What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Why Slavery Is Here To Stay (1 Viewer)

Jack White

Footballguy
Why Slavery Is Here to Stay


By Robert Ringer

The next presidential farce (er, race) is already starting to heat up, and it promises to be great entertainment. I admit it, I absolutely love good theater. The presidential campaigns are reality TV at its best — a year-and-a-half of nonstop lies, gaffes, chest-pounding, and some of the best slapstick comedy America has to offer.

Granted, it also can become boring, because we’ve heard all the lines so many times before. For example, it’s 100 percent guaranteed that every troglodyte who seeks the dictator’s job will, with a straight face, promise to “stimulate the economy,” “create jobs,” “level the playing field,” and initiate both “immigration reform” and “tax reform.”

We also know that there will be nary a mention of shrimp on treadmills nor the all-important question of why lesbians tend to be obese. No sir, none of the new crop of power seekers will so much as hint at wasting your money.

Of course, neither will they be specific when they promise to cut rat-hole programs from the budget. As always, the entire eighteen-month production will be all about hyperbole and vagueness. Substance, as always, will be missing in action.

But the most certain thing of all is that not one of the candidates will pledge to end slavery, because an end to slavery, by definition, would mean an end to government, which in turn would mean an end to the criminal class’s power over others and its unfettered access to your money.

What makes slavery possible is legislation, which legalizes organized violence. It therefore follows that the conditions of people can improve only through the abolition of laws that promote organized violence.

Which reminds me of what Lyoff Tolstoy, the great Russian novelist, had to say about the abolition of government. Tolstoy put a lot of thought into how this most evil of all of mankind’s inventions could be eradicated from the face of the earth.

He started from the premise that slavery results from laws, laws are made by governments, thus the only way slavery can be totally abolished is through the abolition of governments. True, some people in government, pressured by abolitionists, freed American blacks from slavery in the nineteenth century, but that did not prevent government from continuing to enslave citizens in other, more subtle, ways.

And as recent events in Ferguson and Baltimore demonstrated, blacks are still very much enslaved. But the nice thing about it from government’s point of view is that they don’t even know it.

In fact, they have been brainwashed into believing that more government involvement in their affairs would make them free. And yet, in their low-information state of confusion, they turn to violence to vent their anger against government.

But as Tolstoy pointed out, throughout history all attempts to rid the world of governments through violent measures only resulted in new governments being established in their place, more often than not governments that were more oppressive than those they replaced. Thus, violent overthrow of governments, however appealing such a sport may be to some elements, does not work.

The problem with violence is that it is used to compel people, against their will, to do the will of others. And that’s about as good a definition of slavery as one can come up with. Which is why all attempts to abolish slavery through violence is like trying to extinguish fire with fire.

It’s how the Russian Revolution produced Lenin, then Stalin, then, finally, more and worse violence, while the French Revolution produced Robespierre, then Napoleon, then, finally, more and worse violence.

Where Tolstoy totally missed the mark, however, was that he believed the days of government were numbered because it was just a matter of time until people would realize that government is inherently evil. He felt that eventually people would simply refuse to furnish governments with soldiers and money, without which they would be rendered impotent.

Tolstoy’s naïve vision presumed that men would become enlightened and moral enough to refuse to take part in any governmental activities, including those carried out by soldiers, tax collectors, jurors, and elected officials.

Instead, throughout history the opposite has happened, which is to say that the people themselves are the problem. Rather than becoming enlightened, they fail to understand that their participation in the criminal activity of government, whether in the form of labor, money, or military service is not a patriotic act, but an act that harms both themselves and others. The call for patriotism is, in reality, nothing more than a call for the populace to submit peacefully to slavery.

The sad truth is that a majority of people ignorantly assume that civilization cannot exist without governments, that the disappearance of government would lead to chaos and anarchy, and that people would revert to barbarism. But it’s preposterous on its face to assume that people cannot arrange their own lives as good as politicians and unelected bureaucrats arrange them.

If public works are needed, why should we assume that free people cannot, without resorting to violence, raise the money necessary to create something that is a genuine benefit to society? This includes roads, bridges, police and fire departments, and just about anything else that is a positive addition to a community.

Has government done such an outstanding job with Amtrak and the Postal Service that private industry could not possibly do as well? Hardly.

While robbers generally focus on plundering the rich, governments favor plundering the poor and protecting those rich who assist them in carrying out their crimes. Throughout history, they have relied on pariahs like Goldman Sachs and the Rothschilds to help them plunder at will. That’s why the average person’s wages have declined over the past twenty years and the wealthy have become wealthier than ever.

So, dear reader, I suggest that you sit back and enjoy the upcoming campaign festivities for the next year-and-a-half. They promise to be reality TV at its best.

Your biggest challenge is to not get so caught up in the playacting that you begin to take it seriously. After all, no matter which scoundrel ends up winning the throne in 2016, you already know, based on past history, that there will be no fundamental changes in the way government operates. Guaranteed!

And if you’re wondering about the fate of shrimp on treadmills and obese lesbians, rest assured that they will once again become important political projects right after the current presidential soap opera comes to an end.

ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author who has appeared on numerous national radio and television shows, including The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, ABC Nightline, The Charlie Rose Show, as well as Fox News and Fox Business. His books include Million Dollar Habits: 10 Simple Steps to Getting Everything You Want in Life and To Be or Not to Be Intimidated?: That is the Question
To sign up for a free subscription to his mind-expanding daily insights, visit www.robertringer.com.
Copyright © 2014 Robert Ringer

 
Last edited by a moderator:
All i saw was someone named White posting about slavery staying and i just giggled...whats the story about? cliff notes please

 
All i saw was someone named White posting about slavery staying and i just giggled...whats the story about? cliff notes please
I was more interested in the shrimp on treadmills and obese lesbians part of the story, but he never really dove into those topics. :kicksrock:

 
All i saw was someone named White posting about slavery staying and i just giggled...whats the story about? cliff notes please
Something about citizens are slaves to their government and that shopping at Costco for bulk items may appear like it's saving money, but the average Costco shopper actually wastes more food items, due to buying more then they can expect to use, which actually results in Costco being more expensive then paying more on a per item basis. Not sure I buy the premise though, I'm going to need to see his work to confirm.

 
I don't know this guy is, but I don't like him. Shrimp on treadmills is one of the greatest things ever to happen to the internet.

 
Jack White said:
If public works are needed, why should we assume that free people cannot, without resorting to violence, raise the money necessary to create something that is a genuine benefit to society? This includes roads, bridges, police and fire departments, and just about anything else that is a positive addition to a community.
It's just that easy!

 
You may be an ambassador to England or France
You may like to gamble, you might like to dance
You may be the heavyweight champion of the world
You may be a socialite with a long string of pearls

But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You’re gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody

You might be a rock ’n’ roll addict prancing on the stage
You might have drugs at your command, women in a cage
You may be a businessman or some high-degree thief
They may call you Doctor or they may call you Chief

But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You’re gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody

You may be a state trooper, you might be a young Turk
You may be the head of some big TV network
You may be rich or poor, you may be blind or lame
You may be living in another country under another name

But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You’re gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody

You may be a construction worker working on a home
You may be living in a mansion or you might live in a dome
You might own guns and you might even own tanks
You might be somebody’s landlord, you might even own banks

But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You’re gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody

You may be a preacher with your spiritual pride
You may be a city councilman taking bribes on the side
You may be workin’ in a barbershop, you may know how to cut hair
You may be somebody’s mistress, may be somebody’s heir

But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You’re gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody

Might like to wear cotton, might like to wear silk
Might like to drink whiskey, might like to drink milk
You might like to eat caviar, you might like to eat bread
You may be sleeping on the floor, sleeping in a king-sized bed

But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You’re gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody

You may call me Terry, you may call me Timmy
You may call me Bobby, you may call me Zimmy
You may call me R.J., you may call me Ray
You may call me anything but no matter what you say

You’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You’re gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody

 
jon_mx said:
BustedKnuckles said:
All i saw was someone named White posting about slavery staying and i just giggled...whats the story about? cliff notes please
I was more interested in the shrimp on treadmills and obese lesbians part of the story, but he never really dove into those topics. :kicksrock:
Shrimp on treadmills.
I didn't think anything good would come of this thread, oh how wrong I was.

 
BustedKnuckles said:
All i saw was someone named White posting about slavery staying and i just giggled...whats the story about? cliff notes please
  • Presidential elections are a reality TV show
  • By voting or participating in the government, you are sanctioning your own enslavement
  • a majority of people ignorantly assume that civilization cannot exist without governments
  • Government (organized violence) cannot be ended with violence
  • Governments plunder the poor with the help of the rich
  • No matter which scoundrel wins in 2016, fundamentally, nothing will change
And of course, some animated GIFs of fat lesbians eating shrimp on a treadmill.

 
While Americans bemoans their slave status to their globalist corporate puppets ISIS sells someone a new bride.

 
Jack White said:
If public works are needed, why should we assume that free people cannot, without resorting to violence, raise the money necessary to create something that is a genuine benefit to society? This includes roads, bridges, police and fire departments, and just about anything else that is a positive addition to a community.
It's just that easy!
Wait, didn't the people of Ferguson and Baltimore "protest" against the police? Why would slaves want to raise money for the police?

 
If public works are needed, why should we assume that free people cannot, without resorting to violence, raise the money necessary to create something that is a genuine benefit to society? This includes roads, bridges, police and fire departments, and just about anything else that is a positive addition to a community.
The same economics class that tells you that markets usually work pretty well will tell you that markets most emphatically don't work well when it comes to producing these sorts of goods. I benefit from having a police department, for example, but I benefit even more from a police department that somebody else paid for. Since everybody faces the same incentives to freeload off of everybody else, you end up without a police force. The same goes for roads, the military, etc.

 
On the other hand, this seems as good a thread as any to post this:

"The Tale of the Slave" from Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, pp. 290-292.

Consider the following sequence of cases, which we shall call the Tale of the Slave, and imagine it is about you.
  1. There is a slave completely at the mercy of his brutal master's whims. He often is cruelly beaten, called out in the middle of the night, and so on.
  2. The master is kindlier and beats the slave only for stated infractions of his rules (not fulfilling the work quota, and so on). He gives the slave some free time.
  3. The master has a group of slaves, and he decides how things are to be allocated among them on nice grounds, taking into account their needs, merit, and so on.
  4. The master allows his slaves four days on their own and requires them to work only three days a week on his land. The rest of the time is their own.
  5. The master allows his slaves to go off and work in the city (or anywhere they wish) for wages. He requires only that they send back to him three-sevenths of their wages. He also retains the power to recall them to the plantation if some emergency threatens his land; and to raise or lower the three-sevenths amount required to be turned over to him. He further retains the right to restrict the slaves from participating in certain dangerous activities that threaten his financial return, for example, mountain climbing, cigarette smoking.
  6. The master allows all of his 10,000 slaves, except you, to vote, and the joint decision is made by all of them. There is open discussion, and so forth, among them, and they have the power to determine to what uses to put whatever percentage of your (and their) earnings they decide to take; what activities legitimately may be forbidden to you, and so on.

    Let us pause in this sequence of cases to take stock. If the master contracts this transfer of power so that he cannot withdraw it, you have a change of master. You now have 10,000 masters instead of just one; rather you have one 10,000-headed master. Perhaps the 10,000 even will be kindlier than the benevolent master in case 2. Still, they are your master. However, still more can be done. A kindly single master (as in case 2) might allow his slave(s) to speak up and try to persuade him to make a certain decision. The 10,000-headed monster can do this also.
  7. Though still not having the vote, you are at liberty (and are given the right) to enter into the discussions of the 10,000, to try to persuade them to adopt various policies and to treat you and themselves in a certain way. They then go off to vote to decide upon policies covering the vast range of their powers.
  8. In appreciation of your useful contributions to discussion, the 10,000 allow you to vote if they are deadlocked; they commit themselves to this procedure. After the discussion you mark your vote on a slip of paper, and they go off and vote. In the eventuality that they divide evenly on some issue, 5,000 for and 5,000 against, they look at your ballot and count it in. This has never yet happened; they have never yet had occasion to open your ballot. (A single master also might commit himself to letting his slave decide any issue concerning him about which he, the master, was absolutely indifferent.)
  9. They throw your vote in with theirs. If they are exactly tied your vote carries the issue. Otherwise it makes no difference to the electoral outcome.
The question is: which transition from case 1 to case 9 made it no longer the tale of a slave?
https://web.duke.edu/philsociety/taleofslave.html

 
If public works are needed, why should we assume that free people cannot, without resorting to violence, raise the money necessary to create something that is a genuine benefit to society? This includes roads, bridges, police and fire departments, and just about anything else that is a positive addition to a community.
The same economics class that tells you that markets usually work pretty well will tell you that markets most emphatically don't work well when it comes to producing these sorts of goods. I benefit from having a police department, for example, but I benefit even more from a police department that somebody else paid for. Since everybody faces the same incentives to freeload off of everybody else, you end up without a police force. The same goes for roads, the military, etc.
Exactly, The argument against government of any sort is so ignorant and belies a complete lack of economics understanding that it's more funny than anything else.

 
igbomb said:
IvanKaramazov said:
If public works are needed, why should we assume that free people cannot, without resorting to violence, raise the money necessary to create something that is a genuine benefit to society? This includes roads, bridges, police and fire departments, and just about anything else that is a positive addition to a community.
The same economics class that tells you that markets usually work pretty well will tell you that markets most emphatically don't work well when it comes to producing these sorts of goods. I benefit from having a police department, for example, but I benefit even more from a police department that somebody else paid for. Since everybody faces the same incentives to freeload off of everybody else, you end up without a police force. The same goes for roads, the military, etc.
Exactly, The argument against government of any sort is so ignorant and belies a complete lack of economics understanding that it's more funny than anything else.
It seems you're ignorant of the meaning of the word ignorant.

I've endured umpteen years of government schooling and decades of media propaganda, just like you. I understand why people think government is necessary.

But perhaps YOU are ignorant of economics, as evidenced by your conflation of government and economics.

And you are almost certainly ignorant of the vast writings and scholarship by some very bright people over the course of history who disagree with your assertions.

 
igbomb said:
IvanKaramazov said:
If public works are needed, why should we assume that free people cannot, without resorting to violence, raise the money necessary to create something that is a genuine benefit to society? This includes roads, bridges, police and fire departments, and just about anything else that is a positive addition to a community.
The same economics class that tells you that markets usually work pretty well will tell you that markets most emphatically don't work well when it comes to producing these sorts of goods. I benefit from having a police department, for example, but I benefit even more from a police department that somebody else paid for. Since everybody faces the same incentives to freeload off of everybody else, you end up without a police force. The same goes for roads, the military, etc.
Exactly, The argument against government of any sort is so ignorant and belies a complete lack of economics understanding that it's more funny than anything else.
It seems you're ignorant of the meaning of the word ignorant.

I've endured umpteen years of government schooling and decades of media propaganda, just like you. I understand why people think government is necessary.

But perhaps YOU are ignorant of economics, as evidenced by your conflation of government and economics.

And you are almost certainly ignorant of the vast writings and scholarship by some very bright people over the course of history who disagree with your assertions.
Predictably short on substance.
 
igbomb said:
IvanKaramazov said:
If public works are needed, why should we assume that free people cannot, without resorting to violence, raise the money necessary to create something that is a genuine benefit to society? This includes roads, bridges, police and fire departments, and just about anything else that is a positive addition to a community.
The same economics class that tells you that markets usually work pretty well will tell you that markets most emphatically don't work well when it comes to producing these sorts of goods. I benefit from having a police department, for example, but I benefit even more from a police department that somebody else paid for. Since everybody faces the same incentives to freeload off of everybody else, you end up without a police force. The same goes for roads, the military, etc.
Exactly, The argument against government of any sort is so ignorant and belies a complete lack of economics understanding that it's more funny than anything else.
It seems you're ignorant of the meaning of the word ignorant.

I've endured umpteen years of government schooling and decades of media propaganda, just like you. I understand why people think government is necessary.

But perhaps YOU are ignorant of economics, as evidenced by your conflation of government and economics.

And you are almost certainly ignorant of the vast writings and scholarship by some very bright people over the course of history who disagree with your assertions.
Predictably short on substance.
I guess that's ironic, since your post contains zero substance.

 
igbomb said:
IvanKaramazov said:
If public works are needed, why should we assume that free people cannot, without resorting to violence, raise the money necessary to create something that is a genuine benefit to society? This includes roads, bridges, police and fire departments, and just about anything else that is a positive addition to a community.
The same economics class that tells you that markets usually work pretty well will tell you that markets most emphatically don't work well when it comes to producing these sorts of goods. I benefit from having a police department, for example, but I benefit even more from a police department that somebody else paid for. Since everybody faces the same incentives to freeload off of everybody else, you end up without a police force. The same goes for roads, the military, etc.
Exactly, The argument against government of any sort is so ignorant and belies a complete lack of economics understanding that it's more funny than anything else.
It seems you're ignorant of the meaning of the word ignorant.

I've endured umpteen years of government schooling and decades of media propaganda, just like you. I understand why people think government is necessary.

But perhaps YOU are ignorant of economics, as evidenced by your conflation of government and economics.

And you are almost certainly ignorant of the vast writings and scholarship by some very bright people over the course of history who disagree with your assertions.
Predictably short on substance.
I guess that's ironic, since your post contains zero substance.
:shrug: Feel free to refute IK without simply calling him ignorant about economics or spamming another article.

 
It seems you're ignorant of the meaning of the word ignorant.

I've endured umpteen years of government schooling and decades of media propaganda, just like you. I understand why people think government is necessary.

But perhaps YOU are ignorant of economics, as evidenced by your conflation of government and economics.

And you are almost certainly ignorant of the vast writings and scholarship by some very bright people over the course of history who disagree with your assertions.
Must be something good about living here because you refuse to leave.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top