the nazi mentality

[mosaik]

the government didn't give me the computer, i bought it.

i work for an independent capitalist who has no ties to the federal ass fuckers in ottawa or the provincial jerks beyond the fact that he votes.

i'm not getting an education, but keep in mind that in theory my tax dollars paid for the one that i did recieve, although it was so poor that if canada was fair they would refund me my money.

[Ignignokt]

you missed the point son

i didn't say they physically gave you the computer

without the government, none of those things would be possible....

where do you think the money came from to buy that computer? sure, it came from your employer. but where does that money get value? from the gold standard. how is the gold standard set? the government. the government created currency as a way of "trading" things. with the government, you would have no roads, no communications. are you gonna go out and build a road so you can get places? are you gonna go out and break you back building things and growing food? no , i didn't think you would. you pay other people to do these things for you, and the government is there as a regulator of trade.

[mosaik]

we don't need them to regulate trade. the free market is better.

[Ignignokt]

oh really

what are you gonna barter with?

that paper that we call money wouldn't be worth jack shit

[mosaik]

you're right. we'd have to think of some other way. i imagine there'd be other forms of currency.

[Ignignokt]

yes, we'd be back to bartering cows and such for things

but who is going to regulate how much something costs?

if someone owns all the food, they can do whatever they want with it, they could enslave you and give you a piece of bread a day.

and who is going to stop them?

no one.

[mosaik]

if they owned all the food, they could in fact over charge for it. but that would be fair under the natural rules of the market.

evenutally, somebody else would find a way to grow some food.

and as my brother pointed out, people have been trading with money long before the government got involved. it's just an easier way of bartering.

[Ignignokt]

right and now that the government is involved, everyone has a fair chance to attain such money

[nelison]

So Country A is an "all for one, one for all" type of country as doug describes and country B is a typical democracy, which would be better off?
If we let things stay like this for 50 years which would have the higher infant mortality rate? which would have the largest population below the poverty line? Which would be smarter? which would be better run? which would have the lower crime rate? which would be stronger? and finally, where would the average North American have the best quality of life?

I believe it (being the country who comes out as the better) would be with country B. why? well...
Not everyone can afford health care, therefore babies would die and the population would end up decreasing if they were forced to govern themself.
These people who are not in the upper percentages in intelligence, charisma, looks, and health would more than likely be forced to live below standards. The rich would receive any of the money the poor have, just so they can TRY and have a semi-decent life.
The majority of the population would not be able to afford private education (ie. tutors) to educate their children, and university would become only for the rich and the richer.
Everyone running around worried about their own agenda will eventually create chaos as they will be worried about their shipments of clothing, food, etc from around the world (as Doug mentioned with his swiss cheese example in another thread) therefore they'd be paying more attention to this than actually working. Some aspect of life would definately have to suffer.
No one can hire a private bodyguard unless they are of the richest percentile. It would be come too pricey and simply a pain. For Doug who says the police does not protect us every moment of the day, we all have the right to call 911 if we have been robbed or shot, but under country A the person would have to pay their police officer before he can even help them. Thats not right. Therefore if it's easier to get away with crimes, crime will become much more rampant.
Obviously without a govt you cannot have a military or any form of defense since no one would be able to fund it. Therefore any country in the world could simply walk in and start to take over without even trying. This would be the beginning of one nation which would oppress it's ppl who are not "perfect" and we'd see Nazism part 2 pretty much.

Because of all of this, I believe and I'm sure I'm not alone that democracy would provide the highest quality of life. Not everyone is capable of self-governing, and as human beings we have become accustomed to helping our fellow man. The world Doug describes is just as primitive as any society you could find on Earth. And thats why we'll never see this put in place. And Doug will forever have to feel "caged" by his govt, which is treating him so horribly.

Stop complaining. Go live in an African country and see just how bad your life could be. And if you still feel it's worse here than there, than you seriously have some problems which I think should be addressed by a psychiatrist

[mosaik]

jim none of what you said has any basis. you clearly don't have any concept of economics or how the free market works. but since i don't want to be accused of arguing from intimidation like you all do, i will rebut your post.

the cost of ALL services/products would go down due to the increase in competiting firms. more firms would be allowed into the market due to the fact that without goverment regulations, starting a business would be far less expensive.

with more and more options for healthcare, the price would invariably drop as healthcare firms compete for customers.

again with education, more schools = lower prices. basic economics.

with the very rational idea that you must defend yourself in place, crime would fall to a minimum as every criminal would realize that his life would be in danger if he attempted a crime. each civilian would be armed and prepared to defend their own lives.

this gun culture would also allow our market-anarchist nation to defend itself from invaders.

it would work. and stop telling me to stop complaining - that's so fascist.

[faninor]

i also started thinking about how strong nationalism was in germany. and i asked myself why they were so proud.

1.) they had a great military.
2.) they believed that the german "aryan" race was superior to all other races on earth.
3.) they believed that they WERE germany. it wasn't just the place they lived, it was their mother. it was part of them. they would die for germany.

We do have a great military, but I don't see the second or third reasons having widespread similar counterparts in America.

now, don't they make you take the pledge of allegiance to the american flag in public schools down there? haven't they over the last decade or two driven it into your heads that america is not a country on it's own, it's a country of "you, the people?"

No, they don't. Where I live, the pledge of allegiance is done at the beginning of the first class on the first day of every week, but it has been years since I myself have participated. And it is not the last decade or two that the idea of America being a country of the people. We were founded on that idea.

america is the greatest counry on earth and their form of goverment is the greatest form of government on earth. and you the people ARE america.

STOP. Tell me at this point if you agree with that. BE HONEST.

No, I don't really agree with any of those.

[faninor]

Oh, and in several states it has been ruled unconstitutional to say the pledge of allegiance in school. So I think that it's on its way out of schools pretty soon.

[mosaik]

then you're one of the lucky ones

do you want to go to war? and did you take the libertarian test?

[starvingeyes]

the government you love so much kills people jim.

how about you start complaining.

[starvingeyes]

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0316-08.htm

Published on Sunday, March 16, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History
by Thom Hartmann

The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.

It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)

But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.

Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.

"You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.

Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.

Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.

To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn't had time to read the bill before voting on it.

Immediately after passage of the anti-terrorism act, his federal police agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and holding them without access to lawyers or courts. In the first year only a few hundred were interred, and those who objected were largely ignored by the mainstream press, which was afraid to offend and thus lose access to a leader with such high popularity ratings. Citizens who protested the leader in public - and there were many - quickly found themselves confronting the newly empowered police's batons, gas, and jail cells, or fenced off in protest zones safely out of earshot of the leader's public speeches. (In the meantime, he was taking almost daily lessons in public speaking, learning to control his tonality, gestures, and facial expressions. He became a very competent orator.)

Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage. He wanted to stir a "racial pride" among his countrymen, so, instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as "The Homeland," a phrase publicly promoted in the introduction to a 1934 speech recorded in Leni Riefenstahl's famous propaganda movie "Triumph Of The Will." As hoped, people's hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was "the" homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands. We are the "true people," he suggested, the only ones worthy of our nation's concern; if bombs fall on others, or human rights are violated in other nations and it makes our lives better, it's of little concern to us.

Playing on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international body that didn't act first and foremost in the best interest of his own nation was neither relevant nor useful. He thus withdrew his country from the League Of Nations in October, 1933, and then negotiated a separate naval armaments agreement with Anthony Eden of The United Kingdom to create a worldwide military ruling elite.

His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that he was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted in Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian faith across his nation, what he called a "New Christianity." Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared "Gott Mit Uns" - God Is With Us - and most of them fervently believed it was true.

Within a year of the terrorist attack, the nation's leader determined that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking the clear communication and overall coordinated administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing the nation, particularly those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus probably terrorist and communist sympathizers, and various troublesome "intellectuals" and "liberals." He proposed a single new national agency to protect the security of the homeland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single leader.

He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new agency, the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it a role in the government equal to the other major departments.

His assistant who dealt with the press noted that, since the terrorist attack, "Radio and press are at out disposal." Those voices questioning the legitimacy of their nation's leader, or raising questions about his checkered past, had by now faded from the public's recollection as his central security office began advertising a program encouraging people to phone in tips about suspicious neighbors. This program was so successful that the names of some of the people "denounced" were soon being broadcast on radio stations. Those denounced often included opposition politicians and celebrities who dared speak out - a favorite target of his regime and the media he now controlled through intimidation and ownership by corporate allies.

To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone wasn't enough. He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives of the nation's largest corporations into high government positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate coffers to fight the war against the Middle Eastern ancestry terrorists lurking within the homeland, and to prepare for wars overseas. He encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire media outlets and other industrial concerns across the nation, particularly those previously owned by suspicious people of Middle Eastern ancestry. He built powerful alliances with industry; one corporate ally got the lucrative contract worth millions to build the first large-scale detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more would follow. Industry flourished.

But after an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices of dissent again arose within and without the government. Students had started an active program opposing him (later known as the White Rose Society), and leaders of nearby nations were speaking out against his bellicose rhetoric. He needed a diversion, something to direct people away from the corporate cronyism being exposed in his own government, questions of his possibly illegitimate rise to power, and the oft-voiced concerns of civil libertarians about the people being held in detention without due process or access to attorneys or family.

With his number two man - a master at manipulating the media - he began a campaign to convince the people of the nation that a small, limited war was necessary. Another nation was harboring many of the suspicious Middle Eastern people, and even though its connection with the terrorist who had set afire the nation's most important building was tenuous at best, it held resources their nation badly needed if they were to have room to live and maintain their prosperity. He called a press conference and publicly delivered an ultimatum to the leader of the other nation, provoking an international uproar. He claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense, and nations across Europe - at first - denounced him for it, pointing out that it was a doctrine only claimed in the past by nations seeking worldwide empire, like Caesar's Rome or Alexander's Greece.

It took a few months, and intense international debate and lobbying with European nations, but, after he personally met with the leader of the United Kingdom, finally a deal was struck. After the military action began, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told the nervous British people that giving in to this leader's new first-strike doctrine would bring "peace for our time." Thus Hitler annexed Austria in a lightning move, riding a wave of popular support as leaders so often do in times of war. The Austrian government was unseated and replaced by a new leadership friendly to Germany, and German corporations began to take over Austrian resources.

In a speech responding to critics of the invasion, Hitler said, "Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods. I can only say; even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in the course of my political struggle won much love from my people, but when I crossed the former frontier [into Austria] there met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators."

To deal with those who dissented from his policies, at the advice of his politically savvy advisors, he and his handmaidens in the press began a campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation itself. National unity was essential, they said, to ensure that the terrorists or their sponsors didn't think they'd succeeded in splitting the nation or weakening its will. In times of war, they said, there could be only "one people, one nation, and one commander-in-chief" ("Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer"), and so his advocates in the media began a nationwide campaign charging that critics of his policies were attacking the nation itself. Those questioning him were labeled "anti-German" or "not good Germans," and it was suggested they were aiding the enemies of the state by failing in the patriotic necessity of supporting the nation's valiant men in uniform. It was one of his most effective ways to stifle dissent and pit wage-earning people (from whom most of the army came) against the "intellectuals and liberals" who were critical of his policies.

Nonetheless, once the "small war" annexation of Austria was successfully and quickly completed, and peace returned, voices of opposition were again raised in the Homeland. The almost-daily release of news bulletins about the dangers of terrorist communist cells wasn't enough to rouse the populace and totally suppress dissent. A full-out war was necessary to divert public attention from the growing rumbles within the country about disappearing dissidents; violence against liberals, Jews, and union leaders; and the epidemic of crony capitalism that was producing empires of wealth in the corporate sector but threatening the middle class's way of life.

A year later, to the week, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia; the nation was now fully at war, and all internal dissent was suppressed in the name of national security. It was the end of Germany's first experiment with democracy.

As we conclude this review of history, there are a few milestones worth remembering.

February 27, 2003, was the 70th anniversary of Dutch terrorist Marinus van der Lubbe's successful firebombing of the German Parliament (Reichstag) building, the terrorist act that catapulted Hitler to legitimacy and reshaped the German constitution. By the time of his successful and brief action to seize Austria, in which almost no German blood was shed, Hitler was the most beloved and popular leader in the history of his nation. Hailed around the world, he was later Time magazine's "Man Of The Year."

Most Americans remember his office for the security of the homeland, known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and its SchutzStaffel, simply by its most famous agency's initials: the SS.

We also remember that the Germans developed a new form of highly violent warfare they named "lightning war" or blitzkrieg, which, while generating devastating civilian losses, also produced a highly desirable "shock and awe" among the nation's leadership according to the authors of the 1996 book "Shock And Awe" published by the National Defense University Press.

Reflecting on that time, The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983) left us this definition of the form of government the German democracy had become through Hitler's close alliance with the largest German corporations and his policy of using war as a tool to keep power: "fas-cism (fbsh'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

Today, as we face financial and political crises, it's useful to remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power and prosperity.

Germany's response was to use government to empower corporations and reward the society's richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and create an illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding war. America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced anti-trust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests.

To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is again ours.

[mosaik]

good article up until the last little bit.

[starvingeyes]

come people open your fucking eyes!!! look at this:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Prime ... 30318.html

Detaining Iraqi Sympathizers
Concerns About Al Qaeda, Iraqi Terrorism Prompts High Alert

March 18
— With the nation back on high alert and officials warning that terrorists may already be planning major new attacks, ABCNEWS has learned the government will begin detaining dozens of suspected Saddam Hussein sympathizers in at least five U.S. cities this week.

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge today cited the danger of attacks by Iraqi agents in the United States and overseas when he announced the national threat level was moving from yellow, or "elevated," to orange, which means "high."
Government officials fear Iraqi agents may have slipped into the United States in advance of the impending military conflict. They did not provide details on the identities of the suspected sympathizers or where they are.

"Iraqi state agents, Iraqi surrogate groups, other regional extremist organizations and ad hoc groups, disgruntled individuals may use this time period to conduct terrorist attacks against the United States and our interests either here or abroad," Ridge warned.

In a bulletin obtained by ABCNEWS, the FBI said Iraqi agents have the expertise to "construct sophisticated improvised explosive devices."

Iraqi agents are also "inconsistently competent" at a variety of terrorist tactics, the alert said, including "assassinations, armed assaults, hijackings, kidnappings, and bombings."

Al Qaeda ‘Probably Preparing Attacks’

The FBI alert — which was sent to thousands of law enforcement agencies around the country — also warned that Osama bin Laden has used the possibility of a U.S. war with Iraq as a rallying cry for terrorist attacks. It said al Qaeda could use an attack to claim it was defending Muslims in Iraq against the United States.

The alert warns that al Qaeda is probably preparing new offensives that could include chemical and radiological attacks, according to sources who revealed the bulletin to ABCNEWS.

"The U.S. intelligence community believes that terrorists will attempt multiple attacks against U.S. and coalition targets worldwide in the event of a U.S.-led military campaign against Saddam Hussein," it says.

"Al Qaeda may be in the last stages of planning for large-scale attacks," it says. "There are many recent indications this planning includes the use of chemical, biological, and/or radiological materials."

It cites the recent discovery of traces of the toxin ricin — an easily made poison for which there is no cure — in a London apartment linked to terror suspects, as well as evidence of al Qaeda's interest in cyanide and other poison gases, and so-called dirty bombs.

"Al Qaeda's interest in cyanide and other poisonous gases, and reporting that the group would use them in enclosed spaces, suggests the group may attempt to employ such weapons in buildings or in aircraft or in subway or railway cars," the bulletin says.

Much of the alert echoes language used by Ridge in announcing the nation's elevated threat level, and the plan to keep the nation safe, dubbed "Operation Liberty Shield." It and Ridge cite reports in recent months of suspicious activity around military facilities, ports, waterways, bridges and American symbols and landmarks.

"The intelligence community expects al Qaeda to attack targets that offer the best combination of mass casualties, symbolism, economic damage, and psychological impact," the bulletin warns.

Disrupted But Still Deadly

Although intelligence officials believe the capture March 1 of senior al Qaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed could seriously undermine the terrorist network, al Qaeda operatives may have well-developed plans that are ready to be launched. These operations may have already received approval and funding from the group's leadership.

"There is the certainty that terrorists will attempt to launch a multiple attacks," said Cofer Black, a State Department counterterrorism coordinator and former CIA official.

Ridge announced today that security measures would be stepped up at borders, ports, airports, oil and nuclear facilities, among other possible targets of terrorist attack.

"Because of these very comprehensive, very coordinated efforts, America is ready," Ridge said.

Officials will also take additional steps to safeguard financial institutions and government computer networks and to prevent tampering or contamination in the food industry.

Ridge also warned of terror threats from Iraqis and others inspired by an attack on Iraq.

Asylum-seekers from Iraq and 33 other countries will be held for background checks under the new measures — a step defended by Ridge today.

Unprecedented Precautions, From the White House to Beverly Hills

Under "Operation Liberty Shield," several federal agencies are taking new precautions, among them:

Increased security is present at potential targets around the country. Some streets in Beverly Hills, Calif., have been shut down. Flight restrictions have been imposed over cities including Washington and New York City, and also over Disneyland and Disneyworld. Around-the-clock armed guards are watching over some synagogues.

Every "high-interest" vessel arriving or departing from American ports will have armed Coast Guard sea marshals on board, closely watching the ship's crew and ensuring that it makes its port call safely. The Coast Guard will enforce security zones in and around critical infrastructure sites in key ports. The agency has recently called up 3,000 reservists to help the operation.

In the nation's capital, White House tours have been suspended and pedestrian traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue has been banned.

More agents and patrol units will be monitoring borders and Customs officials will increase screenings of vehicles.

State governors have been asked to provide more police and National Guard forces at select bridges and railroad companies will be asked to increase security measures at major facilities and rail hubs. Private railroad companies will also monitor shipments of hazardous materials.

The Department of Agriculture is urging producer companies to increase its security measures, inspect all vehicles and monitor all visitors to their facilities.

From Orange to Yellow to Orange

The alert level was first raised to orange or high alert on Feb. 7 and was lowered to yellow or "elevated" on Feb. 27, in part because of the end of the Muslim hajj holiday. High alert also prompts additional security measures at public events, restricted access to some facilities, and increased coordination among federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.

That alert prompted anxious Americans to stock up on water, food and supplies such as duct tape, to seal off rooms in case of a chemical attack.

[Odin]

the cost of ALL services/products would go down due to the increase in competiting firms. more firms would be allowed into the market due to the fact that without goverment regulations, starting a business would be far less expensive.

with more and more options for healthcare, the price would invariably drop as healthcare firms compete for customers.

Are you sure? Of course competition would drive prices lower I'll have to agree with that. But lower than it is right now? In a healthy economy the situation would drive prices to it's equilibrium, which is the maximum profit for the corporations. I personally trust our government and believe health care is actually below this equilibrium line, or else what's the whole point of health care?

And I personally think that the world has less government control than you think. I thought corporations actually have a large say on the government, corporations may control the government more than government controls them. Of course, these are from what I hear, I can't prove anything so don't quote me on this and just say "prove it", as most people do on this "Somewhere To Unwind (politics) forum".

And I agree that democracy doesn't represent the entire population and this is a problem, John Stuart Mill said that already in On Liberty. But until we can find a better governing system, this might be the best working system (forgot who posted this). And to have an anarchaic society you must presuppose that everyone has as high moral standard as you do. I personally don't believe in morals. Morals is a compromise and a generalization of human behaviour and action. Take killing for example, Ayn Rand said that the notion of good and evil is metaphysical, killing is intrinsically wrong according to the objectivist ethics. I disagree, first of all, I believe I have every right to kill you and you have every right to kill me back. The compromise is you don't want to be killed therefore you agree in terms that we won't kill each other. The generalization is to suppose everyone does the same. That's essentially what defines morals. Secondly, you can't simplify situations like this, there are usually understandable reasons behind each action, once you completely understand a person's motive you cannot claim him responsible. Yet society constructed these laws that if if you kill you go to jail, in other words. "We sympathize your action! Yet for the greater good of society you must be punished!" Of course, to have an anarchaic system, you must first eliminated people like me.

And finally, I don't post here often. I hate politics but this involves more on morals and economics, that's why I post here. I am not interested in arguments and I will not respond to comments like "you're stupid".

[happening fish]

Chris... that first article you posted...

[Corey]

Odin, You're not stupid. You're very very intelligent.