Implosions

unsung

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

Indeed. It's pretty hard to live off grid, but those that are able to still face hurdles because laws are being passed to make it illegal to do so. Tell me, how is that not tyranny? How is that not government being overly obtrusive?

Doesn't living off the grid tend to mean you are trespassing on the property of others? Either public or private?

If you "live off the grid" and stay on public grounds there are costs to maintain those grounds. Why shouldn't you participate in those costs?

Sometimes I read things and wonder how someone can possibly draw the conclusions that they do. This is one of those times. Where have I ever advocated trespassing? I have not. Clearly this would happen on private property. I hope that answers it.

unsung

riotgrl said:

How are businesses any better? Their only motive for doing anything is profit. In order to achieve profit they usually keep salaries low and cut corners if necessary. I'd love to believe if we had a free market that those businesses would go bankrupt because of their poor practices but as rgambs stated earlier, life wasn't so great in the 1850-1900 era. We can never have a true free market because humans are involved. If humans are involved, you will eventually have something screwing up the free market system.

So boycotting businesses with shady practices is not a valuable counter to said policies?

unsung

Halifax2TheMax said:

unsung said:

Indeed. It's pretty hard to live off grid, but those that are able to still face hurdles because laws are being passed to make it illegal to do so. Tell me, how is that not tyranny? How is that not government being overly obtrusive?

Care to cite an example of where laws are being passed to make it illegal to live off the grid?

http://www.offthegridnews.com/current-events/court-rules-off-the-grid-living-is-illegal/

riotgrl

unsung said:

riotgrl said:

How are businesses any better? Their only motive for doing anything is profit. In order to achieve profit they usually keep salaries low and cut corners if necessary. I'd love to believe if we had a free market that those businesses would go bankrupt because of their poor practices but as rgambs stated earlier, life wasn't so great in the 1850-1900 era. We can never have a true free market because humans are involved. If humans are involved, you will eventually have something screwing up the free market system.

So boycotting businesses with shady practices is not a valuable counter to said policies?

Of course it is. But how many people usually do this? Usually people that are involved and aware of these business practices. Seems like a lot of people drift along unaware or not terribly concerned about what happens right in front of them. Or they justify those practices because it benefits them more, i.e. shopping at Wal-Mart because its cheaper regardless of their known low wages and poor working conditions.

I'm idealistic but I feel that government could provide a balance to the overreach of business. I agree with you that government has gotten to big and that it should be relieved of some of its responsibilities but it can provide a good service to the people. For example, I think the only thing the government should do in regards to education is set standard curriculum for all states to follow. We should all be teaching the same content not picking and choosing what we teach based on our beliefs.

Go Beavers

unsung said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

unsung said:

Indeed. It's pretty hard to live off grid, but those that are able to still face hurdles because laws are being passed to make it illegal to do so. Tell me, how is that not tyranny? How is that not government being overly obtrusive?

Care to cite an example of where laws are being passed to make it illegal to live off the grid?

http://www.offthegridnews.com/current-events/court-rules-off-the-grid-living-is-illegal/

So one city in oddball Florida says to one person they have to be hooked to water is your example of tyrannical government? I'd be grumpy to if I let Florida decide my mood!

unsung

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

unsung said:

Indeed. It's pretty hard to live off grid, but those that are able to still face hurdles because laws are being passed to make it illegal to do so. Tell me, how is that not tyranny? How is that not government being overly obtrusive?

Care to cite an example of where laws are being passed to make it illegal to live off the grid?

http://www.offthegridnews.com/current-events/court-rules-off-the-grid-living-is-illegal/

So one city in oddball Florida says to one person they have to be hooked to water is your example of tyrannical government? I'd be grumpy to if I let Florida decide my mood!

Take it how you want, I provided an article to show it is happening, use your own Google skills to find more. They are out there. Stop complaining that the link didn't suit your exact demands.

unsung

riotgrl said:

unsung said:

riotgrl said:

How are businesses any better? Their only motive for doing anything is profit. In order to achieve profit they usually keep salaries low and cut corners if necessary. I'd love to believe if we had a free market that those businesses would go bankrupt because of their poor practices but as rgambs stated earlier, life wasn't so great in the 1850-1900 era. We can never have a true free market because humans are involved. If humans are involved, you will eventually have something screwing up the free market system.

So boycotting businesses with shady practices is not a valuable counter to said policies?

Of course it is. But how many people usually do this? Usually people that are involved and aware of these business practices. Seems like a lot of people drift along unaware or not terribly concerned about what happens right in front of them. Or they justify those practices because it benefits them more, i.e. shopping at Wal-Mart because its cheaper regardless of their known low wages and poor working conditions.

I'm idealistic but I feel that government could provide a balance to the overreach of business. I agree with you that government has gotten to big and that it should be relieved of some of its responsibilities but it can provide a good service to the people. For example, I think the only thing the government should do in regards to education is set standard curriculum for all states to follow. We should all be teaching the same content not picking and choosing what we teach based on our beliefs.

Education is not expressly cited as a duty of the federal government. The Federal government shouldn't be telling states what to do, the federal government should be representing states in international issues.

So the good service would be that, although lately I think most can agree the path of "spreading democracy" is out of control.

Gern Blansten

unsung said:

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

Indeed. It's pretty hard to live off grid, but those that are able to still face hurdles because laws are being passed to make it illegal to do so. Tell me, how is that not tyranny? How is that not government being overly obtrusive?

Doesn't living off the grid tend to mean you are trespassing on the property of others? Either public or private?

If you "live off the grid" and stay on public grounds there are costs to maintain those grounds. Why shouldn't you participate in those costs?

Sometimes I read things and wonder how someone can possibly draw the conclusions that they do. This is one of those times. Where have I ever advocated trespassing? I have not. Clearly this would happen on private property. I hope that answers it.

so what prevents you from "living off the grid" on your own property?

Go Beavers

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

unsung said:

Indeed. It's pretty hard to live off grid, but those that are able to still face hurdles because laws are being passed to make it illegal to do so. Tell me, how is that not tyranny? How is that not government being overly obtrusive?

Care to cite an example of where laws are being passed to make it illegal to live off the grid?

http://www.offthegridnews.com/current-events/court-rules-off-the-grid-living-is-illegal/

So one city in oddball Florida says to one person they have to be hooked to water is your example of tyrannical government? I'd be grumpy to if I let Florida decide my mood!

Take it how you want, I provided an article to show it is happening, use your own Google skills to find more. They are out there. Stop complaining that the link didn't suit your exact demands.

Isn't local government making laws what you advocate?

Free

riotgrl said:

unsung said:

riotgrl said:

How are businesses any better? Their only motive for doing anything is profit. In order to achieve profit they usually keep salaries low and cut corners if necessary. I'd love to believe if we had a free market that those businesses would go bankrupt because of their poor practices but as rgambs stated earlier, life wasn't so great in the 1850-1900 era. We can never have a true free market because humans are involved. If humans are involved, you will eventually have something screwing up the free market system.

So boycotting businesses with shady practices is not a valuable counter to said policies?

Of course it is. But how many people usually do this? Usually people that are involved and aware of these business practices. Seems like a lot of people drift along unaware or not terribly concerned about what happens right in front of them. Or they justify those practices because it benefits them more, i.e. shopping at Wal-Mart because its cheaper regardless of their known low wages and poor working conditions.

I'm idealistic but I feel that government could provide a balance to the overreach of business. I agree with you that government has gotten to big and that it should be relieved of some of its responsibilities but it can provide a good service to the people. For example, I think the only thing the government should do in regards to education is set standard curriculum for all states to follow. We should all be teaching the same content not picking and choosing what we teach based on our beliefs.

I agree on education.

As for the first paragraph, I have been boycotting shady businesses for years. You vote with your dollar every day. My daughter will gladly tell anyone that she (and me) boycotts McDonald's. I look out for companies that dump chemicals and hurt the environment and refuse to buy their products (Clorox, Roundup, etc) And we refuse to go to Walmart, we will go to a mom and pop store long before buying crap for cheap. And many people feel the same way, our friends and family who have personally been affected by Walmart especially (small business owners).

polaris_x

Free said:

riotgrl said:

unsung said:

riotgrl said:

How are businesses any better? Their only motive for doing anything is profit. In order to achieve profit they usually keep salaries low and cut corners if necessary. I'd love to believe if we had a free market that those businesses would go bankrupt because of their poor practices but as rgambs stated earlier, life wasn't so great in the 1850-1900 era. We can never have a true free market because humans are involved. If humans are involved, you will eventually have something screwing up the free market system.

So boycotting businesses with shady practices is not a valuable counter to said policies?

Of course it is. But how many people usually do this? Usually people that are involved and aware of these business practices. Seems like a lot of people drift along unaware or not terribly concerned about what happens right in front of them. Or they justify those practices because it benefits them more, i.e. shopping at Wal-Mart because its cheaper regardless of their known low wages and poor working conditions.

I'm idealistic but I feel that government could provide a balance to the overreach of business. I agree with you that government has gotten to big and that it should be relieved of some of its responsibilities but it can provide a good service to the people. For example, I think the only thing the government should do in regards to education is set standard curriculum for all states to follow. We should all be teaching the same content not picking and choosing what we teach based on our beliefs.

I agree on education.

As for the first paragraph, I have been boycotting shady businesses for years. You vote with your dollar every day. My daughter will gladly tell anyone that she (and me) boycotts McDonald's. I look out for companies that dump chemicals and hurt the environment and refuse to buy their products (Clorox, Roundup, etc) And we refuse to go to Walmart, we will go to a mom and pop store long before buying crap for cheap. And many people feel the same way, our friends and family who have personally been affected by Walmart especially (small business owners).

this is ultimately the true catalyst for change ... not gov't ... we could shape the world just by making choices with our dollars ...

brianlux

Looking at it realistically, we're not going to get rid of government anytime soon so I'm for putting energy into making it better. I don't mean by just voting or participating in those nearly useless one-click on-line petitions (I do both). I mean by also writing and calling your representatives, going to city and county council meetings, going too your state capitol to voice you opinion at sessions of state congress, by organizing rallys to voice opinion about what you want your government (make it your government!) and educating yourself about what you can do to improve government. I've done all those things too and encourage others to do the same. And I'm sincere in telling you I'm not saying this to pat myself on the back but rather to say that it feels good to do these things and if more folks did get involved there would be less reason for people like unsung to have no faith (I get it why you feel that way) in government.

It's here to say. Let's make it better.

Edit: And yes, I agree with what Free and polaris_x said about voting with your dollars everyday. Absolutely!

Thirty Bills Unpaid

I do like Unsung's perspective as much as I disagree with it.

Brian's last post is the most realistic: government is entrenched too deeply in our lives to simply do away with it. And, as frustrating as it can be... it offers services and standards that outweigh the negative elements.

It would be nice to develop accountability within governmental practice, but as I write that... does anyone seriously think a society free of government could (or would) regulate itself at an altruistic level?

Free

brianlux said:

Looking at it realistically, we're not going to get rid of government anytime soon so I'm for putting energy into making it better. I don't mean by just voting or participating in those nearly useless one-click on-line petitions (I do both). I mean by also writing and calling your representatives, going to city and county council meetings, going too your state capitol to voice you opinion at sessions of state congress, by organizing rallys to voice opinion about what you want your government (make it your government!) and educating yourself about what you can do to improve government. I've done all those things too and encourage others to do the same. And I'm sincere in telling you I'm not saying this to pat myself on the back but rather to say that it feels good to do these things and if more folks did get involved there would be less reason for people like unsung to have no faith (I get it why you feel that way) in government.

It's here to say. Let's make it better.

Completely agree w/ this. I call my representatives on occasion, and everybody really should if they care about what's going on in their world, locally, nationally and globally.

Apathy is the root of all evil in my opinion, next to money and arrogance. Indifference is worse than hate. If you think about it, in regards to relationships going bad, it takes more energy to love, like or hate a person but when you're indifferent, there's no energy. That's what apathy is. The lack of caring; the lack of energy. Indifference and apathy are actually worse than hate.

Right now everybody's hating on Trump. Let's admit it, people are having fun with that, and he's making an ass of himself willfully. But when we become indifferent to him, we no longer pay him ANY attention. To Donald, that is worse than hating him.

polaris_x

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

It would be nice to develop accountability within governmental practice, but as I write that... does anyone seriously think a society free of government could (or would) regulate itself at an altruistic level?

i could be wrong ... but I don't interpret Unsung's ideology as No Gov't ... I think his position is that there are aspects of society which require gov't involvement ... like he mentioned as a representative internationally on treaties and pacts ... but if it was up to him - the federal gov't would have very little oversight over the states ... each individual state would have more freedom to control on issues like education and taxation ...

mace1229

unsung said:

mace1229 said:

unsung said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Actually my position is quite relaxing. I no longer have to argue with ignorant people and hear them tell me how much I need their roads. Muh roads!

Truthfully I don't give a shit what society does, we are at the point where having genders are offensive and your day consists of catching a cartoon character while arguing over corrupt politicians. That is success? I'm just saying to ignore it all and so I really don't give two shits if you don't like what I say. You keep participating in the system that you endlessly bitch about, I'll be minding my own business over with those that have moved on from it.

All the while participating in, and benefitting, from the system. Don't worry, I'll stay off your lawn!

Without any system there'd be no police, fire, schools, roads. Muh roads? Without roads how do workers get to the power plant to power your computer to tell us you no longer have to argue with ignorant people? Without roads how do you even get that computer? Or pretty much everything else you own. Maybe you can walk to the store, but someone has to drive it to the store.

So roads wouldn't exist without government. Got it. Glad you cleared that up.

Cars wouldn't exist either? We'd have to walk? No computers? Oh boy. I guess all innovation would cease to exist without your overlords.

How many roads do you go on where you don't have to throw change in a meter? How do you think those roads got there and paid for them? If the government didn't do it, I certainly wouldn't volunteer my time and money to pave the city, and whoever did would be charging you every time you used it.
I never said or even implied without the government we wouldnt have cars or computers. What I did say was even if you chose to not use government paved roads, everything you own still got here on them. So how can you not think roads are necessary in today's world? At least that's what I interpret your comment about ignorant people and roads and the "meh roads" to mean.

Muh roads is in reference to people such as yourself that believe roads wouldn't exist without government.

To answer your other questions..the roads "got there" by private paving companies building them. They were paid for by people such as yourself.

It's this simple, you live on X on a map. Five miles east is a Wal-Mart, five miles west is a Target. Private companies are in charge of infrastructure, one provides a gravel road to their parking lot, the other a nice smooth paved road. Which would you go to?

My comments were based on the implication you didn't think roads were necessary in today's world.
Your explanation of how roads get there isn't entirely accurate. I've only ever lived in 2 states, one California has their own agency, CalTrans, that does all the roadworks, nothing private about it.
The other, Colorado, does hire private companies. And I assume when you say paid for by myself you mean I pay taxes and the government pays them. but I believe way more efficiently than if I tried to get all my neighbors together and raise money to do it myself.
Your example of Walmart and target wouldn't work like that.
Yes roads would still exist, but they would be privately owned and built and they'd be toll roads. Not just bout by the biggest store for everyone to use. At best in your scenario Walmart would be responsible to pave the last few 100 yards stretch from the closest main road. Some businesses already do that when they build in a new location. But then what about all the small business that can't afford that?
If someone else did it, they'd be doing it for profit and making money off you driving. The government doesn't make money every time you drive to Walmart for taking care of the roads. They're actually 20 trillion in debt, so maybe they should start charging.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

polaris_x said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

It would be nice to develop accountability within governmental practice, but as I write that... does anyone seriously think a society free of government could (or would) regulate itself at an altruistic level?

i could be wrong ... but I don't interpret Unsung's ideology as No Gov't ... I think his position is that there are aspects of society which require gov't involvement ... like he mentioned as a representative internationally on treaties and pacts ... but if it was up to him - the federal gov't would have very little oversight over the states ... each individual state would have more freedom to control on issues like education and taxation ...

I'm speaking for him, but I think you've summarized his general position well with regards to federal levels.

I think he's suggesting an even more localized governing model versus state levels though.

hedonist

Money is a thing, not a trait. Maybe "love of money" is, as that's how I've read and heard the term in the past - but in the end, don't know and really don't give a shit. Some people live the lives of assholes in many ways. Wanting to earn a good living doesn't equate to being "evil". It's how you act and live your life. I don't feel I'm evil because my husband and I have worked our asses off to have a nice income. Didn't knock others down along the way either. No guilt on that front and we tend to say "fuck you" to those who imply otherwise.

There are a couple of condos / apartments being built in our neighborhood. The city sent out notices (great use of money!) about a hearing for those who live in the area to head on over and speak their mind about it!

1:30 on a Thursday. Makes a hell of a lot of sense to take time off from work for that.

And, for some - for me - there are some issues (and people) that simply don't warrant my energy or attention. Some may declare that to be apathy, I call it not worthwhile.

Those who judge me by that? Again, fuck 'em.

Gern Blansten

polaris_x said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

It would be nice to develop accountability within governmental practice, but as I write that... does anyone seriously think a society free of government could (or would) regulate itself at an altruistic level?

i could be wrong ... but I don't interpret Unsung's ideology as No Gov't ... I think his position is that there are aspects of society which require gov't involvement ... like he mentioned as a representative internationally on treaties and pacts ... but if it was up to him - the federal gov't would have very little oversight over the states ... each individual state would have more freedom to control on issues like education and taxation ...

Right but when the states fail to do so the feds have to have the authority to step in and fix their messes.

brianlux

hedonist said:

Money is a thing, not a trait. Maybe "love of money" is, as that's how I've read and heard the term in the past - but in the end, don't know and really don't give a shit. Some people live the lives of assholes in many ways. Wanting to earn a good living doesn't equate to being "evil". It's how you act and live your life. I don't feel I'm evil because my husband and I have worked our asses off to have a nice income. Didn't knock others down along the way either. No guilt on that front and we tend to say "fuck you" to those who imply otherwise.

There are a couple of condos / apartments being built in our neighborhood. The city sent out notices (great use of money!) about a hearing for those who live in the area to head on over and speak their mind about it!

1:30 on a Thursday. Makes a hell of a lot of sense to take time off from work for that.

And, for some - for me - there are some issues (and people) that simply don't warrant my energy or attention. Some may declare that to be apathy, I call it not worthwhile.

Those who judge me by that? Again, fuck 'em.

I've also hear the expression, "Money is a tool". It can be, for sure.

But this seems like an awfully harsh rant, Hedo. I'm not sure where anyone here said anything to put others down for making money or money being evil or called anyone an asshole or was criticizing you or anyone else here for having a good income. And yet your seem to be telling some of us "fuck you".

In fact, I wish I knew how to make a lot of money. The more one makes, the more one can give, right?

And yes, you get to decide whether or not you have the time to go to that 1:30 meeting or not. No one here is saying that is mandated.

And then you end with another "fuck you".

You OK, Hedonist? Rough morning?