XPost: alt.politics.socialism, alt.politics.economics, alt.politics.media   
   From: efreem2@alumni.umbc.edu   
      
   When I was young and adventurous, I wanted   
   to join a violent, armed group   
   with no regard for the law, but the IRS wasn't hiring.   
      
      
   My boyfriend and I are having a little disagreement.   
   I want a big church wedding,   
   and he wants to call off the engagement."   
      
      
   No wonder there are often quarrels between generations.   
   The young and old know all the answers   
   and those inbetween are stuck with the questions.   
      
   *.*   
      
   I was looking through some older newsgroups for some information about   
   Giant Sequoia trees and found the following exchange:   
      
   Fanta : I have a giant sequoia, approx. 17 in tall (43 cm). That is   
   from the ground up, not including the roots. Currently it is in a pot.   
   My question is, how big should the pot be?   
      
   Starlord : You're looking at a tree that gets pretty big. You don't want   
   a pot, it would do better in a bowl. You should try and get a bowl about   
   the size of the Rose Bowl.   
      
   *.*   
      
   All men believe in law and order   
   as long as they can   
   lay down the law and give the orders.   
      
      
   If ignorance is bliss then I must be the happiest   
   thingamajigee in the whatchamacallit!   
      
      
   If I'm so "crazy," then why did they choose me to be   
   their spokesperson to the people of Earth?   
      
   *.*   
      
   Subject: Situation Awareness Test   
      
   You are driving in a car at a constant speed on a curvy road.   
      
   On your right side is a valley and on your left side is a fire engine   
   traveling at the same speed as you.   
      
   You see a giant galloping pig, the same size as your car, in front of   
   you.. Behind you is a helicopter flying at ground level.   
      
   Both the giant pig and the helicopter are also traveling at the same   
   speed as you, and the accelerator seems to be stuck, so you can't evade   
   them.   
      
   What must you do to safely get out of this highly dangerous situation?   
      
      
      
      
   Answer:   
      
   Get off the children's Merry-Go-Round, bozo! You're drunk!   
      
   *.*   
      
   We finally bought a new car this year.   
   Trading off the old one, though,   
   was something like abandoning an old friend.   
      
   We had bought it used for $8,000 and   
   it served us faithfully for 13 years.   
      
   We got $2,000 on the trade.   
   That's a difference of $6,000. Not bad!   
   It cost less than $500 a year.   
   But now that means   
   we'll have to drive the new one for 57 years.   
      
   Issue of the Times;   
   The Gun in the Room by Stefan Molyneux   
   "Put down the gun, then we.ll talk."   
   One of the most difficult - and essential - challenges faced by   
   libertarians is the constant need to point out "the gun in the room." In   
   political debates, it can be very hard to cut through the endless windy   
   abstractions that are used to cover up the basic fact that the government   
   uses guns to force people to do what they do not want to do, or prevent   
   them from doing what they do want to do. Listening to non-libertarians, I   
   often wish I had a "euphemism umbrella" to ward off the continual oily   
   drizzle of words and phrases designed to obscure the simple reality of   
   state violence. We hear nonstop nonsense about the "social good," the   
   "redistribution of income," the "education of children" and so on -   
   endless attempts to bury the naked barrel of the state in a mountain of   
   syrupy metaphors.   
      
   It is a wearying but essential task to keep reminding people that the   
   state is nothing but an agency of violence. When someone talks about "the   
   welfare state helping the poor," we must point out the gun in the room.   
   When someone opposes the decriminalization of marijuana, we must point out   
   the gun in the room. When someone supports the reduction of taxes, we must   
   point out the gun in the room - even if one bullet has been taken out.   
      
   So much political language is designed to obscure the simple reality of   
   state violence that libertarianism sometimes has to sound like a broken   
   record. We must, however, continue to peel back the euphemisms to reveal   
   the socially-sanctioned brutality at the root of some of our most embedded   
   social institutions.   
      
   I was recently involved in a debate with a woman about public schools.   
   Naturally, she came up with reason after reason as to why public schools   
   were beneficial, how wonderful they were for underprivileged children, how   
   essential they were for social stability etc etc. Each of these points -   
   and many more - could have consumed hour upon hour of back and forth, and   
   would have required extensive research and complicated philosophical   
   reasoning. But there was really no need for any of that - all I had to do   
   was keep saying:   
      
   "The issue is not whether public schools are good or bad, but rather   
   whether I am allowed to disagree with you without getting shot."   
      
   Most political debates really are that simple. People don.t get into   
   violent debates about which restaurant is best because the state doesn.t   
   impose one restaurant on everyone - and shoot those trying to set up   
   competing restaurants. The truth is that I couldn.t care less about this   
   woman.s views on education - just as she couldn.t care less about my views   
   - but we are forced to debate because we are not allowed to hold opposing   
   views without one of us getting shot. That was the essence of our debate,   
   and as long as it remained unacknowledged, we weren.t going to get   
   anywhere.   
      
   Here.s another example. A listener to my "Freedomain Radio" show posted   
   the following comment on the message board:   
      
   If you say "Government A doesn.t work," you are really saying that the way   
   that individuals in that society are interacting is lacking in some way.   
   There are many threads in this forum that address the real debate. This   
   thread.s counterarguments all focus on government vs. free market society.   
   The rules defining a free market are all agreed upon interactions at some   
   level, just as a government is. Don.t debate that a government is using   
   guns to force others, when it.s really individuals with guns, instead show   
   how the other way will have less guns forcing others or how those guns   
   could force others in a more beneficial way.   
      
   I responded in this manner:   
      
   But - and I.m sorry if I misunderstand you - government is force, so I.m   
   not sure how to interpret your paragraph. Let me substitute another use of   
   force to show my confusion:   
      
   "If you say that rape doesn.t work you are really saying that the way that   
   individuals in that society are interacting is lacking in some way. There   
   are many threads in this forum that address the real debate. This thread.s   
   counterarguments all focus on rape vs. dating. The rules defining dating   
   are all agreed upon interactions at some level, just as rape is. Don.t   
   debate that a group of rapists is forcing others, when it.s really   
   individual rapists, instead show how the other way will have fewer rapists   
   forcing others or how those rapists could force others in a more   
   beneficial way."   
      
   Do you see my confusion?   
   Thanks!   
      
   It is a very helpful sign for the future of society that these euphemisms   
   exist - in fact, I would not believe in the moral superiority of a   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)