Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Thor

Regulars
  • Posts

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by Thor

  1. I'm not talking of revolution; you are.

    What I advocate is more @ restoration. And it should be done about every twenty years or so as a matter of purpose and also immediately, whenever the need arises. It gets rid of the bad blood and the bad seed, as opposed to waiting forever to do the right thing, as we clearly have done, and must now play hell to reel in the evil and get our government back in shape. Better to see a few bad seeds weeded out and hung or shot at the firing squad or their careers ended and their fortunes lost than to protect them and make our children pay for their tyranny.

    In fact, it is clearly too late already and we aren't going to get it back. The blood that has already been shed and the blood that is to be shed over this is unthinkable and it is not necessary. It was never necessary. But it will happen just the same and we are going to have to start over.

    "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." -- Jefferson

  2. "especially if one is in security"? Would you care to explain that?

    Government does not have the final say over the force. The jury, i.e., the people do (yes, there are those these days, particularly judges, who want to be rid of juries -- a matter for another discussion, perhaps).

    If the government is left unchecked and grows into a dictatorship, what means then will be available to the people to "take the government down by force"? It must be done before government becomes a dictatorship -- long before.

    Also, I assume you mean that you would want to take the tyrannical government down and install a just government. We can't take government down. You said yourself, and I agree with you, that we need it.

  3. Negative.

    The people can arrest bad guys and bring them to the courts. In my career, I arrested hundreds of bastards and brought them before the court.

    The real meaning of the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights is to empower the citizens to use force against the government when they get out of line. It has nothing to do with "protecting himself in an emergency", though that is a good, perfectly legitimate and logical use of force against others.

    The government shall not have a monopoly on the use of force, now or in the future. The people, if they have any brains at all, will not surrender such powers to the police or the military.

    We can't stand around like dummies and watch hoodlums (including cops) violate our rights and wait for the cops to show up and deal with it. Government isn't going to clean itself up or regulate itself. That is the job of the people.

    The police are under no legal obligation whatsoever to protect you or your property.

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty; suspect anyone who approaches this jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will protect it but downright force; whenever you give up this force, you are inevitably ruined." -- Patrick Henry

  4. The bottom line is this: One cannot rely on the good will, benevolence, good intentions, or even the rationality of the force wielders. The force wielders must be kept under objective guidance and objective rules of engagement and operations. Otherwise, it will quickly come down to some agency of force running amuck and trying to take over with force. This has been true for the entire history of the world and every place there has not been an objective government. The force wielders cannot be trusted to do the right thing without clear rules put in place before they are given their guns and their ammunition. Even if they say they are for individual rights and will not abrogate them, they need to be watched carefully and spell out how they will handle different situations requiring retaliatory force -- and then they must be held to it. Effectively, this type of jurisdiction is a government; and without a government, he with the most fire-power and is the most ruthless with their force wins. So, no, it cannot be left in private hands, but must remain under control to protect individual rights. This is the sole purpose of a legitimate government. This is also why it must remain a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force -- to be able to keep it under control.

    More genius.

    The Founders saw this and gave us the Bill of Rights to help make sure the force wielders get in line and stay in line.

    We've shirked the task, of course and have contracted away most, if not all, our rights to the federal government; but the idea remains... sort-of.

    "The Great Object is, that Every Man be Armed." -- Patrick Henry

  5. Who cares what anyone says about the music I love?

    I don't.

    Loving music is like loving women and vice-versa. So much wonderful stuff to choose from -- and so little time.

    I love jazz, rock, blues, classical, bluegrass. I even pick guitar and howl and scream myself. Just love it.

    How can anyone not love at least some every kind of music there is?

  6. I think you are forgetting something when you try to compare anarchy and the current different government that exist around the world not fighting it out. The governing idea behind the peaceful cooperation among different government is that of jurisdiction -- that their powers are specified and that they apply in a certain specified geographical area. This is the reason we can have Federal, State, and Local government operating together. Jurisdiction says that each has a limited domain and authority that is pre-specified, and not operable outside their authority or borders.

    But you couldn't have that under private security agencies, because there wouldn't be any jurisdiction -- no pre-spelled-out jurisdictions. If there were, it would become a government. Besides, if Sally has one agency of force, Timmy has another, and Joe has yet another, and they are next door neighbors; can Timmy's agency of force prevent Joe's agency of force from crossing a border? This is what you have with governments -- the other government cannot cross the borders, unless it is spelled out ahead of time that the crossing can occur under certain conditions. Without that pre-agreement, then all hell breaks loose when one agency of force crosses some other agency of force's boundaries.

    This is why there has to be ultimately a monopoly of the agency of retaliatory force. If you want to know what it is like without the pre-agreement or the monopoly, you only have to take a look at street gangs and how they operate. Anarchy wouldn't be any different. Why does it have to work out that way? Because they are agencies of force with no jurisdiction spelled out ahead of time (which would be a government anyhow, so it contradicts the anarchist position).

    Genius.

    You're catchin' on quick.

    One of the biggest problems we have with our government today is the various agencies stepping out of their respective jurisdictions and breaking the very laws they are sworn to uphold.

    But out here in the west, there is a growing movement underway that is striking at the very root of this problem and is helping to put the violaters back into their cages -- before it's too late.

    Learn about coordination and how it is done and educate your local sheriff and community. It is probably the last hope for the United States.

    Let's hope the people snap out of it before it's too late.

    It's crunch time, folks. No doubt about it.

    Educate, motivate and get in the fight -- or kiss this place goodbye.

  7. The sweetheart idea is ideal. But that has its problems, too. All the emotional connection, dating, spending money, being preoccupied and getting to know the person is something I, personally, care not at all for and do not have time to deal with. I prefer to hit it and move on to the next one.

    When people ask me what kind of women I like, I tell them it would be much easier to tell them what kind of women I don't like.

    Women. Yummy.

  8. I hang at the brothel because they have a great bar and restaurant and because I frequent the area on business. It is one of the best places in town AND they got the girls. Nothing strange, to my mind anyway, about hanging around with women from time to time. Besides, they're all about business. And so am I.

    When I was thirty-eight, I had a girlfriend who was twenty-two and had only had intercourse twice in her entire life prior to meeting me. The first few times we had sex wasn't good at all. She didn't know what she was doing at all and didn't know what she was after.

    I really loved the girl and didn't have a problem being patient and leading the way.

    Once she caught on to the mutual pleasure idea and got the idea out of her head that she was only there to please her man and started taking pleasure in what we were doing, she was the best in the world. Or, I should say, we were the best in the world.

    Technique is everything. It leads the way to the rest of it. My case in point is that even when one is really attracted to someone and having sex for the first time, that first time can be awkward no matter how much experience one or the other or both has. They simply don't know each other in a sexual way and the technique has to be worked out before they get to the really good stuff.

    Sex with a great lover gets better with more experience.

    Technique is big.

  9. When it comes down to the use of force, which may only be used in retaliation and is a last ditch effort to save oneself, there is no thinking involved at all.

    The thinking, i.e., the training, should have been done before the use of force was necessary.

    Thus, the old saying, "the best use of a gun is simply having one".

    In other words, if you are not armed now, you won't be when you'll need to be.

    If you don't know your rights now, you won't know them when you'll need them.

    If you are hesitating in learning and having these things because you believe your government is going to come to the rescue and protect your rights and your property in the event you need protection...

    ... you deserve exactly what is coming to you.

  10. I certainly agree that past a certain point it is moral to use force against one's government. The trick is to clearly define that threshold -- and I think that line crossed is when the government becomes a dictatorship, shutting down any other route to change the government for the better (like cancelling free speech and free associations). We are not at that point yet in the United States, which is why I do not endorse armed rebellion against the government.

    By the way, the most definitive essay on rights that I am aware of is posted to the Ayn Rand Center website, "Man's Rights" by Ayn Rand:

    http://www.aynrand.o...rand_man_rights

    Who said anything about armed rebellion against the government?

    "The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave."

    That's one of the things I just love about Rand. She spoke not only of slavery in history, but of slavery in its other proper context: the present tense.

  11. Don't look now, but there's government a'plenty every which way one looks -- and plenty of gang warfare to go along with it.

    Government is in fact its own gang protecting itself from other gangs, including me, the eternally vigilant.

    Correct. Freedom requires eternal vigilance of those who want to gain and keep their political freedom. It also requires that every man be armed and capable of defending said freedom. The Founders understood this and gave us the Bill of Rights to help us in that effort.

    Are you armed? Why or why not?

    Do you know your rights and how to exercise them? Why or why not?

    Are you capable of and willing to defend them? Why or why not?

    Yes, the Constitution has flaws, but no other document has even come close to it in the history of mankind in thought and action. I'd be careful of tossing it to the scrap heap. Not saying that you are. But all too often people are willing to talk about the flaws of the Constitution as opposed to its strengths and what it does in fact give us.

    People are all too willing to claim that we need government and the "protection" that it gives us, but not too quick to talk about what they can do for themselves in that effort. If we stand up and take responsibility for ourselves, government will shrink in proportion to that effort and that fact and will find its proper place in our society by our putting it there. It's not only our right, it is our duty, our job, our moral imperative.

    But we have shirked the task. And now we are fighting to protect ourselves from government instead of seeing to it that government is doing its job -- and we are very quickly losing this fight.

  12. Well of course, maybe I should have used the word "lead" but I think it's kind of a weak word. It feels good when you feel so safe and comfortable with a man that you can just be passive and enjoy him taking care of you sexually and protection wise because you trust him and your values are the same. If the guy is the jerk type it doesn't work though and most are in some form or another. To me it looks like a display of manliness, but to him it isn't, because he's just being what he is. I'm letting him assert his masculinity over me, so yeah it is kind of like a display of manliness, but not like what you're talking about. It's sort of like a game I guess, but in real relationships where the couple's values are the same it is more real, like a protectiveness.

    I can see where you're going with this. "Lead" is a good word to use. Especially with the inexperienced.

    Some people don't know what they want, for whatever reason, i.e., inexperience, not taking the time or being able to find the right person to help them along, etc., and it would be good for them to have someone strong enough and knowing enough to lead the way.

    Absolutely.

  13. Well of course, maybe I should have used the word "lead" but I think it's kind of a weak word. It feels good when you feel so safe and comfortable with a man that you can just be passive and enjoy him taking care of you sexually and protection wise because you trust him and your values are the same. If the guy is the jerk type it doesn't work though and most are in some form or another. To me it looks like a display of manliness, but to him it isn't, because he's just being what he is. I'm letting him assert his masculinity over me, so yeah it is kind of like a display of manliness, but not like what you're talking about. It's sort of like a game I guess, but in real relationships where the couple's values are the same it is more real, like a protectiveness.

    I won't lead and I won't be led. I just take what I want from her. She can just take what she wants from me. I'll give her what she wants. She must give me what I want.

    I like being taken care of, too. I love massage, for example. If the woman I am with refuses practicing the art of massage and giving it to me and doing it properly (yes, she can charge me, if she likes and I will happily pay for it), she must not object to my visiting the masseuse of my choice; if she does, I will break off with her immediately.

    If I sense one shred of phoniness in the woman, I'll be gone in a flash, too. I won't put up with any of that even for a moment.

    I do as I please. That's one of the reasons I was only married once when I was very young. I'll never get married again. Someone tries placing restrictions on me of any kind and I freak out. If she gets in the way of my doing what I want -- bye, bye.

  14. I didn't mean dominate in the way you think, I meant sexually dominant, which is really just a display of manliness. Some women like to feel like they're being dominated it feels intimate, like you really want them. However, being "sexually dominant" can be a dangerous game, and can easily be unpleasant both emotionally and physically, even for a woman who likes it that way so it's only for the experienced or between serious couples IMO.

    Agreed. The best sex there is is with someone I've known and have been having it with for a while.

    A real man or woman doesn't need to display anything. They just are what they are and they are confident in that.

    The dominance game is fake. If someone is playing the dominant one, the other is consenting to do it, so it isn't really dominance at all. And if it is real dominance, where someone does not consent, it's not dominance and is not sex at all, but rape.

    The dominance game is merely a form of foreplay. It helps make all concerned very excited before intercourse. It's just an exciting game.

  15. Some people are better in the bedroom than others. Some people are used to very good technique and average technique sucks to them. This matters more to women than it does to men, because men dominate so the woman's technique doesn't matter as much, or at least it SHOULDN'T, but I've heard a lot of neo age weirdos who think both the man and woman should be perfectly "equal" in how they please the other person. Nature wants the man to take over physically because the man is more psychologically set up to do so and gets things done more quickly, and that is what is most physically pleasing to heterosexuals.

    As a woman, I'm not worried about intercourse technique, I'm worried about kissing and hand job technique. My problem is that I just get impatient and want what I want, and men don't appreciate that. I also like being touched more than I like touching, and am challenged with hand jobs. It is hard to understand when you're hurting him, when you're messing up etc. with a part you've never had and also because men don't emote at all about that kind of thing.

    Yes, some are much better than others. There are women I've had sex with who I realize am better off just having it all by myself. Sometimes the issue is chemistry and sometimes it's something else. Whatever it is, I just move on when it doesn't work out between us.

    I never want or try to dominate, though I am physically powerful and could easily do so. I want sex with women who want me. If the passion isn't mutual, it's not worth sharing with her my passion, capacity and joy for sex.

    I love a good kisser. Kissing is extremely important to me. It is everything. One of the most intimate parts of having sex. Practice makes perfect.

    Personally, I don't have any problem with woman who knows what she wants and goes after it. No reason why we both shouldn't get what we came to the bedroom for.

  16. Schools of sex have been open here in Nevada for a very long time now.

    Prostitution is legal here in Nevada, though not in Clark County. I sometimes frequent the brothels in neighboring Nye County and hang out with the ladies. They are wonderful people and highly professional. They are happy to help out the newbies to sex and many others and those who want or need to "work on their technique".

    Some of them are so luscious I've been tempted to part with some cash and practice my technique on some of them and let them practice their technique on me, too. Haven't caved-in and done the deed as yet, but there's a first time for everything. I'll keep my eyes open for the right one and... who knows?

    Meantime, I've never had any complaints with the ladies I've been with. Sex is yummy and delicious, close and intense and I love to have it oozing from my pores.

  17. One does not need argue to see that the whole of the socialist construct relies ultimately on the point of a gun, i.e., the seizing of the machinery of government to force those under its jurisdiction to bend to their will and give them what they want. It's really that simple. Government is force. Period.

    There is still enough wealth remaining the United States to give the looters the illusion that their system can work. But eventually the wealth will run out and their game will be exposed and they will have to rely on the literal point of their guns, i.e., the cops and military, to keep their slaves under control. And when this finally happens, and it will, American citizens, being the largest armed camp existing on the face of the earth, will become a bloodbath; unless of course the looters manage somehow to get the guns out of the hands of the American people before their complete economic collapse -- and even then the blood will pour.

    There can be no rational argument for socialism. This is one of the things I like to point out to socialists. Their whole program begins and ends with coercion, with a gun. They simply legalize coercion -- and let the looting and the killing begin -- and it so it goes, so their system runs until all the wealth runs out.

    I have a little respect for the few socialists I have met who are willing to admit, even reluctantly, that I am correct in my argument against them. I have zero respect for those socialists who refuse to face the fact that they can't have what they want unless there are goons with guns willing to go out and loot and kill for their ideas.

    As Rand so eloquently pointed out, there can be no right, no justification to initiate the use of force against other men except in self-defense.

    For me, the argument is always at the root of things. And the bottom line here is the use of government force being initiated against men and making slaves out of them.

  18. Is there a legal loop-hole that would allow to build a physical or virtual community that can avoid paying taxes ? Let's say "income taxes" ?

    For example -- a community based on barter ? IRS says that barter is still income taxable. However, is there a legal way to barter in a way that there is no paper trail that IRS can latch on ? Maybe some other tricks?

    For example, if all members of a community are getting stock of the company, instead of money, and then use the stock as currency, among themselves -- would it still be income taxable? Ordinarily stock must be sold, to be taxed as income. Would this still qualify as barter?

    Perhaps, the structure can be registered in another country, say offshore zone -- but people can live in their homeland ?

    If there is no paper trail, and all transactions are in cash, can IRS implement an income tax system in a practical way ?

    If a loop-hole exists, and we discover it, would the government be able to to issue new laws, closing the community down ? What would it take to issue such new bill or ammendment ?

    Silver.

    We had a great little network of traders up and running until the Liberty Dollar screwed everything up by minting coins that looked like US coins and got itself busted.

    Trade in silver.

    I'll be more than happy to take some off your hands.

  19. Furthermore, I think that the "free society" we allegedly now live in does not in fact exist. We need to create it. By adopting symbols and doing things relevant to the cause of Freedom, such a free society may come into reality. If we continue on the road we are now on however -- said free society will not in fact come into reality.

    The thinking about Freedom is good. But thinking is not enough. We must do the doing.

  20. Thor, maybe you could better explain what you believe the flag's history to be and what it represents to you now?

    My research on the flag's history is incomplete as of this writing. I won't comment on that.

    *******

    What it represents to me, personally, is a deliverance from waving the battle flag and identifying with this current administration and many of the administrations that have come before it.

×
×
  • Create New...