In response to the link posted above http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ , I profoundly disagree to their premise that "power kills".

The Acton quote "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely" needs no modification, it is a perfect truth verfied by experience.

To jump to 'power kills' from this shows a completely impoverished knowledge of history and the human condition.

The power needed to destroy ourselves is the same power that will save us if you hold any faith in humanity whatsoever. 'Power kills' comes from a belief that humans are inherently 'bad'.

Governments teach their own demographic that they are 'different' from other peoples in order to control them. Religion and culture are part of this engine. As religious fear has lost its power you see the shift toward drugs and more recently toward terrorism. This is *explicitly* taught in Harvard and you can download the teaching notes online.

Governments will use whatever tools they need to get people behind a war, you can see the difference between how the war was sold to the public in the UK by Blair compared to how it was sold in USA by dictator Bush. 'Islamo Facism' didn't exist in the American vocabulary until 9/11.

@BansheeX: "in the free market system, the money is transferred naturally through production and consumption, which is good for everybody"

Everybody? Really? Is it safe to assume you're talking about a scenario in which all countries have perfectly managed democratic / capitalist governments and economic systems set up? Because if any country in the world is run by a corrupt government then the free market will inevitably lead to exploitation *somewhere*. I actually agree with you that in a perfect world the free market economy would be the ideal choice, but we're presently too far from that world to effectively implement such a plan. Unless or until we can cause companies within this country to behave as good corporate citizens there's going to be inequity somewhere in the world caused by the US.

Where are the incentives in an unregulated free market for companies to not pollute other countries or cause long-term damage for short-term profit? *Some* regulation is a good thing, and in many ways necessary (there's only so much broadcast spectrum, so someone needs to regulate it's use; non-renewable resources are sometimes in international / non-owned locations; many other examples), even in a perfect world.

I also do understand that social security goes to everyone - I don't necessarily agree that it should. The program is not perfect at present, but eliminating it wholesale seems a less advisable approach than reforming it to maintain solvency, lessen its aggregate tax burden, and be hardened to abuse or use by those who haven't earned it.

You stated "Don't pass this guilt trip garbage on people, this is what gets them trusting in the government in the first place" - I wasn't trying to 'guilt trip' people, I was making an argument regarding the societal benefits of this particular program. I think blindly trusting the government is a terrible idea, and many federal programs *should* go away. Like I said: I like Ron Paul. I want to see the military reduced (though not eliminated, as that would be insane), I want to see the income tax abolished (though not, obviously, the ssa tax), I want to see the drug war eliminated at a federal level, I don't believe in government legislation of morality, etc etc. SS is a safety net / insurance program / 'retirement program' (if you insist) that tangibly benefits a large number of deserving individuals.

As to all those years before social security's advent in this country somehow being preferable? Hardly. This and the other horrible social programs of the era are largely credited with allowing for the rise of a viable middle class in the US, and the arguments I've seen have been pretty convincing. I'll admit to not being a professional economic or historic analyst, but I'm pretty sure that being poor during the depression sucked massively, and that a social safety net would have been *really* useful back then. Wouldn't have been a panacea of course, but it would have helped.

Regarding your links: wow, you're surprised I didn't read a libertarian think tank's website about the current plight of a social programs? I try to get my information from non-partisan sources. The social security program *may* have to start dipping into the *interest* earned within the trust account starting in 2018. It won't be actually bankrupt until 2052 even if no modifications are made. If the cap is raised or eliminated it will be solvent essentially indefinitely. I'm using the Congressional Business Office's analysis from around the same time as the Cato institute item you linked.

You misrepresented what I said several times - please stop doing that. At no point did I say that "SS isn't in trouble financially or a tax burden on the economy" - quote where I said anything like either of those assertions. You can't. On the contrary, I opened my comment with "so what you're saying is that you're against social security largely because it is being mis-used and is horrifically broken" - this is a direct recognition of the fact that the program does have faults. I'm just surprised that you think the way to fix it is to eliminate it.

Social Security *is* mis-used and it *is* horrifically broken. It isn't, however, an unnecessary burden to this country - it does a lot of good and has allowed several people that I know personally to subsist without reverting to begging their community or family for money. Perhaps this makes me biased, but I don't care - I see a benefit to the social security program in this country, warts and all.

Wart removal would be appreciated by me though. A good first step would be removing the corrupting influence of business within government - if it would be possible to make our representatives in charge of the country completely subservient to the will of and collective good of the citizens of the country we'd be in much better shape, unfortunately I don't see that happening soon. The business / government mix you dislike (facism, by definition) is a terrible thing.

Oh, and on the issue of gun control? I like how Israel and Norway (? might be a different northern European country, I'm working off memory) do it - everyone owns and is trained in the proper use of a gun. Completely levels the playing field, which I assume really does do an excellent job of reducing violent crime.

This post has gone way beyond too long. I apologize to everyone for my rantiness. If the VS community would prefer that BansheeX and myself (or just myself, perhaps) shut the hell up about all this I'll gladly do so - I'm open to complaints

BrknPhoenix -

I have to disagree with your "It's either fascism or not" stance. That is like saying everything is the world is white and black. There is rarely so clear a defining line. Most issues are made of a various shades of grey. The shift towards facism is a slow steady slide (actually more of a jerk/relax repeating motion), not the turn of a light switch.

Quick question: Mussolini was in charge for over 20 years (and was democratically elected.) He was the leader of the Facist Party in Italy, but Italy wasn't facist at the time of his election. When exactly did Italy become facist?

Welcome to... facism?

Quantummushroom is confusing religion with the belief in God, which are not the same thing.

There has always been a belief in 'the other', 'the cosmic attractor', 'the goddess', and even the worship of the mushroom, the moon and mother earth/Gaia. This is religion in the ancient shamanic sense and is more than 12,000 years old. It is almost certain that it has its roots in the psychedelic experience and is **boundary dissolving**.

Religion as we experience it today has only existed for 2,500 years and is a social control mechanism employed by governments everywhere in the world. With the decline of religion in most of the western world, governments have now invented 'terrorism' as the fear factor. Religion in this sense is **boundary building**.

Existentialism as proclaimed by Nietzsche is a third 'way' that denies both the very real religious/psychedelic experience AND the existence of a god, goddess, or higher cosmic attractor. Atheism does not necessarily equal existentialism, again Quantummushroom is confusing these things.

The third confusion here is 'kill the religion and you kill the civilization'. Almost right - kill the religion and you kill the culture would be more accurate.

Killing religion as Neitzsche says would lead to the death of culture and a descent into chaos. We know something today that Nietzsche didn't know, a little mathematical theory called Chaos Theory which is likely the most important discovery since the wheel. From the natural chaos a new order would arise, one free of culture and boundaries. Chaos is the source of imagination and all creation.

Religion is not based on faith - it is based upon the religious experience. The very real power of this experience has been seized upon and hijacked, and turned into something which takes a lot of faith to swallow, whilst retaining all of its original social power.

Finally, the US education system being crap has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with socialism. I agree with QM that socialism is facism in slow motion. I live in a country where people have fought and died for socialism and we have one of the best education systems in Europe. The reason the US education system is crap is because it is entirely culture bound.

Garry Kasparov formed the United Civil Front, which is a member of The Other Russia, a coalition opposing the elected government of Vladimir Putin.

United Russia, Putin's political party in conjunction with its youth division Nashi, is vehemently opposed to Kasparov, criticisms range from calling him mildly a capitalist foreign proxy to outlandish ones citing his movement as akin to fascism. In fact to join Nashi, youth candidates under go a screening process where they have to state why they hate the US and why Kasparov is dangerous. Nashi's most popular slogan is "No to Fascism!"

The facism claim tickles me, while Putin rides out the economical revival after several years of turmoil under Yeltsin, he is also cementing all goverment control under him. Electoral laws have been changed to centralize government power in Moscow, odd for a nation that stretches from the Finnish border to Siberia. But it's all due to the threat of terrorism you see. The upcoming December election is nothing but window dressing, analysts unanimously agree that Putin will hold power even if a new president is elected perhaps staying as a Prime Minister, until he can run again in 4 years for President again.

Many Russians don't seem to mind as they have equated democracy with chaos, and don't realize the various political, social and press freedoms they are losing. Russia is sliding slowly backwards into authoritarian state control.

I personally blame misguided nostalgia for Soviet prestige and power that the country enjoyed previously, that is slowly developing into nationalism centered under one ruler.

Check this related sift - Nashi : The Rise of Pro-Putin Youth.

jwray, I used to think that a One World Government was a wonderful idea when I was younger. I grew up watching Star Trek and loved the concept of the United Federation of Planets and how it could apply to our current times as a One World Government. I also ended up studying politics and the Constitution. I fell in love with the Constitution and what it does for people on so many levels. Many take it for granted here in the States.

We have all been witnessing the slow degredation of it although the current administration has been advancing that aspect a hundred-fold. If our government is to be dismantled for an all-powerful League of Nations, will it be comparable to what the Constitution gives us? Are the people forming this as noble and honorable as the founders of the US Constitution?

Do they really care about us? With the degree of secrecy involved, I seriously doubt it. Are you really willing to take that chance? What mechanisms will be in place to protect the freedom, liberty and Justice of everybody with such a pact? Just look at what has happened to our Justice dept... they can no longer guarantee Justice for the American people thanks to the appointments from a dictator-like president.

"Creation of a world government does not necessarily require any fascism or any other immoral policy."
I agree... it does not require facism... but if we are to give up our protective mechanisms for a ruling of an outside source, what will guarantee that it won't be controlled by a small group of fascist men/women that have the outward appearance of being benign and "for the people". What I fear the most is that people may realize such a thing when it's too late.

Right or Left depending on where you stand is where it begins. Its one of those questions of perspective. Video doesn't have real arguement, really weak. Exmaples can be used to show how this video derives its arguement. For example if we were to compare that to China we look pretty tolerant. If we compare ourselves to the Netherlands then you can see the facism.

Left-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Center---------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------Right