From: Gerald Del Campo Area: THE_OASIS To: Sea Queen 29 Sep 92 13:58:40 Subject: Re: RE. HERBAL FREEDOM UpdReq In a message dated 24 Sep 92 05:15:07, Sea Queen wrote: > I'm starting to think there is no difference between Republican and > Democrat. They will both raise taxes, they will both say whatever > it takes to get elected; but while the Republican president will > look out for big business interest overseas, the Democrat will spend > the money here, in America. > SQ> There really isn't much of a difference between the two. The SQ> both have to cater to people who want to be told that everything is SQ> OK, and I will take care of you. I agree. And this is why Democrats became so unpopular. A Republican gets in office and say's: "Everything is okay". A Democrat get elected and he tell's everyone just how bad things are. This is very unpopular among those people who would rather hear a lie as long as the outcome looks good. SQ> But, just for the record, the DEMOCRATS have been saying for 12 years SQ> now, that we need to raise taxes and cut foreign spending (including SQ> defense) in order to balance the budget and bring down the deficit. Can you think of any other way to do balance the budget? Since we have no REAL enemies at this time (war on drugs and the Moslem Fundamentalists are make-believe threats to justify spending) why NOT cut military spending? Because this country makes money from war. It's time to look for another job; maybe in the information gathering field. SQ> The Republicans have been sweeping it all under the rug and placating the SQ> people (who are all to happy to be palcated). You are right. Both parties suck big-time and fall short of ideal representation. > I'm in favor of whiping the slate clean and starting over. Perhaps > then a Libertarian could have a snow-ball-of-a-chance-in-hell of > getting elected. SQ> If the Libertarian party could actually institutionalize their SQ> platform, that would be the FASTEST way to a police state I can SQ> think of. The Libertarian party wants to make government nearly SQ> non-existant. The Libertarian party wants to abolish governmental interference. It recognizes government as an institution designed for the service and assistance of the citizens of the country. They want to stop creating employment opportunities for criminals by decriminalizing drugs (this would also solve drug related violence, etc). They want private school systems; this would solve the "prayer in school" dilemma.. i.e. if you want your kid to grow up with Christian values he or she can go to Xtian school. This will give people of all faiths their religious fix without discriminating against a religious minority. The have a very good platform. Most people know very little about their views because they don't get equal air-time, nor do they have millions to properly run a campaign. They call themselves Libertarians because they want to bring Liberty back to the people. SQ> And since it is the business of government to protect SQ> the people (from foreign powers as well as each other), who would SQ> protect us from each other? How would decisions be made? They would SQ> be mad by the loudest, meanest, most corrupt, coercive folks around. Ultimately, WE have to be responsible for all of those things. All of these decisions ARE made by the loudest, meanest, most corrupt, coercive folks around. You are describing the present situation. SQ> And there would be NO ONE around with the power to say, "You can't SQ> do that to me". The reason businesses, the Klan, the religious SQ> right, etc., can't do that NOW is because of......the government. A daily look at CNN news, or the newspaper will clearly indicate that it is the government who is taking sides with the extreme right. Government is a money making corporation. The Klan, Religious Right, and other hatred groups exist ecause of "the government". It is a symbiotic relationship. SQ> Let's face it. If we were left to ourselves, we'd all be at each SQ> others throats. That's what happened in the civil war. The Civil War was for many reasons. One of which was freedom. Self impossed discipline is all people need; and a means to deal with individuals who overlook other people's rights. > I have been called paranoid for believing that the "burning times" > are coming. People will be helpless against the government with the > big guns, as they taken all of the real effective weapons away from > the citizen; a good first move for a government which is heading > towards totalitarianism. SQ> Frankly, I am more afraid of the self-righteous, largely SQ> ignorant, paranoid gnn-toting NRA individuals doing the same things SQ> they bitch about the government doing...looking out for me and mine! You have just described the Bush administration ;). I protect the right to bear arms because it is a constitutional right specifically design to prevent a government from becoming so powerful that it cannot be removed if it was to become corrupt. Our present condition is a sad state of affairs. I am not gay, yet I am very active with the gay rights movement. It is a matter of principle. You don't have to be a gun totting redneck to advocate the right to bear arms. If you stop defending the rights of minorities simply because you do not belong to that particular group, who will help you when YOU no longer fit some pre-determined socially correct mold? SQ> When the government does it it's called beaurocracy. When the NRA SQ> types do it it's called individual rights and personal freedom. It SQ> boils down to the same temper tantrum. "I want it! I want it! It's SQ> MINE!" Hey, I am ultimately responsible for my own actions. No one has the right to tell me I can't own a gun (especially since it is my constitutional right), especially when my government is so well armed. It is not a tantrum to practice ones Freedom. SQ> I have YET to hear one of these paranoid gun folks talk SQ> about the COMMON good they hope to accomplish by stockpiling SQ> weapons, and ammo. No, I hear them talk about what they will get for SQ> THEMSELVES. Protection, food, safety, revenge. FOR THEMSELVES. Now SQ> that's really something to build a society on, huh? You keep describing the same thing. Apply the statement above to our government and you will see that there is NO difference. You think it is okay to spend billions/trillions on weaponry just as long as the governmnet does it; but you would like to take weapons from the citizens? SQ> I think it can be safely agrued thet the current system SUCKS! But SQ> let's carefully think about what to replace it with. Hehe. No argument here. I think that trying to design the perfect government is a never ending process composed mainly of information gathered in "trial and error" situations. There is no perfect way to do this, but if we don't try because we fear change we will never be free. Love is the Law. Gerald ... RPSTOVAL OASIS: Free your mind; your ass will follow. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Gerald Del Campo Area: THE_OASIS To: Michael Lee 29 Sep 92 14:41:40 Subject: Re: Fascism U.S.A. UpdReq In a message dated Mon 28 Sep 92 13:44, The Mule wrote: TM> How can someone who's been elected, and who can be "unelected", be a TM> dictator? Do you think Bush can be "unelected"? Very doubtful. TM> You're confusing your lack of political "fulfilment" with TM> dictatorship. Again, if you don't like the way the game is being TM> played, you want to take your marbles and go home. If the "majority" TM> wants to do something that you disagree with (casually or TM> vehemently), you say they are all ingorant dupes, unenlightened to TM> the "truth" as you see it. GDC> No. But I have the right to believe, look at, buy, and live my life GDC> by my own law; when the "majority" attempts to oppress me because it GDC> does not fit their set of standars my rights are being violated. TM> Actually, you _don't_ have the right to live life by your own "law". I do. To the extent that the way I live does not interfere with the rights of others around me. TM> Like it or not, you're "rights" have to be balanced against other's TM> rights. You can't go out an kill some one just because _you_ think its TM> OK. My Law recognizes every person's right to pursue happiness in what ever form it manifests in the individual. Respect for other people makes murder unacceptable. It is not an option. It becomes permissible when I am protecting my life or the life of the people I love. TM> The way you live your life impacts how others live theirs. And the impact is a positive one so long as everyone applies the same respect towards one another. TM> As a result, any society is a constant balancing act with the ultimate TM> goal of pleasing the most people and offending the least. I understand and agree with this statement whole-heartedly. The problem begins when pleasing the most people means oppressing the individual. This must not be permitted. Take gay rights: If you are turned off by homosexual practices don't do them; mind your own business and allow people to do what they think is best for themselves. If there is literature you consider obscene, don't read it. etc. TM> As an individual, you have two, and only two options: get enough power TM> to ensure your interests are taken care of, or persuade that your TM> interests are good for everyone else. I can pursuade, but not demand; as this makes me just as unjust as the "moral majority". Power=money. I can't utilize this option until I become rich and famous ;) TM> I should note that there is a third option: "do nothing and hope for the TM> best", but this is not in the spirit of this thread. This seems to be the most popular approach. this election year however, is projected to be the largest voter turn out ever in the history of the United States. The young people are finally getting involved. There is hope :) TM> The "dictators" take the first path, the politicians take the latter TM> path. This has been my observation as well. TM> If you don't like it _vote_!!!!! Persuade, cajole, yell, scream, TM> whatever... it doesn't make a difference unless you, and others who TM> think like you, _become_ the majority. In a collective society, it's TM> _only_ the majority who count. GDC> This is bulsshit, as you believe that I should compremise my beliefs GDC> and ethics to pay some kind of "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" GDC> game. Would YOU comprimise everything you believe in order to fit GDC> better to some premeditated mold that the "majority" has chosen for GDC> you? TM> Come one! Life's a compromise. Granted, there are things that we don't TM> compromise on. That's why there's war. Somethings are worth dying for. TM> Look, everytime you make a decision based upon how it would affect TM> others, you've balanced, i.e. "compromised", your interests with those of TM> someone else. (Also, don't forget that there's always the power of TM> persuasion. You could convince someone to act in your interest, or TM> decide that there's mutual interests) You have defined tolerance, concideration, and respect. This is the kind of treatment EVERYONE is entitled to. TM> (There are some safeguards in our society, however, and they are called TM> the Bill of Rights. They aren't fool proof, but I wouldn't want to be TM> without them). GDC> The Bill of Rights is a pacifier the regime uses to make you believe GDC> you actually have rights. This document will mean very little to GDC> the homosexual when the legislate against homosexuality, or the GDC> WICCAN or Ceremonialst when the fundies legislate against GDC> alternative religious. A perfect example is the so called "war on GDC> drugs"; ask the guy sitting in a Florida prison for an ounce of pot GDC> how effective this noble document was. TM> What the Bill of Rights does is define a certain set of "rights" that a TM> simple majority could not legislate against. Two things about these TM> rights, however: (1) Some rights are competitive, if not mutually TM> exclusive. This forces one to prioritize the rights, or balance them TM> against each other. Unfortunately, the prioritization and balancing is TM> simply a matter of judicial opinion, and the judiciary is not responsive, TM> in real time, to societal trends. Plainly obvious in a country who enjoys the reputation of being the most advanced in the world and spends trillions on its defense while there are people starving on the streets. The "war on drugs" cost us 12.5 billion dollars this year alone. Yeap. Priorities are fucked up. What do WE do about it? TM> (2) The "rights" are not _fundamental_, but can vary over time. Yet the TM> variance is a function of society. Ultimately, all democratic power TM> flows from the people. Even inept or stupid power. Doesn't government have the responsibility to ensure that "the people" can make choices based on factual information? Governmental manipulation of the facts has to go the way of the dinasour before this premise can be applied. TM> All of this brings me full circle. I said this before, and I'll say TM> this again. What we should fear in our society is not the TM> dictatorship of individuals (George Bush included), but the tyranny TM> of the masses. What do we do when the "majority" fucks up? GDC> You do away with the majority. You create a system of government GDC> where people can be treated as individuals, instead of being placed GDC> into some kind of category where everyone in there with you is not GDC> permitted to show contrary behavior or beliefs. TM> Ahhhh, your true colors are showing. "Do away with the TM> majority?!?!?" Ahhh. You've jumped the gun. I will be more explicit. TM> Pray tell, how does one do this? You might inhibit, threaten, TM> intimdate, imprison, or silence the majority, but you'll never get TM> rid of it. "Insects are specialized" (I think Robert Heinlen said that). There IS no majority. Everyone is different and therefore one cannot lump everyone (no matter how much they agree on a specific issue) into the same category. THAT is what I meant by "Do away with the majority". When a group of people are brought together, say the pro-life folks, they have no right to legislate abortions out of existance because theya re violating the rights of individuals who might think otherwise. If you don't want an abortion; don't get one; but one does not have the right to make that choice for some one else. TM> By the way, what is this mythical systemof government where we're all TM> just a bunch of individuals? It is mythical only to the extent that it seems so far away, and so much at odds with the current condition that people don't consider it a reality in the near future. At least by debating it in forums like this we can start imagining alternatives and share ideas. Love is the Law. Gerald ... RPSTOVAL OASIS: Free your mind; your ass will follow. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Gerald Del Campo Area: THE_OASIS To: Sea Queen 29 Sep 92 15:24:40 Subject: Re: POLITICAL BULLSHIT UpdReq In a message dated 24 Sep 92 05:20:57, Sea Queen wrote: SQ> In this current era of people whose idea of political research SQ> is how many 30 second commercials they watch, democracy is nothing SQ> short of mob rule. Democracies are run by whoever controls the SQ> information. Whoever has the most money, and the loudest and most SQ> repetetive voice. Exactly. The majority gets all the bennies, rights, etc. Mediocracy is rewarded and individualism is frowned upon. Well said. SQ> Tedious and indirect though it may be, I'll take Republic over SQ> Democracy ANY time! HHHmmmm. I'm not so sure about that for myself. But you HAVE made me think ;) Love is the Law. Gerald ... RPSTOVAL OASIS: Free your mind; your ass will follow. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Gerald Del Campo Area: THE_OASIS To: Vitriol 29 Sep 92 15:29:40 Subject: Re: Fascism U.S.A. UpdReq In a message dated 25 Sep 92 23:43:07, Vitriol wrote: JB> Jerry Brown for president!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :) V> Wasn't he Shirley MacLaine in his last life? LOLOLOLOLOLOL! ... RPSTOVAL OASIS: Free your mind; your ass will follow. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Saracen Area: THE_OASIS To: Gerald Del Campo 30 Sep 92 10:22:34 Subject: Re: FREEDOM VS. THE MASSES UpdReq > I have mixed feelings about this. It is true that censorship in ANY > way is not to be tolerated, however, it is those individuals that > lack musical creative talent and sell music based on "shock value" > that push our Constitutional rights to the limits with very little > thought for the effect of their actions. When your lyrics condone > rape, murder, and dope dealing you must (unless you have a mental > diability of some sort) know that some > Christian-heterosexual-caucasian senator from the "good 'ol boy" > states is going to legislate against you. A few screw things up for > the many... why? because censorship and Constitutional right > violations are small prices to pay for fame and fortune. I think that you are missig the point here on why many groups, and individuals get black-listed. (and yes there is a black list, Warehouse for instance will not sell anything that is on that list) Few groups get their material pulled from the shelves for condoning rape, murder and drug dealing...most of them get censored for political statements. Right now, Jello Biafra is doing primarily spoken word albums about social problems, he is blacklisted, Ice-T talks about gang violence, he gets black-listed, Metallica sells out so that they can get a contract with a 'big' record company and stops doing anything political, Motley Crue does "sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll" and sells millions of albums. I think that there is a definite trend here, put peoples attention on our trying to stop music that condones rape, murder and drug dealing, and they won't even notice as all of the political and social commentary is effectively censored. Ann 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718