I Just Want Out

[Voskhod3]

For what?

For the free market.

[Mike Philbin]

your Free Market isn't - never has been, never will be.

it's all a Dream from which some of us are waking up.

[Freeski]

Quote from: Freeski on Today at 03:16:53 PM
I disagree. The onus is on each and every one of us to decide whether a company grows or fails,

Quote from: Voskhod3 on Today at 03:24:03 PM
Would we have to make rules?

No. We don't have to do anything.

[Voskhod3]

No. We don't have to do anything.

A free market with no rules?

Really?

You would have fuedalism in a very short time. In fact you would end up where we are now... the vast majority of the human race in debt to a tiny minority.

Why can't you understand there are people out there who are not very fair.

No rules?

The mind boggles.

[Geolibertarian]

Who allowed Wal-Mart...to become so huge? We did by shopping there.

Sorry, dude, but it's just not as conveniently simple as you're making it out to be.

Wal-Mart's astronomical success is due in part to the fact that people choose to shop there, yes.

But it's due even more to the small business-destroying practice of granting Wal-Mart such things as tax abatements, zoning exemptions and development subsidies, while simultaneously denying these privileges to smaller competitors...

       http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3836296181471292925

...as well as to corporatist, race-to-the-bottom trade agreements such as NAFTA that allow for the importation of slave goods.

Obama loves it when conservatives and libertarians defend this kind of corporate cronyism in the name of the "free market," because it allows him to portrary himself as a "moderate" (instead of the banker-owned extremist he really is), and gives him the "left cover" he needs to implement his pro-Wall Street agenda.

[Freeski]

A free market with no rules?

Really?

You would have fuedalism in a very short time. In fact you would end up where we are now... the vast majority of the human race in debt to a tiny minority.

Why can't you understand there are people out there who are not very fair.

No rules?

The mind boggles.

That's a very poor attempt.

[Voskhod3]

That's a very poor attempt.

Why?

[Freeski]

Sorry, dude, but it's just not as conveniently simple as you're making it out to be.

Wal-Mart's astronomical success is due in part to the fact that people choose to shop there, yes.

But it's due even more to the small business-destroying practice of granting Wal-Mart such things as tax abatements, zoning exemptions and development subsidies, while simultaneously denying these privileges to smaller competitors...

       http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3836296181471292925

...as well as to corporatist, race-to-the-bottom trade agreements such as NAFTA that allow for the importation of slave goods.

Obama loves it when conservatives and libertarians defend this kind of corporate cronyism in the name of the "free market," because it allows him to portrary himself as a "moderate" (instead of the banker-owned extremist he really is), and gives him the "left cover" he needs to implement his pro-Wall Street agenda.

That's precisely my point. Get government out of the marketplace and Wal-Mart gets no privileges.

When they do get too big, and the community doesn't like it, they stop shopping there and competitors emerge to fill the void. Wal-Mart shrinks. Big business gets privileges because of government involvement, so again, the root of the problem is government involvement. It's up to We The People to recognize this and deny meddling nanny-state initiatives that mould what should be a naturally evolving thing.

We don't recognize it because the same monsters that run society continue to brainwash us on the notion that ONLY government can be trusted with this or that. And where does the money for this propaganda come from? It comes from us, extorted from us by government.

[Voskhod3]

A free market with no rules?

Really?

You would have fuedalism in a very short time. In fact you would end up where we are now... the vast majority of the human race in debt to a tiny minority.

Why can't you understand there are people out there who are not very fair.

No rules?

The mind boggles.

Why is this a poor attempt?

I'm struggling to envisage a market without rules that isn't an open door for criminals and sociopaths.

[Freeski]

Why?

By posting this off-topic nonsense. The issue of rules, regulation and governance wasn't even on the table. We were talking about "voting with your wallet".

-------------
Quote from: Voskhod3 on Today at 03:40:48 PM
A free market with no rules?

Really?

You would have fuedalism in a very short time. In fact you would end up where we are now... the vast majority of the human race in debt to a tiny minority.

Why can't you understand there are people out there who are not very fair.

No rules?

The mind boggles.

[Geolibertarian]

That's precisely my point. Get government out of the marketplace and Wal-Mart gets no privileges.

No, your point was that Wal-Mart achieved it's success via free market competition (at least that was the impression I got), and my point was that it didn't, because free enterprise stops where privilege starts.

That said, I of course agree we must eliminate all government-granted privileges.

The difference I have with many on the so-called "Right" is that I advocate doing so by starting at the top of the power pyramid and working downward, whereas they advocate the reverse.

[Freeski]

Why is this a poor attempt?

I'm struggling to envisage a market without rules that isn't an open door for criminals and sociopaths.

It's a different topic but one with plenty of existing study, analysis, theorizing and debate - both here on the forum and all over the place. Look up libertarianism and you'll have plenty of opportunity to envision.

[Voskhod3]

By posting this off-topic nonsense. The issue of rules, regulation and governance wasn't even on the table. We were talking about "voting with your wallet".

It's not off-topic and it's not nonsense.

I don't see how you solution can possibly work without mankind being enslaved all over again.

[Freeski]

No, your point was that Wal-Mart achieved it's success via free market competition (at least that was the impression I got), and my point was that it didn't, because free enterprise stops where privilege starts.

That said, I of course agree we must eliminate all government-granted privileges.

The difference I have with many on the so-called "Right" is that I advocate doing so by starting at the top of the power pyramid and working downward, whereas they advocate starting at the bottom and working upward.

Nope, I don't think for a second that Wal-Mart got to where they are through free-market forces. But to my specific statement: "Who allowed Wal-Mart...to become so huge? We did by shopping there," we did in fact allow them to grow because of our ignorance of the perils that come with government meddling in the marketplace, and by shopping there. We continue to vote for elected reps who will keep the scheme alive.

I do think we're on the same page here, at least on this point, which is that the ultimate responsibility lies with each of us, individually, by how we vote and where we spend.

[Freeski]

I don't see how you solution can possibly work without mankind being enslaved all over again.

So, who does all of the enslaving right now?

I'd say it's a blend of corporate, bureaucratic and political power - so if you neuter the political side, the corporate angle is gone (privilege) and the bureaucracy shrinks to bare bones.

Nobody says "pure freedom" is some magical utopia where everything is perfect, but just look at what actually enables our enslavement, today: big government.

Seems logical to me that if you shrink government, we end up with fewer problems.

[Voskhod3]

Seems logical to me that without the fences the predators will come in.

[Freeski]

Seems logical to me that without the fences the predators will come in.

But we already have predators, today, even with the fences. Those fences are corrupt so we need new fences, based on our own personal needs, and not just a recreation of the same thing because it can't not be corrupt.

My fence may be a gun, yours might be a big dog, another's might be a private security company.

[Double]

Have you ever wondered why money is called money? Or why the symbol of money looks like an S with two I's striking through the center? You haven't? Well... You should be at least a little curious, since money is what you most likely spend the better part of your time and energy trying to acquire, or worry about.


You won't find the answer to the question regarding the name of money in any school text books. So to find the answer, lets take a look at the esoteric side of things and see what we can come up with.

First off we need an understanding of the following law of nature. One of the basic laws of the Universe is that energy follows thought. Whatever you are thinking of, energy will flow from you towards the object or situation your attention is on. If you think of objects, people, or situations that are of a higher vibratory rate then yourself, you gain energy. And so it goes that if you think of an object, person, or situation that is of a lower vibratory rate then yourself, you lose energy. Most people fall in the latter category unfortunately.


So with this in mind, let us take a look at the word 'money'. Mon is the key here, and it represents the moon. We can see this more clearly in other words such as Mon-day, which of course follows Sun-day and Saturn-day. Mon is moon. Thus, when our attention is directed towards money, energy is actually flowing away from earth and towards the moon, due to the law that energy follows thought. As for the Dollar symbol, it goes back to Egypt and the Goddess ISIS who also represents the Moon, among many other things. If you merge I-S-I-S over top of each other, you get the dollar sign.
They (The ebil PTW) had to name money after something that was not on this earth, Saturn-ey would have worked just as well in certain ways. If money was called rockey, or water-ey, or branch-ey or anything else on our Earth, our attention would not be redirected away from earth, and thus it would give energy to our Earth.

So, when we desire money we hurt Earth, period. This of course can be seen everywhere we look today. The irony is this, if we all worked for Earth rather then moon-ey, every living thing on this planet would have abundance. There would not be one starving person anywhere. And sickness and disease would be a rarity indeed.



Where else do we see mon? hmmm... oh, I know! Monsanto. Another company that really does not help our Earth. In fact monsanto represents the energies of Moonsaturn/monstanto. Many of the large corpse-orations represent Saturn, and even tell us such by using the rings of Saturn in their logos! Again this is in part to redirect our attention away from our true Mother, the Earth.
Lets take a gander at just a few of the many companies that use Saturn.

Notice both of these companies not only use the ring of Saturn in their logo, but their names also have the same vibratory rate as Saturn.
Samsung, Samson, Saturn, (mon)Santo, Satan.
How about jolly old Santa Clause, or to be more precise, Satan's claws.. which would be materialism! How many other companies have the ring of Saturn as their logo? You would be surprised...


If thou wilt know the invisible, open wide thine eyes on the visible - Kabalistic Adage

Signs and symbols control the world, not phases and laws - Confucius

By symbols is man guided and commanded, made happy, made wretched. He everywhere finds himself surrounded with symbols, recognised as such or not recognised - Thomas Carlyle

[Geolibertarian]

Seems logical to me that if you shrink government, we end up with fewer problems.

Yes, but the "devil" (or lack thereof) is in the "details," as they say.

As I indicated before, there are many right-wing ideologues who want to start with the social safety net (as evidenced by how giddy with delight they were upon hearing of Ahnold's proposal to "eliminate welfare for families").

IMHO, that's the last place we should start -- especially in the midst of an economic depression -- because (a) it was government-granted privileges to the rich that created the apparent need for such programs in the first place (more on this here), and (b) the resultant civil unrest would give the NWO the excuse they need to impose all-out martial law.

On a side note, I think it's worth mentioning that even Milton Friedman was generally supportive of the emergency relief measures implemented by FDR during the last great depression:

"Now, given the conditions you were in in '33, given that the mistake had been made, I have no doubt that major social action was called for. And I really have no criticism to make of the emergency action which was undertaken at that time in the form of WPA, PWA, direct relief -- I think you had to do it at that time, given the state you were in."

-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfdRpyfEmBE

Now, at this point some might be thinking: "If you [geolib] oppose cutting the social safety net, then what cuts or reforms do you support?"

The first thing to realize is that the two major parties are owned by the very parasitic oligarchs who orchestrated the collapse of our economy in the first place, and that economic reform must therefore be coupled with election reform if it's to have any chance of success.

That clarified, here are some of the emergency actions I advocate:

* Put all derivatives-infected mega-banks through Chapter 11 bankruptcy and, in the reorganization proceedings, legally void all of their derivatives contracts.

* Liquidate all of the ill-gotten assets of criminal scam artists like Henry Paulson and Bernard Madoff, and use the resultant proceeds to help replenish whatever retirement funds they raided.

* Replace our current debt-based money system with a debt-free "Greenback" money system, whereby all new money -- instead of being loaned into circulation at interest -- is spent into circulation at no interest to fund the production and repair of public goods everyone can see and benefit from (roads & bridges, maglev rail, etc.), and at a rate pegged by law to objective criteria such as population growth and the general price level. (More on this here.)

* Bring an immediate end to our reckless, hornets' nest-stirring, interventionist foreign policy, and pass the hundreds of billions in resultant tax savings onto the bottom 90% of income earners.

* Eliminate federal involvement in so-called "education" and pass the savings onto the bottom 90%.

* Shift the tax burden to the greatest extent possible off the privately created values of labor and capital goods and onto the publicly created value of land. (More on this here.)

* Eliminate most if not all occupational licensing barriers.

* Relegalize alternative medicine.

* Relegalize hemp.

* Withdraw the U.S. from NAFTA, GATT and the WTO.

[agentbluescreen]

Nope, I don't think for a second that Wal-Mart got to where they are through free-market forces. But to my specific statement: "Who allowed Wal-Mart...to become so huge? We did by shopping there," we did in fact allow them to grow because of our ignorance of the perils that come with government meddling in the marketplace, and by shopping there. We continue to vote for elected reps who will keep the scheme alive.

I do think we're on the same page here, at least on this point, which is that the ultimate responsibility lies with each of us, individually, by how we vote and where we spend.

No we did it (making it cheapest to shop there) by swilling-down the noble elite's Transnational-Socialist political labor-market collapsing "free trade" snake-oil!

Ballad of Timothy Geithner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAdJLLmpWBU

[Freeski]

Yes, but the "devil" (or lack thereof) is in the "details," as they say.

As I indicated before, there are many right-wing ideologues who want to start with the social safety net (as evidenced by how giddy with delight they were upon hearing of Ahnold's proposal to "eliminate welfare for families").

IMHO, that's the last place we should start -- especially in the midst of an economic depression -- because (a) it was government-granted privileges to the rich that created the apparent need for such programs in the first place (more on this here), and (b) the resultant civil unrest would give the NWO the excuse they need to impose all-out martial law.

On a side note, I think it's worth mentioning that even Milton Friedman was generally supportive of the emergency relief measures implemented by FDR during the last great depression:

"Now, given the conditions you were in in '33, given that the mistake had been made, I have no doubt that major social action was called for. And I really have no criticism to make of the emergency action which was undertaken at that time in the form of WPA, PWA, direct relief -- I think you had to do it at that time, given the state you were in."

-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfdRpyfEmBE

Now, at this point some might be thinking: "If you [geolib] oppose cutting the social safety net, then what cuts or reforms do you support?"

The first thing to realize is that the two major parties are owned by the very parasitic oligarchs who orchestrated the collapse of our economy in the first place, and that economic reform must therefore be coupled with election reform if it's to have any chance of success.

That clarified, here are some of the emergency actions I advocate:

* Put all derivatives-infected mega-banks through Chapter 11 bankruptcy and, in the reorganization proceedings, legally void all of their derivatives contracts.

* Liquidate all of the ill-gotten assets of criminal scam artists like Henry Paulson and Bernard Madoff, and use the resultant proceeds to help replenish whatever retirement funds they raided.

* Replace our current debt-based money system with a debt-free "Greenback" money system, whereby all new money -- instead of being loaned into circulation at interest -- is spent into circulation at no interest to fund the production and repair of public goods everyone can see and benefit from (roads & bridges, maglev rail, etc.), and at a rate pegged by law to objective criteria such as population growth and the general price level. (More on this here.)

* Bring an immediate end to our reckless, hornets' nest-stirring, interventionist foreign policy, and pass the hundreds of billions in resultant tax savings onto the bottom 90% of income earners.

* Eliminate federal involvement in so-called "education" and pass the savings onto the bottom 90%.

* Shift the tax burden to the greatest extent possible off the privately created values of labor and capital goods and onto the publicly created value of land. (More on this here.)

* Eliminate most if not all occupational licensing barriers.

* Relegalize alternative medicine.

* Relegalize hemp.

* Withdraw the U.S. from NAFTA, GATT and the WTO.

Well, you're talking about how to get there and it's amazing how much time and effort you've put into developing those reforms. I've been through a lot of your stuff and I do agree with a lot of it, including the notion that you don't first wipe out the social safety net in one fell swoop. I still struggle with your ideas on property rights, but that's beside the point for now.

That said, I think we have to think of the endgame (liberty), itself, differently from the implementation of the reforms needed to get there - in your view or anyone else's. It's possible that some of your 'Austrian nemesises' are thinking of the endgame and not actually suggesting such cuts (like the social safety net) would be a first step.

We still have tons of groundwork to do, first, just to get the masses interested in liberty, let alone to understand it or want it. Until that happens, people won't even know why you're putting forward such reforms...

* Withdraw the U.S. from NAFTA, GATT and the WTO.

They'd just ask: "But how would we trade with the world if we withdrew from these organizations."

[CaptBebops]

I don't see anything necessarily wrong with medium-sized businesses (the kind that have, say, a few dozen chain stores in multiple counties or states), but other than that I tend to agree.

Ever been in a small company that grew?  At more than 200 employees they start to go out of control.  The CEOs start acting like they can manage more growth but they really can't.  It's just a big show.  Eventually they fail or get bought up by an even bigger company whose CEO is even better at playing the charade.

And if the company is publicly held you start working for quarters instead of dollars.

[Freeski]

No we did it (making it cheapest to shop there) by swilling-down the noble elite's Transnational-Socialist political labor-market collapsing "free trade" snake-oil!

Ballad of Timothy Geithner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAdJLLmpWBU

That was just great, sort of like a two and a half minute slap to the side of the head. 

[Michal Ptacnik]

Do you realize that the "rules" "limiting" the free market came out of a very real need to counter the work of scamsters offering useless "miracle cure for all-s" and at the same time to try to protect the customer's health from low quality goods, e.g. rotten vegetables, diseased meat, etc.?

You might say that the customer can see if a food is rotten, but it's really not the case all the time and I would not want to live in a country where I would have to check if what I am buying is bad or not. Plus, with the new technologies and new goods, the checking might become an impossibility, e.g. how do I know the computer is good, etc.?

I am going to spout heresy here, but, people, free market, as in totally unregulated, is obsolete. It worked up to perhaps the early twentieth century or so, but the times, they are a changing, and the nations, confronted with more complex situation, discovered that what is needed is a complex solution and so the current control craze started.

But the underlying principle, that specialists should examine goods if they are real or if they have sound quality, is good in itself; it could be done better, certainly, but we should never dispose of it.

With that in mind, I might add one more thing: We really are entering a new age of technological progress and if half of what is currently in the minds of visionaries comes true, we are going to have a new humanity in several decades. The old social principles won't apply; any attempts to resurrect them will be tragic cases of ludditism. That even goes for such tried-and-true things as the current forms of government and yes, even the republic or democracy.

Imagine, for example, that it might be possible to kill people over the net when we decide to put plugs into our brains? Will it be good for that "bastion of freedom" to remain unregulated? It will become a battlefield soon if it stays such!
This is just one, slightly extreme example, to illustrate the principle. Let us not fear new things just because they are untried, or because we have them associated with NWO ballast, new things here being new forms of regulation, totally new ways how to look at personal freedom, etc.

[MasSlavery]

Do you realize that the "rules" "limiting" the free market came out of a very real need to counter the work of scamsters offering useless "miracle cure for all-s" and at the same time to try to protect the customer's health from low quality goods, e.g. rotten vegetables, diseased meat, etc.?

You might say that the customer can see if a food is rotten, but it's really not the case all the time and I would not want to live in a country where I would have to check if what I am buying is bad or not. Plus, with the new technologies and new goods, the checking might become an impossibility, e.g. how do I know the computer is good, etc.?

I am going to spout heresy here, but, people, free market, as in totally unregulated, is obsolete. It worked up to perhaps the early twentieth century or so, but the times, they are a changing, and the nations, confronted with more complex situation, discovered that what is needed is a complex solution and so the current control craze started.

Look at the FDA, they allow Aspertame, MSG, Flouride and Chlorine in our Food and Water, as a matter of fact They require Flouride in our Water even though it causes a variety of health problems. Lack of free markets is part of the problem these days, the government stole trillions from the American People to prop up these huge Corporations which will fail in the long run anyway.

With that in mind, I might add one more thing: We really are entering a new age of technological progress and if half of what is currently in the minds of visionaries comes true, we are going to have a new humanity in several decades. The old social principles won't apply; any attempts to resurrect them will be tragic cases of ludditism. That even goes for such tried-and-true things as the current forms of government and yes, even the republic or democracy.

Yes the founders were wrong anyway, they intended for the United States to be a Republic but they aren't as wise as our new masters, while were at it let's just ditch the Constitution all together, it's old and shoddy anyway. 

Imagine, for example, that it might be possible to kill people over the net when we decide to put plugs into our brains? Will it be good for that "bastion of freedom" to remain unregulated? It will become a battlefield soon if it stays such!
This is just one, slightly extreme example, to illustrate the principle. Let us not fear new things just because they are untried, or because we have them associated with NWO ballast, new things here being new forms of regulation, totally new ways how to look at personal freedom, etc.

Sounds like Globalism to Me, sorry but I think You're preaching to the wrong Crowd.

[Michal Ptacnik]

MasSlavery: Any arguments to the contrary based on something else than the subsumption of my own arguments under labels (such as globalism)?

The founding fathers were wiser than most statesmen and so called statesmen of today and they formed a near-perfect constitution and legal order by extension, that fitted their day. I agree that most countries in the world would benefit if they had such a constitution; I myself am an euro federalist and if I was to decide, we would adopt your constitution with only slight changes pertaining to the difference between our two cultures, by tomorrow morning, just before I'd sign the executive order thinning the bureaucracy by 9/10.

But in the near future, even good things of the past are going to be plain obsolete. It is not that evident today, though the threats of terrorism, supposed that they are real, are one example, but there will be more examples, deadly examples, as technology and society progresses. Already the lines are blurred in cases of internet piracy, music sharing etc. Is it a crime or is it a plain common, well, sharing? It will be decided one day, and be it as may, the "dogmas of the quiet past" will not be applicable on this and many other cases. Now it's just about money, tomorrow it will be livelyhood, day after tomorrow, who knows?

Conservatism is a very dangerous thing and it itself used to be the synonym for tyranny (denoting monarchism) for the better part of the Enlightenment age. Nationalism, like it or not, belongs to the same little box. In the past, when it was born, war was, to quote von Klausewitz, the "natural extension of politics." Wars were fought mainly soldier-against-soldier and for territorial gains of immediate nature or for openly geopolitical reasons.
Note that Nationalism can't be done without wars. See Iron Mountain report or use common sense, it's allways us vs. them when you have nations, war is a necessary thing in this arrangement.

In this day and age, the definition of war has shifted from the above to terrible massacre, necessarily ending in attrocities on civilians and if war was to be fought "for real," it would have to be with weapons that have the capability to kill us all, everyone, even those not interested in the conflict. War thus is impossible to provide the outlet, the continuation of politics as it used to, and there is no substitute safe for a great massacre, when the nation must go practically mad to be capable of doing it. Thus nationalism, yesterday perhaps an idea with some merit, becomes a dangerous and obsolete (and in a way highly criminal, see the reasoning above!) concept for today and tomorrow.

I would be mad not to want a new and non-conservative solution in this case. I would also be mad not to see that the current establishment, let's call it the New World Order, does a bad, bad job in the process. So I am for kicking them out, complete with their outdated (Remember! The NWO is the Old World Order, see truth movies!) policies and to postulate a much desired change.

MasSlavery: For me, the NWO has committed the crime against humanity - and human sanity - of hijacking the good and noble idea of unity for mankind, an idea that is not so contrary to the spirit of your constitution as you would perhaps think it is, and perverting it by masking an old fashioned corporate fascism in it's noble garments. They stole our bright future.
Yes, I am a globalist, in this sense: If it was possible, I'd create the United States of the World (and very "American" ones in many ways, I might add) the day after tomorrow (tomorrow I'd be too busy enacting the European Federation ), but I'd never, ever, opt for the New World Order as imagined here to run things. They're criminal gangs of business-nobility, a power block that should have been gone by the beginning of the last century.

Satisfied?

[ekimdrachir]

For what?

We have the power of choice, and we can influence the choices of those around us.

[Freeski]

We have the power of choice, and we can influence the choices of those around us.

Absolutely. Persuasion over coersion!

[Voskhod3]

The man with the biggest stick wins.

It was always thus.

[Freeski]

The man with the biggest stick wins.

It was always thus.

Or the better item.

[Voskhod3]

Or the better item.

The man with the biggest stick takes the better item.

It was always thus.

[John Galt]

Hats are off.

Do you want to be this guy



or this guy



Your choice.

[Freeski]

The man with the biggest stick takes the better item.

It was always thus.

Only if the subject is unarmed.

[Voskhod3]

Only if the subject is unarmed.

The man with the biggest stick has er... the biggest stick.

[Freeski]

The man with the biggest stick has er... the biggest stick.

So what are you saying?

[Double]

The man with the biggest stick wins.

It was always thus.

Wins what?

[Voskhod3]

Everything.

Todays aristocrats were yesterdays bandits.

It was ever thus.

[Double]

Ancient Britain and ancient Ireland are two places where that never existed.
These are just times before our so called written his-story, and so.. we are not suppose to know of them.

Ari-sto tle
Ari-sto crat - So crat es

Ari... what's its etymology? It's quite the myth-story! Used in all parts of the world at one time. Sanskrits a good start.
And we really don't win anything with violence, in the end. But that is something else we are not suppose to know about.   

[sociostudent]

I'm just sick of their crap. I hate bullies, and I hate thugs, and I hate liars, and these criminals need to be brought to justice right now by being placed under arrest and tried by a jury of their peers and spend the rest of their lives in prison (in general population, not in that isolation crap, either).

[Double]

We need to quit taking the 'golden' carrots they offer in return for cheap thrills and quick comfort then.
They couldn't control us without bars if it was not for our incredible ignorance..
synonyms we're not suppose to know about, you catch one the rest infect :
synonyms:
Love, Truth, Knowledge, Harmony, Light, Pleasure, Bliss, God/Creation
synonyms:
Fear, Lies, Ignorance, Dissonance, Darkness, Pain, Suffering, Satan/Destruction

I'm just sick of their crap. I hate bullies, and I hate thugs, and I hate liars, and these criminals need to be brought to justice right now by being placed under arrest and tried by a jury of their peers and spend the rest of their lives in prison (in general population, not in that isolation crap, either).