Silk Road forums
Discussion => Off topic => Topic started by: DSiddious on May 12, 2012, 01:20 am
-
From governments point of view we are statistics. We were born on x, we died on y. What has it got to do with them what we do along the way?
-
control, and profit. x is when we are born, y is when we die. but, z is how much money they make off of us in between. more control, directs us to buy their product, instead of someone elses, making z look more like Z.
-
From governments point of view we are statistics. We were born on x, we died on y. What has it got to do with them what we do along the way?
How do you think governments are funded?
That's right ... taxes.
That's what makes YOU important to them. Any commerce that goes on within their sovereign territory, they feel they deserve a piece of the action. So think of what happens in an underground market bazaar. It's unregulated trade where they miss out on the action.
This gets them very pissed off. They like controlling commercial channels, not getting pwned by them.
-
taxes are just a small percentage of what they get. politicians take in funds from big corporations to fund campaigns. taxes are thrown around in voting years, to get the hoopleheads confused. those donations that put politicians in office, aren't free. laws are then created, based on what said ceo's want, not what the general public wants. then politicians leave government, go into the private sector, make their own donations to new canidates, and the cycle continues.
-
Misery is a business. The government couldn't actually give two shits about keeping people off of drugs, they simply want to keep people on their drugs. They invent a new bullshit psychological disorder every day it seems. The guys in charge want to pump everyone full of anti-depressants and have them carry on with their boring cookie-cutter lives unquestioningly. It's all a business move. The people with the power to end the war on drugs DO know that it's a total failure, and they are perfectly aware that many of these substances are not even harmful to the human body. They just don't care. People having access to recreational drugs, especially those that don't cause bodily harm, is just bad for business. Imagine what it would do to the people on wall street if suddenly people started realizing that there is more to life than saving up to buy a slightly smaller and more glossy version of the same cellular phone every year?
They want to bleed us dry. The "What right do you have to regulate what I put in my own body" argument, while completely valid, falls on deaf ears. If something exists that will stray people away from pumping their money into big business, the suits in charge will try to take it away from us.
-
exactly. there is no longer a war on drugs. it's a war on personal freedom. first was alcohol, and that failed miserably. then, war on drugs. also a huge failure, but they play the game for the private prison complex. gotta fill those new jails somehow. now it's a war on information, with world wide internet bills trying to pass. they have already taken most of the world's guns, but here in america, firearms are next on the agenda. and i won't even get started on how scary the homeland security and patriot acts are. that just leads to conspiracy theories, and if you won't read them for yourself, there's no need to give me a tinfoil hat. ignorance is bliss, but it isn't my drug of choice. unfortunately, it is the masses.
-
Well said. How did you manage to get so much negative karma? Player haters on these forums
-
i kept getting neg karma for stupid joke posts. so i started a campaign this morning, with an end goal of getting 100 neg karma points in the next month, just for the lulz.
-
exactly. there is no longer a war on drugs. it's a war on personal freedom. first was alcohol, and that failed miserably. then, war on drugs. also a huge failure, but they play the game for the private prison complex. gotta fill those new jails somehow. now it's a war on information, with world wide internet bills trying to pass. they have already taken most of the world's guns, but here in america, firearms are next on the agenda. and i won't even get started on how scary the homeland security and patriot acts are. that just leads to conspiracy theories, and if you won't read them for yourself, there's no need to give me a tinfoil hat. ignorance is bliss, but it isn't my drug of choice. unfortunately, it is the masses.
A man after my own heart. Well spoken sir!
Funny how the Democrats hemmed and hawed over the patriot act, and with their years in power, they did nothing but give it an extension.
-
taxes are just a small percentage of what they get. politicians take in funds from big corporations to fund campaigns. taxes are thrown around in voting years, to get the hoopleheads confused. those donations that put politicians in office, aren't free. laws are then created, based on what said ceo's want, not what the general public wants. then politicians leave government, go into the private sector, make their own donations to new canidates, and the cycle continues.
Yeah but I think the original question was why "governments" care about their citizens any more than statistics. Special interest money that goes toward funding elected officials in public office is only one small part of government. There are vast bureaucracies within government and career officials whose positions have nothing to do with elected office.
-
ron paul has some personal religious opinions, that tend to make me laugh at him. but, in the political arena, i wish the media wasn't black balling him. he is a true constitutionalist, and really wants to radically change this country, back to where it should be. i don't think that will happen. but, at least his son is in the senate, and might be able to carry the tourch. some of his views are laughable as well, but again, he's an advocate of personal freedom, and small government. these two beliefs need to spread like wildfire. fuck religious opinion. any assclown that gets on a religious soapbox for governmental campaigns doesn't deserve a vote. church and state are suppised to be seperate.
-
but here in america, firearms are next on the agenda.
I have a hard time believing this sentiment, but otherwise agree with what you said. The second amendment is enshrined in the constitution and i've seen NOTHING in recent years to support the claim that any politician is scheming or is remotely capable of amending the constitution to remove this right. Not to mention it would be impossible to pull off given the power the NRA has as a de facto blackops lobbying force in Washington. It's not going to happen. And politicians of all stripes are too concerned with their own survival to dare crossing the NRA and thus have been kowtowing to them for years. More often than not, I see this theory pushed by self serving gun store owners wanting to maximize profits and many of their diehard patrons instilling a little paranoia that the gov is going to take away your guns so you might as well stockpile them now. Total bullshit afaic.
-
but here in america, firearms are next on the agenda.
I have a hard time believing this sentiment, but otherwise agree with what you said. The second amendment is enshrined in the constitution and i've seen NOTHING in recent years to support the claim that any politician is scheming or is remotely capable of amending the constitution to remove this right. Not to mention it would be impossible to pull off given the power the NRA has as a de facto blackops lobbying force in Washington. It's not going to happen. And politicians of all stripes are too concerned with their own survival to dare crossing the NRA and thus have been kowtowing to them for years. More often than not, I see this theory pushed by self serving gun store owners wanting to maximize profits and many of their diehard patrons instilling a little paranoia that the gov is going to take away your guns so you might as well stockpile them now. Total bullshit afaic.
They don't have to appeal the second amendment to cut its nuts off. Are you aware the US government just contracted to purchase TRILLIONS of rounds of ammunition.
What is the reason for this? I'll tell you, guns are not much better than baseball bats with out ammo. No ammo and the second amendment is pointless. Also, many models of handgun are on back order and wont be able to be sold retail for sometime.
A buddy of mine in the Marines says that they have been doing practice drills of raiding homes of registered gun owners to confiscate their weapons. This would not only be against the 2nd, but in violation of posse cometatus (sp? my Latin has never been worth a damn) as well.
-
ron paul has some personal religious opinions, that tend to make me laugh at him. but, in the political arena, i wish the media wasn't black balling him. he is a true constitutionalist, and really wants to radically change this country, back to where it should be.
Problem is that the libertarian ethos Paul and his son ascribe to in practice would NOT change the country back "where it should be". He believes in total private sector control of markets with NO government interference or regulation. Do you have any idea what implies?
What do you think Wall Street would do without the SEC to regulate them? If you want the country to return to the 19th century when corporate monopolies and their private pinkerton militias controlled commercial industries, then yeah, Ron Paul and his radical laissez-faire economics will do that. But the country didn't begin to become a global economic force until guys like Teddy Roosevelt came in and busted up all the monopolies to encourage market competition. Without gov regulation, just like the abuses that would happen in wall street, that would give corporations the green light to collude and price fix while ignoring safety regulations and employing child labor to produce their products as cheaply as possible to maximize profit. It would be a disaster.
-
i see your point. but, in reality, we became a country because we didn't want to pay taxes. we told england where they could stick their control agenda. if we had kept a well organized militia, to keep the government's agenda our interest, we wouldn't be in the shit storm we are now.
i love my country. and i love our constitution. but, in allreality, it is no longer worth the hemp it was written on.
-
They don't have to appeal the second amendment to cut its nuts off. Are you aware the US government just contracted to purchase TRILLIONS of rounds of ammunition.
What is the reason for this? I'll tell you, guns are not much better than baseball bats with out ammo. No ammo and the second amendment is pointless. Also, many models of handgun are on back order and wont be able to be sold retail for sometime.
A buddy of mine in the Marines says that they have been doing practice drills of raiding homes of registered gun owners to confiscate their weapons. This would not only be against the 2nd, but in violation of posse cometatus (sp? my Latin has never been worth a damn) as well.
Yeah yeah, I've been hearing that line about the gov attempting to starve the population of bullets right after the last pres election and its shown itself as nothing but bullshit. I've never had a problem with buying ammo. Think about the source and motives when you hear stories like that. Who benefits? The gun industry because it throws conspiratorial loons into a frenzy of buying despite no facts to cite in support of such claims.
And as far as your marine buddy, I've been hearing stories like that since Clinton was in office but ZERO factual evidence that any operation has ever occurred where the government attempts en mass to confiscate guns. I have no doubt that LE and members of some of the armed forces do train on disarming legit gun owners, but I've seen nothing to suggest that this is anything more than preparing for situations specific to circumstance where a registered gun owner involved in a sting or hostage situation would need to be taken out. Again, total bullshit propaganda pushed by willing tools of the gun industry. There are no extra-constitutional powers that allow the government to get away with large scale confiscations like that. Again, it would require a change in the constitution, which would be impossible given the circumstances.
-
They don't have to appeal the second amendment to cut its nuts off. Are you aware the US government just contracted to purchase TRILLIONS of rounds of ammunition.
What is the reason for this? I'll tell you, guns are not much better than baseball bats with out ammo. No ammo and the second amendment is pointless. Also, many models of handgun are on back order and wont be able to be sold retail for sometime.
A buddy of mine in the Marines says that they have been doing practice drills of raiding homes of registered gun owners to confiscate their weapons. This would not only be against the 2nd, but in violation of posse cometatus (sp? my Latin has never been worth a damn) as well.
Yeah yeah, I've been hearing that line about the gov attempting to starve the population of bullets right after the last pres election and its shown itself as nothing but bullshit. I've never had a problem with buying ammo. Think about the source and motives when you hear stories like that. Who benefits? The gun industry because it throws conspiratorial loons into a frenzy of buying despite no facts to cite in support of such claims.
And as far as your marine buddy, I've been hearing stories like that since Clinton was in office but ZERO factual evidence that any operation has ever occurred where the government attempts en mass to confiscate guns. I have no doubt that LE and members of some of the armed forces do train on disarming legit gun owners, but I've seen nothing to suggest that this is anything more than preparing for situations specific to circumstance where a registered gun owner involved in a sting or hostage situation would need to be taken out. Again, total bullshit propaganda pushed by willing tools of the gun industry. There are no extra-constitutional powers that allow the government to get away with large scale confiscations like that. Again, it would require a change in the constitution, which would be impossible given the circumstances.
If the supply of ammo hasn't drastically decreased, why has the price drastically increased in the last few years? Ammo is so much higher than it was a decade ago. I can understand why rounds the military uses have gone up, we've been at war. But EVERYTHING has gone up, even .22.
-
i see your point. but, in reality, we became a country because we didn't want to pay taxes. we told england where they could stick their control agenda. if we had kept a well organized militia, to keep the government's agenda our interest, we wouldn't be in the shit storm we are now.
Not that we didn't want to pay taxes. The Boston tea party was over "taxation without representation". If taxes are going to be paid, then settlers wanted autonomous representatives in government to advocate for their interests. They were fed up that they lacked representation in governing decisions while having no choice to buy taxed products from the British East India company.
-
right. please forgive my generalizing. i've had a few beers for the first time in months, and i'm typing from my phone's touch screen. so i'm being a bit lazy. but at the end of the day, all the government, or wall street cares about, is money. worthless pieces of paper. that at one time was backed by a shiny rock. but even still. who cares. greed, and sloth, and lust of the former have ruled long enough.
-
But who here has by choice or by oath swore allegiance to a state? I have, and i meant it. But if you haven't then who says your liable to say... pay tax's. Anyone out there actually ever give a choice of wanting to be part of their little system or was it just forced upon us on birth.
-
The supply of ammo wouldn't need to drastically decrease for ammo prices to go up. If you understand supply and demand, the price is also sensitive to an increase in demand. Obama's election had a HUGE affect on demand from gun loons thinking he was going to take away their ammo. It affected the price then, just as it's affecting the price now and is bound to affect the price more should he be re-elected.
Also, the effect on supply from being at war is not going to only affect he price of rounds that are used by the military. The same materials are used in the manufacturing process for ammunition whether they're used for military issue or not. Scarcity in material used to produce ammunition because of massive increase in demand from going to war is going to affect the entire industry, not just specific rounds.
-
But who here has by choice or by oath swore allegiance to a state? I have, and i meant it. But if you haven't then who says your liable to say... pay tax's. Anyone out there actually ever give a choice of wanting to be part of their little system or was it just forced upon us on birth.
honestly, i look out for myself, and a few people i call friends. for the most part, it would thrill me to see this planet explode, and open a wormhole for a more deserving race of intelligent life to use our sun's energy to pass through. so, no. i have never sworn allegiance to any organization.
-
But do you know what happens if everything breaks down, people no longer believe in the idea of a government. I think we have something i like to to call Anarchy. Which is a thing bad btw. So in a way we rely on the government to be a "guiding force" if you like to tell us right from wrong. So if we need it why should we no adhere to their rules?
-
right. please forgive my generalizing. i've had a few beers for the first time in months, and i'm typing from my phone's touch screen. so i'm being a bit lazy. but at the end of the day, all the government, or wall street cares about, is money. worthless pieces of paper. that at one time was backed by a shiny rock. but even still. who cares. greed, and sloth, and lust of the former have ruled long enough.
np. i get like that sometimes. :)
But seriously, the reason everything's been going to shit is because of the amount of special interest money to lobby lawmakers to enact laws that aren't in the best interests of the country's citizens, as you touched on in your original post. If a politician ever has enough balls to get the corrupting influence of corporate cash out of lawmaking then it has a chance of righting the ship. But it's questionable whether a politician that had such balls would be even able to survive the smearing, character assassination, intimidation, or even real assassination attempts should they attempt to reform the corporate lobby.
-
But do you know what happens if everything breaks down, people no longer believe in the idea of a government. I think we have something i like to to call Anarchy. Which is a thing bad btw. So in a way we rely on the government to be a "guiding force" if you like to tell us right from wrong. So if we need it why should we no adhere to their rules?
you are preaching to the choir sir. religion has too long told us we are in error of being what we are, and should seek forgiveness. and government was born out of this idea, to create order. evolution is coming. it's time for the next step. i'm just too tired to elaborate at this time.
-
jpinkman, i would +1 your karma if i could.
-
But do you know what happens if everything breaks down, people no longer believe in the idea of a government. I think we have something i like to to call Anarchy. Which is a thing bad btw. So in a way we rely on the government to be a "guiding force" if you like to tell us right from wrong. So if we need it why should we no adhere to their rules?
Because the "government" is always a work in progress, not a finished product. There will be antiquated ideas in destructive policies, such as the present War on Drugs, that require activism and tons of effort to mobilize the masses to demand a change in policy. Sometimes, even in a democracy, government does NOT represent the will and best interests of the people. And the demands of its citizens are sometimes best expressed by acts of mass disobedience and protest.
-
jpinkman, i would +1 your karma if i could.
As would I. :) Not sure what needs to happen for karma privs to kick in. I couldn't find any part of the help section that referred to it.
-
right. please forgive my generalizing. i've had a few beers for the first time in months, and i'm typing from my phone's touch screen. so i'm being a bit lazy. but at the end of the day, all the government, or wall street cares about, is money. worthless pieces of paper. that at one time was backed by a shiny rock. but even still. who cares. greed, and sloth, and lust of the former have ruled long enough.
np. i get like that sometimes. :)
But seriously, the reason everything's been going to shit is because of the amount of special interest money to lobby lawmakers to enact laws that aren't in the best interests of the country's citizens, as you touched on in your original post. If a politician ever has enough balls to get the corrupting influence of corporate cash out of lawmaking then it has a chance of righting the ship. But it's questionable whether a politician that had such balls would be even able to survive the smearing, character assassination, intimidation, or even real assassination attempts should they attempt to reform the corporate lobby.
Getting rid of one authoritarian dictatorship for another is all very well and good. But that does not solve the problem of corruption, greed etc. The problem is in human nature itself, we naturally want to get more "stuff" money, power etc. This is what we do and if any man says he would not do that then he is going against his own nature and their fore untrustworthy. I personally think it is impossible for a person in a position of authority not to do things in a certain way to benefit them personally. As long as they think of the greater good then let them get on with it.
-
right. please forgive my generalizing. i've had a few beers for the first time in months, and i'm typing from my phone's touch screen. so i'm being a bit lazy. but at the end of the day, all the government, or wall street cares about, is money. worthless pieces of paper. that at one time was backed by a shiny rock. but even still. who cares. greed, and sloth, and lust of the former have ruled long enough.
np. i get like that sometimes. :)
But seriously, the reason everything's been going to shit is because of the amount of special interest money to lobby lawmakers to enact laws that aren't in the best interests of the country's citizens, as you touched on in your original post. If a politician ever has enough balls to get the corrupting influence of corporate cash out of lawmaking then it has a chance of righting the ship. But it's questionable whether a politician that had such balls would be even able to survive the smearing, character assassination, intimidation, or even real assassination attempts should they attempt to reform the corporate lobby.
Getting rid of one authoritarian dictatorship for another is all very well and good. But that does not solve the problem of corruption, greed etc. The problem is in human nature itself, we naturally want to get more "stuff" money, power etc. This is what we do and if any man says he would not do that then he is going against his own nature and their fore untrustworthy. I personally think it is impossible for a person in a position of authority not to do things in a certain way to benefit them personally. As long as they think of the greater good then let them get on with it.
But you seem to missing the point of representative democracy, where it benefits the public servant elected to office to enact laws that benefit the people that elect him/her to office. It's therefore in the officials best interests to look out for their constituencies that elected them.
Nor is getting corporate lobbying money out of politics "replacing one authoritarian dictatorship with another". Not sure how you came up with that.
-
i think it has to do with the perception of the loss of control. certain drugs are legitimized like certain violence is legitimized under certain circumstances and the rest is illegal because people are scared of those drugs. It's about the perception of control and who should wield it's power.
-
i think it has to do with the perception of the loss of control. certain drugs are legitimized like certain violence is legitimized under certain circumstances and the rest is illegal because people are scared of those drugs. It's about the perception of control and who should wield it's power.
Nah. People are scared of drugs only due to government propaganda to demonize certain drugs and media sensationalism. In reality what makes one drug legal and another illegal is totally arbitrary. There are legal prescription opiates available far more addictive with much worse withdrawals than heroin. Why is heroin illegal yet stuff like oxycontin and dilaudid legal? Meth has long been legally available by prescription, although gov doesn't like to advertise this fact. There's nothing to distinguish the legal from the illegal except that the gov gets to tax the stuff available at pharmacies. That's the difference.
-
you didn't really contradict my point much.
-
You're saying that drugs are illegal because people are "afraid of those drugs". I'm saying that what distinguishes legal from illegal drugs is totally arbitrary.
You don't see the contradiction?
-
i think it has to do with the perception of the loss of control. certain drugs are legitimized like certain violence is legitimized under certain circumstances and the rest is illegal because people are scared of those drugs. It's about the perception of control and who should wield it's power.
Nah. People are scared of drugs only due to government propaganda to demonize certain drugs and media sensationalism. In reality what makes one drug legal and another illegal is totally arbitrary. There are legal prescription opiates available far more addictive with much worse withdrawals than heroin. Why is heroin illegal yet stuff like oxycontin and dilaudid legal? Meth has long been legally available by prescription, although gov doesn't like to advertise this fact. There's nothing to distinguish the legal from the illegal except that the gov gets to tax the stuff available at pharmacies. That's the difference.
About your heroin v Oxy/Dilaudid comment.
Heroin has a much higher abuse potential. That doesnt mean its more addictive, or less. What it means is it gets you "high" easier, and not only that, the high is better and longer. The analgesic properties are better for the rx drugs, as opposed to heroin, in many cases.
-
nope. they're arbitrary because it's all about fear and unfamiliarity.
-
nope. they're arbitrary because it's all about fear and unfamiliarity.
Can't say this makes the slightest bit of sense to me. Oh well ... I'm sure in your mind there's no contradiction.
-
Drugs should remain illegal, Heroine in particular. If a person decides to try heroine then fine actively go out and find it to use. Nobody should argue that this is anything but a personal right. But if you legalize it then people have more access to it, resulting in more addicts and more shit that come with it. H has a blood trail back to the 20's and even further. Diamorphine is a not a killer on its the combination of the shit they cut it with that fucks your shit up. But saying make it legal is stupid.
-
Drugs should remain illegal, Heroine in particular. If a person decides to try heroine then fine actively go out and find it to use. Nobody should argue that this is anything but a personal right. But if you legalize it then people have more access to it, resulting in more addicts and more shit that come with it. H has a blood trail back to the 20's and even further. Diamorphine is a not a killer on its the combination of the shit they cut it with that fucks your shit up. But saying make it legal is stupid.
There's lots of evidence to the contrary. In fact, you even bring up a contradiction yourself in trying to point out that legalization would be "stupid". The "blood trail" you mention that goes back to the 20's, is due more to the stuff they cut it with. So if it had been legal, according to your own logic, there wouldn't be the "blood trail" that you're playing up in order to demonize it.
In 2000, Portugal had resounding success in decriminalizing hard drugs. By spending money instead on education and prevention, it cut down significantly on the number of OD's and spread of HIV. Heroin also lost its rebel allure of illegality that sucks in many young people into trying it and instead became a deadbeat pursuit.
Similarly, Switzerland a few years back decided to try a new tact in which heroin addicts were just given as much pure H as they wanted. They were given it at state sponsored centers where the administration could be monitored for good hygiene and such. Once again, it cut down on diseases and OD's. It was also remarkable in that, once the addicts were given all they wanted and no longer spent all day trying to hook up heroin, many reported going through an existential crises because they then had to figure out what they wanted to do with their lives. This led to some addicts deciding to take charge and live productive lives with some finally getting off it completely. Nor did it lead to a significant rise in heroin addiction. It still had a bad rap where no one had any desire of joining the zombies in the state sanctioned heroin depots.
So I think your idea that legalization is "stupid" is dated and based on an antiquated paradigm. Legalization in practice has demonstrated itself to be anything but "stupid".