DiscoProJoe

Although I'd like to get married someday, I totally agree with what you said about religion. I'm a secular humanist from Oklahoma in the Bible Belt, and the southern states have the highest divorce rates in the country. I think it's because most conservative religions place an emphasis on blind acceptance, blind obedience, and self-denial, and tell people that those things are somehow virtues. Personally, I view those three things as vices, which are anti-individual and anti-reason. It's just another way of discouraging people from thinking critically and questioning what their parents, churches, and society have thought them. People are discouraged from critical thinking, and besides behavior that's peaceful and nonfraudulent, people are told to be someone other than themselves. When this occurs either through religious indoctrination, or instead through the machismo-wannabe attitude displayed by most of the posters on this thread, divorce rates have to rise. By the way, that's a cool avatar you've got underneath your username!

Are you people trying to say that you've never actually thought about what makes you unique to a special someone of the opposite sex? Do y'all ever think about anything at all? No wonder the divorce rate in this country is so high. Will you list anything that makes you unique to someone, or are you just going to sit there and jealously sling mud at me because you can't think of anything? Not necessarily, because then, my needs wouldn't be adequately met. A relationship has to meet the needs of each of us in order for it to work out.

If you're being emotionally unfaithful, the big question should be about what intangible needs of yours aren't being met in your committed relationship! Find out what those needs are and talk to your partner about them. See if each of y'alls major needs can be met adequately. If they can, then naturally, you will probably no longer be tempted to be "emotionally" unfaithful. On the other hand, if y'alls major needs can't be met in any way whatsoever, then it's time to break up and run off with the other person afterward.

Here's a good question for everyone: If someone were to have (or is in) a romantic relationship with you, in what exclusive ways could they enjoy a relationship with *you*, which they might not be able to enjoy with most other people of your gender (and sexual orientation)? As with me, when I find a woman someday... She would be able to live for *her* and not get chastised for it (as long as she doesn't lie to me or cheat, or keep secrets from me). She would enjoy positive encouragement to think for herself -- to question anything and everything in her own unique way -- wherever it leads. She would *never* be expected to "change" her nature or her needs. She wouldn't have to worry about going through pregnancy, childbirth, or raising little rascals, nor would she need any kind of birth control. (I've already had a vasectomy and don't have any kids.) She'd never have to cook, and once we buy a house, she'd never have to do any housework. (We'd use a cleaning lady and lawn care service, and would either dine out or fix ourselves simple meals. And before purchasing a home, we'd *both* clean our apartment occasionally.) She wouldn't have to worry about her weight (as long as she doesn't become very obese, such as >250 lbs), since I like the pleasantly-plump figure and I care significantly more about a cute face than a "perfect" body. She could relax and eat as much as she wants, and I'd be lying with her on the couch feeding & kissing her! And while she's lying on that couch, she'd never have to go through the trouble of painting her fingernails or toenails, because I would always do it for her as often as she wants -- kissing each finger and toe as I go! She would experience the greatest dance-pop, hard & soft rock, and country-pop music of the '70s, '80s, '90s, & '00s with my collection of over 400 albums containing more than 5,000 songs, along with great sound systems in my room and car. Even when we're making love! Finally, she'd always have a warm set of arms to fall into when she's feeling anxious, frustrated, or hurt. She could discuss difficult issues with me in the safest setting possible: sitting down together holding hands and partially embracing each other, while never being criticized or judged during the dialogue. There you are....

In their day, Napolean was marching through Europe on a big conquest, and the British attacked Washington D.C. in 1814 (which James Madison had provoked, of course, by previously attacking a British-Canadian city a few months earlier). They had their fair share of trouble in their day. Patt, why don't you support a Constitutional amendment that abolishes or significantly modifies the Bill of Rights? Or better yet, why not favor the creation of a new constitution altogether that establishes a more "military" type of government?

Here is one of the most convincing arguments I've read regarding the fallacies of the Patriot Act and the domestic War on Terrorism. ----------------------------------------------- http://www.harrybrowne.org/InnocenceNoProtection.htm Your Innocence Is No Protection by Harry Browne December 6, 2003 When the politicians violate the Bill of Rights with the Patriot Act or some other guaranteed-to-bring-peace-and-security-to-the-world scheme, they always reassure us by saying: "If you aren't guilty, you have nothing to fear." If only that were so. The truth is that innocence is no protection at all against government agencies with the power to do what they think best — or against a government agent hoping for promotion and willing to do whatever he can get away with. • Tell a businessman he has nothing to fear from the piles of forms he must file to prove he doesn't discriminate. • Tell a home owner he has nothing to fear when his property is seized by the government in a mistaken — or contrived — drug raid. • Tell a taxpayer he has nothing to fear when the IRS drags him into a "taxpayer compliance" audit that eats up a week of his life, costs him thousands of dollars in accounting fees, and threatens him with unbearable penalties. It is the innocent who suffer most from government's intrusions. How many times have we seen the following pattern? 1. The press and politicians demand that something be done about violent crime, terrorist acts, drug dealing, tax evasion, or whatever is the Urgent Concern of the Month. 2. A tough, new, take-no-prisoners law or policy is put into place. 3. After the dust settles, the initial "problem" continues unabated, because the guilty continue to slip through the net. But the innocent are left burdened with new chores, expenses, and hazards — more mandatory reports to file, less privacy, reduced access to products and services, higher costs, heavier taxes, and a new set of penalties for those who shirk their duty to fight in the War on ___________ (fill in the blank). 4. And, needless to say, the ineffectual law is never repealed. Being innocent doesn't allow you to ignore the government's demands for reports — or to say "No, thanks" when a government agent wants to search your records, your place of business, or your home — or to refuse to observe regulations that were aimed at the guilty, not you. When coercion is used to solve social problems, we all suffer. The coercion fails to achieve its stated aims, but it is wondrously effective at harming the innocent. Even worse, every year a few million innocent people suffer special burdens — greater than those the government places on all of us. The dismantling of the Bill of Rights has allowed the government to disrupt their lives, confiscate their property, or even kill them — even though they've committed no crimes. I hope you never become one of them. Not Even Ministers Are Safe For example, suppose you're a 75-year-old minister living in Boston. You've worked all your life to console those who are poor in money or spirit. One afternoon 13 men with sledgehammers break down the door and charge into your apartment. They're wearing helmets, battle fatigues, and boots — and they're armed with shotguns and pistols. They force you to the floor, pin your legs and arms, and handcuff you. They scare you so badly you suffer a heart attack — and within 45 minutes you're dead. Who were these criminals? They weren't "criminals." They were members of a SWAT team searching for drugs and guns. There wasn't anything illegal in your apartment, as you could have told them if they had stopped long enough to ask you. But they didn't stop and they didn't ask. They didn't have to. They knew you were a bad guy, and they weren't going to allow you to escape or to flush your drug inventory down the toilet. Six weeks after you die, it is revealed that the SWAT team raided the wrong apartment. You have been completely exonerated. But, unfortunately, the government can't bring you back to life. Not one of the SWAT team members — or the prosecutor who okayed the raid — was prosecuted or suffered any career damage for causing the death. Compare that with a pot smoker who is hurting no one but might have to spend several years in prison if he gets caught. This isn't fiction. It is the story of the Reverend Acelynne Williams, and how he died on March 26, 1994.1 Fatal Attractions And the tale isn't extraordinary. Donald Scott was shot to death when a task force of 27 men smashed into his house in Malibu, California, on October 2, 1992. They claimed Mr. Scott was growing marijuana — although their only evidence turned out to be a false report from an anonymous informant.2 Similar stories can be told of other people who were shot without warning, whose homes were torn apart, or who went to prison for resisting arrest — people like Harry Davis of Fort Washington, Maryland; Charlotte Waters of Los Angeles; David Gordon of Bridgeport, Connecticut; Xavier Bennett, Jr., of Atlanta; Kenneth Baulch of Garland, Texas; Robin Pratt of Everett, Washington; William Grass of Kentucky; Albert Lewin of Boston; Manuel Ramirez of Stockton, California; Charles DiGristine of Titusville, Florida; and Donald Carlson of San Diego.3 All of them were innocent. But all of them had plenty to fear from government. And now their families will always fear government as much as any Soviet citizen did. By ignoring the Bill of Rights, acting on anonymous tips and intruding without warrants, government agents have put all of us in jeopardy — the innocent as much as the guilty. Maybe you haven't been hurt yet by a government agent acting on a malicious report or on his own ambition. So far, a mean-minded office rival or business competitor hasn't stooped to giving a false tip about you to the police or the IRS. Be thankful. And hope it doesn't happen next year. You might not be given time to prove your innocence. The Bill of Rights Is for the Innocent The outrages I've mentioned violate the Bill of Rights. Because government schools don't teach much about Constitutional safeguards, many people think the Bill of Rights is just a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card for criminals. And they wonder why we should protect the rights of killers and thieves. But the Bill of Rights wasn't written to protect criminals. It was designed to protect you: • To make sure a zealous prosecutor can't take you to court over and over again on the same charge — searching for a jury that will convict you. • To make sure the police can't break into your home unannounced on the mere chance that you might have some drugs or illegal weapons stashed in your closet. • To make sure politicians can't confiscate your home or other property to fulfill some dream of social reform. • To make sure you don't have to answer questions put to you by the police — so a ruthless policeman can't twist your words out of context or browbeat you into confessing something you didn't do. • To make sure your attorney can cross-examine any accuser or any witness against you. Of course these safeguards protect the guilty as well as the innocent. But brushing them aside gives government employees the power to do as they wish — to harass whomever they claim is guilty. Why There's So Much Violent Crime And these safeguards, which are respected less and less every year, haven't been letting the guilty off. Crime rates haven't skyrocketed because of criminals using the Bill of Rights to their advantage. Crime is soaring. . . • Because the government's War on Drugs has transformed a minor social problem into an immensely profitable enterprise for those willing to defy the law; • Because many of the government's schools have become cesspools; • Because the government packs the prisons with non-violent offenders, making it necessary to release the thugs early; • Because the government diverts law-enforcement resources to fighting victimless crimes — as well as to affirmative action, gun control, and other social reforms — leaving too little with which to protect your life and property; and • Because government schools teach young people that inequality of wealth is unjust — providing a moral justification for taking from someone more "fortunate" than oneself. The government has inspired or abetted a thousand criminals for each one it has freed on a legal technicality. Why the Bill of Rights Is Important When Constitutional safeguards are honored, they rescue innocent people far more often than they let the guilty slip away. In fact, new laws that violate the Bill of Rights usually hurt the innocent more than the guilty. The truly guilty make it their business to be aware of a new law and take steps not to let it ensnare them. But the innocent, secure in the knowledge that their innocence will protect them, suddenly find their property confiscated through asset forfeiture — or their liberty destroyed by zealous police or prosecutors trying to pad their conviction records. And when the Bill of Rights is ignored and an innocent person is convicted, the truly guilty are left free to continue committing violence. That's why the Bill of Rights must apply to all people — citizens or aliens, innocent or presumed guilty, nice guys or thugs. Unfortunately, the Constitutional safeguards are ignored more and more by Congress, the police, federal officials, and the courts. Disregarding the Bill of Rights has done nothing to reduce the crime rate, but it has put your life and mine in jeopardy. As a result, we have neither physical protection from the guilty nor legal protection for the innocent. Until the Bill of Rights is a living document again, I hope the government doesn't think you're suspicious or covet your property for one of its programs. Your innocence probably won't protect you. -------------- This article was adapted from a passage in Why Government Doesn't Work, the complete text of which is now available for downloading at LibertyFree.com. 1This story in recounted in detail in Reason magazine, May 1995, page 48. 2The Wall Street Journal, August 25, 1993, page A11. 3These stories are recounted in Lost Rights by James Bovard. You can download Harry Browne's Why Government Doesn't Work at www.LibertyFree.com. You can read more of his articles at www.HarryBrowne.org. He is the Director of Public Policy for the American Liberty Foundation. He was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000.

But private companies tend to operate far more efficiently than government bureaucracies. Furthermore, more competition would spawn great innovation in the industry to drastically improve the quality of service and to make the service cheaper and better. When's the last time the Postal Service reduced the price of its stamps?

Don't dismantle it; just privatize the Postal Service and abolish the laws the ban competition against it. Initially there'd be three companies competing, but with first-class mail there would be a plethora of small businesses entering this marketplace. And in cases of collusion, each of the colluders would have a tendency to "cheat" on each other, so the plot would crumble eventually.

One fact that the "anti-trust" fans never mention is that Standard Oil had already lost 1/3 of its market share to competition before the government forced it to break up in 1911. The free market was working just fine. The only monopolies we need to worry about are the real ones, such as the Federal Reserve System, the U.S. Postal Service, etc., which are protected by guns rather than private "anticompetitive" practices.

The government is not the country, and the country is not the government. Even in a democracy, a vast difference exists between the two. The country is composed of 300 million individuals -- each one unique -- and it is very doubtful that a single person in the U.S. agrees with every tiny activity the regime takes part in. Therefore, the people are separate and distinct from the government. So, too, is the American flag. It is meant to represent the country, not necessarily the government. Otherwise, why wouldn't the Founders have replaced it with a new flag in 1788 when the Constitution was ratified -- to symbolize the new regime? I love my country, but very much dislike today's U.S. government.

It's good to see that we can finally agree on something! Since higher levels of CO2 would promote plant growth, why don't "tree huggers" support global warming?

It wouldn't rise that high unless the U.S. dollar crashes! Why can't we just let the private oil companies hire their own efficient militias to defend their foreign rigs? This would more-than offset the differences in costs. Gas itself might be a bit higher, but we'd pay fewer taxes (including gas taxes). You could also save money by driving less -- unlike today with the huge taxes and monetary inflation required to fund the excessive, wasteful U.S. military operations. The oil companies just wouldn't profit quite as much, because Big Brother wouldn't be giving them a free ride in the Middle East with its military. As far as global warming is concerned, over 16,000 climatologists, physicists, and other scientists have signed a petition saying that they see no threat to humanity from it. These professionals are not associated with a polluting company of any kind. In 1976, the Alaskan Augustine Volcano released 570 times as much chlorine into the atmosphere than all the chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) and other chlorine emissions in the world in an entire year! Since volcanoes have been erupting for millions of years, banning CFCs would have virtually no impact on ozone levels. Carbon dioxide is the most significant greenhouse gas. An increase in its levels, along with global warming, would promote an increase in plant growth all over the world. Since plants absorb carbon dioxide during photosynthesis, and since the oceans themselves act as a gigantic sink for CO2, the greenhouse effect probably would be counteracted. If someday we find irrefutable evidence that global warming is a threat, let's cope with it then. We shouldn't sound the alarm today and therefore take everyone's cars and air conditioners away from them. Besides, since the geologic record shows that we're due for another Ice Age within the next 1,000 years, global warming could actually help prevent an even greater catastrophe!

Speaking of which, here's an AWESOME article written by the 2000 Libertarian Presidential Nominee Harry Browne, and it's written just for you: America -- Love It or Leave It It's one of his best articles, in my opinion.

I'd also like to mention that during the last great depression and World War 2, foreigners could still exchange their U.S. dollars for gold at the U.S. Treasury. Therefore, they had no big reason to liquidate their dollars in the 1930s & '40s. But in 1971, Nixon closed the gold window, and the U.S. dollar became 100% fiat. So..."Make the bed, light the light; Lady Mercy won't be home tonight." Hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm glad I rocked your boat! :D

Killings of mercy in Hiroshima and Nagasaki??? My, my...people. Who did this to you? Who did this to your minds? It seems to me that people in power (and especially those in position to wage war) love to make up silly excuses to explain their tyrannical behavior. Hitler, Stalin, and W. Bush did it. American politicians did it in the Ton Kin Gulf, the Persian Gulf, and now in Iraq again. Doesn't anything sound a little fishy about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well? Do you know what would be really interesting? It'd be interesting to learn the Japanese and German versions of what took place during WWII. Considering that governments (including the U.S.) almost always enjoy indoctrinating everyone about how they were always the good guys who always made the right decisions, wouldn't it be nice to get the rest of the story and then filter out the propaganda from all of the warring sides? For example, the U.S. military already had Japan blockaded, and with no natural resources, the Japanese might not have survived in their way of life for very much longer, anyway. The Japanese were thinking about surrendering before the A-bombs were dropped. Wouldn't a delayed surrender, or at least a negotiated surrender, have been better? To me, the only logical explanation for the mass murdering of 270,000 innocent, unarmed civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that it was done to satisfy the lust and whim of the American politicians and lobbyists. My take on this is that one or both of the following scenarios happened: 1. The wealthy military lobbyists spent gobs of money on the Manhattan Project, and wanted to see it put to "real use." Who knows...maybe a secret deal took place behind closed doors, where the makers of the bomb would receive a large financial subsidy bonus if these weapons were used to win the war. This makes sense, considering that 90% of all wars throughout world history were fought for economic reasons! 2. The politicians wanted to show everyone on the planet how bad-ass their military was, in order to "teach the world a lesson." Killings of mercy??? Please...don't believe everything you hear. Break free from the political indoctrination to which you were subjected. Let the truth set you free. Here's an awesome short editorial about this, written by a Virginia Military Institute graduate: The War Crimes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki And speaking of Pearl Harbor, here's a phenomenal article that the mainstream press and the government-approved history textbooks would never dare run... December 7, 1941: The Infamy of FDR (Click on it and learn, learn, learn!)

Yes, the Internet would still exist. Just invest heavily in gold bullion, and you'll make it through far better than most people will! In a deflationary depression, gold behaves less like a commodity and takes on a role as the ultimate safe-haven money of last resort that's outside of the banking system and financial system, unlike cash. And with the 100% fiat U.S. dollar being the world's reserve currency and with 2/3 of the U.S. dollar supply existing outside the country in the hands of foreigners, this puts it into an extremely, excruciatingly vulnerable position of being sold-off by billions of people when the U.S. economy eventually tanks, and the dollar could become practically worthless. Also, the Fed lowering interest rates, buying up long-term bonds, and raising reserve requirements won't do jack shjt if consumers are debt-saturated and credit-worthy individuals won't borrow. That's where government deficits come into play to temporarily offset the effect. But in the end, nothing can stop the deflationary economic bust. You people put so much blind faith into politicians, bureaucrats, and central planners that it would make George Washington and Thomas Jefferson turn over in their graves.

Right-click on the graph and select "properties." The URL will be displayed.

Here's an analogy to ponder: imagine if the U.S. were a Third-World country, and David Duke was a domestic American dictator who was literally ruling over us. Now imagine that the Chinese government had several military bases inside our borders with tens of thousands of their troops stationed here. Next, imagine these Chinese troops propping up David Duke and keeping him in power -- as long as he complies with the economic demands of the Chinese government. It would then be extremely difficult for Americans to put together a rebel militia to overthrow David Duke because the Chinese military was propping him up. In this situation, wouldn't you hate the Chinese government far worse than David Duke? Wouldn't you hate them for traveling halfway around the world with their foreign military to keep us oppressed? This is exactly how the Arabs feel about the U.S. government and what it's doing in the Middle East.

I'll add that Saddam Hussein was definitely a horrible dictator, but the dictators of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other Middle-Eastern countries have been worse. The difference being that Saddam didn't support the economic special interests of politicians in Washington D.C., so the U.S. government wanted to get rid of him, while continuing to prop up the other "compliant" ruling thugs.

Here is today's lesson on how the world really works. The lesson is called the Three-Way Triangle of Power. As a triangle, it has three sides. Side 1: Foreign dictators give American lobbyists what they want. An example is the Saudi royal thugs granting exclusive business licensure to certain corporations (such as Exxon and Halliburton), while outlawing all competition against these select-few companies in Saudi Arabia. Side 2: American lobbyists give U.S. politicians what they want. An example is Exxon and Halliburton giving millions of dollars in campaign contributions to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Side 3: U.S. politicians give foreign dictators what they want. An example is Bill Clinton and George W. Bush using the military to prop up the Saudi royal thugs. These three groups exist inside the Three-Way Triangle of Power, and are the big winners. Everyone else, including the American inhabitants & the Saudi Arabian citizens, are outside the Triangle and are the big losers. That concludes today's lesson on how the world really works. Now you know!

I want to see another depression because America needs it! Americans need to learn some simple lessons in life. They need to learn that we cannot get away with taking more from life than what we put into life. They need to learn that a person's financial net worth is not determined by the size of his or her mortgage or car loans, or credit-card debt. Americans need to learn the virtue of saving, and the importance of not blindly following the crowd and mainstream press when investing. Americans need to learn firsthand about the financial and cultural fallacies of big government -- especially when it starts to collapse in the coming years. This includes government-business partnerships, socialistic welfare handouts, draconian healthcare regulations, government-run schooling, and the insidious War on Drugs. The U.S. military-industrial complex (i.e., the worst polluter, the most ridiculous waste of money, and biggest provoker of terrorism in the world) needs to go bankrupt in order to restore hope and dignity for the future of humankind. Another great depression would negate the need for a libertarian revolution, since the corrupt government would simply collapse unto itself instead of the bloody alternative! Remember the U.S.S.R.'s demise in the 1980s? It, too, was a healthy and necessary event, wasn't it? Here's to America... ---------------------------------------------- music artist: Queen song title: "Hammer To Fall" Words and music by Brian May ------------------- Here we stand or here we fall History won't care at all Make the bed light the light Lady Mercy won't be home tonight yeah You don't waste no time at all Don't hear the bell but you answer the call It comes to you as to us all We're just waiting For the hammer to fall Oh ev'ry night and every day A little piece of you is falling away But lift your face the Western Way Build your muscles as your body decays yeah Toe your line and play their game yeah Let the anaesthetic cover it all Till one day they call your name You know it's time for the hammer to fall Rich or poor or famous For your truth it's all the same (oh no oh no) Lock your door the rain is pouring Through your window pane (oh no) Baby now your struggle's all in vain For we who grew up tall and proud In the shadow of the mushroom cloud Convinced our voices can't be heard We just wanna scream it louder and louder louder What the hell we fighting for? Just surrender and it won't hurt at all You just got time to say your prayers While your waiting for the hammer to hammer to fall It's gonna fall Hammer..you know..hammer to fall Waiting for the hammer to fall now baby While you're waiting for the hammer to fall Give it to me one more time

You mean with a "no-fly zone"?

Great post, Tony! The 9/11 attack can't even begin to compare to any other terrorist attack in history (except for Hiroshima and Nagasaki). It was super super complex with a vast conspiracy network. The Bush Administration had to have been behind it because the nation was in a recession and the M3 money supply was threatening to shrink, which could've set off another depression. W. needed a way to keep the money supply expanding, which was through bigger government deficits. But he also needed a way to justify the larger deficits; he couldn't just cut taxes and drastically increase spending without "good reasons." The War on Terrorism provided that perfect "justification." Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the Reichstag has burned again! Here's an excellent website about 9/11: http://911research.wtc7.net By the way, Arabs don't necessarily hate America; they just hate the U.S. government for what it's done in the Middle East during the past 60 years.

As a true classical (i.e., pre-20th-century) liberal who isn't as hypocritical as most modern-day liberals are, I'd like to express my opinion about taxes by posting a short essay I wrote in May 2002. Enjoy! ----------------------------------------------- Taxation Thwarts Boycotts Imagine if the Montgomery, Alabama city buses had been 100 percent tax-funded and charged no fares in the 1950s. Picture the idea of all Americans being required to work part-time for a particular plantation and to purchase its harvest -- whether they wished to or not. And envision the scene of a massive arrest of peaceful, silent protesters who refused to submit themselves to this tyranny. In these scenarios, how much longer would it have taken until the buses were desegregated? What kind of horrible benefits would the plantation offer its employees, and what inadequate products would it generate? Today, these parodies exist in the form of government taxation. Many Americans have come to believe that taxes result in major windfalls for the poor and middle classes that otherwise would never be seen. But nonetheless, much poverty still remains, inner-city schools continue to under-educate, healthcare stays inaccessible to many, and roads and highways are cluttered with dangerous intersections, potholes, and traffic jams. More importantly, however, one of the most tremendous problems with taxation is overlooked: taxes seriously hinder the power of the poor and middle classes to *boycott* activities they disagree with or don't think is a good deal. Examples may range from Social Security and public education to the Oklahoma City MAPS Project and the U.S. government's wars on drugs and terrorism. Each week, Americans are required to work a few days for the federal, state, and local regimes, and must "purchase" such items as farming subsidies, corporate welfare, the Boston Big Dig, and the Internal Revenue Service. Anyone caught boycotting the system, for whatever reason, will be heavily fined and/or imprisoned -- even if the defiance is peaceful and nonfraudulent. Is it any wonder that such a system continues to deliver inferior goods and services at high costs? In spite of all this tyranny, however, a viable alternative does exist. It is called individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government. Each person would enjoy the freedom to keep every dollar he earns to save, spend, and donate at his own will, and no one would be forced to fund something he feels is not worth the price. Schools, retirement investment firms, charities, and emergency services would deliver good quality at reasonable costs, or could go out of business. Pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers would be free from the enforcement of excessive, expensive medical regulations, and could give low-cost care as they could decades ago. Roads and highways could be paid for by electronic monitoring or subscription stickers to display on vehicles, and private competitors might purchase land and construct new roads to satisfy more customers -- reducing traffic jams and encouraging better, safer streets. Even the armed forces could be funded without taxes. For instance, a city or state that donates the most money *per capita* to a particular military branch would receive the best protection against terrorists and invaders from that branch. Again, people could boycott or not associate with any activity they disagree with. Some readers may argue, "Taxes are the price you pay for liberty," but according to that claim, the Soviet Union must have been the freest nation in the world. Other readers may be thinking, "You've chosen to reside here, and you're free to leave this city, state, and country if you don't like it, so shut up or go live somewhere else!" Of course, these folks probably would have made similar comments to Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela, but let's picture the following two scenarios: a) I belong to a certain organization, and refuse to pay rent, dues, or other charges. So its members rightfully *kick me out*, and possibly would take me to court if I owed them money (which I earlier had agreed to pay as part of a contract). I refuse to pay city, state, or federal taxes. As a result, the officials *throw me in jail* for committing a victimless crime -- even though I never explicitly agreed to pay the taxes in the first place. This is the difference between freedom of association with private organizations and government coercion. The former is peaceful and voluntary, while the latter is not. Private groups can be rejected without a penalty, while political first-strike force can't. We must never overlook the power of boycotts as a peaceful stimulant for individual liberty and positive social change. But if you're still not convinced, and if you believe Americans have *too much* individual freedom or not enough taxes, social programs, or public ownership, I have the perfect political idea for you: a totalitarian direct democracy. Everyone would collectively own everything (i.e., what's mine is yours and what's yours is mine), and no politicians would exist (in theory, of course). Every few days, all citizens would be required to vote on certain issues they feel are important to them -- thus determining how the society would be run. Inalienable individual rights to life, liberty, and property, along with the power to boycott, would be unheard of. The only "right" the government could protect would be the will of society to plot its course through a simple majority vote. Obviously, I have no idea how these "free" people would determine which issues make it onto the twice-per-week ballots, but let's put that aside for now. Sound good?

Why don't you? I see that you're also trying to predict the future.