to the question posed by muther at the previous thread-

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000b7C

Any takers?

-- Bumble Bee (bumble@icanect.net), March 12, 1999

Answers

The thread contains:
"-- The report also firmly debunks the notion in some Y2K circles that the Clinton Administration will use Y2K as a pretext to impose martial law and even suspend the 2000 elections ..."

If we make it to 2000 November without major problems, then no need or excuse for martial law.

Assuming problems earlier, Klinton, with the help of his equally fascist predecessors, has all the power (executive orders) he needs to declare martial law even tomorrow, on any pretext.

BTW or OTOH, re rumors re government: "Believe nothing until it has been officially denied."

-- A (A@AisA.com), March 12, 1999.

Since Congress doesn't seem to think that there will be any serious problem with computers, I guess they'll just have to wait and see whether there will be an election. If they consider the 2000 election to be an issue of high priority, then they should consider a thorough evaluation of the technology used to conduct an election, and deal with it in the appropriate manner. Currently they appear to be more concerned about expensive investigations to bring down our president, tax cuts for the rich, and welfare to corporations whose CEOs make ungodly amounts of money. So the real question is not what Congress can do about it, but what can WE do about it? Perhaps not having an election isn't such a terrible thing. I'm in favor of anarchy myself!

-- @ (@@@.@), March 12, 1999.

An orbiting mind control laser caused -- @ (@@@.@), March 12, 1999. to write....

>I'm in favor of anarchy myself!

Your a fool. Only someone who has never lived with anarchy would prefer it. Move to Beirut or Kosovo and leave us out of your fantasy world.

LM

Corporate taxes are paid by the people who buy the corporation's produts.

-- LM (latemarch@usa.net), March 12, 1999.

I have NO doubt in my mind, that zipperman WILL declare martial law. He wants to have total power. The Congress will be helpless in this matter. FEMA has the cutoff switch to the constitution, and they WILL use it. RED ALERT! Scotty

-- Scotty (BLehman202@aol.com), March 12, 1999.

***>I'm in favor of anarchy myself!****

***Your a fool. Only someone who has never lived with anarchy would prefer it. Move to Beirut or Kosovo and leave us out of your fantasy world***

Anarchy means "without a ruler". Or rather "Ruler". If you understand what happened in Beirut, you'll understand that the violence was about factions deciding who was going to rule. In the absence of goverment the businesses in Beirut still did business, most people carried on,...albeit with some precautions taken because of all that violence perpetrated by those fighting for the right to "rule". I think the anarchy spoken of above meant ..."self-rule", individual secession,...humans have been sold the bogus line of malarky for centuries that the absense of government is chaos...chaos and anarchy are not the same things. Anarchy is also called autarky...again, self-rule. Additionally, in your future attempts at refutation you might remember not to begin with an ad hominem attack upon the poster, i.e., "you're a fool".... You may refer to a thread in Yourdon archives about the structure of logical argument.

Donna, the baby cyber bear who wears a sheet and stands upon a faraway hilltop.

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), March 12, 1999.

Make that "autarchy"! Doh! :-)

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), March 12, 1999.

A

"Belive nothing until it is formally denied" is exactly what got my parents from DGI's to GI's. When they heard the mouths of Washington saying there was nothing to worry about, they started preparing...

-- Valkyrie (anon@please.net), March 12, 1999.

Lets take it one step further,

Many here believe that the government and Media is trying to control the flow of information on this topic to futher thier own agenda. Lets say are. Has anyone considered that Freezing the people into a mindset of survivalism benefits the government as well?

Over the last several year various advances have given the people of the united states major control over thier own lves the type they never have had before. The internet being the primary example of this. Access to massive amounts of data,and in many cases increased economic power. All of which loosen the grip on the people that media and government has always had. Has anyone given any thought to the possibililty that this is thier golden opportunity to freeze this trend and throw us back into the a more controllable mindset?

nyc

-- nyc (nycnyc@hotmail.com), March 12, 1999.

nyc:

How can 'they' do that if 'they' have lost 'control' of us? Once you lose control, you don't have the control necessary to get it back, yes?

Control is a slippery concept. My employer controls a lot of my waking ours, but pays me to do it and permits me to quit at any time. My wife controls the rest of those waking hours, and I wouldn't trade it for anything. But I know it's there, and I could walk on her too if I were crazy enough.

So am I completely free? God no! I've carefully and deliberately made the best tradeoffs I could at the time (some of which have been Big Mistakes, but I didn't know it when I made them). Nobody can do anything they want (if I could, I'd grow two feet taller and bring down $12 million a year playing basketball). But what we *can* do provides us enough choices to create the illusion of freedom. And I cherish my illusions.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 12, 1999.

***Donna, the baby cyber bear who wears a sheet and stands upon a faraway hilltop. Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), March 12, 1999.*** wrote:

***Additionally, in your future attempts at refutation you might remember not to begin with an ad hominem attack upon the poster, i.e., "you're a fool".... You may refer to a thread in Yourdon archives about the structure of logical argument.***

Touche....it was an ad hominem attack...Let's rephrase that as...Only fools believe that anarchy is preferable to government. Now that doesn't label or attack @. He can decide whether to label himself.

***Anarchy means "without a ruler". Or rather "Ruler". If you understand what happened in Beirut, you'll understand that the violence was about factions deciding who was going to rule. In the absence of goverment the businesses in Beirut still did business, most people carried on,...albeit with some precautions taken because of all that violence perpetrated by those fighting for the right to "rule". ****

Exactly, and what results when there is no ruler....just what happened in Beirut. Of course there is fighting because someone wants to rule it has always been that way throughout history. If you will not learn from history then you are doomed to relive it. Sure you can do business in a chaotic anarchic environment and subsist. But you cannot thrive.

****I think the anarchy spoken of above meant ..."self-rule", individual secession,...humans have been sold the bogus line of malarky for centuries that the absense of government is chaos...chaos and anarchy are not the same things. Anarchy is also called autarky...again, self-rule.****

I doubt it. Besides Autarchy is just a clever way of saying anarchy... chaos the inevitable result. An example of autarchy is readily found in a certain area of a city which is thankfully far from here. No one goes there...not even the police. Gunfire is heard most nights. Everyone does exactly what he pleases. There is no government no rule no rulers. Ultimately this speaks to the human condition. Men are basicly evil and will degenerate to animals unless there is a social order imposed.

LM Standing on faraway hills in sheets doesn't get the job done.

-- LM (latemarch@usa.net), March 13, 1999.

In my view, autarchy/anarchy being functional is impossible. It's simply imbedded in human genes to have a ruler. Take it to it's simplest form of community throughout history; there's always a male leader in a tribe, usually the wisest warrior. Same goes in social animals, alpha males and females.

In a country like the US where there are miriads of different cultures, chaos and violence is inevitable without governments. Tightly knit and cohesive groups like the Amish have their rulers. Indian "independant" nations have their rulers. Different faith have their own spiritual rulers which form one's culture and mores more deeply than political rulers.

Anarchy is just another word for chaos.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), March 13, 1999.

Will someone who asserts that the President might suspend elections in 2000 please quote or link to a specific means by which he could do so?

Don't give me that nebulous "martial law justifies anything" argument, please -- I want a real, substantial basis by which you can justify the assertion that the President might suspend elections in the year 2000. And since Executive Orders are neither Constitutional amendments nor magic, don't just wave some EO number, either.

The Constitutional provisions for elections of the President and Vice President apply to the states and Congress, and there is nothing about them over which the Executive Branch has any control. If you can't refute that, please don't repeat the absurd assertion that Clinton or any other President might suspend elections.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), March 14, 1999.

LM, Chris, Donna,

LM - you're an idiot.

There are TWO defintions of Anarchy: 1. Absence of Government 2. Chaos and confusion

Just because I prefer #1 doesn't mean we have to have #2. If animals can get along, why can't humans? Because they are too busy fighting over materialistic values being instilled in them by power hungry corporate and political elite leaders.

Chris,

I am perfectly capable of taking care of myself and I don't need government to take my money and tell me how to live.

Donna,

You go girl! You knew what I meant; Independence, freedom, no "Big Brother" controlling our lives.

I believe that the Native American Indians are a much more advanced civilization than the white man, and they have about as much government in a tribe as will ever be needed. Life is about living in harmony with our planet and all of its life, not about being so "smart" that we can create weapons of mass destruction and obliterate all but the wealthiest and most powerful, destroying the planet in the process.

-- @ (@@@.@), March 14, 1999.

LM, Since you are such a big fan of corporations, you should learn more about them. This is a long article, so don't stop after the first page (I suggest downloading the complete version). Read it ALL, and if you still love corporations when you are finished, then I'm sorry but I can only conclude that you are seriously disturbed. http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/corpwelfare/index.html


-- @ (@@@.@), March 14, 1999.

@wrote: ****LM, Since you are such a big fan of corporations, you should learn more about them. This is a long article, so don't stop after the first page (I suggest downloading the complete version). Read it ALL, and if you still love corporations when you are finished, then I'm sorry but I can only conclude that you are seriously disturbed. http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/corpwelfare/index.html****

@, Corporations are legal entities. They bribe politicians (called campaign contributions). Craven and corrupt politicians accept these bribes and then legislate these givaways to the corporations. This vastly oversimplifies all the other things that the two groups engage in. All of this is unconstitutional. This, never-the-less, does not change the fact that when you tax a corp. you tax everyone that buys their product. All taxes that a gov. takes in are from all of the rest of us. We are the producers. The gov. is the eater.

Understand this. I am not advocating that corp. welfare is acceptable only that taxation of corps. is in fact coming from all of us.

I am not defending corp. behavior in bribing politicians and seeking these advantages. There is a ruthless self-interest at work here but it is never-the-less immoral.

So many today have fallen for the line "tax the rich corps." Or even "tax the rich". Since when did it become acceptable or even constitutional to steal from Peter to pay Paul? This is the behavior that our elected officials are engaging in, all for their own benifit and not ours. This too is immoral.

Governments proper function is to provide for the common defense. To provide laws to govern contractual relations, protect private property, and yes legislate morality. Provide courts and judges to administer those laws. It must take tax money for those purposes and only those purposes. (I know I've simplified this):^)

As an aside. I am aware of the definition of anarchy. But no matter what the dictionary says....it doesn't work! The Indian example just proves my point. They have a gov. it's called tribal gov. It isn't perfect (what gov. is?) but it is a way to address the functions of gov listed above. These same Indians often fought with each other and occasionally ate the loser. ( I have never understood the desire to glorify the lifestyle of the American Indian. They have the same human foibles as the rest of us.)

I apoligize for calling you a fool. I will attempt to keep these discussions on a civil level.

LM

-- LM (latemarch@usa.net), March 14, 1999.

LM,

Apology accepted, thanks. I can also see that you are not an idiot. The point I'm trying to make is that our government has way too much power and is way out of control. I believe that it is natural for their to be some conflict between life forms on this planet, and a certain number of deaths is a normal condition in the process of natural selection. This is what permits a species to elvolve by survival of the fittest. Our authoritarian government feels they have the right to interfere in this natural process, and by doing so they are creating a condition of de-evolution, and in fact guaranteeing that the human race will become extinct. I would prefer to have that chance to fight another man when circumstances deem it necessary, not to be told that I cannot do this because I do not have the monetary or political power that they require. I prefer to die on my feet than to live on my knees - it's that simple.

-- @ (@@@.@), March 14, 1999.

There is another place besides the inner city where the police hardly ever go - out here in the deep country.

Autarchy is the common rule here as well. We seem to get along fairly well in out interactions with each other.

--Greybear

- Got Self Reliance?

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), March 14, 1999.

-- @ (@@@.@), March 14, 1999. wrote:

****The point I'm trying to make is that our government has way too much power and is way out of control.****

No disagreement there.

****I believe that it is natural for their to be some conflict between life forms on this planet, and a certain number of deaths is a normal condition in the process of natural selection.****

No doubt everything and everyone dies. I do not like where this thread is going. Evolution is one of the great lies of the 20th century. This kind of thinking is exactly the path that Hitler and the Nazis went down. I am not going there.

****This is what permits a species to elvolve by survival of the fittest. Our authoritarian government feels they have the right to interfere in this natural process, and by doing so they are creating a condition of de-evolution, and in fact guaranteeing that the human race will become extinct. I would prefer to have that chance to fight another man when circumstances deem it necessary, not to be told that I cannot do this because I do not have the monetary or political power that they require.****

As I said I'm not going there.

****I prefer to die on my feet than to live on my knees - it's that simple.****

An honorable sentiment sir. And I wish you well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Greybear (greybear@home.com), March 14, 1999. wrote:

****There is another place besides the inner city where the police hardly ever go - out here in the deep country. Autarchy is the common rule here as well. We seem to get along fairly well in out interactions with each other.****

Well, sort of. I too live out in the country. Good hard working people with a moral order written on their hearts. But we have a sheriff. My neighbor has made use of lawyers in trying to push his neighbors around (without sucess I might add) but that is the legal fraimwork that we live in. Without that framework I'm sure it would have led to gunfire. Remember the Hatfields and McCoys? Nahh Even you arn't that old are you ;^)

****--Greybear

- Got Self Reliance?****

Yes, but good neighbors are better.

Got good neighbors?

LM

-- LM (latemarch@usa.net), March 14, 1999.