Post by: charby on May 01, 2008, 07:45:58 AM
I really think we have high oil prices because of the weakening of the dollar and its the new investment speculation for those folks that shouldn't be investing like the Joneses. First it was tech, then housing and now lately it has been energy. I remember tons of radio ads back in the late nineties trying to get folks to invest in oil and gasoline.
I think prices are going to drop dramatically in the next couple years, people are going to loose their assets and asses. This is just my own opinion.
I'm more concerned about drinking water and food. Those are more realistic problems that are under the radar.
I'm curious how everyone feels about it?
Post by: Manedwolf on May 01, 2008, 08:06:46 AM
People will piss and moan if there's no gas at the gas station.
If there's no food or water, they'll riot and kill.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 01, 2008, 08:32:50 AM
Quote
I'm more concerned about drinking water and food. Those are more realistic problems that are under the radar.
Agreed. Clean water is getting more scarce all the time, even in, especially in the U.S. Some parts of the country have been under drought for years now. Of course, we can make clean water simply by building de sal plants. You can't make more oil.
But, is the high price of oil due to an approaching 'peak oil' crisis or something else? Geologists know of huge oil deposits that remain untouched, and expect there are others not yet discovered. I submit that the problem is not a natural shortage of oil, but an artificial shortage as a result of production and supply methods.
Over the last, what, decade or so there have been mergers and consolidations of oil companies, resulting in fewer companies and less competition. And because oil is allowed, or treated as a speculative commodity on the open market, the prices are artificially driven up by non oil industry profit seekers. Concurrently, oil company profits (for whatever reason, I don't want to argue about 'why') are at historic highs.
Now, the retail price of oil and gas are in fact set by the market, which will charge as much as people are willing to pay. So, as a result, these fewer, bigger oil companies don't have any incentive to produce more oil at higher costs of production for what would then be less profit.
The current 'free market' system isn't working for anyone but the oil producers and speculators. Some changes are needed. Here's what I suggest:
1) Dust off the unused (since the Reagan administration) anti trust laws and break up some of these monopolies. Provide the newer companies with tax incentives and opportunities for new production, like Anwar.
2) Remove oil as a publicly tradeable commodity to get rid of speculation that does nothing but drive up prices without creating or adding any value. IOW, the only people who trade in, or treat oil as a commodity are the oil producers themselves.
Those two actions will go a long way to solving any 'shortages' and will bring the retail price down to realistic levels.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 01, 2008, 08:46:17 AM
Also, you need to look up the definition of "monopoly". The fact that, oh, DIFFERENT companies like ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron-Texaco, and BP are competing means that there is no monopoly.
Competing companies. Not monopoly. I thought that was pretty simple.
BTW, Paddy, Hugo Chavez agrees with you 100%. Nice company you keep.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 01, 2008, 08:53:42 AM
If you have a better idea, post it. Oh, no, wait. I already know what it is. Something along the lines of 'kill all the moonbat greenie Prius driving California communist/socialist/liberal statists".
There. I saved you the trouble.
And, you're a Great American. Now go back to listening to Lee Greenwood.
Quote
BTW, Paddy, Hugo Chavez agrees with you 100%. Nice company you keep.
Hugo Chavez wants to promote free market competition between privately owned oil companies? What are you smokin', dude? Or is there just some kind of viral pollen blowing around there in NH?
Post by: Manedwolf on May 01, 2008, 08:55:35 AM
Do you just not realize what a statist you are?
"Oh, help us, Big Goverment! Create some new agencies and saaaave us from ourselves!"
Post by: RoadKingLarry on May 01, 2008, 09:04:44 AM
Post by: roo_ster on May 01, 2008, 09:25:35 AM
Reason being, it makes no sense to explore for more if you have more in the ground than you can get out in a particular time period.
Post by: roo_ster on May 01, 2008, 09:26:45 AM
So which of the foreign titled companies do you think the US needs to break up? or do you just want to damage US based capitalism. Of course were I the board of a US comany that "they" decided needed to be regulated out of existance I might consider moving offshore as well. Of course you could nationalize all the US based assets but again, I think they call that facism.
If you nationalize them, it is fascism.
If you socialize them, it is socialism.
Of course, it is the same dang thing.
Post by: wmenorr67 on May 01, 2008, 09:46:14 AM
And it doesn't matter how much oil we can get our hands on, there is only so much that we can refine. Get more refineries and the price of gas goes down.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 01, 2008, 09:58:02 AM
So which of the foreign titled companies do you think the US needs to break up? or do you just want to damage US based capitalism. Of course were I the board of a US comany that "they" decided needed to be regulated out of existance I might consider moving offshore as well. Of course you could nationalize all the US based assets but again, I think they call that facism.
Apparently, reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Or maybe kneejerk reactionism is simply your automatic response. All those mergers over the last decade + were APPROVED by government. In fact, those companies wouldn't even exist without government recognition of their corporate status. Back, oh, some 120 years ago, an number of companies were broken up with antitrust laws. One of them was Standard Oil. More recently, AT&T was the subject of antitrust action. Look up the history of those two and then tell me they were 'regulated out of business'.
Oh, and fascism is exactly what we have now, with the our system of corporate owned government.
Post by: Firethorn on May 01, 2008, 10:25:47 AM
We will forever "almost" reaching peak oil.
Actually, it's quite possible we'll hit peak oil in 50 years or so.
All it'll take is that price sliding upwards enough that alternatives are now cheaper. At that point oil will go into decline, perhaps even becoming cheaper due to reduced demand from everybody switching over to alternate fuel vehicles.
The 'Peak' is when oil production hits it's maximum point before decreasing. I figure it'll happen as the world(read: China&India) finishes industrializing.
Post by: charby on May 01, 2008, 10:29:24 AM
The current 'free market' system isn't working for anyone but the oil producers and speculators. Some changes are needed. Here's what I suggest:
1) Dust off the unused (since the Reagan administration) anti trust laws and break up some of these monopolies. Provide the newer companies with tax incentives and opportunities for new production, like Anwar.
2) Remove oil as a publicly tradeable commodity to get rid of speculation that does nothing but drive up prices without creating or adding any value. IOW, the only people who trade in, or treat oil as a commodity are the oil producers themselves.
Those two actions will go a long way to solving any 'shortages' and will bring the retail price down to realistic levels.
I agree with you in that I wasn't happy when the oil company mergers happened and I could see the government stepping in to break them up a bit, that is one thing I like the government to do. I can also see how much of a pain it is since oil is a global commodity and controlled by a various sects of global commerce.
Oil can never be removed as a public traded commodity, who would set the price then? Oil is mined/produced globally, same as most commodities. I do think that they need to end after hours trading in America of energy components. Enron lobbied congress to let this happened back in the late 90's if IRC. All commodities need to be traded only when the market is open.
-Charby
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 01, 2008, 10:35:42 AM
Quote
Oil can never be removed as a public traded commodity, who would set the price then? Oil is mined/produced globally, same as most commodities.
I think the SEC could limit purchases to those actually engaged in the oil business. IOW, unless you're actually buying oil (crude oil) to process and resell, you're prohibited from doing it. No private speculation.
Post by: charby on May 01, 2008, 10:40:19 AM
Quote
Oil can never be removed as a public traded commodity, who would set the price then? Oil is mined/produced globally, same as most commodities.
I think the SEC could limit purchases to those actually engaged in the oil business. IOW, unless you're actually buying oil (crude oil) to process and resell, you're prohibited from doing it. No private speculation.
That would only apply to American markets. I do see your point and it does make sense but I'm baffled by it. It would like saying the same thing in regards to gold and silver.
Post by: K Frame on May 01, 2008, 10:43:33 AM
Prior to that, OPEC set the price per barrel.
Today, OPEC can manipulate the price by changing production allocations.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 01, 2008, 12:19:26 PM
Quote
That would only apply to American markets. I do see your point and it does make sense but I'm baffled by it. It would like saying the same thing in regards to gold and silver.
Unlike oil, changes in the prices of gold and silver don't affect everything else in the economy.
Post by: doc2rn on May 01, 2008, 04:16:56 PM
Post by: charby on May 01, 2008, 04:58:39 PM
To fix the big oil problem all we have to do is mandate all vehicles be flex fuel vehicles. Give Americans the choice of buying Organic Biofuel made here or imported oil and we make them lower the proce through competition.
Lets ruin our arable soil at an alarming rate!! Now we can't afford oil and are not able to grow food.
Post by: Nitrogen on May 01, 2008, 05:43:35 PM
How about a giant tax break over x years for the first energy company to come up with a way to power our economy using only a domestically produced means, and/or renewable.
I'm sure ExxonMobil would love an excuse to keep even MORE of the gazillions they already make.
Post by: grampster on May 01, 2008, 06:02:53 PM
Elect me and I'll bring all the oil, gas, coal, nuclear, refinery, hydrogen, solar, wind, river current, ocean current, wave energy and anyone else in the energy business except those who grow food folks into Washington the week after I'm inaugurated. All previous agreement and rules will be off the table. We'll start from scratch and nobody will leave till we've hammered out some sort of mutual agreement for a long term national energy program. If congress fails to go along with what we come up with, I'll go on national television and ask the American people what they think they ought do about any congressman or senator who would obstruct that plan without providing a detailed positive, progressive alternative.
I'd wager, since markets are moved more by emotion than reality, energy prices would plummet almost immediately because no speculator wants to get caught holding futures that are basically worthless.
PS: A couple of geologists wrote a book, I'm still looking for it, that claims that oil is a renewable resource and it is regenerating as we speak.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on May 01, 2008, 06:47:53 PM
Again, if the answer is more government, it was a really stupid question.
Do you just not realize what a statist you are?
"Oh, help us, Big Goverment! Create some new agencies and saaaave us from ourselves!"
Do you just not realize what a statist you are?
"Oh, help us, Big Goverment! Create some new agencies and saaaave us from ourselves!"
I've noticed you're against "Big Govt", except when it applies to your wants.
You're just as much a statist as Paddy when it comes to what you want.
Post by: Fjolnirsson on May 01, 2008, 08:24:17 PM
Quote
PS: A couple of geologists wrote a book, I'm still looking for it, that claims that oil is a renewable resource and it is regenerating as we speak.
You're thinking of abiotic theory. Basic premise is that oilis a natural byproduct of the Earth's internal processes, rather than a product of squeezed dinos/plant matter.
Post by: Regolith on May 01, 2008, 08:37:23 PM
Oh, and fascism is exactly what we have now, with the our system of corporate owned government.
Wait, did somebody change the definition of facism while I was asleep?
Lets see...
Quote
fascist
One entry found.
fascism
Main Entry:
fas·cism Listen to the pronunciation of fascism
Pronunciation:
\ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date:
1921
1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality J. W. Aldridge>
One entry found.
fascism
Main Entry:
fas·cism Listen to the pronunciation of fascism
Pronunciation:
\ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date:
1921
1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality J. W. Aldridge>
Hmm...nope, I don't see anything in there about corporations. Not even parts where they pay off politicians.
If you're going to use a term, you should probably understand what it means first.
Post by: doc2rn on May 02, 2008, 04:54:27 AM
Quote
Lets ruin our arable soil at an alarming rate!! Now we can't afford oil and are not able to grow food.
We are doing this already. We gave away $200 Million in food last year, the world wants us to provide $750 Million nest year and George W. said this yesterday! Biofuel does not have to be made from edible grains. We can make it from sugar cane stalks, switch grass, tree bark, and used deep frier oil. Heck Utah has practically switched over to natural gas cars and trucks.
My point is if they have competition they will have to lower the price to be marketably competitive.
Post by: stevelyn on May 02, 2008, 05:02:02 AM
Quote
PS: A couple of geologists wrote a book, I'm still looking for it, that claims that oil is a renewable resource and it is regenerating as we speak.
You're thinking of abiotic theory. Basic premise is that oilis a natural byproduct of the Earth's internal processes, rather than a product of squeezed dinos/plant matter.
It's called, "Black Gold, Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and Oil Politics" written by Jerome Corsi a Harvard educated Ph. D. who also wrote "Atomic Iran", "The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger With Mexico And Canada" and is a contributor to http://augustreview.com/.
I've read the book and listened to a few interviews he did and he presents a pretty compelling arguement for abiotic theory. When you look at increasing estimates and once depleted reserves refilling maybe we have been fed a line. It's apparent that petroleum companies aren't exactly forging full speed ahead in developing alternative energy.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 02, 2008, 05:03:17 AM
Post by: stevelyn on May 02, 2008, 05:08:46 AM
Post by: charby on May 02, 2008, 05:22:53 AM
Charby wrote~
We are doing this already. We gave away $200 Million in food last year, the world wants us to provide $750 Million nest year and George W. said this yesterday! Biofuel does not have to be made from edible grains. We can make it from sugar cane stalks, switch grass, tree bark, and used deep frier oil. Heck Utah has practically switched over to natural gas cars and trucks.
My point is if they have competition they will have to lower the price to be marketably competitive.
Quote
Lets ruin our arable soil at an alarming rate!! Now we can't afford oil and are not able to grow food.
We are doing this already. We gave away $200 Million in food last year, the world wants us to provide $750 Million nest year and George W. said this yesterday! Biofuel does not have to be made from edible grains. We can make it from sugar cane stalks, switch grass, tree bark, and used deep frier oil. Heck Utah has practically switched over to natural gas cars and trucks.
My point is if they have competition they will have to lower the price to be marketably competitive.
Competition would drive the price of oil down. Right now its uber expensive to make ethanol from cellulosic means I also think that they haven't reached large scale production capacities yet either.
Sugar cane? That is even harder on the soil than maize is. Sugar cane requires a lot of inputs which unfortunately right now all are petroleum based. Brazil is killing its arable lands with sugar cane production.
Post by: Glock Glockler on May 02, 2008, 05:51:15 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on May 02, 2008, 05:55:23 AM
Any reason why hemp wouldn't work? From what I read it'll grow very well without any fertilizer.
I would rather have sugar beets.
Hemp fields tend to grow crazy hippies and Paulians, due to the fact of an (oops!) corner of their headtrip weed slipped in there for their hemp cult.
Post by: charby on May 02, 2008, 05:55:40 AM
Any reason why hemp wouldn't work? From what I read it'll grow very well without any fertilizer.
You can only plant and take from a soil for only so long before you have add fertilizers. Even if you planted switch grass and only cut it once a year eventually you will have to replace the nutrients you harvested with the crop.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 02, 2008, 06:19:29 AM
Quote
Hmm...nope, I don't see anything in there about corporations. Not even parts where they pay off politicians.
If you're going to use a term, you should probably understand what it means first.
If you're going to use a term, you should probably understand what it means first.
You rely on the Cliffnotes version of a short definition to educate yourself on a political philosophy? Please tell me you're not studying toward any serious goal, like brain surgery or even plumbing. When you've actually read something on fascism (you can start with Mussolini's 'The Doctrine of Fascism'), get back to me.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on May 02, 2008, 06:39:37 AM
Any reason why hemp wouldn't work? From what I read it'll grow very well without any fertilizer.
From what I've read about it, hemp is an excellent source for ethanol and much more profitable than most other sources (it can be found growing profusely in the ditches of Illinois). In addition, it can be used for making a multitude of other products.
Problem with the idea is the......
ZOMG! IT'S REEFER MADNESS! WE'RE ALL GONNA BECOME ADDICTED! TEH HIPPIES WILL TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!!
.....statist control freaks get in a tizzy every time it's mentioned.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 02, 2008, 07:04:27 AM
Like it or not, there are hemp/pot cultists. They wear hemp, eat hemp, smoke pot, proclaim the virtues of such to anyone they run into, and go absolutely batsh_t wild-eyed insane if you say anything contrary.
Post by: roo_ster on May 02, 2008, 07:49:44 AM
Any reason why hemp wouldn't work? From what I read it'll grow very well without any fertilizer.
I would rather have sugar beets.
Hemp fields tend to grow crazy hippies and Paulians, due to the fact of an (oops!) corner of their headtrip weed slipped in there for their hemp cult.
Rudolf Diesel originally designed & intended his engine to run on hemp seed oil.
Post by: Creeping Incrementalism on May 02, 2008, 07:51:09 AM
Quote
Hmm...nope, I don't see anything in there about corporations. Not even parts where they pay off politicians.
If you're going to use a term, you should probably understand what it means first.
If you're going to use a term, you should probably understand what it means first.
You rely on the Cliffnotes version of a short definition to educate yourself on a political philosophy? Please tell me you're not studying toward any serious goal, like brain surgery or even plumbing. When you've actually read something on fascism (you can start with Mussolini's 'The Doctrine of Fascism'), get back to me.
Paddy, considering you already misused the term "monopoly" I would be surprised if you are using the term "fascism" correctly, considering every definition I have ever seen applies to governments. Browsing through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_Fascism it all seems to be referring to a national government, and not business, to me. Calling a company "fascist" seems as pointless as calling one "totalitarian" or "authoritarian" because the boss makes all the rules, or because they don't let their product's prices get put up to a popular vote.
Post by: Creeping Incrementalism on May 02, 2008, 08:05:44 AM
Over the last, what, decade or so there have been mergers and consolidations of oil companies, resulting in fewer companies and less competition.
The fact that there are fewer companies in the U.S. does not necessarily mean there is less competition. In the industry I work in, there are only two companies of appreciable size, and we compete intensely. Economies of scale are a reason why companies merge. Furthermore, the cost of refining is a small part of the overall cost we pay at gas station. 75% of the cost goes to the crude producers, most of whom are run by foreign governments.
Quote
And because oil is allowed, or treated as a speculative commodity on the open market, the prices are artificially driven up by non oil industry profit seekers.
Are you ignorant of the fact that traders also speculate that prices drop? And from everything I've read in the finacial news, people seeking only to preserve their wealth due to a declining dollar are most responsible for the very recent oil price hikes.
Quote
The current 'free market' system isn't working for anyone but the oil producers and speculators.
If one person wants to buy oil and finds someone who wants to sell, who the hell are you (or the government) to step in and say they can't do so?
The best solution to a shortage is to wait. When prices rise, harder to reach oil becomes economically viable to extract, but unfortunately it takes years to develop oil fields. All the government can do is get out of the way--do away with regulation on expansion of oil fields.
Post by: WeedWhacker on May 02, 2008, 08:51:27 AM
Again, if the answer is more government, it was a really stupid question.
Do you just not realize what a statist you are?
"Oh, help us, Big Goverment! Create some new agencies and saaaave us from ourselves!"
I've noticed you're against "Big Govt", except when it applies to your wants.Do you just not realize what a statist you are?
"Oh, help us, Big Goverment! Create some new agencies and saaaave us from ourselves!"
You're just as much a statist as Paddy when it comes to what you want.
I understand this is the key problem when it comes to maintaining a society where freedom thrives. Many folks tend to want the government and its enforcers to beat up on groups the first set of folks don't agree with, whether it be smokers, or religious nuts, or political nuts, etc.
When I'd first read a post by Manedwolf which rightly blasted the ever-expanding increases of government power, I had to go back and find a few of the rants against the Free State Project folks to check the associated poster's name to assure myself that I wasn't reading something from an entirely different person altogether. :P
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 02, 2008, 09:46:19 AM
Over the last, what, decade or so there have been mergers and consolidations of oil companies, resulting in fewer companies and less competition.
The fact that there are fewer companies in the U.S. does not necessarily mean there is less competition. In the industry I work in, there are only two companies of appreciable size, and we compete intensely. Economies of scale are a reason why companies merge. Furthermore, the cost of refining is a small part of the overall cost we pay at gas station. 75% of the cost goes to the crude producers, most of whom are run by foreign governments.
Quote
And because oil is allowed, or treated as a speculative commodity on the open market, the prices are artificially driven up by non oil industry profit seekers.
Are you ignorant of the fact that traders also speculate that prices drop? And from everything I've read in the finacial news, people seeking only to preserve their wealth due to a declining dollar are most responsible for the very recent oil price hikes.
Quote
The current 'free market' system isn't working for anyone but the oil producers and speculators.
If one person wants to buy oil and finds someone who wants to sell, who the hell are you (or the government) to step in and say they can't do so?
The best solution to a shortage is to wait. When prices rise, harder to reach oil becomes economically viable to extract, but unfortunately it takes years to develop oil fields. All the government can do is get out of the way--do away with regulation on expansion of oil fields.
So, according to all that, the current system should be providing us with plentiful, inexpensive oil and gas. Except it isn't. Apparently your entire argument is separated from reality. By a lot. Maybe you'd better stay in the kitchen.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 02, 2008, 10:00:15 AM
Again, if the answer is more government, it was a really stupid question.
Do you just not realize what a statist you are?
"Oh, help us, Big Goverment! Create some new agencies and saaaave us from ourselves!"
I've noticed you're against "Big Govt", except when it applies to your wants.Do you just not realize what a statist you are?
"Oh, help us, Big Goverment! Create some new agencies and saaaave us from ourselves!"
You're just as much a statist as Paddy when it comes to what you want.
I understand this is the key problem when it comes to maintaining a society where freedom thrives. Many folks tend to want the government and its enforcers to beat up on groups the first set of folks don't agree with, whether it be smokers, or religious nuts, or political nuts, etc.
When I'd first read a post by Manedwolf which rightly blasted the ever-expanding increases of government power, I had to go back and find a few of the rants against the Free State Project folks to check the associated poster's name to assure myself that I wasn't reading something from an entirely different person altogether.
The last time I saw some "Free State Project" people, they were on a Manchester streetcorner during the primaries, screaming that 9/11 was an inside job. It was one of the only times I've agreed with Bill Clinton, when he looked at them and said "You guys are absolutely nuts." Three others just got put away on federal charges for arming violent tax protesters. The infamous wookiee costume was one of them, making a damned fool of themselves and embarassing the whole state in Keene.
I cheer every time those loons get themselves arrested again (one of the leaders is in prison now for being a deadbeat dad, even), especially if they throw themselves on the ground and make the cops drag them around when pulled over for not having a car registration, since they're "showing the man". It's hilarious. Hilarious in a sad way, but hilarious.
While I don't like big government, I have no use for idiot anarchists and would-be Weathermen in my state, thanks. They need to go back to their basements, chee-tohs, and Ron Paul worship.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on May 02, 2008, 10:05:28 AM
Based on the fact that a bunch of stoner hippies showed up at the state house here and tried to get a bill through for state funding for hemp growers, (no farmers were present, just the hippies), I think some stereotypes are quite true.
Why does that bother you? Did they eat up all the Cheetos? Who cares about stereotypes, we're talking about cheap sources of energy. So, if we could lower energy prices and reduce our dependence on OPEC by, you'd say no because a few hippies (who have had about ZERO effect on anyone of our lives) happened to support the source?
Like it or not, there are hemp/pot cultists. They wear hemp, eat hemp, smoke pot, proclaim the virtues of such to anyone they run into, and go absolutely batsh_t wild-eyed insane if you say anything contrary.
Ya mean kinda like the ZOMG! Reefer Madness anti drug warriors do at the mention of growing hemp?
It's kinda funny, it seems that every group you have a problem with (hippies, Ron Paul supporter, Free Staters, etc) always seem to have you surrounded and they are all absolutely batsh_t wild-eyed insane.
Why is it no one else around seems to have that problem?
Post by: Manedwolf on May 02, 2008, 10:06:51 AM
I think you defeated your own argument there.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 02, 2008, 12:32:04 PM
And I don't mean that in a bad way.............
Post by: Glock Glockler on May 02, 2008, 12:51:00 PM
If hemp can be a possibility why not let the market give it a try and get big govt. out of the energy game? You might not like the bloods and crips but does that mean that blacks shouldn't be able to vote?
Post by: Iain on May 02, 2008, 12:58:05 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on May 02, 2008, 01:02:09 PM
if you mean declared a farce by members of aps then yes quite possibly. it certainly will not be beaten to aps farce status by abiotic oil. science will not be the important factor.
Consensus science will not be the important factor. Most on APS know better...
Post by: Manedwolf on May 02, 2008, 02:24:19 PM
Manedwolf,
If hemp can be a possibility why not let the market give it a try and get big govt. out of the energy game? You might not like the bloods and crips but does that mean that blacks shouldn't be able to vote?
If hemp can be a possibility why not let the market give it a try and get big govt. out of the energy game? You might not like the bloods and crips but does that mean that blacks shouldn't be able to vote?
O_o
I think that metaphor is rather flawed.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on May 02, 2008, 02:25:57 PM
Hippies, Ron Paul supporters and Free State loons aren't insane? Is that what you're trying to say?
I think you defeated your own argument there.
I think you defeated your own argument there.
Where did I say that? Whether or not they are or aren't insane is not the issue. They are not the issue.
You are trying to make them the issue, when in reality they have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.
If "Hippies, Ron Paul supporters and Free State loons" were advocating for bamboo, would you be against that? If "Hippies, Ron Paul supporters and Free State loons" are the issue (which you are making them), then you should be against the use of bamboo also.
Post by: Regolith on May 02, 2008, 02:30:12 PM
Quote
Hmm...nope, I don't see anything in there about corporations. Not even parts where they pay off politicians.
If you're going to use a term, you should probably understand what it means first.
If you're going to use a term, you should probably understand what it means first.
You rely on the Cliffnotes version of a short definition to educate yourself on a political philosophy? Please tell me you're not studying toward any serious goal, like brain surgery or even plumbing. When you've actually read something on fascism (you can start with Mussolini's 'The Doctrine of Fascism'), get back to me.
Funny you should mention that....Thing is, when corporatism comes into facism, it isn't the corporation running the country, as you have posited, but the other way around. In essense, the corporation is nationalized in order for it to follow the political and economical goals of the nation. This is directly opposite to what you're saying is fascism - that is, the corporations buying off representatives in the government in order to get the government to help them make a profit. And in either case, the "corporation" being mentioned isn't the same as the business model of a corporation - although they can be included into the overall body - but rather a civic assembly that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, social, cultural, or professional groups.
So again, the context you're using the word in is inherently wrong.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 02, 2008, 02:58:28 PM
Quote
Of course, we can make clean water simply by building de sal plants. You can't make more oil.
Two words:
Thermal.
Depolymerization.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 02, 2008, 03:01:21 PM
While I don't like big government, I have no use for idiot anarchists and would-be Weathermen in my state, thanks. They need to go back to their basements, chee-tohs, and Ron Paul worship.
For the record, Maned.
I'm a Free State Project member. If, and when, I immigrate, I will choose NH for my state of habitation.
Post by: WeedWhacker on May 02, 2008, 04:11:49 PM
I cheer every time those loons get themselves arrested again (one of the leaders is in prison now for being a deadbeat dad, even), especially if they throw themselves on the ground and make the cops drag them around when pulled over for not having a car registration, since they're "showing the man". It's hilarious. Hilarious in a sad way, but hilarious.
While I don't like big government, I have no use for idiot anarchists and would-be Weathermen in my state, thanks. They need to go back to their basements, chee-tohs, and Ron Paul worship.
While I don't like big government, I have no use for idiot anarchists and would-be Weathermen in my state, thanks. They need to go back to their basements, chee-tohs, and Ron Paul worship.
Granted that I don't agree with some of the FSP's members' actions (or inactions, as in the case of being dragged around by the cops) or ideology, I do recognize that they and I have a common enemy: the ever-increasing encroachment of big government, in a country birthed in violence against the same, which has made a mockery of its original charter.
I don't cheer the cops when I see a thin, older woman dragged out of her car by cops because she didn't show her papers, which she doesn't possess to show because she opposes them on moral grounds.
-edit
As for the topic, I'm of the idealistic mindset that it'd be wonderful to see what the free market could come up with if let to be free to do its thang. For starters, I'd *love* to buy one of those tiiiny little deathtrap cars from India which were said to retail at under ... was it $5K new? No frills, no nothing, just a small car which by virtue of its small size gets good fuel economy. Can't, though, 'cause I understand they're banned in the USA.
Post by: Glock Glockler on May 02, 2008, 06:17:17 PM
You basically stated that you want big govt. infringing on people's rights and preventing more fuel getting to market because you have a personal dislike for some of the people who support it. We can argue about the analogy but the fact remains that growing hemp infringes on no one's rights yet you don't want to take the govt. off people's backs.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 02, 2008, 06:28:58 PM
While I don't like big government, I have no use for idiot anarchists and would-be Weathermen in my state, thanks. They need to go back to their basements, chee-tohs, and Ron Paul worship.
For the record, Maned.
I'm a Free State Project member. If, and when, I immigrate, I will choose NH for my state of habitation.
As long as you're aware that their "project" was entirely hijacked from its ivory-tower founder, and has now been taken over by crazy anarchists with the FBI, DHS and US Marshal Service eye on them constantly, even a few Marshals questioning members at a bar in Manchester about the violent threats of one. They know evvverything about them. They know the names of their members. They know where they meet. They're now intimately entwined with the federal case over the Browns, a couple of crazy, armed "tax protestors" who threatened to kill law enforcement members' families and had a half-year standoff with authorities from a concrete bunker.
If you, as an incoming foreigner, want to fall in with a crowd under the microscope of various letter agencies, that's up to you. I wouldn't consider it wise. Especially if you want to get any kind of job.
I don't cheer the cops when I see a thin, older woman dragged out of her car by cops because she didn't show her papers, which she doesn't possess to show because she opposes them on moral grounds.
They were looking for a confrontation. They were caught speeding 60mph in a 35mph zone, I believe. They had no inspection sticker or registration sticker on their car. As soon as the cops came up, the other person in the car jumped out with a camcorder to record it as she did her "refuse to cooperate" act. And then when taken to jail, the rest of the FSP people, like a bunch of freakish children, paraded around outside the jail wearing "V for Vendetta" masks.
They're crazed conspiracy-theory anarchists who like to throw juvenile shows, they're professonal protestors, they are Ron Paul cultists, they're 9/11 troofers, and they're an embarassment to the state.
I've seen more than one "FREE STATERS GO HOME" bumper sticker, including on vehicles that had Bush, NRA, and even SASS stickers on them.
I'd just like them to go home, go to Wyoming or something where they can be "free" and not annoy locals any more, or to be reined in before some of them go the Weathermen route and blow up something to make their point.
Post by: wmenorr67 on May 02, 2008, 06:51:56 PM
Post by: Gewehr98 on May 02, 2008, 08:48:17 PM
I filled up on E-85 this morning, at $2.79/gallon. I looked across at the regular unleaded pump, and it was going for $3.63/gallon.
That's a difference of 84 cents/gallon between the two fuels. I understand Wisconsin charges 40 cents/gallon tax on that E-85, too.
Regardless, if it wasn't cheaper to run on the stuff, I wouldn't do it, nor would other honest-to-Gawd FlexFuel vehicles out there. I'm not talking E-10, I'm talking E-85, and the vehicles that are designed to run on it. Put E-85 in a non-FlexFuel vehicle, and you'll ruin it. Put E-10 in a vehicle designed for regular unleaded, and it'll run ok, but the engine management system isn't set up to optimize for the mix.
My FlexFuel 2001 S-10 is still cheaper running on E-85, miles/dollar, even with the slightly increased consumption rate. Likewise, I don't see a 25% drop in mileage, that must be a seriously worst-case scenario with a vehicle that doesn't use a fuel composition sensor to adjust ignition and fuel injection timing.
As a fuelie from way back, I'm very much into the alcohol-burning vehicles, be it nitromethanol in a HemiCuda or E-85 in my 2.2L S-10. The stroker 383 that's going into my '53 Chevy pickup has a new Edelbrock 600cfm E-85 carburetor, and makes considerably better use of the 105-octane E-85 than the current batch of low-compression engines currently designed for 87-octane mogas. It should do better than my S-10, although as a dedicated E-85 only vehicleit will also not leave the Wisconsin/Illinois/Minnesota area. That doesn't bother me in the least bit, and I'm already doing my homework to convert my Shovelhead Harley, too. It's already fairly high compression, domed pistons and all.
Post by: stevelyn on May 03, 2008, 04:35:53 AM
Any reason why hemp wouldn't work? From what I read it'll grow very well without any fertilizer.
Nope, other than the govt already has too much invested in the anti-hemp lie and won't allow it.
Quote
........FBI, DHS and US Marshal Service eye on them constantly, .........
Great!
I'd rather be in the company of dope-smoking anarchist hippies than fedpuke trash.
Post by: Nitrogen on May 03, 2008, 05:49:44 AM
Something to take into account, studies confirm that E-85 will get you about 25% less fuel economy than gas. So even if it is cheaper by the gallon over the course of time it winds up being more expensive.
I posted a rundown on this a while ago, here
Of course, the prices were much less then.
Readers digest: Ethanol has less energy per gallon than gas, so you require more of it to get an equivilant energy.
Also realise that Corn prices are artifically "low" due to government interference, so the true cost difference is even worse.
PS I love my new icon.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on May 03, 2008, 06:11:49 AM
Something to take into account, studies confirm that E-85 will get you about 25% less fuel economy than gas. So even if it is cheaper by the gallon over the course of time it winds up being more expensive.
I posted a rundown on this a while ago, here
Of course, the prices were much less then.
Readers digest: Ethanol has less energy per gallon than gas, so you require more of it to get an equivilant energy.
Also realise that Corn prices are artifically "low" due to government interference, so the true cost difference is even worse.
PS I love my new icon.
But as G98 posted, with ethanol you are able to run with higher compression ratios, increasing the efficiency of the engine, which would offset some of the energy difference.
Post by: taurusowner on May 03, 2008, 04:26:37 PM
Post by: stjeanp on May 03, 2008, 04:30:41 PM
Food and water are always more of a concern.
People will piss and moan if there's no gas at the gas station.
If there's no food or water, they'll riot and kill.
People will piss and moan if there's no gas at the gas station.
If there's no food or water, they'll riot and kill.
True and a good observation, but I'd like to point out that a good bit of the fertilizer used in this country comes from the petroleum industry.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 04, 2008, 01:29:48 AM
Quote
they're professonal protestors,
There's something wrong with being a professional protester?
Quote
they are Ron Paul cultists
I supported Ron Paul because he was the best candidate. If you think I'm crazy because of that, well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Quote
I've seen more than one "FREE STATERS GO HOME" bumper sticker, including on vehicles that had Bush, NRA, and even SASS stickers on them.
So, supporters of a moderate president and a moderate gun rights organization oppose people who are not political moderates.
The sky is blue.
The sun rises in the east.
Quote
If you, as an incoming foreigner, want to fall in with a crowd under the microscope of various letter agencies,
Frankly, I have expressed my views on politics in print numerous times, both in letters to editors, and as guest political columns in various print and on-line media. I have appeared on television (Israel's channel 10) at one point, talking about public funding for higher education.
If someone out there is making a List of Evil Minarchist Libertarians, I'm already on that list.
Quote
Especially if you want to get any kind of job.
If you think that the U.S. government is acting behind the scenes to deny jobs to people due to their political views, I've got a bridge to sell to you.
[
Post by: roo_ster on May 04, 2008, 04:25:26 AM
Quote
they're professonal protestors,
There's something wrong with being a professional protester? (2)
Quote
Especially if you want to get any kind of job.
If you think that the U.S. government is acting behind the scenes to deny jobs to people due to their political views, I've got a bridge to sell to you.
[
Yes, most professional protesters are unemployable oxygen thieves.
It is not US Gov't, it is any employer with google-fu.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 04, 2008, 04:37:03 AM
Quote
Yes, most professional protesters are unemployable oxygen thieves.
I hope you're not serious about that.
There's a lot of stuff wrong about modern society. Most people (myself included) don't have the time, the bravery, and the resources to dedicate to actively protesting it.
I have two jobs and a degree to think of, so I can't find time to stand out in the heat and cold with a poster protesting minor issues that few people other than me little about. Most people don't.
I can but cheer on people who are carrying on the fight (non-violently).
I can't lie down in a protest and let police drag me, and maybe risk being beaten or tased, or whatever, even on issue that I feel strongly about. Maybe I'm not angry enough, or just not brave enough.
There are people out there that dedicate a lot of time to protesting against injustices.
I can't lead that life, but I admire these people.
Quote
It is not US Gov't, it is any employer with google-fu.
Funny. I know plenty of libertarians with jobs. Even in my field.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 04, 2008, 04:48:02 AM
Quote
Yes, most professional protesters are unemployable oxygen thieves.
I hope you're not serious about that.
There's a lot of stuff wrong about modern society. Most people (myself included) don't have the time, the bravery, and the resources to dedicate to actively protesting it.
I have two jobs and a degree to think of, so I can't find time to stand out in the heat and cold with a poster protesting minor issues that few people other than me little about. Most people don't.
Most professional protesters are unemployed parasites who couch-surf and/or bum off other people as they travel around, protesting for the sake of protesting.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 04, 2008, 04:50:36 AM
Most professional protesters are unemployed parasites who couch-surf and/or bum off other people as they travel around, protesting for the sake of protesting.
My opinion stands.
Or are you telling me the only way to live one's life is to have an eight-to-five job, wife, two children and a mortgage, wear a tie, go to church/synagogue weekly, vote for moderates?
Post by: Glock Glockler on May 04, 2008, 05:51:35 AM
One thing I will say on my own behalf is that there is a difference between protesting something to help change public opinion more towards what you believe it should be as opposed to protesting something because you simply want to protest it. I was beyond excited about the FSP when I heard NH was chosen but I soon became very disillusioned when I met many of the other participants, a few of them were fantastic people but the majority were selfish idiots who cared only about their own aggrandizement; they'd have crackhead ideas of protest that would alienate people, especially NH natives, and they didn't care that they'd alienate people. It wasn't about persuasion or even about building a political/social movement, it was simply about them getting to play the part of the radical/bad ass.
Building a successful movement is not that complicated but it does take a lot of hard work, IMO the people best at this are the democrats, not the Che Guevera loving hippies who refuse to bathe but the political machine democrats that get people elected decade after decade. Unglamorous things like hitting the phones to get voters to come out are extremely vital but most of the FSPers I met wouldn't do that in 100yrs, they're not interested in actually changing things, if they were successful in changing things what would they complain about?
Anyway, if one really did want to be effective in the FSP the first step is being a good neighbor, the kind of person that makes other people say "wow, that guy is great, I'm really glad he decided to move here". If one is unwilling or uable to accomplish that simple feat they really should examine why they want to take part in the FSP.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 04, 2008, 07:11:19 AM
I appreciate the importance of professional politicians, and political activists, and the guys who donate $25 per year to the DNC, and the importance of the regular Joe. And it's all true. But for one, everybody plays a role. Take the US Progressive movement. It was the moderate, clean-shaved and cuddly guys who struck most of the blows against individual liberty in the last 80 years - but the radical guys were always there helping them in a variety of ways.
Now, as I mentioned, I'm not really all that far out in my personal behavior, my hair is not long, and my plans for life include a graduate degree, and marriage, and a child. But I don't think that people whose plans for life include long hair and polyandry, or who live on as hikikomori have somehow 'failed', because I'm not conceited enough to think everybody should have a 'normal' life. If there's anything my limited education taught me is that a lot of things I call 'normal' would be seen as insane by people only a generation removed from me.
Now let's be fair.
My views on politics, on what society should be, are pretty far out by most people's standards. Some of these you agree with, some of them you don't; let's just say I'm on that very edge where radical conservatism bleeds into libertarianism.
My political disagreement with the current system is not limited to the political disagreement one might have, for example, when deciding where to post a traffic sign. It is not only a disagreement of efficiency it is one of morality. I consider the system, with its various alphabet-soup agencies, to be unjust.
I'm not trying to persuade you here, but I'm trying to make you understand where I am coming from.
I recognize my views are not likely to be implemented into policy soon in my own country, or in America, where I plan to immigrate.
I recognize that these views are radical and revolutionary. I do not mean I support people storming the houses of government with rifles and hanging those responsible, but I do imply that the society I have in mind will be different at root from what we have now. The political order, the laws, and the culture and economy shaped by them would likely have to undergo a fractal shift.
This sort of thing has been accomplished once already as you pointed out by the Democrats and Progressives. It took them almost ninety years. Seventy if you count from the New Deal.
If the only way to deal with the situation is through the machine of ordinary politics, through the gradual work of trying to chip away a granite slab with a toothpick, it'll take another 70 years.
So if I go your way only endorsing moderate, sensible politics and if everything works out fine I end up being old and drooling in my own shirt by the time it's all over if I succeed, that is. Not only will I have allowed what I see as injustice to go on for 70 years, but I will also be old.
The purpose of the Free State Project was and IS "Liberty in our lifetime." The idea was to use activism to off-set the low amount of libertarians in society, and to cut down that crazy 70-year timeperiod we have to work for. It selects for activists if you're so dedicated to your idea you'll move to a different state for it, you will sure be active for it.
But naturally someone so dedicated often ends up a bit 'strange' by common standard.
Political revolutions are not accomplished by people in ties unless it's within 70 years. If you want to see the system go away, you need to be ready to tolerate wacky guys, and people who chain themselves to gates of various public offices, and people who wear Wookie suits (I personally see nothing wrong with a Wookie suit, for the record. Even if one wears it to work. I would hire an employee wearing a Wookie suit if he proved competent). Well-behaved women rarely make history, remember?
I'm not saying you have to be like that yourself, but its part of that big process if your views are as radical as mine.
Which is why, I think, a lot of people who share my views bought into Ron Paul. Sure he is a bit strange by some people's standards, and he's imperfect. But the essence of Ron Paul's message for libertarians was: "That unwieldy revolutionary change we were talking about? The one you're going to have to work for the rest of your lives to try to accomplish? I have the blueprints for the battle station. All we need to do is to fly an X-wing down the thermal exhaust pipe&"
I'm not trying to tell you I'm right, and that you should abandon your political views in favor of mine. But I'm trying to explain *why* I think what I think.
Post by: Firethorn on May 04, 2008, 07:27:52 AM
There's a lot of stuff wrong about modern society. Most people (myself included) don't have the time, the bravery, and the resources to dedicate to actively protesting it.
The problem here is that protesting, as a result, favors the very poor - who, being on government subsidies can AFFORD to spend all their time protesting various things. It also favors the very rich - who can afford to hire the protesters, often for little more than a couple meals and a bus per day.
It sucks for the middle class. When you see middle class individuals protesting, you KNOW they feel strongly about it.
You can see this manifest in countries with high welfare populations such as France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia. They'll have huge protests over the most minor thing. Most people in the USA are too busy for that sort of stuff.
Personally, I don't think that we should put to much faith in how common protester's values are commonplace among the working population.
As an aside, a couple deployments ago I figured out that with my pay I could have a hundred protesters demonstrate for pretty much anything I wanted every day for my posting there.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 04, 2008, 07:29:20 AM
Quote
The problem here is that protesting, as a result, favors the very poor - who, being on government subsidies can AFFORD to spend all their time protesting various things
We're talking about FSP members here, who protest the very existence of these subsidies.
Post by: Glock Glockler on May 04, 2008, 08:32:57 AM
A couple of quick thoughts regarding activism:
-The FSP might be about 'liberty in our lifetime' but at the end of the day freedom minded people as well as socialists all want as much change in their direction as they can get as quickly as possible. Socialists might have moved slowly but they've always taken ground decade after decade. Look at the amount of socialism in the USA compared to 100yrs ago. Suppose NH isn't a libertatian paradise within our lifetimes but a good deal of big govt. is removed, is the FSP then a failure?
Similarly, suppose I am discussing gun control with someone and I know that they love the idea of an instant background check, should I specifically argue against one? My goal is to take as much ground as possible, so I'll by-pass this issue and continue on to other areas where I can make progress. I did exactly this with a friend who was a former US Army Infantryman, he loved the background check so I said "If the Feds give me a clean bill of health why shouldn't I be able to own an M-16, if I'm good enough for the AR-15 why not the M-16"?, and he agreed. If I argued the background check no progress would have been made on that day.
So, how does it help for FSPers to set unrealistic goals and persue them in foolish ways?
- Not everyone is suited to all types of activism, someone who is very introverted might not do well making phone calls to potential voters, that's fine, there are other ways they can help, but throwing snowballs at a Federal Building is NOT doing anything to help. Trespassing on Federal property handing out anti-IRS leaflets is NOT going to help. If you want liberty then you shouldn't do things that alienate people.
Your average guy on the street, who is going to be the main determinant of political change, does NOT want radical change, if they did they'd be a radical activist. The average guy probably thinks that things are not as good as they should be but he doesn't understand why, talking about "radical" anything will scare him, if you want to persuade him it'll be with talk of "common sense" and "reform". This is partly why Obama is so successful, even though he's a radical socialist the average guy doesn't know it, Obama just talks very slickly about Washington being broken and to fix it, hope, change, and progess being key.
At the end of the day being effective matters a lot more than being "right". Think of Naziism, Communism, or any other radical "ism" that was ever sold to the masses and ask yourself what kind of packaging was used, how it was marketed and sold.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 04, 2008, 12:21:34 PM
I was beyond excited about the FSP when I heard NH was chosen but I soon became very disillusioned when I met many of the other participants, a few of them were fantastic people but the majority were selfish idiots who cared only about their own aggrandizement; they'd have crackhead ideas of protest that would alienate people, especially NH natives, and they didn't care that they'd alienate people.
Oh, they did that alright. The term "carpetbaggers" is applied to them a lot.
You see, the best way to piss off an old-style New Englander is for a newcomer to move in and tell them How Things Should Be.
New England, (not counting present day MA), more Northern New England, is about being a good neighbor while at the same time respecting privacy and not making public spectacles. People say "good morning" to strangers on the street here, and hold open doors. They'll run over to help someone struggling to get a package into a car. But they do not ask about or boast about their religion or politics...that's a private matter. And they do not cause scenes in public, especially things like the Free State people did, like scaring children and ruining the Nashua Holiday Walk by marching around in a group bellowing about Ron Paul at the top of their lungs.
They've completely and utterly pissed off the natives and longtime residents here. Especially after one of them marched into the IRS office in Keene with a straw hat and pitchfork (as if that's what NH locals wear?), after they shouted that the Manchester PD was "like Nazis rounding up the Jews" while making a huge scene, and even moreso after the Brown debacle, and then again after they chased Hannity around like a crazed mob. Oh, yes, and marching to the jail wearing "V for Vendetta" costumes, that really helped their cause when it showed up in a photo in the paper.
Most of the ones here who get continually arrested have no job, and even boast that they had to sell their stuff to afford to move here for the "project". They're parasites and bums. One of their leaders was apparently just arrested for being a deadbeat dad, as I mentioned.
People here want them gone. They're an embarassment to the state and are not the image we want in the national news, that's the sentiment I get from everyone I talk to.
MicroBalrog, I understand what you're saying, but you're way far away looking at ivory-tower ideals. I'm here on the ground, I live where that group is, and I'm telling you that you'd be severely disillusioned by what kind of people they actually are and what they really do.
Trust me. Unless you like people who are loud and uncouth and who truly think that the US and "Zionists" cooperated to orchestrate 9/11, they're not what you're hoping for.
I'm sorry to pop your hopeful bubble, but like all utopian visions, the people who actually took it and ran with it completely broke it and misused it for their own ends. The professor who came up with the idea completely lost control of it to a group of unproductive, in-your-face obnoxious and delusional anarchists who ran off with the flag.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 04, 2008, 10:03:37 PM
Quote
Oh, yes, and marching to the jail wearing "V for Vendetta" costumes, that really helped their cause when it showed up in a photo in the paper.
What's wrong with V costumes? Did I miss something?
Quote
nd even boast that they had to sell their stuff to afford to move here for the "project".
You generally need to sell your house to move to a new one.
Quote
Unless you like people who are loud and uncouth and who truly think that the US and "Zionists" cooperated to orchestrate 9/11, they're not what you're hoping for.
Maned, I *know* quite a few people in the 'Project'. I hang out on the FSP forums, hell, I get birthday presents from some of them. Yes, I'm perfectly aware that some of them are wackier than myself.
A response for Glockler is forthcoming, but will require more thought.
Post by: roo_ster on May 05, 2008, 03:05:59 AM
Quote
Oh, yes, and marching to the jail wearing "V for Vendetta" costumes, that really helped their cause when it showed up in a photo in the paper.
What's wrong with V costumes? Did I miss something?
My FIL has a wise saying when referring to folks with, uh, "non-standard" sartorial choices:
"He is dressing for his peer group."
So, a bunch of folks wearing V masks are conforming to their peer-group norms. Good for them.
Thing is, when they try to interact with folks outside their little clique, they look like a bunch of unemployable fools and wierdoes. Any influence they might have by means of reason or argument is flushed down the toilet.
IOW, they are no longer trying to influence, persuade, or otherwise do something real & effective. They are prancing about to gin up status in their own little group. In adolescents, such behavior is somewhat expected. In adults, it is pathetic and cringe-inducing.
Quote
Yes, most professional protesters are unemployable oxygen thieves.
I hope you're not serious about that.
There's a lot of stuff wrong about modern society. Most people (myself included) don't have the time, the bravery, and the resources to dedicate to actively protesting it.
I have two jobs and a degree to think of, so I can't find time to stand out in the heat and cold with a poster protesting minor issues that few people other than me little about. Most people don't.
I can but cheer on people who are carrying on the fight (non-violently).
I can't lie down in a protest and let police drag me, and maybe risk being beaten or tased, or whatever, even on issue that I feel strongly about. Maybe I'm not angry enough, or just not brave enough.
There are people out there that dedicate a lot of time to protesting against injustices.
I can't lead that life, but I admire these people.
I am serious.
A prime example of the type is Barack Obama. The man has a real aversion to real work. The only job he had where he provided something of value in exchange for his pay was as a law lecturer.
His longest stint of "employment" was as a "community activist." IOW, a protester.
He made his money by asking folks for theirs and by getting gov't grants, not providing something of use.
Then there is Jesse Jackson. The man hasn't done an honest day's work in living memory. He shakes down companies with threats of accusations of racism and sucks up huge hunks of pork from the public trough.
Such is the lot of so many professional protesters. For instance, the entire environmentalist movement is pretty much funded by the EPA.
"Unproductive leech" and "oxygen thief" seem apt, IMO.
From the perspective of effectiveness, hard-working middle-class folks are where its at. Get them riled up and willing to spend time on a topic and the bed-wetters in gooberment pay attention.
Two interesting examples are the topic of illegal immigration and the 2004 POTUS election recount.
Professional political types had been sparring for years on illegal aliens, but when Senator McCain (RINO-Mex) & GWB tried to push amnesty, you saw the middle class get riled. And you saw the political class wet its pants.
The 2004 POTUS election recount mess was interesting becasue it riled up a number of hard-working, usually non-political middle class folks. I'll never forget the group of tie & button-down shirt wearing guys baning on the door of the Dem-controlled election boards in S Florida. It was disquieting to lefty protester types and heartening to those who wanted to uphold the rule of law.
Quote
It is not US Gov't, it is any employer with google-fu.
Funny. I know plenty of libertarians with jobs. Even in my field.
It isn't the run of the mill libertarian that has to worry. It is the goofball who acts like a loon in public or somewhere their antics are recorded and linked to the person.
One last thing...
You made the following statements:
1. You wish to come to the USA, presumably to immigrate & become a citizen
2. You are a radical / revolutionary
Pardon me if I am less than enthusiastic at the prospect of #1, given #2.
We need not import from afar folks who have no love of the principles of the COTUS. There are enough here in bulk, without adding to their numbers.
Also, given your stated beliefs as a radical/revolutionary, you would have to swear falsely while taking the oath of citizenship. See, it has certain bits about supporting the COTUS that your average radical/revo/minarchist agenda is set on destroying.
Now, lying and oath-breaking do seem the fashion, especially given that so many in the US Congress provide a fine example to follow.
But, some odd folks like myself who took a similar oath take it seriously and get bent out of shape when others break theirs or whose statements indicate that they will be swearing falsely.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 05, 2008, 03:47:38 AM
Quote
Also, given your stated beliefs as a radical/revolutionary, you would have to swear falsely while taking the oath of citizenship
...your argument is that my belief that the Constitution should be enforced much more stringently than it currently is opposed to the oath to defend and uphold the Constitution?
Look, you supported Tancredo at one point, or so your sig says. You're almost as far "out there" as I am.
Post by: roo_ster on May 05, 2008, 05:28:21 AM
I'm not the person claiming radical/revolutionary creds. I claim to take my oath of enlistment seriously and binding...and not something that I have been released from.
Also, identifying oneself with the FSP'ers in their current state is not a good sign, given their antics.
If your beliefs are in accord with the COTUS, then the r/r label does not apply.
I would take a good, hard look at both libertarianism and the principles embodied in the COTUS. There are many points where they differ, the libertarian project being much more utopian and less grounded in human nature.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 05, 2008, 07:36:56 PM
Quote
There are many points where they differ, the libertarian project being much more utopian and less grounded in human nature.
That's rather an opinion.
I would argue that a society generally guided by the values of classical liberalism/libertarianism is possible to achieve without violating the Constitution. Note that a society that abides 100% by the views of any kind of ideology is utopian and not grounded in human nature.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 05, 2008, 07:51:41 PM
Quote
nd even boast that they had to sell their stuff to afford to move here for the "project".
You generally need to sell your house to move to a new one.
House? House. That's funny. No, most of the ones who cause trouble here are couch-surfers, and one of the most annoying rabble rousers has a slum apartment in the bad part of Manchester. With, apparently, a doormat that says "Come back with a warrant".
Charming bunch.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 05, 2008, 07:55:07 PM
Mind, the FSP members I correspond with own actual houses (as opposed to appartments), and wear ties.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 05, 2008, 08:03:35 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 05, 2008, 08:10:14 PM
Uh. No. The ones here are rather unkempt and they wear RON PAUL shirts any time they've been in the media.
Well clearly you don't know all of them. Yay sweeping generalization.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=F25lkOUkzsk
And you still haven"t answered me - what's wrong with "Come back with a warrant?"
Post by: roo_ster on May 06, 2008, 03:18:05 AM
It does appear that your faith in the FSPers is unshakable in the face of eyewitness reports on their antics.
=================
"Come back with a warrant" door mats are the paranoid substitute for pink flamingos and garden gnomes. IOW, a sign of poor taste.
Perhaps a better analogy would be that they are the residential equivalent of, "My kid beat up your honor student" bumper stickers, a declaration of white trashiness.
If you want to be welcome in a neighborhood, it helps to be neighborly.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 06, 2008, 05:01:45 AM
MW may not know all of them, but he has (according to his posts) actually seen/met a number of them in meat-space.
Well, I'm marrying one soon if it helps.
I believe I've posted on my fiancee here before.
Quote
It does appear that your faith in the FSPers is unshakable in the face of eyewitness reports on their antics.
I just don't see a lot of these things as 'bad'. I don't see couch-surfing as wrong and immoral. I don't see civil disobedience as wrong and immoral, as long as it is nonviolent. Giving Brown guns was bad, but most people FSPers were not, in fact, involved.
Quote
"Come back with a warrant" door mats are the paranoid substitute for pink flamingos and garden gnomes. IOW, a sign of poor taste.
Post by: charby on May 06, 2008, 05:29:35 AM
Post by: WeedWhacker on May 06, 2008, 09:41:40 AM
So how the hell did we go from Peak Oil to Free State Project?
Response to shock over the fact that Manedwolf doesn't appear to be a complete slavering worshiper of the state. ;)