|
|
Post by KaosTheory on Jan 15, 2005 9:31:57 GMT -5
Of course, I live (unwillingly) in the state of Kaos. ;D
Neo Wrote:
KT
|
|
|
|
Post by Neo on Jan 15, 2005 12:28:41 GMT -5
Okay.  |
|
Harry
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by Harry on Jan 15, 2005 14:31:24 GMT -5
Buck up, Neo. I like you.
KT, what have I been telling you for years? Isn't that humanity's whole problem?
See my Jan 10th, 2005, 10:49pm post on the "Christian Nation" thread.
THAT's why people WANT the Matrix. That's why they WANT to believe the state hoax. If we mean to -- accomplish lawlessness -- we have to dismantle their MOTIVATIONS -- give them the tools they need to face/cope with -- Kaos.
|
|
|
|
Post by Neo on Jan 15, 2005 20:26:02 GMT -5
|
|
Harry
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by Harry on Jan 18, 2005 21:32:51 GMT -5
Consistent with the latest version of Neo's oft-revised initial post (ahem):
If you want a secure job, stay out of Maryland.
Which is nicknamed, ironically, "the Free State."
Here, all employment is "presumptively at-will," meaning that, any time, any day, the boss can come to you and say, "You're fired," and that's it; you have NO RECOURSE. She or he can fire you with or without cause, for good reason or no reason or a wrong reason. The person just can't fire you for an ILLEGAL reason, that is, race, sex or age -- but that kind of "wrongful discharge" is nearly impossible to prove in court.
I may go into some detail with some folks off the board, about what's been happening around me at work lately. One supervisor has just been on a tirade the past five days -- incredibly, inexcusably abusive to staff -- calls 'em up at home & gives 'em sh*t. NO RECOURSE: cruel treatment of subordinates isn't "actionable" in Maryland.
|
|
|
|
Post by Neo on Jan 18, 2005 22:37:29 GMT -5
"Actionable" means "You are commanded in the name of (fill in the blank) State, to appear and defend," etc..
If there is no state there is no justifiable "action."
If you were the boss it's not likely you'd like someone to have the power to force you under threat of violence, if you don't, to re-hire someone you just fired.
It's unfortunate if you're being victimized. Though, keep in mind, the "state" is also a victimizer.
|
|
Harry
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by Harry on Jan 19, 2005 12:30:00 GMT -5
I understand pretty well what "actionable" means, since that stuff is my bread and butter. I was describing things as they are in our current real, un-ideal world. If I understand how most folks think around here, in the ideal, lawless world no abuse would occur; the law itself is the sole cause of crime.
|
|
|
|
Post by tharrin on Jan 19, 2005 22:19:58 GMT -5
One of my posts were removed just after Marc mentioned that he would lock out the religious post if they began to go no where. I had commented in that post that a free state was most likely a pipe dream because you couldn't get people yearning for freedom to agree on unconditional freedom. Christians looking for religious freedom would not want to live in a state of pro-abortionist or pro-gay rights advocates.
I have nothing against any of the above mentioned "isms" I only have to turn on the evening news to see these factions trying to annilate each other. Until we can except that freedom comes in different packages and one size does not fit all, then we will continue to quibble while the supposed "state" reaps the richs we so richly do not deserved to be reaped of.
I have stepped back and have taken a god's eye view of people in general and have noticed that as long as we fight amongst ourselves we fumble around in chaos, if we can forget our differences and work collectively I believe that is the stuff that moves mountains.
|
|
|
|
Post by Neo on Jan 19, 2005 22:30:47 GMT -5
Harry, my words on "actionable" were not directed to you per se but more to any who read this board, as is much of what I write (not personal, but global).
Tharrin, anti-freedom folks are not expected to flock to a free state, which is just what free staters want, for the slave masters to be left behind and then to see which state prospers more, the free or the not free.
Free state does not mean totally free, only more free.
|
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on Jan 20, 2005 19:28:18 GMT -5
Does anyone think a voluntary society is a pipe dream?
|
|
|
|
Post by KaosTheory on Jan 21, 2005 9:17:03 GMT -5
I think the Amish get along pretty much voluntarily. I think we humans have our problems (selfishness, greed, pettyness) with getting along but we are hard wired to be social beings. The potential is there. There are societies/tribes of people in the world who function in a voluntary capacity. The next question would/should be if it is a pipedream then why? Tharrin made some good points and seems to agree with me about social chaos.  What are your thoughts about it Marc? i.e. is it possible? KT |
|
|
|
Post by tharrin on Jan 21, 2005 10:48:55 GMT -5
What I believe, from observation, is people have a difficult time accepting each others version of freedom. Free "staters" as you put it will eventually find they have created a bureaucracy that will crush somebodies elses version of a free state.
Imagine trying to tax people to pay for road repair and infrastructure. Any state will need a department required to manage that. The state will also need to manage waste removal & proper disposal, water supply and cleanliness, utilities, pharmaceuticals, snake oil vendors (doctors) etc.
Creating a free, voluntary society is not as easy as it sounds. It requires a change in mind set. Albeit, people who post to this forum may be the precursor to that society the nature of human beings is; some will want to take advantage of the system and then you will need some one to arbitrate over the disputes that arise.
I am not saying I know all there is to know about creating a voluntary society but I do understand how people operate in this system and if they choose to withdraw their support from the new free society or disagree with it's general policies then it will be doomed to failure.
A free state needs to be thought through thoroughly. People will have to divest themselves of their petty differences. They will have to operate in an honest and open manner and when they don't who will preside over the dispute? Will those that preside be subject to dishonesty as well and who will govern their actions? Will the so called free and voluntary people be willing to eject the offender from the so called free state? What if that person commits murder? What would the free state do in that case?
We already see that if we continue to add layer upon layer of governance what the ultimate problem will resemble. We live in it now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hairy on Jan 22, 2005 16:03:34 GMT -5
This is getting real interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by KaosTheory on Jan 24, 2005 0:14:33 GMT -5
Marc,
Any thoughts on this?
|
|
