TheDanold said:
How on earth would you know the extremities of my thoughts?
Let's try this a different way.
If you were to piss off some jock in school, most likely he would beat you up but NEVER think to kill you. Most people would actually.
No, that's not necessarily true. I submit that the urge to commit great bodily harm and/or murder is perfectly natural and happens to everyone at some point or another. It is likely almost immediately suppressed again since we all know that doing so would be wrong but the urge is often there.
My point is simply that if the impulse is not acted upon there's no harm and no foul. Someone who finds those impulses increasing or intruding on their day-to-day life probably ought to look into therapy, but that's another matter
If you were to piss off some wimpy loner in school who dresses in black, most likely he would never beat you up (because he can't) but store up the hate and imagine (and possibly enact) killing you in a painful way.
I don't buy that generalization. Certainly the person with the greater burden of reppressed anger and bitterness is probably going to be the one with the more vivid phantasies of revenge, but even that's largely speculative. And I don't buy either of the stereotypes you've trotted out there.
I was one of those geeky loners for a while. Then, like many such, I discovered a social life late in high school and on into college. That's a fairly common pattern, I believe. Bullies, however, often find there's little redemption waiting for them in adult life. That too is another thread for another day though.
I'm not afraid to get in a fight and when I have I feel jes fine after punching some fuck in the head a few times, I just don't feel any desire to have to go beyond that.
Whoopie. This demonstrates what, exactly? That beating people up is good for you? There are other ways of dealing with anger and frustration. Myself, I've managed to completely avoid all physical altercation since high school. No, wait: I got whacked on the head at a demonstration in college. Sophomore year. So, since then.
I depend on others to provide me goods and services in exchange for my cash. It is nice to have others as friends and maybe more. All of which is in the context of freedom, which is still possible in a FREE society.
But for fucks sakes, get it through your head that society does NOT equal government. I have given you examples of where it doesn't, pay attention.
I never once said that society and government are the same thing. Pay attention yourself. I said that government is a
necessary part of society. No government = no society more complex than a hunter-gatherer band. Actually, not even that, since most of those are more heirarchical than we used to think.
Again society != government. Also I have to laugh because solitary confinement restricts MANY freedoms, far beyond interraction with society.
Bad example.
1)
![Read This! :readit: :readit:](https://www.justplainpolitics.com/images/smilies/read.gif)
I said "torture." Not simply restricting freedom. It is widely considered torture because isolation from others, in and of itself, is painful to most people.
2) Any sort of incarceration restricts the freedoms you allude to. Only solitary confinement is
a priori abusive.
Well early history of America proves you wrong, there was plenty of society and very little government - and what little government there was certainly made no decisions in regard to labor.
Nice try, but no. First, the period you cite lasted a very short time. A single generation, at best. Which, by the way, many of the framers expected. Second, it was a very unusual time in that there was an open frontier into which the disaffected could emigrate. That was due to the fact that most of the first American nations had already crumbled from disease. Heck, the original 13 colonies were still sparsely enough settled that the frontier was hardly even necessary.
You sound like a Maoist, advocating continuous revolution to prevent society from evolving in a way you don't like.
"If we were directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we would soon want for bread." – Thomas Jefferson
So do elephants, so do wolves, so do any social animals. What makes humans unique (and more dominant) is dexterity in hand usage (ability to use tools) and higher intelligence, NOT socialness.
Dead wrong. Without our complex social structures there would be only the most limited range for our intelligence to play.
Why do you think that society *always* tends toward greater centralization and complexity? It's not an accident, you know. Neither is it an aberration. It is the natural course for all human societies. We're most comfortable with a complex, tightly organized society because that's the way we've evolved. It's a survival trait.
I loathe forcing me to be responsible for others dependence, which is EXACTLY what you do when you have government dole out more social welfare.
Tough. So you're an extremist. So am I, though in other directions. Society doesn't owe us anything in that regard. It's
prudent to allow anti-social types like yourself to live and thrive: one never knows when that too might become a survival trait.
And yes I think people/families/neighborhoods are much safer/happier and prosperous with less dependence - you have only to look at Liberal Democrat run inner cities to see that.
Your aversion to "dependence" is pretty funny. I'd much rather live in most inner cities than some hick town full of ignorant, self-righteous stump humpers. I actually like diversity. I like variety. I also like convience, come to that.
So, a certain number of people become (what you call) "dependent" on the government. So what? It's kind of sad when it happens, but it's thankfully rare. The number of people benefited by such programs vastly outweighs the number harmed.
Don't you ever stop and say:
"I live in San Fran, where we are caring and spend the most on helping the homeless of any city, yet we have the biggest amount of homeless per capita. Gee maybe somewhere we fucked up bad."
It's like blinding yourself to everyday evidence...
We *don't* spend the most on helping the homeless. That's media hype. San Francisco, too, has become something of a magnet for homeless people because other, more insular communities force them out. If they were not able to do that -- if you were forced to carry your weight -- we wouldn't have to carry it for you.