Brian Travis invaded by bureaucrats

[MistyBlue]

Goble:

By serious crimes I'm going to assume you mean acts of civil disobedience, filming in courthouses, not standing or sitting fast enough for a judge, starving horses... just awful.

No, I actually meant serious crimes, I've been reading more than this one thread trying to stay informed on some of the opinions and information others have and have found much of it interesting. This was the first post on the shunning thread, these crimes are serious IMO, but thanks for the sarcastic quote above anyways:

Here are some of the things that have come up on this very discussion forum over the past few years that have been committed (in some cases, allegedly; in some cases, convicted in court; and in some cases, self-acknowledged) by members of the Porcupine community, none of which motivated even a discussion of shunning:  murder, wife beating, child abuse, child neglect, theft, fraud, attempting to physically harm another Porcupine, threatening to kill other Porcupines, borrowing money and not paying it back, incurring debts and acknowledging one has no intention of paying them back, misusing other people's property, contract violation, and most recently, animal abuse.  With the exception of sexual assault, I think that pretty much covers it, don't you?

Followed later on by this gem of a person:

Former Somersworth school panelist accused of sexually assaulting child

By JENNIFER KEEF
Thursday, February 26, 2009

SOMERSWORTH - A former Somersworth School Board member and state representative candidate was indicted this week on two counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault involving a minor.

Timothy Logsdon, 33, of 183 High Street, allegedly engaged in a pattern of sexual assault on more than one occasion with a victim who is now 5 years old.

A grand jury handed up the indictment this week and it was released Thursday.

In September, Logsdon was served a protective order by the Strafford County Sheriff's office, which was said to have emanated from the Columbia County Family Court in Hudson, N.Y.

Information as to who filed the order and why were not disclosed, but Capt. Lee Clement with the sheriff's office said then that a protective order carries some similarities to a restraining order.

Also in September, in accordance with the terms of the protective order, Somersworth police removed a number of weapons from Logsdon's home.

Police Capt. Russ Timmons said at the time that they removed pistols, rifles and shotguns - "some intact and some in a state of assembly or disassembly"- as well as semiautomatic pistols, a host of ammunition and gunpowder.

Logsdon has lived in Somersworth since 2002 and works as a computer consultant at the University of New Hampshire. Erika Mantz, media relations director for the university, confirmed Thursday Logsdon is still an employee of the university. Mantz said the school had been aware of the protective order but nothing else as of Thursday.

Logsdon ran three consecutive times as the sole Republican candidate for District 2 state representative but was never elected. He served less than one year on the Somersworth School Board between 2006 and 2007 and last year was involved in petitioning for a tax cap in the city.

Logsdon will be arraigned on Monday, March 9, at 2:30 p.m. at  Strafford County Superior Court.

An indictment is not an indication of guilt, rather it means there is enough evidence to warrant a trial.

Now I don't equate filming in a courthouse or sitting fast with repeatedly sexually molesting a child under the age of 5, murder, beating children, beating your spouse, threatening murder, etc. But if you prefer to downplay that and use sarcasm, more power to you I guess. I don't get the humor in it, but then again according to Joe I'm a lying monster for not agreeing with him either. Of course neither of you seem to be up to date on the argument points, but then I guess devolving to insults and childish sarcasm or drama when people don't agree with you is a debate style.

[Keyser Soce]

I can't disagree with you over specific facts, I wasn't there, but I can disagree over principles. In your opinion, so it seems, animal suffering supercedes property rights. In my opinion, property rights supercede all others, except in situations of human violence enacted upon other humans.

It doesn't matter how crappy someone is. It doesn't matter how inconsiderate or cruel someone is. It doesn't matter if it's not fair that someone should have to live next to "bad" neighbors. The point is that if I own property, what I do on or to my property is no one else's business.

I personally believe in property rights...but I also believe in certain caveats on those.

There seems to be some misunderstanding as the usage of the word "rights". The kind we believe in don't have caveats. They're unalienable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights

"Some philosophers and political scientists make a distinction between natural and legal rights.

Natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. In contrast, legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature, and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative."

Included is the unnecessary suffering of animals.

Right, and therein lies the problem. Who gets to define unnecessary? There are plenty who would claim that eating an animal causes it unnecessary suffering. As for your laws, I don't really care how a bunch of old farts in Concord think unnecessary should be defined. On my property, I decide what is and is not necessary. Not you, not the old farts, not a majority of the voters.

Interestingly, since you label some animal suffering as unnecessary, there must by definition be some necessary animal suffering. Could you expound on this point?

It doesn't make your beliefs wrong or my beliefs wrong...it just makes them different.

As they are at odds, one of them must be wrong.

And instances in other areas and countries that do not have humane laws or that do have a 100% property rights in absolute lifestyle have much higher crime rates and much less happy citizens. Because lawless areas attract lawless folks who might not like laws for reasons other than peaceful or constitutional reasons. So IMO abolishing certain laws and leaving certain things 100% up to each individual is a mistake. It does not work for other areas. I doubt highly it would work there in NH either.

Could you be more specific about where these non-functioning free market bastions are to be found?

p.s. If you tell my where they are, I'll tell you where they're not.

Allowing that passively makes me less of who I am

But extorting people for taxes and using that extorted money to hire thugs to steal other people's property and tell them what they can and can't do on their own land makes you more of who you are?

by allowing it passively as someone's property right...I condone it. So mouth service on the subject doesn't mean anything if I allow it to happen.

No kidding? Are you aware of all the crimes that took place today that you didn't do anything about? By passively "allowing" them, you condone them? I hereby dub this "Batman Syndrome". Said philosophy the ultimate busybody makes.

By choosing to do so I do not move into an area and try to force everyone else to agree with me and do things my way because I think my opinion is fact.

Apparently you don't even live in NH and you're trying to force people to agree with you because you think your opinion is fact.

[Keyser Soce]

Neglecting of course to mention that animal cruelty laws were voted in by a majority of people and supported by the majority of people. But then I'd guess they're all wrong too...their opinions are also considered wrong because they don't agree with your opinions? I happen to agree with a place where the majority rules by vote...

Gotta go with Joe on this one. Hitler was, in fact, democratically elected. Two wrongs don't make a right and neither do a thousand. Right is right and wrong is wrong. It remains wrong even if a majority votes for it. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Just because the two wolves vote doesn't mean the sheep forfeits the right to defend his property (life). Just because you and xyz think you know what's best for Brian's (and everyone else's) property doesn't mean he has to oblige you. 

If I disagreed with most of the laws that most of the people want and agree with...I move myself to a new place.

So again, if the Jews had just left Germany, there would never have been holocaust. Perhaps the blacks should have just moved out of the south instead of fighting for what was right, after all, a majority did believe in slave ownership and according to you, that makes it okay.

I do't try to force everyone else to agree with my very narrow minority views so that the smallest percentage of folks can have what they want at the detriment of all other folks.

You do try to force everyone to agree with your views by sending men with guns to their house if they don't. Whether your view is a majority or minority is irrelevant as we've already determined.

I just agree that we don't agree and for now the laws are supporting my opinion on the stance of animal cruelty.

If there happened to be a law passed requiring you to kick your cat once a day, would you follow it? Keep in mind that it would have been passed by a majority. No? But.. but, but, it's THE LAW!

have to mention that those seem to be a higher percentage of folks committing serious crimes considering the amount of FSP members listed online.

Serious crimes? Seriously? Name a few. Gardening in the park? Holding a plant in their hand? Driving without permission? Ooooo

[Keyser Soce]

People will take care of their animals and livestock for the same reason they take care of their vehicles, houses, and yards; because it's behooves them to do so.

And when they don't, oh well - too bad how sad?

No, I've got a better idea. Let's extort money from then and use that money to hire thugs to make everyone do what you think is right. Let's take people's property and lock human beings in cages cause you know what's best.

Cruelty cannot ever be eradicated

So it should be condoned?

No one on this board has condoned animal cruelty. The contention is that your cure is worse than the disease.

I guess my kin should have just left Europe, and it's their own fault they were slaughtered, for not leaving, right?

They clearly were not all slaughtered for you wouldn't be here to grace us with your presence. Luckily for them, they were liberated.  Do you think the Nazis considered it theft?

Too bad for his relatives the Nazis didn't practice the non-aggression principle. Too bad the Nazis thought they could force others to do what they thought was best because they had guns and a majority. Sound familiar?

Is it the horses' fault?

????

I suppose they should just leave, right? 

It was Misty who said if people don't like the way things are they should leave.

How does this thread always seem to wind its way back to the Nazis? 

Because they didn't respect property either.

And how are the Candia police different from the liberators? 

Now you're comparing a lady who may not have fed her horses as much as you think she should have, to a Nazi and let me get this straight, in your analogy, the horses are the Jews and the Candia PD are the Allied forces?

Didn't one of the FSP head honchos exonerate Beth for calling in the police?  Is that not  confirmation that your way doesn't work?

This is something you don't seem to get, we don't have a "leader guy". We don't blindly follow because someone is in a position of authority. Nobody does my thinking for me. Following your line of thinking though, since the horses have been returned, what does that say about "your way"?

Until then, I'll be happy in my lala land where people who break laws, be they right wrong or otherwise, are punished if caught.

Mmmm, yeah, hang those runaway slaves. They did break the law after all. Right or wrong... right?

[MistyBlue]

Some philosophers and political scientists make a distinction between natural and legal rights

Keyword in that sentence: Some.
Key for content: Wikipedia? Really?   Almost any fool can add to that source of the inane information.

Right, and therein lies the problem. Who gets to define unnecessary? There are plenty who would claim that eating an animal causes it unnecessary suffering. As for your laws, I don't really care how a bunch of old farts in Concord think unnecessary should be defined. On my property, I decide what is and is not necessary. Not you, not the old farts, not a majority of the voters.

Interestingly, since you label some animal suffering as unnecessary, there must by definition be some necessary animal suffering. Could you expound on this point?

You speak of the laws and unfairness of them all the time and yet do not know who defines them or decides them? The "old farts" probably also aren't worried about your personal thoughts either.
Eating an animal doesn't cause unnecessary suffering unless you're eating it while it's alive. Common sense 101.
Do I seriously need to expound on the subject or are you just hoping for another round of "copy and paste rebuttal" games? Where you can pick apart any and every statement with odd sounding arguments. Do you really not know what the law considers necessary and unnecessary suffering? You don't know these things but yet still choose to argue the subject...an idea that makes little sense to me.
Necessary suffering: The process of slaughter...it's nerve wracking for livestock that have fight or flight instincts. yet the law requires it's not done in a tortuous manner and that certain humane guidelines are met. But no really, let's do away with that and subject 100,000 horses and countless cattle, swine etc to faster more efficient slaughter times that will definitely increase suffering.
Unnecessary suffering: Torture, neglect, abuse. As defined by the laws and those definitions outlined by a *massive* panel of vets and animal behaviorists state by state. Defined by people who are qualified, experienced and educated in these ares and not by online gurus who fancy themselves knowledgable by reading online tidbits since anyone who can type can put up online tidbits.
As if you really didn't know these things. Seriously, I don't mind a debate but it gets tiring when people debate just to see themselves in print.  

Could you be more specific about where these non-functioning free market bastions are to be found?

p.s. If you tell my where they are, I'll tell you where they're not.

Since you've stated in the same area that you also know where they are, then I'm not interested in a geographical politics test being given to me by someone who shows little respect or manners in speaking to a stranger and who seems to assume Wikipedia is a 100% correct source of information.

But extorting people for taxes and using that extorted money to hire thugs to steal other people's property and tell them what they can and can't do on their own land makes you more of who you are?

You and I have different views on this subject so why continue to hash it out?

No kidding? Are you aware of all the crimes that took place today that you didn't do anything about? By passively "allowing" them, you condone them? I hereby dub this "Batman Syndrome". Said philosophy the ultimate busybody makes.

I'm not sure the reasoning behind the obtuse comment...it's patently obvious I referred to observing a crime and allowing it to continue without remedy because of whatever reason. If I do indeed observe a crime, I do something about it immediately. I'm not shy about that. At all. Many times I attempt to do something personally, a fact that my family and friends often bemoan. Yesterday I saw a car clip another car in a parking lot. Took down the license plate number, waited for dented car owner to come out and gave them that info and my name and number. Busybody? Maybe, definitely according to you. If someone did it to my car and someone else walked away shrugging thinking, "Not my problem" then bully for them but I'd guess the vast majority of all folks if asked about this same scenerio would have wanted to know and have a busybody pass the info on to them.
As for dubbing this...you're free to dub this whatever you'd like and it's quite obvious you were waiting and hoping for any comment you could twist into the ridiculous in order to attempt to make a point while insulting someone at the same time. But since you've dubbed it then at least you can now add it to Wikipedia and use it in your next rude reply to someone who's only trying to explain thier point of view without insulting you. You can probably define it as a syndrom usuaully commmited by people who do not agree with you and that hence opens the new Batman to insults and rudeness.

[MaineShark]

For heaven's sake...the majority votes in the politicians in stages. They tend to vote for folks who they agee with.

NH has a population of about 1.31 million, and about 864,000 registered voters.  So, right off the bat, about 35% of folks aren't even able to vote.  Anyone have voter turnout numbers for New Hampshire?  Anyone think the total number of voters will be more than half of the population?  Further, of those who vote, only a portion vote for the candidate who wins.

So no, the winning candidate does not represent the majority.

And FWIW...the SPCA is donated to by a rather large amount of people. Nobody is forcing them to donate...I'm going to assume they agree with animal cruelty laws since the SPCA supports those laws.

Really?  Do a majority of people donate to the SPCA?

So no, not a blatant lie and Joe...when you can re-paste those copies you have of me "wanting murder for Brian" and all those "saved original posts" that I supposedly changed drastically then maybe I'll believe you.

I've already quoted such for you.  And just demonstrated one more lie, to top them off.

Cruelty cannot ever be eradicated

So it should be condoned?

Has anyone here done so?  Quote them, if so...

I guess my kin should have just left Europe, and it's their own fault they were slaughtered, for not leaving, right?

They clearly were not all slaughtered for you wouldn't be here to grace us with your presence.  Luckily for them, they were liberated.  Do you think the Nazis considered it theft??

Is it the horses' fault they got bought or bred by irresponsible people?  I suppose they should just leave, right?  I'll give them credit because at least they keep trying to.  How does this thread always seem to wind its way back to the Nazis?  And how are the Candia police different from the liberators?  They simply didn't want the animals to needlessly suffer and die.

The Candia police didn't "liberate" any people.  The attacked people and stole their property.

The thread found its way back to the Nazis because Misty declared that the outcome of democracy is always right.  Hitler was elected democratically, ergo she believes what Hitler did was right.

Cruelty to animals disgusts me, but I'd rather sit there are watch a dogfight than spend any time with a monster like you.

And I'm pathetic?

Didn't one of the FSP head honchos exonerate Beth for calling in the police?  Is that not  confirmation that your way doesn't work?

The FSP doesn't have any "head honchos."

I'm really trying to understand the thought processes here, I must admit, I do not.

It's very, very simple: initiating force/fraud against any person is wrong.  Can you understand that?

No, I actually meant serious crimes, I've been reading more than this one thread trying to stay informed on some of the opinions and information others have and have found much of it interesting. This was the first post on the shunning thread, these crimes are serious IMO, but thanks for the sarcastic quote above anyways:

Here are some of the things that have come up on this very discussion forum over the past few years that have been committed (in some cases, allegedly; in some cases, convicted in court; and in some cases, self-acknowledged) by members of the Porcupine community, none of which motivated even a discussion of shunning:  murder, wife beating, child abuse, child neglect, theft, fraud, attempting to physically harm another Porcupine, threatening to kill other Porcupines, borrowing money and not paying it back, incurring debts and acknowledging one has no intention of paying them back, misusing other people's property, contract violation, and most recently, animal abuse.  With the exception of sexual assault, I think that pretty much covers it, don't you?

Followed later on by this gem of a person:

Former Somersworth school panelist accused of sexually assaulting child

...

An indictment is not an indication of guilt, rather it means there is enough evidence to warrant a trial.

Now I don't equate filming in a courthouse or sitting fast with repeatedly sexually molesting a child under the age of 5, murder, beating children, beating your spouse, threatening murder, etc. But if you prefer to downplay that and use sarcasm, more power to you I guess. I don't get the humor in it, but then again according to Joe I'm a lying monster for not agreeing with him either. Of course neither of you seem to be up to date on the argument points, but then I guess devolving to insults and childish sarcasm or drama when people don't agree with you is a debate style.

Notice how that includes crimes that folks have been accused of, not convicted of, let alone actually did?  The "murderer," for example, drove an acquaintance to an address.   Despite having no knowledge of what that acquaintance intended to do there, he was charged and convicted as an accessory by your beloved thugs.  Logsdon is in the middle of a messy divorce, and has been accused of pretty much everything shy of treason by his wife.  Actually, I retract that statement: I haven't been keeping up on things, and it's quite possible that she has accused him of treason by now.

Joe

[MistyBlue]

Whoa, I reply to one response and post it only to find out you weren;t finished with your insults and still enjoying your typing.

Notice how that includes crimes that folks have been accused of, not convicted of, let alone actually did?  The "murderer," for example, drove an acquaintance to an address.   Despite having no knowledge of what that acquaintance intended to do there, he was charged and convicted as an accessory by your beloved thugs.  Logsdon is in the middle of a messy divorce, and has been accused of pretty much everything shy of treason by his wife.  Actually, I retract that statement: I haven't been keeping up on things, and it's quite possible that she has accused him of treason by now.

makes it accessory to murder. Did he then turn that person in? And please dispense with the extensive dramatics..."beloved thugs?" Where did I say that? Or do you require the insults and dramatic exaggerations in order to make a point? And I also noticed how that included people who have admitted these crimes personally.

The thread found its way back to the Nazis because Misty declared that the outcome of democracy is always right.

No I didn't declare that, but nice try. maybe if you type it others will think I declared that. You tried the same thing by claiming I supported Brian being murdered and that I changed content of posts...yet still hasn't come up with any proof of that. What I said was that democracy is what we have and what we follow and that it's voted on by the majority. I didn;t say it was always right, I did say what parts I agree with.

I've already quoted such for you.  And just demonstrated one more lie, to top them off.

No you didn't. Repetition without proof does not make truth.

NH has a population of about 1.31 million, and about 864,000 registered voters.  So, right off the bat, about 35% of folks aren't even able to vote.  Anyone have voter turnout numbers for New Hampshire?  Anyone think the total number of voters will be more than half of the population?  Further, of those who vote, only a portion vote for the candidate who wins.

So no, the winning candidate does not represent the majority.

65% is the majority. I stink at math yet even I can figure that out. Turnout is up to the people, if they decide not to turnout, it's their own fault. Nobody is stopping them from doing so. If the majority wants a certain candidate and doesn't vote, sucks to be them I guess.

Really?  Do a majority of people donate to the SPCA?

No, the majority doesn't. But the majority who did bother turning out voted for those to who have keeping up the SPCA as an agenda. As stated before, if the actual majority doesn't eant the SPCA and feels strongly enough about it, then get off the computer and go out and vote for those who don't like the SPCA either. And if you can't find a candidate who doesn't like them...then either all candidates realize not to piss off too many voters by professing hating an org that helps animals or find your own candidate and see if you can get the majority of people to agree with their (and by extension your) views on the SPCA. If all you want to do is complain about them online and aren;t out there actively trying to change things...then I can't see a basis for the argument.

At least with the dramatics I can now understand one of those SPCA seizure videos with the towel needed as a neck wrap for the crying Heidi. Can't convince them with facts or baffle them with bullshite? Then use dramatics to try to garner support or sympathy. Kind of like the magician waving one arm dramatically while the other performs a trick. 

[xyz]

The FSP doesn't seem to have any answers to this issue (any issue for that matter, from what I can see).  If the only role of government should be to protect life, liberty and property and - I suppose in a perfect FSP world - everyone is in the FSP and is peace loving and deagressive, then wouldn't the role of laws and government be moot points?

I mean, who or what would need protection if everyone is observing the "rules" (which are not laws, but rules - or signed their contract or whatever) and are minding their own business and property.  So, as long as we all do this it would be the perfect society.  There would be no hunger, no murder, no theft.  Just I do my thing and you do yours. Government could be abolished, because everyone is the quintessential perfect citizen.  And if they're not, they're at least behind their own doors and fences and as long as I'm not bothered, screw it and do it, baby.

Would you still feel it necessary to carry arms?  Would there even be police?  Would they still be considered thugs with guns or would they be disarmed too?  Who makes the "rules"?  What if someone steps out of line, how would they be "dealt with"?  Shunning?  Would there still be courts and torts? 

Where would the dregs and bottom feeders of society go?  Would they cease to exist in this model society by osmosis?  If there are no laws, then there could be no crime, right?

What about the 30% unemployment rate because there's no government, jails etc., etc.? 

Would all the firehouses and paramedics and first responders become privatized?  How would they get paid?  If you burn your house down, you pay a fee?

What about the rest of the services that government offers other than simply governing, would those branches stay in place?  How would they get money?  Would there still be food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing, etc.?  What about the Army, Navy, Airforce, NASA, FBI, CIA, Foreign Affairs...  The list could go on and on and on and I think I was way too modest with the 30% unemployment rate if all that is gone!!

How are all these people going to be absorbed into the private sector?  We don't even have jobs now and the unemployment rate isn't anywhere near this level.

Believe thee me, I dislike large government, high taxes and wastefulness just as much as the next guy but truly, I just don't see how this could ever, even in a billion years, work.  I would be less surprised to see a T-Rex crashing through my back door right now. 

[MistyBlue]

Was going to edit to add but don't want Joe accusing me or murder again.

If there happened to be a law passed requiring you to kick your cat once a day, would you follow it? Keep in mind that it would have been passed by a majority. No? But.. but, but, it's THE LAW!

A ridiculous scenerio.  

Serious crimes? Seriously? Name a few. Gardening in the park? Holding a plant in their hand? Driving without permission? Ooooo

The serious crimes were already quoted by me. Guess you only read what you think you can dramatize later?
Is gardening in the park a serious crime? (wasn't that on a green?) No, not a serious crime. Was it done with the intention of getting publicity by arrest? Probably.
Is that park/green owned exclusively by Jesse? If not and it's owned by the public for the public, did Jesse bother asking if everyone else wanted a garden in the middle of it? or did he assume HE was the most important public and so would do whatever the heck he wanted?
As for his handling of a firearm in that video...any experienced responsible and mature firearms supporter would have wanted to kick his arse for that type of handling. Sliding weapon without control, pointed more than once directly at the camera without his notice, etc. Read in another thread he carries a loaded and ready Mac 11 on a string hanging on his body????   As a firearms instructor...I'm beyond cringing. Makes me thrilled we have concealed carry for folks who've passed a "I'm not a dangerous fool" permit test. Is this really the person you want to hold up as a shining example?   Someone who tries to enforce a garden that most likely very few of the owners of that park wanted and who thinks carrying a Mac 11 on string is even slightly sane and thinks because he carries he's a Big Guy and can out-argue rowdy drunks by approaching them? I'd put money down that if he weren't carrying his bravery level would drop a lot lower and he would've acted more responsibly in that situation. We call that Balls By Beretta or Gonads By Gun.  

[MistyBlue]

I would be less surprised to see a T-Rex crashing through my back door right now.

xyz...at least it's not more than a dozen loose Arabians ripping up and crapping on your lawn that you pretend didn't do anything wrong until confronted with the facts and evidence of that.  But maybe you can build a shelter of twigs for it and some mish-mash fencing and hope it doesn't want to keep leaving.
At least those Arabians listened to Anton's earlier advice on just leaving if they're not being cared for well.  Now I only hope for the neighbors' sakes those horses don't become carnivores too. (just kidding Anton...but it is funny that the horses took your advice!  )

[xyz]

PS:  Now that I think about it...  Brian initially started the whole Nazi reference in his very first seizure video.  I believe it was Auschwitz (sp?) to be exact.  He was talking about his skeletal horses being loaded onto trailers as if to be led to the concentration camp.  IMO, if we were to make a comparison to concentration camps, then yes, I would consider the horses to be the POWs and the Candia PD and SPCA to be the allied forces.  The horses were the ones overcrowded in their tiny "cells" without proper nourishment (at least the jews had shelter).  Dramatic?  Oh yeah.  Just keep in mind, I didn't start it.   

[xyz]

Misty:   

[NJLiberty]

What about the rest of the services that government offers other than simply governing, would those branches stay in place?  How would they get money?  Would there still be food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing, etc.?  What about the Army, Navy, Airforce, NASA, FBI, CIA, Foreign Affairs...  The list could go on and on and on and I think I was way too modest with the 30% unemployment rate if all that is gone!!

How are all these people going to be absorbed into the private sector?  We don't even have jobs now and the unemployment rate isn't anywhere near this level.

Believe thee me, I dislike large government, high taxes and wastefulness just as much as the next guy but truly, I just don't see how this could ever, even in a billion years, work.  I would be less surprised to see a T-Rex crashing through my back door right now. 

You do realize of course that within living memory none of those things existed except the military, and they were a very small force, just what was necessary to guard the country...and people got along fine. We don't need food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing, NASA, the FBI, the CIA, the BATF, and all of the rest of the alphabet soup bureaus and agencies. No society needs those things. Those are all the result of misguided progressives and socialists trying to run everybody's lives for them. I'm sorry if those people would be put out of work, but they live by receiving money stolen from other people. I personally am pretty damned tired of having to support my own family and hordes of parasites who live off of other's labor.

George

[xyz]

Wow, my Karma is BAD...      

[xyz]

I dislike wellies too, but I wouldn't send them out to starve any more than horses....