What's your idea of a perfect society?

[pioneer]

well, that is not too surprising.

all of these are your opinions I'm assuming based on stuff you've read on the internet and were not there to witness. In importance to this forum my point was that even people on the extremes of belief in diet tend to all be sourcing the same crap off the internet and come to entirely different conclusions. for instance. a.) the government is taking my child because its vegan and the government doesn't want people to be healthy. ditto raw milk, almonds, spinach etc...is this conspiracy or is it the same old truism that people fear what they don't understand, and sometimes are right?

as for being the closet thing to perfect , I can give a few reasons why I disagree.

for one the very idea of public space is nullified by libertarianism as far as I understand. I don't know exactly what the protocol or tradition would be to such a system but that would mean all national parks, water systems in private hands. The very 'predicament' (if one wishes to see it that way) we are in has much to do with the original 'Robber Barrons' and the like influencing politics because of how the system is set up..making it very much less democratic right? So the goals seem to be very much in line with that. less government, and more importance to the market and what makes money. not what human interests are. Its just like with schools where when they do not have money (due to faulty government I admit) they cut all the things that are not seen as important. Corporations run these ways worse. All the media elements bring more 'surface' to our freedoms but the reality is as long is there is there would be too much power and greed it doesn't matter what the in between medium or government is, particularly in regards to 'knowledge' acquired though these information outlets.

also the fact is, is that many services people use in the modern world are just not profitable to be run completely privately. that might not be important to you and me on the surface, but people do need public transportation and other public services and cannot depend entirely on charities etc..Whether alopatheic medicine is useful or harmful, the fact is - is that people people do lose their homes because of insurance messes, so that is a real concrete thing, not something to be disputed endlessly in theory or to claim people should take responsibility for themselves, as if it is that easy.


the problems with democracy are fairly obvious to any intelligent person, but such a system actually removes the very process to create democratic uprisings ala the 'libertarian' forefathers. no public spaces, no public body, no unions etc...its basically a nightmare, and my belief is many people get sucked into these theories in much the same way (due to some inner dissatisfaction) its been suspected that the 'commies' went for the artists and the creative types. thinking openly means generally assuming the opposite of what anyone tells you that has something to gain, and this applies just as much to those without power as those that do.

I'm not sure I am getting you point in the second paragraph. We are not moving towards less government, we are surely moving towards collectivism and fascism. You have to see that, right? We have been indoctrinated by all sources of information (media, news, etc...) with the notion that collectivism is ok, and a good thing. And I do realize one of your points. It's true that government's power is nothing compared to the power of the federal reserve and more elite parties that fund it. However, its the whole principle of the matter. The idea that we shouldnt make decisions for ourselves and government (or another power) should make decisions for us because we are either too stupid, busy, or lazy to do it. And your right, democracy sucks because of this point: The groups freedom depends on the individuals freedom, and vice versa. If the individual is at stake, so is the group.

[KD]

I'm not sure I am getting you point in the second paragraph. We are not moving towards less government, we are surely moving towards collectivism and fascism. You have to see that, right? We have been indoctrinated by all sources of information (media, news, etc...) with the notion that collectivism is ok, and a good thing. And I do realize one of your points. It's true that government's power is nothing compared to the power of the federal reserve and more elite parties that fund it. However, its the whole principle of the matter. The idea that we shouldnt make decisions for ourselves and government (or another power) should make decisions for us because we are either too stupid, busy, or lazy to do it. And your right, democracy sucks because of this point: The groups freedom depends on the individuals freedom, and vice versa. If the individual is at stake, so is the group.

yeah, I can see that comes from the handbook but the truth is, is that even though the current government is geared towards policies driven by corporate influence into vast directives and intrusions, that is only because that is the way power works and what powerful people want. No matter what lies people spew, the fact is, having very limited government would be preferable to many corporations and their agendas are still their agendas either way. The government is merely the medium. the more you decentralize it, it sounds great in theory, but you just have factions that thrive as those that would suffer. This is how you get things like massive urban decay and ghettoizing of society, because anything undesirable and inefficient gets thrown by the wayside. in terms of those less than capable and their results and quality of life, that sounds more akin to fascism to me.

I actually think that is the whole point of government. people don't know how to run/do/understand everything themselves, and doing so has no benefit in running their lives, so you put other people in charge that like that sort of thing. makes sense to me. I don't want to wake up and think about my water and sewage systems, go out and try to fix roads myself, home-school my children when other people are way smarter than me just because I am totally paranoid about my water, city, and children. I'd rather live in a world of ignorance, but luckily I can see all the marvelous opportunity through all the other demented speculation while being fairly educated to the real issues that most people totally gloss over. Its basically a huge smoke screen IMO.

[pioneer]

I actually think that is the whole point of government. people don't know how to run/do/understand everything themselves, and doing so has no benefit in running their lives, so you put other people in charge that like that sort of thing. makes sense to me. I don't want to wake up and think about my water and sewage systems, go out and try to fix roads myself, home-school my children when other people are way smarter than me just because I am totally paranoid about my water, city, and children. I'd rather live in a world of ignorance, but luckily I can see all the marvelous opportunity through all the other demented speculation while being fairly educated to the real issues that most people totally gloss over. Its basically a huge smoke screen IMO.

Haha, I know that man. That is all government's purpose. What I mean is when they are stepping in things they shouldnt be. Gov is just meant to provide services for the people, nothing more. But, I do understand your point, government is not all that powerful, it is the corporations and organizations with all the money. That is why there needs to be a regulator over corporations and organizations. There needs to be more laws imposed on them and limiting the power they can have. The topic of this discussion is also a pipe dream. There can never be a perfect society as there will always be people who dont favor it. It's like if everyone had the same power, the scumbags wouldnt be happy. Not everyone can be happy, that is democracy's dilemma. If a perfect society means everyone is happy, that would mean it would be okay for murderers to do as they please.

[KD]

heh, well it sounds obvious, but some people literally don't get how costly basic infrastructure is nevermind how much things can turn to shit without certain social programs short of building even more prisons. If there was no money and no real standards for building and running things it could be way worse than Uncle Sam. think McDonalds building electric dams and Captain Crunch inspecting meat. No one seems to be doing much about Monsanto and co, but certainly the only way that will ever happen is through a third-party worldwide organization. there is no way to stop stuff like that otherwise without centralization.

The idea of regulating anything seems to be very much antithetical to libertarian and republican ideologies as I understand them. The basic principle I gather is that unrestrained capitalism will provide the best solutions for all provided there are very elementary rules on personal property. since the whole foundation of ills of society are essentially those beginning with lock-and-key style property and exploitation of resources and population, it becomes sort of counter-intuitive that the pursuit of property and the protection of property should be the founding principles of a perfect society. Granted that experimental attempt to provide for all without property don't work out so well either. I think the reason ultimately is that people don't know how to behave when the status quo fluctuates between abundance to dearth due to artificial conditions thus requiring control. But even prior to that in nature there will always be hierarchies and unfairness. The idea that there are governments, religions etc... to restore some (potentially false sense of) fairness again makes perfect sense to me. I see these things as neither good nor bad.

There are of course plenty of bad and nefarious things going on, but often there are also situations where people step in on varying degrees of the spectrum and get things done. wind farms, bike baths... It depends how your are defining services (and I believe implying basic). If one wants to get conspiratorial, personally I think since corporations + government are the source of most of the havoc that causes people to suffer, it only makes sense that people that have profited from the very mechanisms that make money should pay for other peoples crap from toxic water, power lines, cheap foods etc... No one makes money independent of that system no matter how pure of their activity. If there was no power lines, there would be no systems analysts etc..Theres a pretty simple reason why people from poor areas get 'brainwashed' into the democratic ideology. Whether its equally corrupt or not, its pretty obvious there isn't alot to feel responsible for tons of crap that you had pretty much have no option to do anything about from birth onward.

[PaleoPhil]

Based on Tyler's continuing claims that I'm motivated by and advocate some blindly utopian emulation of a "noble savage" utopian ideal, rather than do what works for me (see my signature), and just in case KD or anyone thinks that I believe in a libertarian form of utopia or any kind of utopia, I'll reiterate that I'm skeptical of ALL utopias and don't advocate any. I'm also not an ideologue, which is one of several reasons why I left the Libertarian party (of the USA)--I encountered too many zealous ideologues for my taste. I do still have some libertarian leanings, but they don't at all resemble what KD has been posting about--not that he meant to imply that.

[sabertooth]

That seems to be the voice of the doomed, there is nothing to do but centralize the power under a world authority to make sure the waters are not poisoned and the education is not brainwashing, no wait its already happening. most westernized countries get their public schooling curriculum's from the same UN think tanks and everything is moving toward homogenization. I was in the government education camps and was force feed the lies and intentionally dumbed down with the masses. I learned the truth way before the internet through books I camped out at the public library, lived like Quasimoto and talked to radicals while reading veraciously, some of my newer views have been inspired by internet conspiracy but the core of my resistance was born long before, anyone ever read Dumbing us Down, or the history of education in the United states, there are well documented facts about how the industrialist controll the thoughts of the public by indoctrinating the youth in public schools, as well as monopolizing the media outlets, this is happening,some may claim it serves some utilitarian purpose of the greater good,but I don't like being lied to for my own good ,like some child. I am not ignorant of the possibility that it may  not be in the best interest for everyone to wake up from the lies and some people belong to the spirit of ignorance,but I shouldn't have to be a part of it if I chose to. There should be a way for passive Resistance and "civil disobedience"


My main wish is to be allowed to live as my great grand father who had 27 acres in the holler dug his own well an was a naturalist who taught people how to live of the land .Really the water is not fit to drink and our current schools are conformist factories and as the bastard son of the bitch named liberty I wish to at least have the right to opt out of the grand scheme and leave the best layed plans of mice and men(the perfect society) for my rabbit hutches and the company of a more tribal community. what is being done now with the over reaching authority and the nannystate government will prevent people from the choice of non compliance. You will submit and if you don't like the reservation that's being built and try to run out like Geronimo then they will take you out.

Does anyone know what is happening right now there are laws that will go into effect that will force you to buy government insurance and be forced into getting yearly physicals and from that point on the bureaucracy will decide what chemicals your body needs from birth to death. Do you know what type of power that is, wither or not you believe in the miracle of modern medicine you must agree that the type of power being consolidated is scary. If you are environmentally poisoned and see a government doctor he may tell you its all in your head and give you some mind poison and tell you to go away, it happend to me at the local health department. All this disease people are suffering is being written off by the medical establishment who are only interested in treating the symptoms and once absolute control is achieved through world wide universal healthcare WHO knows what nefarious population controls could be pushed through. The framework is being built right now with all the money that was hiested in the 2008 crash(completely orchestrated like the great depression) is being used to set up these monstrous power grabs, now whether or not that is good or bad for the peasent man like myself may be up for debate, but for that debate to happen we must know that we have been robbed and the supposed saviors are going to save us with our stolen loot. Its the globalist that are playing the old robin hood scam.(Just some crazy mans soapbox ranting, don't mind the man behind the curtain)

[KD]

hmm, ok phil, once again here's a situation I don't remember singling you out in any way. I'm sorry you are having domestic issues with Tyler at the moment but I don't see how that has much to do with me. If I had a single point it was that the idea of true 'freedom' (the good the bad and the ugly) of nature is not made easier or more accessible by a libertarian agenda. This is a fantasy and it only tries to mimic this by having a survival of the fittest type of mindset which I actually believe is a simplistic way of seeing nature itself . This is propagated by vast amounts of artificial wealth that is inherently based in others suffering and subjection to trickery and has little to do with the actual reach of government. The zealous and hypocritical, hypercritical and cynical/paranoid behaviors are enough of a red flag for myself as well, and see no problem with picking certain aspects of those philosophies as long as one understands that there are indeed radical fallacies to much of it as with any other system. Right now after years of these kinds of arguments on health forums I personal DO NOT believe it is by any means the best of all evils, and gave like 2% of the reasons why I think that is. Like you, I don't think that makes me right or any authority on these issues or that my mind doesn't change.


sabertooth: AFAIC the waters are already poisoned and certainly > 99% of people are ignorant of >99% of most things and yes the history books are not accurate and all this other crap. Massive restructuring and change in mass consciousness and POLICY is needed and not individual enclaves of ultra zealots raised in christian summer camps jerking off to Ronald Regan.  I think you are right that the individual should have the right to pursue truth if that is what they desire, and certainly there are many truths out there to choose from. The point is, is that radical is not summed up by being intellectually oppositional, it requires actual solutions and progress. IMO Kennedy was the radical and Nixon was not, just my perspective. The health insurance thing I agree has alot of nefarious sounding elements, but you got to understand these are also the same kind of information attack generated from 'the opposition' to stall and block such legislation that people simply don't want to pay for and that makes up the most of it. The fact is the majority of libertarians are not RPD dieters and do believe in conventional treatments they just don't believe they should pay for other peoples psychotherapy or whatever and the conspiracy stuff is really just fuel. The fact is is that I find this view of humanity to be pretty repulsive, and goes way beyond my personal choices for politics. Again when it comes to choosing between compassionate idiots and a bunch of yahoos who bomb abortion clinics I choose idiocracy. When it comes down to me being forced to do what doctors say, then I'll be on the lines with you my  friend. But let me point out that this is an extreme dissolution of personal liberty and although there have been some stripping of constitutional freedoms recently, most cases have come from the right in terms of the patriot acts, abortion legislation, right to suicide etc...

[PaleoPhil]

hmm, ok phil, once again here's a situation I don't remember singling you out in any way.

And once again I didn't think you were singling me out. I thought I took sufficient pains this time to make that clear when I wrote "not that he meant to imply that." So I don't understand where you're getting this.

I'm sorry you are having domestic issues with Tyler at the moment but I don't see how that has much to do with me.

I wasn't trying to make any connection between you and Tyler and I don't understand where you're getting that either. I was just pro-actively clarifying my views so no one would misunderstand them as Tyler has in the past, but it looks like I need to do still more clarification here. You're comments were vague and didn't specify who you were referring to, and given how many of my posts have been repeatedly misrepresented in the past by Tyler, I wanted to make sure there was no misunderstanding here--not that you specifically necessarily misunderstood them, but with this thread going in a decidedly more negative tilt, I figured it best to take the precaution. If you don't want me to make such clarifications then I hope you don't mind if I ask you to please specify in the future who you are directing your critical comments to--and then I may not need to clarify.

To further reiterate--I didn't take your comments as necessarily directed at me and didn't take any offense. My post was not directed only to you or anyone one single person. It was just a proactive clarification for all in case anyone misunderstood me, as I've been surprised at how misunderstood my posts have been at times and think I may need to clarify them more, especially when discussing what appear to be hot button topics. I hope this clarifies things and I hope you understand that I have only good and peaceful intentions.

I'm not sure I understand the rest of your remarks, but I try not to get into political philosophy discussions too much in diet forums other than to note interesting connections like the unusual number of libertarian-leaning people among the Paleo crowd and wonder what might be behind it (and I'm not saying that libertarians are the majority among Paleos or anything like that--just that there seem to be more libertarian-leaning people among the Paleo crowd than in the general population). If I want to thoroughly discuss politics I go to political forums or chat with friends about it who I know won't take offense if I disagree with them on politics. Politics and religion tend to be hot button topics--that I knew before I joined this forum. The forum is already divided enough as it is between LC vs. higher carb, raw dairy vs. no dairy, lots of fruit vs. little or no fruit without adding political divisions, so I prefer to continue to steer clear of political philosophy debates here for the foreseeable future.

[sabertooth]

Its obvious if we cant form an agreement among paleo dieters as to the perfect society them we are doomed when it comes it incorporating the rest of humanity. I harbor no resentments toward the uncompasonate nature of human beliefs or Ideals. I Just want my rabbit hutches please George tell me about the rabbits.(of mice and men)

The picture is to big for us to discuss on realistic terms and I believe we are at a crossroads in this thread, where none of us is going to have a Revelation anytime soon. but feel free to ramble on. I just feel that some of my points are being missed and being confronted with exaggerated fantasies about that sexy Mr Reagan.Most of my extreme views are based on the belief that unless the people are engaged and educated about the possibility that tyranny will rise again, then it will rise again.

So if I go out on a limb and say something stupid just remember at least we still have the right to say the wrong things and you can breath easy because if I am still free enough to talk crazy then we are all free to speak rationally. I don't mean to be repulsive but I believe without the bad and the ugly there cant be any good, I prefer to be the ugly because without the ugly the good wouldn't have any body to to fight the bad with.  

It is a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart,
you wise men don't know how it feels to be thick as a brick,
How can anyone speak for the common man
or even assume rational superiority to his backward supperstitions, I agree with Tyler that as soon as you try to civilize a savage with a foreigner Ideal you make a wreck of the bruit you are tring to help, That's why we are tribal in nature and not Hive insects, there was a day when the egos in the society's got into conflict the societies split, only now with societies of millions this is no longer feasible, so we have to find ways to live and let live, its not paleo mans perfect society by any stretch.

The power is bigger than all of us to perceive, but that doesn't mean we are powerless in our own lives and any Ideal must be lived in our personal lives so who out there is going to attempt to achieve something great, and lead by example the way to the perfect society.

[pioneer]

Its obvious if we cant form an agreement among paleo dieters as to the perfect society them we are doomed when it comes it incorporating the rest of humanity. I harbor no resentments toward the uncompasonate nature of human beliefs or Ideals. I Just want my rabbit hutches please George tell me about the rabbits.(of mice and men)

The picture is to big for us to discuss on realistic terms and I believe we are at a crossroads in this thread, where none of us is going to have a Revelation anytime soon. but feel free to ramble on. I just feel that some of my points are being missed and being confronted with exaggerated fantasies about that sexy Mr Reagan.Most of my extreme views are based on the belief that unless the people are engaged and educated about the possibility that tyranny will rise again, then it will rise again.

So if I go out on a limb and say something stupid just remember at least we still have the right to say the wrong things and you can breath easy because if I am still free enough to talk crazy then we are all free to speak rationally. I don't mean to be repulsive but I believe without the bad and the ugly there cant be any good, I prefer to be the ugly because without the ugly the good wouldn't have any body to to fight the bad with.  

It is a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart,
you wise men don't know how it feels to be thick as a brick,
How can anyone speak for the common man
or even assume rational superiority to his backward supperstitions, I agree with Tyler that as soon as you try to civilize a savage with a foreigner Ideal you make a wreck of the bruit you are tring to help, That's why we are tribal in nature and not Hive insects, there was a day when the egos in the society's got into conflict the societies split, only now with societies of millions this is no longer feasible, so we have to find ways to live and let live, its not paleo mans perfect society by any stretch.

The power is bigger than all of us to perceive, but that doesn't mean we are powerless in our own lives and any Ideal must be lived in our personal lives so who out there is going to attempt to achieve something great, and lead by example the way to the perfect society.

Don't worry, like you sabertooth, many, including I have faith in freedom and the common man rising up. Like I said before, the notion that just 2% of the world knowing what we know is enough to overthrow tyranny. Don't forget, many people like some above seriously believe all hope is lost and there is nothing we can do about it. So they simply throw up their hands and say I surrender. Good for them, if they are too lazy to do anything about not only themselves, but their family and future generations than I say congratulations, thanks for leaving this earth doing nothing for your brothers and sisters when you had the chance.

Also, I was not insulting you about the 911 conspiracy. I was just saying be careful what you say because nothing is fact until proven so.

The system has to be set up so tyranny can not happen. There will always be a level of duality in politics. There will always be good guys and bad guys, but the system has to be set up so ultimate power can not occur. More regulations on the power of corporations and big industry. Last but not least, to get to the real heart of all this, secrecy and deception must be forbidden. That is after all why we are all duped into following a bunch of corrupt, self serving banking clowns and becoming serfs in the first place. Ron Paul wanted to abolish all the secrecy. There should be strict, enforceable rules on secrecy. That is really the big issue. As long as nothing is kept secret, the people will always have the most power. And if they know what's going on and choose not to do anything about it, well, thats their own fault. However, we all live in a sad time where we all think we are at fault. Yes, partly, but a bunch of wise guys behind closed doors planning depressions is whats really going on. They knowingly allowed mortgage loans to be sold to just about anyone.

[majormark]

If I had a single point it was that the idea of true 'freedom' (the good the bad and the ugly) of nature is not made easier or more accessible by a libertarian agenda. This is a fantasy and it only tries to mimic this by having a survival of the fittest type of mindset which I actually believe is a simplistic way of seeing nature itself .
..

It does not seem like you know much about libertarianism, judging from the above assumption. I suggest you at least check out some of the free books from freedomainradio.com to get a better perspective on it.

Secondly, your points regarding public services have been addressed in the video I previously posted.

The system has to be set up so tyranny can not happen. There will always be a level of duality in politics. There will always be good guys and bad guys, but the system has to be set up so ultimate power can not occur. More regulations on the power of corporations and big industry. Last but not least, to get to the real heart of all this, secrecy and deception must be forbidden. That is after all why we are all duped into following a bunch of corrupt, self serving banking clowns and becoming serfs in the first place. Ron Paul wanted to abolish all the secrecy. There should be strict, enforceable rules on secrecy. That is really the big issue. As long as nothing is kept secret, the people will always have the most power. And if they know what's going on and choose not to do anything about it, well, thats their own fault. However, we all live in a sad time where we all think we are at fault. Yes, partly, but a bunch of wise guys behind closed doors planning depressions is whats really going on. They knowingly allowed mortgage loans to be sold to just about anyone.

I don't know much about Ron Paul but it seems that Stef does not view him as a very consistent libertarian. I have to check it out.

If you know more about him, maybe you can confirm if the criticisms in this video are valid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCF_Hh_YFtA

Also I heard that your constitution is written more like a religious book and is quite fuzzy in some places, so relaying on an ambiguous document is kind of illogical to me. I'll have to read it when I have more time.

My view is that, as we discover the truth about the immorality of the state, we can not pretend to play along because this means that we lie to ourselves.

 The idea that one day a CCTV or sat camera may catch you and your kids eating raw meat and as a consequence you could get arrested for "poisoning them" is not very pleasant. Your kids  would be put on a "healthy grain diet" recommended by all knowing state approved doctors and the world will say "justice has been made". The only way we can prevent the that from happening is we can stop fooling ourselves in order to  believe in statist propaganda as if that will protect our freedoms.

[pioneer]

Also I heard that your constitution is written more like a religious book and is quite fuzzy in some places, so relaying on an ambiguous document is kind of illogical to me. I'll have to read it when I have more time.

No, not at all. The US founding fathers were very strong believers of god. So yes, I would have to say many of the principles in the constitution are based on those of god. But do not mistake religious principles as any different than the correct moral and ethical principles of man. Sure, there are other sides of the story about religion causing violence, but that side of it was not used in the constitution of the United States. The United States Constitution is the greatest single US document in history. To not uphold it would surely degrade US citizens values and lead to fascism. It basically gives people god given birth rights. Hell, if it wasnt for the constitution, Martin Luther King would have not had a powerful cause. Maybe there would still be injustice towards blacks today in the US. MLK based everything off of the constitution and declaration of independence. "To these truths hold evident, that all men are created equal." That comes right from the constitution. These documents were written by noble and honest men. They fought for a republic form of government, the single best government ever created (has been shown numerous times in history).

Quite fuzzy in some places? Well mostly no, but in some ways yes. Take the 16th ammendment, taxation on income. This ammendment was taken advantage of by the Federal Reserve and IRS to tax citizens income. There really is no law stating that our incomes can be taxed. Maybe if the 16th amendment was more clear they would not be able to get away with it.

The constitution basically gives all US citizens birth rights and freedom. Taking away amendments would corrode these rights/freedoms. Also, the reason why the US is becoming more of a fascist country is because of the movement towards negligence and ignorance of the constitution.

Oh, and Ron Paul is not libertarian, he is Republican, but takes a libertarian stance. Nobody votes for libertarians, and voting for them takes away from the republican party, I think that is why he is republican. Ron would be a better US president than any other that walks up there, because he clearly would not just be another puppet. That is what they all are. You guys thought bush was bad, obama is just as bad, if not worse. This is because it does not matter who is president. Presidents are just used by corporate and banking interests. Presidents are just communicators. They have no real say in most issues.

[pioneer]

Watched the video, and this guys is British so it explains a lot. He does not know the constitution for what it's worth. He says that Ron Paul supporters want to restore the constitution, thus going back to the early 1900 state of less women's rights, less immigrant acceptance, less racial rights. This is wrong in every aspect, especially for the reasons I said in my previous post. If the constitution did not defend races, MLK would not have been able to use it to completely liberate blacks. The constitution also defends women, giving them the right to vote. The guys is just arrogant, without any logic or fact behind his motives. America was bad in the early 1900's but lets not forget, the constitution never was abided by definitely. The constitution is a document full of laws yes, but it is also a document which we US citizens use to move towards freedom. Not everything written in the constitution is followed, in fact we are moving away from it. Less immigrant acceptance, less womens rights, less racial rights, are not goals of the constitution, but merely goals of an oligarchy wanting to control its' people. The constitution defends all of those groups rights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzaLP9dTXhE

Here is one of the most influential videos I have ever seen. It explains how the US is run by bankers and we ARE slaves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg

[KD]

It does not seem like you know much about libertarianism, judging from the above assumption. I suggest you at least check out some of the free books from freedomainradio.com to get a better perspective on it.

give me a break mark, I used my own words to discuss the kind of MENTALITY implicit in libertarian thinking. If these arn't the sole descriptions of everyone's mindset, so be it. The point is the whole philosophy is both naive in its expectations of what creates order, what is required for a complex system to move forward AS A COMPLEX SYSTEM (and not a few's fantasy of a way of life), and most importantly what is actually realizable in the near future. Since the latter point I believe is primary, the largest and most unfortunate result in people's obsession with such thinking is blockage and obstruction of any progressive policy that involves government. As I said it poisons peoples minds about issues from minimum wage to immigration which DO affect people in the here and now. Particularly if one has any honest (non self-centered) kind of of 'paleo' or return-to-nature type mindset, it makes very little sense for those who have accumulated wealth from such a system that exploits and poisons others (if one believes this) to have some sort of right to maintain their freedoms through wealth while others merely have the 'opportunity' to achieve freedom from impossible circumstances and existing lack-of wealth. Since as I already said (and as outlined by Daniel Quinn and others) the very nature of lock-and-key style ownership and production->profit is the cornerstone off ALL ills of society in its removal from natural nomadic behavior in the life-cycle, and requires no secret societies or complex campaign finance debacles to cause tremendous amounts of damage to the planet and human nature.

 Any philosophy which talks about the protection of property and pursuit to freedom when their is clearly limited resources and possibility to have time and space to be free, is clearly coming from someone who has something to lose by sacrificing some of that freedom towards others. Yes, alot of it is valid frustrations in how those resources are used and this is not to say that all the other criticisms towards the existing systems in terms of efficiency or deviousness are not correct, only that other such philosophies (such as black and white thinking) could be potentially more devious and damaging. The reality is that despite the cahoots with government and big business that have created such problems, only governmental bodies are capable of preventing and potentially preventing sprawl, environmental damage, further distorting of our food supply to list a few relevant examples to those who wish to be healthy, never-mind a numerous list of those who are 'trapped' in more dire circumstances. Left without regulations, there is no way to facilitate a 'market' for such healthful living if those industries still have the grasp on information dissemination and is yet another fantasy of how such systems would eliminate poverty and poor products. like I said, very little of this stuff NEEDS to pass through a government at all.

So in that, despite the fact that you gave no response as to why I might be 100% wrong and instead gave bunch of references (again without even picking points from) i'll have to assume that the chapters go something like this.
Chapter 1.) Our government today is exactly what the founders of democracy wanted. Chapter 2.) Larger the government, larger the benefits. Chapter 3.) The government is to be trusted implicitly and taxation is the perfect expression of peoples wish to participate in government. etc...

Is this correct? surely its the opposite of what I understand so far. and may warrant checking out this book after all. It seems to me, you (like many "libertarians") are the one talking about some kind of mish-mash of political criticism, rather than a functional system of government that would serve as a replacement. Despite the fact that you are not American, I don't see why you are referring me to some kind of contemporary manifesto, when you haven't even glanced at the Constitution doesn't bode well either.

please, if I am 100% wrong , let me understand in your own words that there is 0 connection between libertarianism and Social Darwinism.

[majormark]

KD,

You actually believe that proposing "a functional system of government that would serve as a replacement" would work? Libertarianism proposes no government because a government is just immoral.

I tried to read your constitution but just could not go further than the part about taxation. I think no constitution is better. How can some dudes locked in a room think they have the moral right to steal from everybody by just writing it on a piece of paper and putting some lipstick on the pig by calling it taxation. Seriously, if you don't believe that taxation is stealing than I would like to know your definition of stealing.

I still recommend you actually get informed about libertarianism before you say it's naive. This is also because I don't want to write pages after pages to explain libertarianism to you. Maybe I will, but right now Champions League is starting lol.

And, pioneer, I did not have time to check those videos yet but I will say this: the fact that Stef seems arrogant or English to you is just a statement of personal preference and not a valid rational argument against his ideas. It's his ideas and moral integrity that I'm interested in actually.

[sabertooth]

I was actually going to take a view that the liberty movement is a counter balance to the social Darwinist ,now If you believe the fact that 99% of all animals are genetically dead ended and that only 1% is allowed to thrive and evolve, then you may assume that the top 1% elite of humanity who take social Darwinism seriously, may try to suppress the other 99%, and also there is about 3% active Resistance by the nobility of the lower classes(the sons and daughters of liberty) that are trying not to be dominated. The two sides of the conflict are the main catalyst that are responsible for forming the social structure of the world the other 96% have to live in.(my take on social Darwinism)

I was hoping to see more people actually commint on the zeitgeist movie I think that you should watch it major M an KD, If you really want to understand the true magnitude of some of the most profound Revelations in the world. I watched it a year ago and it set my mind free, at first I began to tell everyone about the issues the movie brings to light, but eventually discovered that people don't want to know how terrible the whole thing is( the turning away)

Sometimes I think that if KD and others with his good nature and rational mind would watch it, he may begin to understand what the liberty movement people speak for, Its not just the 3% of us humans lucky enough to live as the pampered house servants of tyranny, we speak for the 97% of the worlds people that live under abject tyranny. Half the people of the world live on less than a dollar a day, and people in internet land don't often realize the true magnitude of the empires controll over the third world and how there are policy's that were made to keep the have nots from rising up to the good life, this is a fact, Just watch the zeitgeist and tell me whats not accurate about it. It is a work of art that gives a perspective of truths that are hard to deny.

Its solutions given by the futurist are not perfect by any means, but its food for though. The core principle being that if technology was set free from the chains of monetary confinement, then man could build academy's of free people who could form a new society using the full potential of human technology to eventually reach that star trek version of the future( may be far fetched but its food for thought) If technology was fully harnessed then there would be no scarcity of resources, because the machines could produce anything free of human cost and therefor property would lose its value and there would be no motivation for people to hoard, cheat, steal, engage in war.(its a pipe dream worth dreaming about)

I believe it is the(common sense) of the internet age, please watch the 2 hour movie Zeitgeist if you want to know how and why people like me and pioneer have these views about the reality of tyranny. Most of the worlds people already live under the control of tyrannical elements, that's the truth. It is self centered to deny whats going on in the rest of the world while claiming that the tyranny is being exaggerated. Without the issues in the zeitgeist being understood and addressed  the there will be no way to build a better society.            

[majormark]

...
I was hoping to see more people actually commint on the zeitgeist movie I think that you should watch it major M an KD, If you really want to understand the true magnitude of some of the most profound Revelations in the world. I watched it a year ago and it set my mind free, at first I began to tell everyone about the issues the movie brings to light, but eventually discovered that people don't want to know how terrible the whole thing is( the turning away)[\b]
...

I think people already know but they are more comfortable living the illusion that they are actually free. It is too painful to admit it and, if they are relatively sane, they have spent their entire mental development period accepting or painting nice contradictory beliefs that allows them to live with it.

Now, here is what are the best possibilities/alternatives, in my opinion (presented in my own words as KD suggested):

1. A system of government where taxation is replaced by donations.
2. A voluntary society where property/money do not exist and people share the resources.
3. A libertarian society, based on the non-aggression principal, were property/money exists and people are only following rules/contracts that they personally agreed with.

I think the absolute best society would be the 3rd option because that would allow for competition to regulate markets, to maximize human's potential for creativity in solving complex social or economic problems. In short it would allow the maximum progress that humanity could achieve and it would create an environment where humans are motivated to express their creativity for good purposes.

The problems that I see with other concepts of society are the following:

For the government one, the very fact that giving a small group of people the power to control weapons and to give laws is like asking for trouble. The great progress with taxation being replaced by donations would come from the fact that the people would simply choose not to pay if government would pass ridiculous laws that people do not agree with.

At this moment I think this could be a way to transition to libertarianism, therefore supporting people who have the intention to minimize government's power and give more freedom of choice to people sounds like a good idea. I'm not convinced that R. Paul would be a good representative for that, but even if he is supporting a constitution (which is in fact a piece of paper) it seems like a better idea to endorse him if he is willing to reduce all laws to that paper. I'm not saying to endorse such a person from a moral perspective, of course, but from a "less evil" one.

As for the voluntary, common property society idea (which I believe the zeitgeist movie is promoting), it sounds good too. The only flaw would be that people are not really that motivated for progress in such an environment since there is no notion of property and competition would be pretty much pointless. I believe that humans are more motivated by the possibility to conquer/hunt for something intellectual or physical and this kind of society would not provide a valid way to address that basic need.

There is also a logical contradiction in this society. Do you see what is it? If not, can you share your kidney with me? You don't own it, after all.


PS: My current libertarian thinking trend is not new. I was never interested in politics or agreed that taxation is ok. I always viewed politicians as a bunch of notorious liars (which is what they are), but I did not think about possible solutions, until recently.

[sabertooth]

I agree with your third option but it is only feasible under an honest money system, which is what the founders wanted but never got.

Mayer Amschel Rothschild    

"Give me control of a nation's money
and I care not who makes the laws."

as long as these vipers hold the power over money, no progress will be made.

I also agree that the technocratic utopia would easily be taken over by the scientific tyranny and create the brave new world of Aldous Huxley, so I am not to much of an advocate for such a federation.

[KD]

if you had actual read The Constitution or any of the great political books of history, Rousseau, Thomas Paine, etc...you will realize that government was indeed absolutely necessary to leverage RELATIVE freedom over tyranny. The very existence of the world in all its good and evils is proof of this as no actuall feats are possible without collectivity and sacrifice or individuals personal desires for a greater 'good'. It is irrelevant in this specific discussion how these things can be distorted or perverted. Despite this fact you want to make these ridiculous claims, as without the constitution there would be no 'land of the free' but merely a collection of post-revolutionary enclaves that would have been utterly destroyed and under someone else's thumb again. such is life. Despite the fact that it has been pushed under the rug that medieval serfs actually worked way less hours than modern peoples, the fact is they had way less freedoms than even the evil matrix threat encompasses our 'limitations' today. If you want to go beyond the typical libertarian criticism of our current political system into outright anarchy or anarcho-capitalism go ahead, you''ll find even less peers there because the reality is most libertarian people when pressed about it care dick about anyone and are fearful of lack of base governmental systems (prisons, police) etc..that will protect their re-written social contract.

your thoughts on taxation etc.. are basically textbook and naive, sorry. I said outline something practical and doable in the foreseeable future, that didn't affect every persons minds with paranoia and reactionist thinking as I say from things like minimum-wage (stealing) public-transpiration (environmentally friendly...but stealing from those who don't wish to use it) to court systems, roads, research, the arts, education (unnecessary, DIY, stealing, Stealing/useless) etc...

to me, you really articulated nothing of use to me, or of indication that I don't know anything about libertarianism. In fact, you are advocating something that is not libertarianism at all, at least as it is defined here in the states.


sabertooth: I have seen all the zeitgeist and zeitgeist esq films I care to see. My 'rational mind' refuses to get sucked into such base criticality and blame of others and to appreciate that my slavery stint could be fairly less fun served in Siberia or mining diamonds in the Sudan. Other than that you make some good points and I appreciate your desire to save others, but the likelihood is its not going to happen by advocating policies which in themselves will not happen.

[majormark]

KD,

It seems that you would rather play along with the current system and are not interested in rational arguments. It is than pointless for us to debate about libertarianism.

And, to stay on topic, let us know your ideas on how to improve human society (if you believe that it's on an adequate structure) or how to create a better one.

[sabertooth]

In those isolated inclaves of the colonial America the spirit of freedom was allowed to grow unchecked by the old worlds empire, an ocean separated people like Thomas Paine from the tyranny he wrote about, I have studied their personal lives and many of them were misanthropes that dwelt in hermitages and may not of been the Ideal people, as for the midevil serf some of them enjoyed a much freer life than the colonial Americans but because authority didn't have an ocean between the slave and master, they had to learn to live on some terms of mutual agreement and many people enjoyed the fruits of life liberty and the pursuits of happiness before the libertarians came on the scene, what I am saying is that its all to big to scholastically put into a trite perspective.

All I wish is for some protective enclave of my own were I can live without giving support to the imperialist that are indeed using our collective wealth to inslave the third world, where to draw the line is the real question here, should I go to Waldon pond and renounce the worldly life or should I pay the Mafia for protection and enjoy the fruits of its illgotten wealth,  each man must discern his own path. My people did suffer at the hand of the empire and we have also been beneficiaries of its graces, so its very complicated. I am only advocating for a more just slave master, I don't mind working my 9 to 5 and paying taxes as long as I feel that I can still be able to have some representation and be given the right to chose my individual slave masters (mob bosses)

What happened to the Jimmy Hoffa's of the world. The flesh in blood of the people deserve more consideration than the current Establishment is capable of providing and we need to let our voices be heard as well as be able to make the difficult compromise of freedom for security and materialistic prosperity

[pioneer]

You guys all make great points, but lets get down to the dirt here and think of both sides of the story. KD, you are absolutely right about government being needed. Also, I hope nobody falsely misinterpreted my governmental status. I believe that government is absolutely essential for  free society. Without government, there is anarchy and chaos, obviously. However, the real question comes with how much power the government is supposed to have. It certainly needs enough power to be effective, but not so much that collectivism is a result. I think many of you guys view government as the bad guys, especially major mark. However, just like blaming the president is a red herring, so is blaming the government. The real guys behind the scenes with all the money and power who are funding the operations are to blame. I.e. bilderberg group, CFR, Federal Reserve, Wall street, IRS. These guys are truly the corrupt ones.

KD I like how you said how not everyone is out to get us. We all need to be reminded of this fact. Many times people just are afraid of what they dont know. I am willing to bet that over 70% of the people supporting the new world order with rockefeller and such are absolutely oblivious to what they are participating in. The top 5% of the elite absolutely know what they are doing. These top 5% justify their cause to their puppets supporting it, and many times even delude them into thinking they are doing the right thing. In other words, the most of the people working for the corrupt corporations we speak of are deluded into thinking they are actually doing the right thing. However, the top guys absolutely are full aware of what they are doing and need to be taken out (should've been an assassin).

Anyway, yes government is needed, but not to the extent it is in today. And anyway the government is in debt to the federal reserve. We all need to recognize that what we are seeing today is a result of corporations and big business, not government. Major Mark, the constitution is the epitome of American freedom. It also literally can predict the future. Thomas Jefferson warned that since corporations were not on the constitution, they would come to power and corrupt. This has been happening for over 100 years in the US and is getting worse. If we do not stand for liberty, and justice we are slaves.

And the zeitgeist ammendum is very influential, but not everything in the movie needs to be taken literally. The first half makes great points with facts about our corrupt system. I agree that the system needs to be changed. However, his atheistic views unfortunately showed his self opinionated side. He basically wants a world with no religion, which is just his opinion. Their venus project is a good dream, but an illogical idea in the long run. They actually think that there can be a society with no laws. Where people can do as they please. The best thing the movie does is expose truths about corruption and inspire people to think and dream about a good society. However, for a realistic society, we will need to come up with something more.

Good points the venus project made about their dream society:
No monetary system= In the near future, money will be irrelevant due to the constant inflation (they cant keep printing money out of thin air forever). No monetary system would allow us to fulfill our full potential and do things for the good of humanity.
no gap in socioeconomic status( 90% of prisoners come from low socioeconomic environments)
Encourages the world to not be divided, but to come together in peace

I have come to the conclusion that there does need to be a new world order. We all hear those words and think of it being bad, but it is only bad if it only benefits a few. A new world order is inevitable whether we like it or not. It might as well be in the right direction. I dont think we can keep thinking of our countries as divided anymore either. With nation's division, there can never be a just and fair world. Zeitgeist does not speak of the population issue as well. Surely it is a problem on both sides of the story.

[KD]

It seems that you would rather play along with the current system and are not interested in rational arguments. It is than pointless for us to debate about libertarianism.

yup, must be a statist! pathetic.

Mark, all of your 'arguments' are simplistic pipe dreams and/or have not responded at all to specifics and even insulted my knowledge while presenting little. All my responses have to do with the gritty unfortunate reality that society has never functioned in the way you speak, so who is being irrational? The problems originate with property, not with government and anyone with any understanding of traditional peoples should know this. You could not improve on a HG society by instituting a 'not-government' of libertarianism where certain parts of the tribe could achieve extreme levels of wealth by exploiting others resources unfettered by law or god and altering their landscape and the life-cycle. Conversely, It is a complete falsity that would create such a similar habitat or dialogue like HG peoples by removing government, as it just creates more of a playground for humanities worst vices and control-dramas. The idea of ownership of land while others have no land, food, no access to hunting, fishing, and clean water, and being able to not pay for others suffering and compensation far fits my definition of stealing. If others could give two shits and arn't coerced to doing something about thw worlds ills other than their own sense of morality and charity, Should I praise the fact that I am free to clean the waters and repopulated the forests with a dustpan and an eyedropper? Seems like I would choose having others pay for that stuff right now rather than have the 'freedom' that you and others speak of. I've slept outside before and it ain't no picnic. freedom isn't always what it is cracked out to be.

Also btw, there ARE people that do not pay taxes for political reasons, they are called political tax protesters. There are some of which who havn't paid taxes due to and since the Vietnam War successfully. If this was any other era, or we were actually speaking about the mafia or any other overblown comparison, you would have your neck slit for not paying tribute, so to me thats progress. Its very easy to feel boxed in or stuck in the 'matrix' like realization of how we are not free, but the situation in the day to day is very freeing with the right mindset.

Since you don't actually want to engage in any actual issue you or I presented, I'll just say that the idea of donation based 'governance' and policy is completely unprecedented, even prior to systems of taxation. Please show me a 'rationalization' by stating that you yourself have donated money towards others education, health needs, retirement, and societal infrastructure and I will agree that no one has a right to 'steal' from you. Or is your income too held back from our evil and inefficient system for you to be so generous? Assuming the system you like is implemented and the world doesn't become a place of infinite wealth and progress in libertarianism, if one is merely making ends meet, do you think they will 'donate' >10% of their 'wealth' to build a bridge 50 miles away? The one who is in denial is surely not the person that knows both sides of this discussion well, but one who acts on internet propaganda and their inherent sense of dissatisfaction for what the world owes them, quite ironic for a take on liberty. Since for whatever reasons (anger, poor self-esteem, nothing better to do, whatever) people are driven to such nonsense quite frequently in these kinds of communities, I'd say my take is more radical than you think. Alot about these ideas is appealing even to myself but it is ultimately wrong when one actually considers the evidence instead of allowing others to think for you simply because they arn't the talking heads on C-SPAN.

by example I meant something like this:

- a libertarian community is created within a larger system (most plausible occurrence) on some kind of island/peninsula
- everyone makes their living on some kind of agriculture/livestock and some high tech type jobs outsourced to the statists.
- they insist on being 100% sustainable, so they will export goods but not buy them from outsiders.

if some people actually wanted the freedom to go to the other parts of the world, they might in fact face
a.) tons of 'non-indoctrination' about how awful and wrong those other people are b.) obstruction if they wanted to build bridges and have economical transport for getting their which they did not intend on paying for themselves. c.) any other obstructions through disabilities and other such things. In short its a ghetto of who has economic means.

now, in the event of ANY disaster of man or nature (say a fire) destroyed all the food supply, and the only working currency is the products and services they provide, there is absolutely no charity or infrastructure to return on these peoples goods and services, and there is now no economy to actually provide for any repair. the result would be like corporations where someone else would come in and buy everything out, and you'd have to either move or work for them etc...how is this freedom or progress? wouldn't it make way more sense to just steal from the rest of the population into what amounts to .00000003% of their income to prevent these people's collapse/takeover? particularly if they offered some kind of product that benefited the larger economy. To me that is my understanding of a functional capitalism.

-------

If you want to hear my personal dreams, I'd say like with anything my goal for society would be small and short term improvements in policy. This would mean legislation that allowed for eventual massive revaluation of damage done through the environment and industrial products, probably would include higher taxes for the top 1% of people. On a local level it would be returning more arts, sports, and education like a greek style polis. Other than that, society seems to be alot better than it has been in previous centuries, alot more consciousness, alot more interesting things going on. I don't think they will be outlawing meat anytime soon so I am not really too concerned about any other poisonous stress people obsess about.

[pioneer]

yup, must be a statist! pathetic.

Mark, all of your 'arguments' are simplistic pipe dreams and/or have not responded at all to specifics and even insulted my knowledge while presenting little. All my responses have to do with the gritty unfortunate reality that society has never functioned in the way you speak, so who is being irrational? The problems originate with property, not with government and anyone with any understanding of traditional peoples should know this. You could not improve on a HG society by instituting a 'not-government' of libertarianism where certain parts of the tribe could achieve extreme levels of wealth by exploiting others resources unfettered by law or god and altering their landscape and the life-cycle. Conversely, It is a complete falsity that would create such a similar habitat or dialogue like HG peoples by removing government, as it just creates more of a playground for humanities worst vices and control-dramas. The idea of ownership of land while others have no land, food, no access to hunting, fishing, and clean water, and being able to not pay for others suffering and compensation far fits my definition of stealing. If others could give two shits and arn't coerced to doing something about thw worlds ills other than their own sense of morality and charity, Should I praise the fact that I am free to clean the waters and repopulated the forests with a dustpan and an eyedropper? Seems like I would choose having others pay for that stuff right now rather than have the 'freedom' that you and others speak of. I've slept outside before and it ain't no picnic. freedom isn't always what it is cracked out to be.

Also btw, there ARE people that do not pay taxes for political reasons, they are called political tax protesters. There are some of which who havn't paid taxes due to and since the Vietnam War successfully. If this was any other era, or we were actually speaking about the mafia or any other overblown comparison, you would have your neck slit for not paying tribute, so to me thats progress. Its very easy to feel boxed in or stuck in the 'matrix' like realization of how we are not free, but the situation in the day to day is very freeing with the right mindset.

Since you don't actually want to engage in any actual issue you or I presented, I'll just say that the idea of donation based 'governance' and policy is completely unprecedented, even prior to systems of taxation. Please show me a 'rationalization' by stating that you yourself have donated money towards others education, health needs, retirement, and societal infrastructure and I will agree that no one has a right to 'steal' from you. Or is your income too held back from our evil and inefficient system for you to be so generous? Assuming the system you like is implemented and the world doesn't become a place of infinite wealth and progress in libertarianism, if one is merely making ends meet, do you think they will 'donate' >10% of their 'wealth' to build a bridge 50 miles away? The one who is in denial is surely not the person that knows both sides of this discussion well, but one who acts on internet propaganda and their inherent sense of dissatisfaction for what the world owes them, quite ironic for a take on liberty. Since for whatever reasons (anger, poor self-esteem, nothing better to do, whatever) people are driven to such nonsense quite frequently in these kinds of communities, I'd say my take is more radical than you think. Alot about these ideas is appealing even to myself but it is ultimately wrong when one actually considers the evidence instead of allowing others to think for you simply because they arn't the talking heads on C-SPAN.

by example I meant something like this:

- a libertarian community is created within a larger system (most plausible occurrence) on some kind of island/peninsula
- everyone makes their living on some kind of agriculture/livestock and some high tech type jobs outsourced to the statists.
- they insist on being 100% sustainable, so they will export goods but not buy them from outsiders.

if some people actually wanted the freedom to go to the other parts of the world, they might in fact face
a.) tons of 'non-indoctrination' about how awful and wrong those other people are b.) obstruction if they wanted to build bridges and have economical transport for getting their which they did not intend on paying for themselves. c.) any other obstructions through disabilities and other such things. In short its a ghetto of who has economic means.

now, in the event of ANY disaster of man or nature (say a fire) destroyed all the food supply, and the only working currency is the products and services they provide, there is absolutely no charity or infrastructure to return on these peoples goods and services, and there is now no economy to actually provide for any repair. the result would be like corporations where someone else would come in and buy everything out, and you'd have to either move or work for them etc...how is this freedom or progress? wouldn't it make way more sense to just steal from the rest of the population into what amounts to .00000003% of their income to prevent these people's collapse/takeover? particularly if they offered some kind of product that benefited the larger economy. To me that is my understanding of a functional capitalism.

-------

If you want to hear my personal dreams, I'd say like with anything my goal for society would be small and short term improvements in policy. This would mean legislation that allowed for eventual massive revaluation of damage done through the environment and industrial products, probably would include higher taxes for the top 1% of people. On a local level it would be returning more arts, sports, and education like a greek style polis. Other than that, society seems to be alot better than it has been in previous centuries, alot more consciousness, alot more interesting things going on. I don't think they will be outlawing meat anytime soon so I am not really too concerned about any other poisonous stress people obsess about.

Well, be careful what you say (knock on wood) because they currently are now trying to sell meat made in laboratories from cloning fat and flesh. They are trying to get FDA approval. KD, I do like how you voice your opinion, and you do make some points. However, I do not agree with your undermining of people who are involved. Sure, we do recognize that the world is better than it ever was in history. Is, or did anyone even argue that in discussing this topic? Why did you bring that up. There is no need to talk down on those of us who are involved because we are concerned citizens. I hope I am not taking you out of context, and I hope that is not what you meant. Remember, every overthrow of tyranny in history (in every civilization) was accomplished by the watchdogs, or people like us. Just because we are aware of what is going on and suspicious of government and big corporations does not make us delusional. Conversely, we are being more rational that the average 90% of the population sitting their asses on the couch popping statin drugs because they were convinced by a commercial that they should (humorously) lower their cholesterol.
What makes your opinions better than anyone elses on here to give you the arrogant authority to say all of our notions are simplistic pipe dreams. You are constantly contradicting yourself in that you say this is an open discussion, yet you talk down on all of our ideas. We are not idiots, we realize our ideas are merely good dreams. So is your idea of a perfect society. This discussion was meant to be a collaboration of intelligent thoughts, not a thoroughly drawn out on paper idea. Im sure your idea is not a well thought out idea, which you have used logics and history from influential figures and some how put it all together; so dont judge us for throwing some suggestions out there either. It takes decades to come up with a logical idea of a perfect society. And many of you are missing this basic fact that your individual ideas don't matter when looking at the broad spectrum of cultures out there. There can never be a "perfect" society because what's a perfect society in Russia is not the same in the US, or Iraq, or indonesia, etc...

[KD]

Pioneer, your previous post had tons of great points but the problem you are going to find yourself in is that despite the fact that your views are not 'moderate' they would certainly be overpowered by either extreme that obtained power. This probably the main factor in why people leave/burn out from that movement, because its a house of criticisms and judgments rather than solutions. You can see this division even within this small selection of RPD dieters so you can see how it would be worse on the larger scale of 'meme' uptakers. People do in-fact believe we are approaching the worst tyranny and all this other nonsense, I think that is fairly self explanatory and present philosophy without my need to prove it here. No matter how much 'liberty' is in the role against the 'increasing socialist fascism' or whatever nonsense, you have behind that spectrum a whole group of people intending on dictating how others will live. Religion is just one piece. It has also been stated that there is no need for government, which is not at all what libertarians believe as you point out and as I've said multiple times. The reason that it is important is these distortions affects how people view all the little political decisions, I won't repeat those again as I don't want anyone to feel stupid.

this is a discussion forum, its my opinion if we are going to talk reductvism, we begin by both scientific and traditional models, instead of what we wish was correct based on our distortions of reality, like veganism, which I cannot dissociate from libertarianism.