[Woods previously]
Those that build up armaments of higher grades than most people and most
nation-states is only for the purpose of tyranny - no more, no less.
[Arlo]
They may contend that they build up an arsenal for defense, the same
justification we use.
woods:
Any person - I'm talking about people Arlo, people... I'm not saying they or
us or joe or
mo... If any one person or nation-state finds it in their best interest to
develop
weapons that far outweigh most people in their own country and world - well,
what would
be the point other than tyranny and empire?
[Woods previously]
Who am I to give trust to others to act with morally when those same people
wouldn't trust my morally?
[Arlo]
Well, we do this every day with the police do we not? We expect them to risk
their lives and defend the peace even when many others would turn tail and run
for safety. Same with firemen.
woods:
Yeah, but policemen (don't know why you said firemen) don't have an armament
that
is too far distant than anybody else's ability of attaining if necessary. Same
goes
for nation-states. We could find ourselves having better weapons than most
other nation-states, but once the ability to attain any one nation-states
ability of
weapon's grade has been lost, then why does a nation-state have to be so
overpowering?
They can be trusted now, but it's about people and morality and anyone person
born now or in the future can have the capability of using their own power for
immoral reasons.
Arlo:
My point is only that society does set up "exclusive" groups and then charge
those groups with higher standards (and responsibilities) than would be
expected at large. Take pharmacists for another low-key example. They are
trusted with the responsibility over drugs that we would not just freely allow
to be sold in stores. Should we change that? (I'm of two minds on that one).
woods:
Maybe, but that would be a leap that I don't know if
I'm willing to make as of yet. But to allow pharmacists
to have all that power and control through legislation in Congress
has created moral dilemma's, such as not allowed to
get cheaper drugs from Canada. So, maybe some pharmacists
could set up private firms to compete, more competition,
more freedoms... I don't know. That's a big issue to tackle. I don't
think just because it's good for one aspect of life it is good for
all aspects of life. Life is too diverse. I don't believe in
such extreme equality exists. There are different kinds of trees.
[Woods previously]
Our little ant antenna ought to go up when somebody says to us, "Oh, those
weapons are too dangerous for you to have, so, we'll make them and keep them
for you." They are instantly monopolizing who is moral and who is not! That's
what tyrants do.
[Arlo]
Is the fashioning of an army always an arm of tyranny?
woods:
I'm sticking to what I've said about once weapons become
too dangerous that many people can't have them, then
they are too dangerous for anybody. Ron might have something
to say about your question here for it's asking me something else
that I haven't considered and I would need to think about this longer.
I think Ron was onto something about permanence of army and
the military industrial complex that has to do with this question. I
know Alexander Hamilton wanted a permanent army in case the French
attacked the U.S. while John Adams was president, and Adams agreed
to the forming of such an army since Washington thought it ok, but
Washington had succumbed to listening to anything Hamilton had said when
Washington was close to death. When Hamilton wanted the army to attack
the French, after it's formation, and to expand into an empire and
take South America within a U.S. empire to make the British and French
stay away from the U.S. by showing the U.S.'s great power in taking
on such a domination Adams knew that was tryanny and a madman
leading the army that would grow in such a power that it could do
whatever it wanted. It could take over the U.S. and dominant the
world. Any domination of the world is also a domination of its' own
people. The larger the power to do such a thing is a large enough
power that is being subjected upon its' own people. So Adams
disbanded the army, saw no further use of it. Hamilton was hog crazy
after this, but Adams kept the U.S. out of war with the French and this
was good or else the U.S. probably wouldn't have been able to
get off of its' fragile feet after just going through the terrible war with
Britain and the terrible economic period that the U.S. went through after the
war when they turned to fiat money, which therefore the U.S. included a
standard of weights and measures and a gold and silver backing of money
in the U.S. constitution cause the founding fathers lived through inflations
of 8000% and such when the U.S. colonies didn't back their paper money
with gold just like the Roman empire didn't and then fell, and other peoples
throughout history. Printing of money out of thin air lead this inclusion in
the
U.S. Constitution out of experience not just for wiggles and giggles.
The U.S., like any country, wouldn't need such massive weapons
if it wasn't an empire. The IMF and this subversion through the banking
system by the Federal Reserve (read some early history of the U.S. and history
of
the world as to why the Fed. Reserve and fiat money is a predictable
way to feudalize a people and make them subservient to any savior)
and now IMF and the world leaders will come out as saviors to the economic
crisis that by simple economics is easy to see how they are planning
this crisis and acting out this crisis. It's simple history of early U.S. and
why the Constitution mentions what I said above. It's not a secret mystery.
Anybody that takes the time to understand simple economics understands
we haven't been using supply and demand laws since the Fed. Reserve
was established and gold was taken away as a backing. It's not hard to
figure out, it's been done throughout history for there really are very simple
laws of the economy that anybody can figure out on their own how to
solve the crisis, but the U.S. and world gov't's aren't doing it because why?
The answer is not cryptic so why won't they do what is the easy solution?
They're going to come in as saviors to those that have been dupped, you watch,
and they're going to have all the answers, seemingly, but it's all planned. It
is
planned because we've been made to think that the economy goes through
these periods meanwhile the Byzantine Empire never had a debt for 800 years,
never
any boom-bust cycles, and the early U.S. after establishing gold as the
standard, never
went through boom-bust cycles. But we've been made to believe
it's how economics works - that's such a fallacy, but hey I'm using simple
economics and history to point out exactly what's happening and what did happen
in the past, but hey like with this current discussion, I'm just a nut job
for wanting peace!!!!!
The savior now is in the form of bailouts that are actually making
everything worse. It's quite simple, but I won't bore you again with
this else I'll be misconstrued as a black helicopter guy and Red Dawn person
for being educated in simple banking history and how empires and gov'ts
fell in the past.
Freakin' hook me up to the electrodes like they did Pirsig,
I mean Pirsig freakin' shook the very earth beneath the professor
and Pirsig was made into a freakin' nut job for quality
Are we all freakin' nut jobs for liking the moq!!!!!!
Until somebody actually looks into this and quits freakin'
dismissing me just cause they don't understand me -
Freakin' hook me up to the electrodes like they did Pirsig!!!!!
woods
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
