' idiots get now and if they all had to split just $100,000 and still pay rent they would be a little more careful with the money they steal from us. Bet they would learn to count the change in their pockets anyway.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by net5000 11 years, 3 months ago
    Just run the entire government on $100,000/year total. They would all lose interest and crawl back into the cracks.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lostinaforest 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hmmm.... that doesn't sound too dissimilar to something Maurice Strong said:
    “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 3 months ago
    education is a long process. We'd be lucky to get the freedoms back to the level of the 1990s let alone true freedom back in 20 years. the fastest way is to sink the ship. if you look at recent history, the countries that have moved towards more freedom have done so because they lost their best and brightest and they fall into economic chaos. in order to get back on track, they have to attract producers back. I'm not willing to wait. I want more freedom for my children-let alone my grand children
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by itisntluck 11 years, 3 months ago
    "We" are individuals. For my choice, I'll do what ever I can to sink this rotten ship and put it out of it's misery.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo