Consider this:

We live in a world where:

We 'tacitly' [despite Hume having refuted this, it is the maxim that steers the juridical paradigms of our times] consent to a state where laws 'protect us' in accord with Mills Harm Principle. This combined with Benthams bourgeois chauvinism about maximising happiness and ensuring this utilitarianism, itself a component of the harm principle, via the panopticon.

Look what we have today! What is virtually a police state based primarily on political obligation! This is totalitarianism.

What are its implications? It does not take an anarchist to make clear that:

To snort cocaine is illegal due initially to having been a breach of the 'health of the nation' [1911 Act]

One may not fuck ones 14year old girlfriend, despite deeply loving each other, because 'reason' superseded desire - and consent, by statute, cannot be achieved [obligations indeed!].

And due to this state of obligation, like mere North Koreans, we are bound to behave like political automatons, dictating morals and laws to each other once there is a single breath of dissent.

Who now will rant and rave against me - like a Hitler, even showing some 'scientific evidence' [and remember, any good Oxford Doctor of Philosophy will make clear - facts do NOT mean ought not!!], that we should not snort cocaine, give the young girl a very deep orgasm - her desires superseding her instincts [and as Nietzsche warned, instinct has had longer to evolve - and has made fewer mistakes than 'reason']. Why should I not fuck that goat?

Why not do all of this in public? Because it offends based on the harm principle?

Listen to the drumbeats of genocide - don't you remember, it was this prot-nazism that led to the mass murders of the Canaanites [who had lots of fun in public based on healthy drives and mutual compassion]...

Look what you all are.

So come on - nail me to your 'god' - a tree in the shape of a T!

do you know who's got a say on the forums?
do you know what your voice is worth in the cradles of post-war model democracies?

i trust we all do.
has someone come up with less than deep cynicism on any of the forums i have come to see as extensions of casino capitalism and game ball machines for smart "moderators"?

In Moderators we trust...

Baphomet wept...

What to do Imp-pulse? What to do???

improvised improvement of randomness: perhaps another perception, but the status quo of the haves isn't changing, and certainly not for any "better".

illusions for the poor, the prisoners of freedom. imho.

victories like this:


p.s. each nation has their own "concepts" of cranking up the economy first. never mind the cost: money is much more valuable than life and limb.
for example:
http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/0,1518,720589,00.html

what to do? why must social justice be on the backburners of economic smartness?

Oh I made no indications toward social justice or economic balance - I understand perfectly well these are not the core problems. No, mere reform, or any kind of petty 'revolution', would not bear a resolution that must be more existential than 'social-ist'.

I have long lost faith on such whimsies - romance for teens.

It is good, it is just and right, that there will be no redress in balance of power between haves and have nots.

But the problem is simply - what type of life? What type of contract thus borne?

What gods?

the following link is a comment about clinging to ignorance.

http://townhall.com/columnists/VictorDavisHanson/2010/09/30/americans_still_cling_to_ignorance

it may look like ignorance is an attitude \!! one may choose, but it could well be that it is a disease or part of a mental syndrome caused by unwholesome social pressure over long periods of time. imho.

Ignorance is not as much of a problem as elitism as expressed by the politicians like Carter and Kerry and others, not nearly as smart as they think. Hitler thought he was too good a leader for the german people.