Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government

Jeremiah Cornelius's Journal: If You Still Believe You Live in a "Liberal Democracy"? 34

Journal by Jeremiah Cornelius

You're just not as bright as you like to congratulate yourself.

It is very simple. Follow the money. Years ago the wealthy needed a strong middleclass. Henry Ford even commented that a strong middleclass bought the products of the wealthy. But the wealthy no longer make products. Money is earned through money games. And the economy is global.

The goal now is the destruction of the middleclass. Why? So that we'll work for nothing. A sort of coal mining economic theory. Work for nothing and then give what little money you have back when you buy life's necessities at the company store.

As the wealth gets concentrated and the middleclass destroyed there might be some uprisings. The Corporate Government will be able to get the leaders very quickly and thereby diffuse the uprisings literally before they start. Like arresting the persons behind "Occupy Wall Street" before the occupation.

With indefinite detention being the law of the land there will be no need for trials.

And with all that anti terrorism security money going to crowd control weapons like sonic beams that make you burn those crowds that do assemble will be quickly dealt with.

It is always about the money.

Posted by: Ray | Jun 29, 2013 9:27:54 PM

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

If You Still Believe You Live in a "Liberal Democracy"?

Comments Filter:
  • Our cultural combustion can only sustain itself for a finite time. Sweet, sweet Dark Age to come. I guess I'm supposed to be rooting for the Carpenter to return, but I just don't think things have begun to suck on that level.
    • Well.

      Then it won't be money. It will be your actual labor and livelihood, without the convenient medium of exchange - per Western Europe, c. 1100 AD.

      • Aye, with the significant difference that there is quite a bit more information about, even in dead tree format.
        So, don't expect the crash to last too long, subsequent to the homo bureaucratus purge.
  • Isn't the entire goal of liberty, libertarian, and liberalism to try to take stuff away from those who can't defend themselves from you?

    • No, that's the goal of our purely animalistic authority. The goal of liberty, libertarian, and liberalism is to allow people to live and die in peace.

      • Then why insist on liberties that harm others? If the true goal was to allow people to live and die in peace, wouldn't an automated resource delivery system to a civilization of hermits suffice?

        • It would, except that most people are not hermits. Some of us like to be with others and enjoy their company. And we don't don't insist on liberties that harm others. It's the authorities who demand that, for their own personal pleasures.

          • by mcgrew (92797) *

            And we don't don't insist on liberties that harm others. It's the authorities who demand that, for their own personal pleasures.

            Ron Paul does, when he insists the EPA isn't needed. Before the EPA, Monsanto spewed so much poison that your lungs burned driving past one of theiir factories. Read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle". The EPA keeps Monsanto from infringing MY right; nobody has the right to foul my air. The FDA keeps people from selling snake oil and rotten meat.

            • Ron Paul is an idiot, in the figurative sense of course, since he's done very well for himself. And I've always maintained that we have our rights to uncontaminated natural resources. With freedom goes respect. The merchant/political class will never understand that. The only necessary step is to revoke their (and everybody else's) privileged status.

              • If you have respect, then you no longer have liberty. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

            • And conversely, any attempt to rein in capitalism is seen as an infringement of the liberties of the capitalist. It is completely a two way street.

              Which is why I am against the concept of liberty itself. It always gets abused.

              • Which is why I am against the concept of liberty itself.

                Well, that has to include the liberty to compel others to follow your rules, or anybody else's. In that context, history has proven you are right. It will always be abused.

                • Yep, exactly. There is no ability to interact with others without mutually agreed upon rules- and if your version of liberty is against all rules, the price is human contact.

                  There is no way around that.

                  • You are free to agree, or not. That is liberty. The freedom to choose. But there there is no system that has any right to impose itself upon me. It has no right to prohibit or compel anything. Its sole purpose is to ensure that all interactions are consensual.

                    • True, you always have the right to move off the grid and become a hermit, well, mostly. There are few places off the grid these days.

          • "It would, except that most people are not hermits. Some of us like to be with others and enjoy their company."

            The trouble is, to do that, you need to abide by the rules, if only of that household. You can't have liberty and enjoy the company of other human beings.

            " And we don't don't insist on liberties that harm others."

            Usury. Benefits paid by tax dollars, both corporate and personal. Abortion. Euthanasia. Gay marriage. Drug abuse to the point of property damage. The list of demanded liberties *qui

Round Numbers are always false. -- Samuel Johnson

Working...