-34 votes

Michael Moore's response to the Aurora tragedy - surprisingly libertarian

Michael Moore's sober response to the Dark Knight Rises shooting in Aurora, Colorado was surprisingly clear, succinct, and reasonable. He admitted that guns are not the problem -- rather, the problem is our willingness as a nation to engage in meaningless wars and solve our problems with violence.

I grew up in a rather neoconservative home, and despite my journey to the Paul Side I never expected to find myself agreeing with Michael Moore. But I was really impressed by this.

http://michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/its-guns-we-...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

you underestimate psychological and power phenomenas

You are right that it would be not like to break out the offensive evenly across country and if it would go somewhere it would be long road and the violence would start on hotspots (because there simply is not the potential to occupy whole mainland USA at once - at least US military hasn't such potential).

But this would work only on lulled unarmed population, not a well
armed population awaken by major crisis and its fundamental injustices - for instant example like orders of trillions federal bailouts v. foreclosures on literally millions of people or like orders of another trillions foreign military adventures v inability to meet longterm social liabilities towards most of the people.
If some crisis like this happens and the people slowly realize their existence is under major threat from the side of their own government and its handlers - which already happened in USA (and not only there) - for instant examples like the majority is against US led "war on terror" abroad, bailouts and like almost 90% supports FED audit - it is like an imprint - and therefore in my opinion they have no chance in next two generations effectively grab guns in USA - and you're in my opinion right it would be the case where the resistence would kick in if they try it using force.

What you're in my opinion absolutely wrong about is that they can do something like a nationwide gungrab using terrorist tactics, actively inflicted humanitary crises and illegal weapons. USA is not third world.

Not because it wouldn't be true that the civilian Americans would tend to surrender to such attempts, as you correctly object, but you again forget the America is not alone on this planet. You forget that it would in the age of HD video pocket cameras, internet and other hi-tech networks immediately lead to polarization of the global public opinion - and the US military has vital resources and hundreds of military instalations abroad and cannot afford two front war where one front is on numerous foreign territories and the other the domestic civil war against hundreds of millions armed citizens -and especially not a civil war fought by the way of outright terrorist means like lying conditions of surrender while using illegal weapons as chemical like means to coerce people into such surrender on their own land where it is not unusual the trespass is a legal reason to shoot intruder without notice.

A terrorist tactics would surely lead to global outrage - if not induced by Americans themselves then facilitated and orchestrated by the US adversaries (because they would feel the major internal instability in USA on the edge of a civil war is not only potentially dangerous for them but could give them American population as a potential ally, especially in moral sense and create opportunity to substantially change status-quo in their favor) and eventually to blockade or even seizure of most US assets abroad including major resources needed to fight such war (either by major US adversaries themselves or by proxy) - such acts of terror would give US adversaries excellent pretext to do so - and only the core of their military power now (unlike in 2001) not only outnumbers the manpower of US military several times but they have also considerably stronger strategic forces - and where at least China is suspected having the military doctrine to invade mainland USA if possible. (-the Shangai pact with Russia and whole the subcontinent from Iran to India on observer status, able in case of necessity put together an army outnumbering not just the 3 million US military including reserves and desk staff, not only whole the US population, but whole the western civilization adult population - the potential of Shangai pact in case of total war is around 1.2 billion - with "b" - troops!) and only major reasons (except the general need to keep semblance of morality and civility on international scene while still rebuilding their power) why they already didn't is that A] USA and its allies are still good customers and debtors - so there is for now better for them to keep status-quo - and B] that there is still a considerable strategic deterrent they would need to neutralize by first strike which would considerably complicate their invasions can result in at least some retaliation and could also turn global public opinion against them.

So in my opinion to try disarm Americans using illegal terrorist means would be a game US military cannot afford and in my opinion it would be only good if also Americans (instead of perpetuating nationalist sentiments of false beliefs the USA has compelling unchallengeable global power just because they forced by IRS pay feds half of the world military budget) would learn about real position of USA in context of powers in the world - because it could paradoxicly serve the people there as a decisive advantage against rogue feds with their powergrab and gungrab ambitions destroying the culture of civil rights and liberties - going in fact against their very vital interests as nation as well as vital interests of the whole western civilization.

The people who orchestrate the powergrabs and gungrabs etc. striving their ultimate greed cause towards totalitarian society under color of law is in fact a tiny fraction of the elite, recruiting itself almost only from the milieu of international corporate power.
The number of the key people of this kind which are indispensable for advancing this narrowminded and morally insane plans is several hundreds. - They always risk they could get not only exposed but retaliated without any military could possibly help them avoid it - that would not only be the end of their plans but most probably the end of their line in order of universe, eliminated in case of a major war as its cause.
Our problem is not so much that we have the world government, our problem is that it is almost purely controlled by rogue entities which are in fact unable to advance almost any real social progress, have much more particular private interests than meaningful goals for mankind future, operate using secrecy, corruption and abuse of political systems including democracy and having goals going absolutely against historical logic - especially in developed countries.
I still believe that they can realize there are better ways how to use people than to dumb and enslave them, find the way out of their narrowmindness of power&profit centered approach and finally realize the real potential of western civilization with its victorious freedom&rights mindset of real justice (hardly comprehended notions anywhere else and especially not Asia) - if they would either start to support the liberty with their vast resources or at least get out of way. -Only then they could really control the world in the positive sense - not inhibit but unfold its potential as ordered by the supreme.

We are talking about two different "imagined possibilities"

The internet?

#1 Cut off supply chains -- no more battery manufacturing or delivery

#2 Cut off electricity

#3 Re-task Satelites

Internet Dead in 1 or 2 months.

Water Control?

#1 Control major metropolis water supply
---Water supply is PREDOMINATELY Rivers and Lakes (these are easy to control -- you do not need a lot of troops)

#2 Destroy or Cap man-made water delivery systems
---In the city I live it would take a few hours to shut down the water and 1 day (maybe two) for civilians to empty the lines.

#3 In non-metropolis areas (where the predominate militia strong holds would be) use satelite imagining to get an idea of base camps; use fire to scare game out -- let them hold up in these zones on a vegetarian diet of grasses and greens and nuts. People would walk out in one months time (especially the children).

#4 Controlling supply-chain means no bottled water too

Control Heating Fuel and Electricity

No fuel for generators

No fuel for coal or oil heaters

Control supply-chain so logging does not get through

So yeah you are right -- the "hardcore" will survive. But not most women, children, most modern teens, and many from Gen-X who are out-of-shape (let alone Baby-boomers or older).

So yeah, a few will survive that -- many will die and 90% will comply.

I don't think this will happen -- I'm just saying that "guns" will not win a modern civil war.

If you want to win a modern civil war then you must "localize" all those "necessities" and return "authority" to the local sherriffs who run regular drills with its citizenry to prepare to defend their lands-assets-property.

Less than 1% of 1% of 1% are prepared for that reality.

different moral concepts?

First: A just war is state of mind striving to eliminate adversary trying to impose corrupted morals by force. The last big war was called "world war" not because it was fought all over the world, but because it was decisive for morality of its future.
You cannot win a war if you haven't moral to win it. And for everybody is better to die fighting just cause than die enslaved with all others. This "all" is particularly true in this case we talk about as I'll try to explain.

You talk about particular ways of establishment war against own citizens which are considered capital war crimes and against humanity and should result in immediate field court martial death penalty for all the military command involved. Which you maybe think somehow will not happen and the attempt of thirsting to death of own women and children to coerce surrender to such a military terror regime will be tolerated and successful - even - as I believe - there's no both practical and moral reason for it to be tolerated and successful, because there's a whole row of decisively superior powers to US military in the world which could in their own interest not tolerate it and let it be successful.

First in row of this powers in my opinion is the American armed population which shouldn't tolerate it in the first place - like you know the US citizens have the legal right even duty not to tolerate any attempts of thirsting to death of own women, children and sick people in hospitals for purpose of surrender coercion to a terror regime and they are armed for the purpose of fulfilling such duty and to secure free state by the well regulated militia. - That was the purpose why the right to keep and bear arms was adopted from the English Bill of Rights, at the time of the adoption it was quite uncontroversial, I don't see anything making it controversial in moral sense now and the point is of course to return lawfull authority in right hands if the rogue entities usurp it by force. Purely technically (except the obvious morals and psychological phenomenas importance) I also personally believe that what is more important than the types of guns in a "modern civil war" is the type of ammunition used. It looks to me like the US govt. recently purchased way too much of particular types apparently for domestic use to take it lightly and I would think to get prepared more than the "1% of 1% of 1%" looks like a task which should be quickly done...

I also believe that if this "first line" despite its sheer superiority in numbers and other decisive advantages will fail its duty, there are other powers in the row which have own interests, both good and sinister reasons why not tolerate it and the decisive powers allowing them not to tolerate it. In such a case they decide not to, then of course many if not most of then likely former US citizens will die or suffer considerably and in any case get disarmed. The nations who after decades of tolerating illegal wars of their own military abroad or even supporting it would not even defend themselves against such illegal war at home although armed explicitely for such purpose - and such ends would significantly profound the dangers for others to the point the life-death decisions should be immediately seriously considered - can even cease to exist and of course could be disarmed, because it would come out they didn't deserve to be armed. This possible although at the time just "imagined" possibility would be even way much worse than the possibility you're talking about - not just for Americans but whole the world, because the long built global power equilibrium US citizens share the benefits from and the exceptional responsibility for -by having the uninfringeable right to be armed- would be lost. And that's the way it is -as Cronkite used to say.

Did I say "moral" or talk about "morality"

There is NO SUCH thing as "just war" -- There are sides, yes, and both believe they are in the right -- whether the long-run right or the short-run right.

History has shown that might makes right.

WWII was not black-n-white -- it was just sold that way.

Either two camps of wealthy people fought each other (ideologically) -- meaning there was winners and losers (financially) at the end -OR- most all wealthy people "made out" well (regardless the country or ideology).

Regardless it's always wealthy people fighting the way that benefits them.

Same is true for any "civil-war" and they can always (according to all world history) find sell-outs in the lower ranks to aid them in "take-over" or "regime-change"

Besides your argument shows that "hostile takeover" cannot happen owing to reasons beyond guns in the hands of civilians.

I´ll again object

but it is nothing personal, I enjoy this discussion with you very much. You make points which need to be addressed.

I think you´re wrong that there is no such thing as just war. -I obviously mean a war fought by weapons resulting in killings, not a quarrel of ideologues who is the better demagogue. And I believe it would be really dangerous moral relativism to claim there is no such thing as just war - dangerous to our mind, moral, lifes and even lifes of our posterity as potentially free beings because demeaning our defensibility against major evils.

I'll try to explain why you're principially wrong both with the claim of non-existence of the just war and "might makes right", going as briefly as possible back to the very core principles of how, why and where the right and wrong comes into existence. So please be patient and try think about, because the where is in the head.

Every war against military invader is a just war - absolutely regardless whether the invader believes he is right or not. No mercy against an invader should be in place before surrenders. This is especially true in the case where the invader's goals are to make the people or a class of the people living on the invaded territory serfs or even enslave them (as the nazis did) or even exterminate them (as the nazis did) in the genocide supported even by their so called "laws" having nothing to do with justice (based on so called "eugenics" passing off as "science" which is directly derived from the so called "darwinism" -a machiavelistic ideology of "might makes right" based on insane misinterpretations of Ch. Darwin's evolution theory implications and sometimes principially directly contradicting it - for example by distorting the "survival of fittest" to "survival of mightest" - which usually eventually selfdestruct).

Different cultures have slightly different basic moral codes, but generally the above about just war is true everywhere, even in places where few would expect it.

For instant telling example: There is a (not widely known) recent example of a successful just war (a civil war) - led by the movement of Theravada monks which indeed called themselves "Just War" - in Sri-Lanka against Tamil terrorist army having publicly declared goal to invade rest of the Sri-Lanka and dominate&destroy the Sinhali Theravada culture there. Tamils have no right of seldetermination on the Sri-Lanka territory, because they have their state in India. I would add that people in the west, often brainwashed by the mess of the western ideologies pretending mediate eastern ethics (people who usually don't have slightest idea about what are indeed the real principles of the "buddhist" ethics and also because western translations and explications of its code are deliberately very tendentious) object by question:
How is it possible the by them so called "buddhists" didn't surrender to the invader (as for example most of the so called vajrayana "buddhists" in Tibet to the China) and instead fought them ferociously - when their ethics is in usual circumstances that a killing and even hurting is a 1st ethical advice no no, how is it possible that the highest monks in the formal hierarchy of the so called "buddhism" led such movement (although of course the war in military sense was led by commanders of the Sri-Lanka military).

I will not answer the question, because it is an exceptionally silly one with a trivial answer having to do with justified identity selfdefense and I don't want to fill this thread by answers to silly questions which would need a quite complicated explanation of the Abhidhamma principles, but I'll instead state that even from the point of view of the western ethics and law the monks were very obviously right.

Their rightness was the base for the swift devastating success of the military operations against Tamil army even it was cryptically supported by considerable foreign powers as the huge neighboring India (which wishes annexation of Sri-Lanka) and others (one not knowing key things about history of ethics wouldn't even expect to engage there like the state of Israel - which supported resolution of the conflict on both sides which still baffles many - I mean those who even know something about - posing good question what was their rationale).

There was almost nobody among the Sinhalis who wouldn't support it, because they felt the war was life-death decision of their otherwise exceptionally peaceful society very existence and therefore future ability to keep up the in principle non-religious Theravada tradition society against the set of the might arian eclectic religious cults justifying caste society called in general "hinduism" - as Theravada was in jeopardy by for literally millenias before and the teachings of Buddha were subjected to major distortions by - then called "mahajana" (or by shamanic cults in Tibet fused with Buddha's teachings called then "vajrayana" paradoxicly to justify the even for its times quite violent regime).

And it was in fact the historic Buddha Sidhattha Gautama who revolted with his non-religious individual centered teachings against core dogmas of this "hinduist" cults two and half millenias ago. His very practical experience based teachings of individual freedom and fine method how to discern right, wrong and neutral by methodical use of high mental states of reflection and insight are the original inspiration base (although often very distorted and misunderstood) of the individual ethical beliefs of most of the mankind (including then later christian and indirectly even Islam religions) to this days and for example at the beginning of the 20th century the vast majority of the people living on this planet still direcly considered themselves followers of Buddha, and vast majority of the minor rest of the people identified itself as followers of the ethical/religious teachings directly (as teachings of Jehoshua Masiah) or indirectly (as the teachings of Abu al-Quasim Muhammad) deriving the basics of the right in their ethical systems from teachings of Buddha -in case of Jehoshua in a revolt to SOME of the ethical teachings of corrupted hebrews in his time (the "names" "Masiah" later "Christ" and "Muhammad" have more or less the simmilar original meaning in the sense they are spiritual progress titles - and they are originally titles not like family names - Masiah and Christ means "annointed", Muhammad means "praiseworthy" and "Buddha" or in fact the full title of Sidhattha Gautama "Sammasambuddha" means "supreme awaken" in this era - the Theravada tradition recognizes several previous eras and Buddhas - and just for example if the Jesus Christ would be tituled in pali his title would be quite exactly "Sakadagami" - try find what does it mean - the meaning of that word is the reason why neither the jews nor muslims recognize him as Messiah and it is pointless to expect them recognize him as Messiah even if he would come 2nd time in this era to judge it and end it and so the Zionism - either christian or jewish is fundamentally flawed ideology). One who knows something about can confidently state that most of that what is right in the Christian and Islam ethics was in principle invented by Buddha and ancient hebrews (in their case especially the ethics of war which made them survive to this days as a powerful extremely independent nation even against enemies very superior in numbers and making multiple attempts throughout the history to exterminate them). And when we are at DP I will add that the core of the Ron Paul message - the golden rule - is in fact derived from Buddha's teachings and wasn't known before him.

You're in certain sense right that "might makes right". But I would definitely put the "right" into apostrophes -as "right" in the sense "later demagogically justified". It is not a result of belief, but a result of positive knowing -I don't want to flaunt but it can be telling - as somebody having several degrees in clinical psychology, higher level meditation training and university education in brain fyziology - that contrary to common moral relativist beliefs the right/wrong diferentiation is not a relative but very absolute category based on individual insight of what is salutary, dependent on basic hedonistic emotions of pleasant/displeasing - which subjectively exist as phenomenas and have controlling function throughout the whole hierarchy of emotions -from the most primitive emotions to highest moral senses, have clearly discernable objective mechanisms and discernable locations in brains - even at the level of most primitive animals - and have purely deterministic nature. This deterministic principle of right and wrong consequences (under the pali term "kamma" - in sanskrit "karma" and its cyclical nature of so called samsara of repeated suffering based on repeating of greed, hatred and delusion - although the objective base then not known, because there was no objective neuroscience) was first described by Buddha together with the method how to find and use the the superior mental phenomena "sati" we don't even have a distinct terms in western languages for (-the closest term in english is "mindfullness") to break the cyclical determinism of wrong. It is in fact the core of Buddha's teachings and it has nothing to do with a religion - it is not a religious belief but purely experience based methodical psychology of individual spiritual progress revolting against violent religious, ideological hatred and delusions.) What I wrote above about origins of western ethics, especially the penultimate sentence before this paragraph is most probably extremely hardly swallowable for people fed from their childhood by the extremely distorted history taught (not only) in the western schools and churches.

There's another proverb: winners write the history. It is unfortunately very true and I think it is even more dangerous for humankind than to surrender own mind to "might makes right" paradigm and not question the purported roots of our present ethical discoruse and not to discover roots of its flaws leading to major suffering.

All killings even accidental or like they say in US military "collateral" by invader on the territory of the invaded should be considered 1st degree murder with extremely aggravated circumstances with principals in the leadership of the invader and in the case of winning against them (which I know would inevitably happen if majority keeps own morals undistorted and does not surrender to evil) they should be subjected to the same what they wanted for the people living in the invaded territory - serfdom and extermination - not by death penalty (to kill somebody not threatening to kill is unethical revenge even the one killed somebody, and even if it would be ethical, there is always very considerable risk of judicial error or even murder, because the judicial system is and always was one of the most corrupted mankind invented), but by life sentence without parole and possibility to procreate - to give them nothing else than chance of remorse which only can save their souls and at least figuratively mitigate their posterity suffering - if they have any from before they became monsters.

We were talking about "civil" war -- were we not?

Sure -- there is a "just war" between two opposing national armies and since there are no "war lands" to go hold skirmishes on one side will have to be invaded -or- the war might take place on contested lands (where "no one" claims it).

Wars are justificatory -- yes yes (I know).

But the justification happens long long before the physical confrontation -- there is an abdication of consumer-sovereignty (by the voting masses) -- in modern times.

Under a King with a large army and cofers that need to be filled -- an ever growin number of "noblemen" to whom one has filial want to aide (to grow in wealth - to secure loyalty) -- owing to these non-freemarket circumstances wars are "justificatory"

However -- if we want a "free-society" we are going to have to go further back in the decision tree -- bring it in close to the chest.

Name one (just one) "just war" and I will show you a swath of abdicated authority and circumvention of consumer-will that lead to it.

Again that's only if I want to discuss "just war" (on a world stage) -- Discussing on a national (civil war) stage is a whole other matter; for "me" there is no "just war" in such a situation.

The North would not have fought the South had the South never once took on Foreign Debt (to prop up an inefficient economic model - slavery). England and France wanted to push slavery westward and the South (most of them - regardless public addresses) knew and concented to this. England and France had standing armies in Mexico and Canada waiting to enter to the side of the South. Or do you think England and France (the banksters therein) wanted "liberty" and "freemarkets?"

The North was not without blemishes (for sure); but they were "more right" weren't they -- Or do you believe that "secession" to continue slavery (rape, torture, selling off of family members, feeding un-wanted babies to crocodiles, and sodomy) was "just war?"

According to Ron Paul "free-trade" better'd relations with Vietnam far more than War did -- could you see a situation where war could have bettered that situation?

Again -- name just one war that was "just"

One might argue the Revolutionary War -- but that was not fought for the liberty of the common man -- it was fought for the liberty of the wealthy here who were paying the brunt of the taxes. We swapped out one type of Euro-Slave-Owning Ruler for Another and like the non-individualists we were (probably always were) we call them "Fathers" (Founding Father's). Not saying that in the long-run fighting that war was not "just" -- but that seems like the last one that could possible fit that discription.

I'm just looking for a truly "just war" -- point one out.

now I'm not sure

Your main repeated request seems to me is naming one of the just wars.
I thought that well half of my last reply was about the example of the recent civil war at Sri-Lanka (which was a civil war between Sinhalis indigenous at Sri-Lanka since millenias and Sri-Lankan Tamils -a diaspora originating from India residing mainly at the north of the Sri-Lanka) and argumentation bringing it back to the "chest" (although what we call "heart", emotionality, resides in "heart" -but of the brain, called brainstem where the right/wrong decision tree has the trunk converging the roots and diverging up into branches of imagination) why it was fought from the side of Sinhalis as like a textbook example of a just war.

I think that if for example US govt. will completely abolish posse comitatus and will try to use the standing army of federal armed forces (not only under command of 5gon but also DHS and Treasury) to fight American citizens - to violently coerce them into accepting a totalitarian regime of feds imposed most probably mainly for the purpose to advance plans for undemocratic fascist corporate (world) governance filling the coffers of the (by internationalist bankers and corporations) corrupted fifth column politicians in USA (which look like it is now a vast majority of the thugs in the federal government) and empty the wallets of Americans, then a war of citizens militia against such standing army will be simmilarly just as was the Sinhali war against Tamils - especially in the case the feds would use the terrorist tactics you described above.

With the American civil war I think the states indeed should have the right to secede, in general no question - the federation was found by sovereign states. But I object for the particular case of southern states - at the same time I think the abolitionist cause of the North for the war was indeed a just cause, because all the sovereign states which found the USA agreed at the very beginning with the very organic law making them legally sovereign called the Declaration of Independence which declared people equal with unalienable right to liberty - so they clearly didn't have a right to secede for purpose of perpetuating the ineffective and to debt leading slavery system (because it would again alienate the equal right to liberty) and they in purely legal sense clearly waived such right long before the American civil war -in 1776 by unanimous passing of the Declaration of Independence in the 2nd Continental Congress. In fact the slavery should be abolished already by the original Constitution, not 78 years later by 13 Amendment while even now we can hardly talk about practical equality in rights - especially in the case of indigenous people. I would say it bluntly: nobody can be sure USA is racism free just because it has a "black" president nobody even knows for sure if he is a natural born citizen, we will be sure it is racism free only when we will see in the Oval office a Native American.

Maybe I didn't make it clear as I'm having a similar conversatio

on another thread.

My question was (meant to be): "Name a 1st-World Nation having a civil war where guns turned the tide" -- India is not even a 2nd World Nation, so there.

Ron Paul says Free-Trade begets Free-Markets and Mises (RP's Mentor) says the Consumer-is-Sovereign (and must be free to be so).

Corporatist Revenue Stream:
1) Consumers-who-Purchase
2) Consumers-who-Invest
3) Gov't Intervention

Free-market Revenue Stream:
1) Consumers-who-Purchase
2) Consumers-who-Invest

In a free-society our self-defense would of long-ago evolved passed metal-guns -- it is (or it would've been) an ancient tech.

Imagine a Free-Market from 1790 on -- the rapid speed of tech-evolution -- unhindered by world wars, civil wars, korean war, and vietnam war?

Guns would be artifacts -- museum pieces.

The "shot heard round the world" should be the sound of conscious-consumers at the POS (never the ballot box).

Here I really would like to see what RP actually said

I mean direct citation. It is interesting for me what exactly Ron Paul said.

Although I definitely agree with you that interventionism is what hinders the markets, I object that this interventionism is usually concerted and has supranational character, national governments are just one of the factors, but principals reside somewhere else than in national governments (that's why changes at the level of one nation wouldn't be sufficient, although arguably if made in USA they could be inspirational for the rest of the world also because USA is the far biggest resources consumer).

Nothing like free-trade exists with strategic "energy source" commodities as oil, gas, coal - all major interventionist wars last two decades were fought for control of this resources - from Gulf (to prevent Iraqi occupation of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) through Kosovo (order of >5% of world's black coal there) to 2003 Iraq war (to control Iraqi and by military presence also Saudi, UAE, Kuwait and Qatar oil - >50% world's oil) or Lybia (to control the best oil and not allow it to be traded in gold instead of dollar) - and especially not with nuclear fuel resources - uranium and thorium + R&D resources of their peaceful application - which are extremely heavily regulated both on national and supranational level.

Not only markets are manipulated, but the consumer too - for example if there wouldn't be both domestic and international interventionism into nuclear energy market - well since 60's - and there wouldn't be the artificially supported anti-nuclear sentiments finding fertile soil among gullible dumbed public prone to irrational fears then we would have the 4th generation nuclear technologies commercionalized realistically at the end of 1980's, the energy resource for technological civilization would be secured for at least thousands of years allowing global social justice and elimination of poverty, no interventionism for fossil energy resource control would be needed and of course no 2008 and on financial crisis could develop (although I really doubt the guns would become museum pieces).

Consumer sovereignity manifestly doesn't authomatically mean wise policies, you need mindfull consumers for it.

It is documented and by reality well illustrated fact that it is dumbed down consumers who were the major factor of all the very major setbacks in western economy throughout last two generations - from peaceful nuclear energy development stall to biofuels, destructing not only the rainforests but global food market.

The nuclear technologies quickly developed in USA in 60's from military projects (NEPA, ANP ->ORNL MSRE project) into the functional 4th generation (fuel bred by fast neutron transmutation of abundant unfissile isotopes into fissile ones) reactors for civilian use level with quallitative upshift in safety were killed not only by government under the pressure of international fossil lobby, but also by massive public protests and opinion shift concerted by the same fossil resources controling international oligarchy - which effectively stopped not only the 4th generation nuclear power R&D, but effectively also the 3rd generation deployment - and there was NO nuclear powerplant projected after 1979 (the year of TMI accident with literally no casualties, but resulting in major shift in consumer attitude towards nuclear energy) built and put into operation in USA! -Even the first pro-nuclear president since Nixon (Obama) supported even by leading environmentalists (as NASA-GISS head J. Hansen) was quickly stopped with his energy independence plans to rapidly revive the peaceful nuclear industry and further its R&D in USA towards 4th generation. (I'm not a fan of Obama but in his case it is literally true that the things are not "black or white". Unfortunately even the US president is too small against both internationalist lobby and by it manipulated mass consumer opinion).

All suffering stems from greed, hate and ignorance.
If somebody - led by own greed and hatred - is succesful to manipulate consumers into ignorance (and hate and greed) on major issues we end where we are - on the brink of the global collapse.

You're absolutely right that the key are the conscious-consumers - thank you! - who are mindful enough to be able discern what is good or bad for them and effectively demand it - at least concerning the very key issues as energetics.

(Unfortunately for the consumer it is hard to discern the electricity from a nuclear powerplant from the electricity from a coal poweplant or even wind or solar, because it is distributed by the monopolistic grid and so the consumer has no chance to decide according to price - which would be very different for the stated types of source (also due to major externalities of otherwise relatively cheap coal electricity), where the nuclear would be from experience the unbeatably cheapest one even with the 3rd generation technologies with all costs for powerplant decommission and spent fuel handling included. It is rougly estimated, that the 4th generation MSR generated electricity would be in the time of its first possible deployment 3 times cheaper than the coal electricity (even without the major externalities as environment dammage included in price) and at the time of major deployment in order of tens of times cheaper, consuming >99.7% of the fuel - not like 3rd generation ~0.3% - and leaving almost no long half-time nuclear waste dangerous over ~300 years span.)

It is well known basic law of physics called 2nd law of thermodynamics which inevitably implies that if the fossil energy resources we use will peak without being in time substituted by something else (and only what we realistically have which is really cappable of substituting extremely rapidly depleting fossil energy resources for civilization vitally dependent on it in time -before ~2035 general fossil peak- is the 4th generation nuclear power - both U238->Pu239 and Th232->U233 preferably Fluoride based MSR breeding) then the entropy of the highly energy-dependent system of human technological civilization will inevitably rise exponentially, which directly means there would be no human technological civilization as we know it after ~2050, because it would perish in unprecedented social/economic catastrophe in then less than one generation and possibly even much quicker - if total global war for last resources intervenes, then inevitable without extremely tough totalitarian regime. -And this is not an end-of-the-world prophecy of a crazy internet conspiracy theorist, but tacitly admitted facts in the expert circles including the rough dates estimates.

We have ~20 years to point of no return. During this time we must achieve major global shift in consumers cosciousness, make major decisions, prioritize major R&D and profoundly restructuralize global energetics doctrine and market. Otherwise the humankind will die-out in order of billions per decade after ~2040. It seems only countries which take this threat really seriously now are China and Czech Republic - only countries prioritizing Thorium based 4th generation MSR technology commercialization with sufficient both public support and R&D resources for peaceful nuclear energy use (and only China is enough politically independent from the supranational interventionist lobby that it can afford to prioritize it openly).

That's why I believe you're on very right track when emphasizing the conscious-consumer - it is a vital condition for our civilization survival in the immediate future.

This my reply is obviously not about the war we talked about before, but I felt it would be good to support your opinion and demonstrate why your conscious-consumer is really important if we want successfully face the challenge of the most serious threat the humankind ever faced - the rapid depletion of its energy resources in times of 7+ billion population, everrising energy demand and unwillingness of consumers to wake up and vocally demand what needs to be done and instead sleepily into oblivion repeating the demagogical arguments suggested to them by the fossil lobby (- the single most powerfull entity in this world) or being completely unconcerned. -The elite obviously will not tend to do it for them, because the major population reduction is their goal ever since they started with the epically failed "sustainable development" ideology advanced by the Club of Rome - which demonstrably had the nuclear phaseout in its platform from the very beginning back in 1972.

I agree (mostly)

Where I agree (with you):

1) Nothing like free-trade exists with strategic "energy source" commodities as oil, gas, coal - all major interventionist wars last two decades were fought for control of this resources

2) if there wouldn't be both domestic and international interventionism into nuclear energy market......we would have the 4th generation nuclear technologies commercionalized realistically at the end of 1980's

Here's where I disagree:

".....I object that this interventionism is usually concerted and has supranational character"

Here's RP's quote "Nothing promotes peace better than free trade. Countries that trade with each other generally do not make war on each other, as both countries gain economic benefits they do not want to jeopardize. ... Trade is much more profitable. Also, trade and friendship apply much more effective persuasion to encourage better behavior, as does leading by example."

Google "RP free trade" or "RP barrel of a gun"

Now -- I disagree with you when you say it's "more than" supranational character at play -- suggesting there's international collusion beyond the consumers control.

This is false -- The Consumer is at the very least 2/3rds of the "evil they" revenue stream -- We are 2/3rds the revenue stream of Banks and of Politicians. It's banks and politicians that make up the "other" 1/3rd of the "evil they" revenue stream. So, we are nearly 100% of the "evil they" revenue stream when you look at it that way.

If every country came to that understanding then we could chop their vice-grip over purchasing power (for good).

Now -- Voting is Perpetual War (this is obvious as neither sides ever gets "exactly" what they want -- Controlled Opposition.

If we look at Military, Monopoly Positions, and Voting as "War" then re-apply RP's logic "that free-trade and not war begets peace" we begin to see what needs to take place.

What needs to take place to arrive at Consumer-Sovereignty is "free-trade" and "not war"

examples of supranationally concerted interventionism

1]EU is a supranational entity which massively intervenes in virtually every market on the territory of the EU member states using massive subsidies, regulations, common fiat currency and bailouts. All the market regulations are primarily created by unelected EU Commission and it is mandatory for the EU member nation states to implement them in their national laws or face sanctions. This has not only huge influence on the inner market, but considerably hinders markets abroad - the largest environmental/economic catastrophe inflicted by this system in collusion with USA and Canada is rapid depletion of rainforests in South America and southeastern Asia due to directing biofuel subsidies there and it also led to considerable rise of food prices globally which starves and kills scores of the poor in the third world.

2] Single Euro currency was admittedly planned and concerted efforts made by prominent corporate captains associated in Bilderberg Group since its very inception. European Central Bank although being statutory institution of EU is owned by private internationalist subjects on undisclosed shares basis.

3] All central banks in the world (including FED) except in Northern Korea and Iran (recently also Lybia under Gaddafi) operate under system Basel III directed by board of Bank for International Settlements - the same bank which have stollen the gold in Europe during WWII and financed fascism and nazism and which was unsuccessfully dissolved already by Bretton Woods Agreement in 1944, but then never observed (the proposal to dissolve BIS was pushed through by US treasury secretary Henry Morgenthau - who resigned from the office exactly one year after signing the then unobserved Bretton Woods Agreement and subsequent Soviet withdrawal and failure to functionally realize his radical plan for postwar Germany division and heavy deindustrialization which proved impossible under Truman without late FDR who fully supported it and even persuaded Churchill to support it - which if implemented would most probably prevent plans to ES - led then from the very beginning by the prominent nazi war criminal Walter Hallstein advancing then the fascist economy plans and leading to advancement of nazi plans to undemocratic political union which now again Germany wants to change into full-blown federation - even without any support of Great Britain and with very cold support of France - which I find extremely dangerous move and I think that if there somebody would have at least halfbrain in the US government it should be immediately strongly thumbdown by US diplomacy and military and strong message sent they'll never allow Germany the sovereignity to conclude any federation. Unfortunately those who don't remember the history are doomed to repeat it...).

4] International corporations as Monsanto, operating globally using institutes of international patents inflict their patented GMO plants on major as well as small agriculture countries and effectively hinder the competition at the markets with basic food agrocommodities as well as the main textile commodity cotton and possibly endangering biodiversity and public health. The concerted interventionism here? The international patent protection creates global monopoly but without viable way to also globally enforce anti-monopoly laws and protection of market against such monopoly if inflicting dammages. In reality it then leads to draconian preventive measures of GMOs regulations or even bans, which for example in EU has clearly supranational character.

5] Global environmentalist oraganizations as Greenpeace or Club of Rome inflict extremely twisted informations and anti-nuclear ideologies on gullible public in most of the western countries which effectively led to concerted protests for decades on the edge of mob terrorism and eventually to nuclear overregulation and phaseouts or stall in numerous major western countries including USA.

6] The same organizations in collusion with UN try to impose global carbon tax on the base of the Anthropogenic Global Warming scam which would need a form of global government body to enforce the tax. Even without this system there are whole continental emissions markets based on Kyoto protocol which quickly proved to be one of the largest financial scams ever and nevertheless had major influence on national regulations. It is notable that the association of several environmentalist organizations led by Greepeace proposal for the failed UNFCCC even contained explicite prohibition to "B" developing countries to go nuclear. The UNFCCC failed partly because larger CO2 emmissions producers and energy consumers China and subsequently USA fortunately eventually refused to participate and partly in the wake of the Climategate scandal.

7] All major military interventions in last two decades I named in my last post were concerted by coalitions of numerous states under auspices of NATO which led to perpetuation of un-free trade with energetic commodities effectively controlled by petrodollar doctrine.

8] The "sustainable development" ideology started by "Limits to Growth" ideological pamphlet and establishing Club of Rome in 1972 had the ideology of nuclear phaseout and so far epicaly failed ideology of population control (the world population doubled since beginning of 1970's) in its platform from the very beginning and because members of the Club of Rome are prominent politicians from all over the world it had major impact on national energetic doctrines and led to nuclear phaseouts and stalls in numerous countries including the nuclear energy leader USA. And because the energetics doctrines are key for the markets of most important energy commodities as coal, natgas, gasoline, diesel, kerosene and electricity prices it had major impact on prices of production and logistics in real economics with major impact on final retail prices of almost everything for the consumers - who although unhappy with the end prices have not much effective influence to change this international energy cartelism.
Breaking of this cartel, which is arguably most influent organization on Earth, is primary immediate vital interest of humankind and especially the interest of the western countries -which would be almost inevitably as major energy consumers affected most and their high living standard destructed if this cartel survives and nuclear R&D will not be restarted to fully substitute fossil fuels - then too high energy prices inevitably given by rising demand/decreasing production would become major component of retail prices and make whole global economy plunge in unstoppable recession of > -5% GDP/year at the latest in ~2035. -After this point the total global collapse of technologic civilization and dying-out of most of the world's population would be in such case inevitable.
Only country which currently makes sound major steps to avert this very possible development is China. But if China would have 4th generation Fluoride MSR technology commercialized (estimated 2025-30) and using its money and influence licenced and patented and the west not having the technology developed into commercial phase, it will face major contender which could effectively colonize it, because using the qualitatively new bussiness models which this scallable technology allows it would decentralize the national electricity markets, remove need for grid and globally control both major industry and retail consumer electricity market and could become most powerful empire in history. (still better then global malthusian catastrophe)

Just from this examples is I believe clear that the most important concerted hinderings of free markets, trade and consumers ability to make informed decisions not only very really exist, but are also the most dangeous interventions not only for the free markets, free trade and free world, but the world in general.

Yes of course there "is" international interventionism

I did not imply that there wasn't.

What I'm saying is this.

By order (from 1st to Last):
---Regarding which came first and where the 1st order of Abdication Exists

1) Local Abdication -- We buy most products or services (via franchised services) from out-side local markets

2) State or National Abdication -- We buy most products/services from out-side state or national markets.

The above includes all industries and all services
---Including Banking

My argument would be to reverse this prognosis: International Consumption to National/State/Region and from N/S/R to Local Markets.

As a pathway back to consumer-sovereignty.

There are only three logical pathways to get to a Free-Market or it is IMPOSSIBLE to get there (I'll let you decide what-is-what):

1) Consumer-Sovereignty (as Mises and Ron Paul argue for)

2) Voting-and-Lobbying (as all politicians argue for)

3) Force of Arms (militarism -- which RP argues against)

I think RP either does not fully accept the C-S pathway (as the sole means) or if he does then his entire political platform is one of making the C-S model more palatible or obvious -- Meaning he uses "politics" as a vehicle for education showing the obvious truth that it can NEVER lead toward individualism.

Voting -- Taking consumer-power and abdicating POS-Rule over to politician-rule via the Ballot Box (a non-market-good).

If RP thinks that a combo pact of C-S and Voting-Lobbying are the answer then I think he needs to expand his anti-war stance and arguments that "free-trade" and not "war" (his words - he was referring to militarism) are what bring peace (that peace does not come at the end of the barrel of a gun).

If we expand his anti-war (militarism) stance to include all forms of war (war being a non-market-good) -- to include voting and lobbying (in my opinion being a non-market-good and pertetual) then we are ONLY left with C-S (consumer-sovereignty).

Thoughts?

Oh direct answer if not clear above -- I believe that "internationalism" (the abdication to their revenue streams) comes first at the State/National level -- then as with all forms of consumer-supported gov't actions gov't must (and always will) expand.

Gov'ts must expand (as did Monarchies) because every year there's a new batch of people who must be bribed (new wealthy individuals, new family members knighted or made "noble", or new wealthy unions). Each of the latter in turn has a slew of people below them who must be bribed (bought) --- when wealthy people do not get bribed they form unions with other non-bribed wealthy people and seek to overthrow the "other" wealthy folk.

So first -- we must sell out localism to state/nationalims then by the force-factor of ever-expanding gov't bribery we sell out to internationalism.

We need new planets to off-shore our bribery otherwise internationalism will lead us to the first one-world civil war.

NATO-blue vs NATO-red

My choice would be the 1]

Local consumer sovereignity + the 2] on local and regional level.

I'll give practical example confirming your abdication model:

I have a good friend in postcommunist Slovenia, who until recently lived in a small town of ~3000 inhabitants an no significant tourist traffic. After the fall of communism there still was the nice town marketplace under nice old trees with stuff like local farming products including meat and its very good local products, clothing, implements, flowers... Then the big supermarket companies came and built there 6! big supermarkets, without any resistance of the local people brainwashed by commies and then by the "democrats" to abdication, the supermarkets which effectively sent the market with local products into oblivion and nobody sells there anything now and the marketplace is abandoned. There is one restaurant and like 3 bars which all close like 11pm or before. People flee from there even the immobilities crash there - as also my friend who capitalized on it and bought a small familly farm in hilly area 20km nearby (5 hectares arable land + 2 hectares forest + 2 farmhouses + walled sheepcote + own waterspring for ~90000$ ;) and never wants to move back in the town where if you go out on saturday night in summer you find 5-10 people, in winter not even that, so why stay there anyway. If you want to go in ~30km distant city Celje to find some socialization, you must either go by car and pay gas and highway or pay like 7 euro bus ticket, but don't expect them go before 7am and after 6pm and more than thrice a day.

For summer-autumn part of the year I live in a simmilarly big ~3000 inhabitants viticultural town on the French mediteranian coast, where loads of tourist come in seasons halfspring-summer-halfautumn when there can be like around ~30000 people temporarily present for holidays and seasonal jobs. Yet the town has only one big supermarket, two normal size and one tiny convenience stores and there still is local marketplace with numerous stands of local farming and fishing products, including meat and its numerous good local products, clothing, books, implements, wine, flowers... The town council simply doesn't allow more supermarkets there neither under rightist nor leftist local government which change usually once 4-8 years - even being quite under outside lobbyist pressure, they cannot betray lobbying of local people against more supermarkets -even in summer there are 10 times more people around than in winter - because they would be personally politically immediately finished. There are several small shops like 3 bakeries, 2 news/tobacco, several clothing and souvenir shops, one small utility shop, one building material store, 3 meat shops, one fish shop, more than 10 restaurants and at least 10 bars and several caffeterias (which usually close for the winter and only one or two rest open). Dance fiestas with live music on main square every week at least once since may to mid october, in main summer season almost daily. People prosper and actually move in and new houses are built because the immobilities are there still for relatively reasonable price when compared with French coast average. I call this voting by legs and direct lobbying - the democracy works on local level and maybe even on the departemental level - if the people care about their own or common bussiness and don't abdicate to defend their interests.
- The convenient everyday mobility of normal people is now provided throughout the whole departement (say approx. a bit smaller than Connecticut) by a dense net of public transportation buses (and on some selected routes by trains) and you can travel to 250+ km distant mountain part of the departement 2000+m above sea level for symbolic 1! euro - a very successful project of the departemental government how to use the subsidies money for something good (not only steal most of them to own or friends pockets) - not only for normal people mobility and repopulation of abandoned beautiful villages in mountains, but also environment (also very beautiful)- a project which quickly spreads to surrounding departements which now build simmilar affordable departementwide bus networks.
This project was a brainchild of one very notable guy in the departemental government. Is it an individualist idea? I don't know, looks to me like a socialist idea - but definitely working and definitely not a fascist one - which at the very most would provide you with the one way busticket to the FEMA camp and you'll pay nothing except by your freedom and life.
I think the people should foster their individualism (and doing it using the Buddha method I know quite exactly what does it mean and what are the limits of it laid down by the golden and silver rules and bio/social nature of human society) but work and assert the really common practical interests together. That's one of the main reasons why I like the France - because the people there seem to me be be somehow world champions of this - and despite others call them socialists to me it seems they behave like real capitalists - knowing what a capital their society and country is which they must not let get completely conquested by foreign interests. The abdication (even some individuals don't abdicate "go into wilderness" as my friend to become more independent when other do abdicate) is a collective phenomena the same way as the non-abdication keeping the local sovereignity and equilibrium between imported and local goods for consumption.

...

Im sorry to say it like this, but even libtards are now realizing in the rising police state just who can help protect them and who cant.

It is amazing how crisis can remove blinders.

and MM is libtard NOT libertarian.

socialist MM should be made to go live in Japan, the most socialist nation and see if they pay for his fat a$$ to eat and his medical!
See if they would spread and share their wealth with this pig...

me thinks NOT!
Japan, the biggest socialist country would send a hog like MM packing
the minute his tax payer paid free flight landed in Japan!
They would NEVER pay for him, they know they would go broke in a week.
he can only survive off the fat of American taxpayers because we have enough to keep it rolling in its primo hog slop.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

you have to be f*cking kidding me?

Libertarian? Michael Moore? ROFLOL!!!! OMFG.... what a joke!

if you want to hear how red blooded patriotic Americans really feel about Michael Moore and Piers Morgan, and you might possibly want to become more informed about WTF we are facing, then I dare you to go listen to the first hour of today's show on Infowars.....

http://rss.infowars.com/20120725_Wed_Alex.mp3

oh yea this is great.... Benn Swann still pulling no punches...

http://youtu.be/1jeW_-Kq7vA

Think for yourself......Question authority...

A few good points among mostly bad ones:

He still believes that the Second Amendment was put in place to secure the hegemony of the US Government against the British Government.

the men who wrote the constitution just wanted to make sure a militia could be quickly called up from amongst the farmers and merchants should the Brits decide to return and wreak some havoc.

Apparently he's unfamiliar with what makes the American Revolution particularly revolutionary. An armed citizenry, along with checks and balances, nullification, state governments with greater power than the federal government - all of these help guarantee the liberty of individuals and a free society against tyranny. He's being intellectually dishonest if he believes that all these measures to limit the power of government were intended otherwise.

He still compares violence involving guns in the US to violence involving guns in places where there are fewer guns available per capita (among other statistical blunders). If one looks at violent crime (whether with guns, knives, rocks, fists etc.) to violent crime, the US looks like most other countries.

He even notes the fallacy when he raises the following point:

There are plenty of guns in Canada (mostly hunting rifles) – and yet the annual gun murder count in Canada is around 200 deaths. In fact, because of its proximity, Canada's culture is very similar to ours – the kids play the same violent video games, watch the same movies and TV shows, and yet they don't grow up wanting to kill each other. Switzerland has the third-highest number of guns per capita on earth, but still a low murder rate.

So – why us?

The Swiss have a culture where guns are naturally part of life. From marksmanship to military service and from shooting festivals to craftsmanship. There was a time when Americans largely held a similar mindset and I'll bet our firearms violence statistics were also better.

And if we had strong gun laws that prohibited automatic and semi-automatic weapons and banned the sale of large magazines that can hold a gazillion bullets, well, then shooters like the man in Aurora would not be able to shoot so many people in just a few minutes.

People could easily buy fully automatic weapons until 1986. High capacity pistols have been around since 1935 and yet these mass killings were less common then than they are now. He also commits the fallacy that you can legislate away criminal behavior. I can get marijuana in an hour if I wanted to yet he believes that a ban on "high capacity" magazines would be effective.

Sorry Moore, it's not about the guns and never has been.

excellent

points!

I'd rather have a bottle in front o' me than a frontal lobotomy
www.tattoosbypaul.com
www.bijoustudio-atx.com

there was nothing even

there was nothing even remotely libertarian-sounding in that article.

Moore

Just remember his answer to violent Americans is to give the government a monopoly on force so it can MAKE us be good little boys and girls.

PierzStyx

He still doesn't have a clue what the Second Amendment is about

It wasn't just to protect us from each other, or the British if they were to invade again... it's primary purpose was a last stopgap against runaway tyranny. A situation we find ourselves on the precipice of today....

But at least he finally realizes that gun control won't make a difference here because America has a systemic problem with violence.

There may be hope for liberals yet!

Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. -Ron Paul 7/10/03

Are you out of your Vulcan mind?

Why is DailyPaul pinning articles like this? It's understandable that some random user could post it, but why, Mr. Nystrum, are you pinning it to the main page? Have you been threatened? This site is about to lose its credibility.

www.RonPaulYellowPages.com

exactly

at the time when it was pinned it had no votes, posted by almost newcommer and promoting Moore who not only didn't state any libertarian word not speaking sentence in that article, but made arguments - as the strawman argument about the "violent Americans" - which are directly dangerous to liberty.

Why did you remove the

Why did you remove the video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-h5DYmzZ80

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

The only thing surprising

about that video is that Piers is not wearing his helmet!

Video was removed

The video was not in the original post; it was added by a mod and had nothing whatsoever to do with the original post. The linked article is what was surprisingly libertarian; I haven't watched the video.

I don't doubt that Moore's actual thoughts are quite liberal and authoritarian, but he made very good points in the article that I appreciated.

the video is EXACTLY related

the video is EXACTLY related to his blog. All the same talking points but he just expands on them on Piers, exposing his liberal views..

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

what good points?

I don't see there any - even when reading it again, not speaking the libertarian ones.
Can you be more specific?
Also the video is very relevant and showing that putting Moore into the "libertarian" box is quite weird.

maybe

because it clearly shows that to call the Moore's discourse "libertarian" is really far fetched.

Did You Watch

the whole thing?
What was surprising about this? Moore was calling for stricter gun laws and more gov't health care.. This wasn't surprising in the least.

Read, don't watch

The video had nothing to do with the original post; it was added by a mod and has since been removed. The article is what was surprisingly libertarian. Try reading.