Re: Volunteers for the Obama State
*Anarcissie*
> "(M)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
>
> news:5%YQk.85414$XB4....@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
> | Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> | > Read it and weep, White America.
> | >
> | >http://tinyurl.com/59vqxs
> |
> | " They'll be asked to report for three months of basic civil defense
> | training in their state or community, where they will learn what to do in
> | the event of biochemical, nuclear or conventional attack; how to assist
> | others in an evacuation; how to respond when a levee breaks or we're hit
> by
> | a natural disaster. These young people will be available to address their
> | communities' most pressing needs."
> |
> | Sorry. I do not see how this is such a bad thing.
> |
> They had it in the fifties. I was a teenaged air raid warden with my very
> own Geiger counter and white ww1 helmet with a triangle on it.
I suppose it depends on whether you think freedom,
personal liberty, has any value. Many people do not,
or at least they think it can be set aside for any good
purpose (good in their view).
As Michael Price points out, if anyone thought there
should be a lot of young people around who knew how
to do civil-defense stuff, then they could just hire them.
There is a lot of unemployment among the young and
millions would sign up even for modest wages and a
pat on the head. The point of drafting people into some
sort of state service is not to get the job done but to
train them to be obedient.
But this is Rahm's idea, not Obama's. Rahm seems
to have been hired to be one of Obama's arm-breakers,
a necessary role in any large government. It's not a
good sign, but it's not yet a disaster.
Miguel O'Pastel
"*Anarcissie*" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a3f9fa29-731b-4e46...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Your freedom ends where my nose begins. Personal freedom is not a license
to steal or sell me inferior products or exploit me in any way. My Personal
Freedom requires punishing you if you try.
M
*Anarcissie*
> ...
> Your freedom ends where my nose begins. Personal freedom is not a license
> to steal or sell me inferior products or exploit me in any way. My Personal
> Freedom requires punishing you if you try.
What does that have to do with the question at hand?
Michael Price
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
labour but now that you mention it that's a more convincing reason.
Even more likely is that the government wants to create the
impression that they need such a force, and having it would
create that impression. Lots of people running around doing
"their duty" tends to convince people that there is duty that
needs to be done. Of course this won't convince the actual
draftees who will swiftly detect that they do little that's actually
useful. Few however will turn down the free praise about "protecting
our nation's security" and "selfless sacrifice" even thought they
know they spend almost all their time goofing off and the rest
being misdirected and mismanaged by people who have contempt
for their abilities (in many cases rightly).
> But this is Rahm's idea, not Obama's. Rahm seems
> to have been hired to be one of Obama's arm-breakers,
> a necessary role in any large government. It's not a
> good sign, but it's not yet a disaster.
I think it was Reagan who said "Personnel is policy.". When
a President hires someone it is not so that they can wait obediently
for his commands before scurrying to carry them out regardless of
their personal opinion. Presidents hire people to carry out the
policies those people already favour. Remember too that Obama
refered to "asking" the American people to fund the bailout, just
as this statement refers to "asking" people to serve.
Obama also wanted "a civilian national security force that's just
as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." as the US
military.
Why such a powerful organisation would be needed to protect a
nation facing no existential threats outside it's own government is
not made clear. What is clear though is that conscripting 18-25 year
olds for 3 months gives you a workforce 1/32th of that population
permanently (8 years from 18th birthday to day before 26th, divided by
3 months).
Michael Price
1/32 of the 20-24 age group is about 610,000 or about the size of the
US military.
Is it just a coincidence that one of Obama's first appointees has an
idea that
can deliver the manpower Obama claims was needed?
James A. Donald
> labour but now that you mention it that's a more convincing reason.
I think it is the old Marxist program, "reform through labor" - instil
obedience *and* ideology.
> Obama also wanted "a civilian national security force that's just
> as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." as the US
> military.
>
> Why such a powerful organisation would be needed to protect a
> nation facing no existential threats outside it's own government is
> not made clear.
I assumed that either Obama or his audience expected his government to
face an existential threat from the nation. He was at the time
pandering to the nutroots.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
*Anarcissie*
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:43:43 -0800 (PST), Michael Price
>
> > I thought that the purpose was just to get free (or very cheap)
> > labour but now that you mention it that's a more convincing reason.
>
> I think it is the old Marxist program, "reform through labor" - instil
> obedience *and* ideology.
>
> > Obama also wanted "a civilian national security force that's just
> > as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." as the US
> > military.
>
> > Why such a powerful organisation would be needed to protect a
> > nation facing no existential threats outside it's own government is
> > not made clear.
>
> I assumed that either Obama or his audience expected his government to
> face an existential threat from the nation. He was at the time
> pandering to the nutroots.
Judging by the critiques I am able to find in a light,
superficial Google search, nothing so exciting is planned.
It looks rather like campaign rhetoric alluding to vast
sums of money (that will be found later not to exist)
to be spent on vast, amorphous works (which will also
be found later not to exist).
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obamas_civilian_national_secur.html
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69960
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/barack_obama_the_community_org.html
James A. Donald
> > I assumed that either Obama or his audience expected
> > his government to face an existential threat from
> > the nation. He was at the time pandering to the
> > nutroots.
"*Anarcissie*"
> Judging by the critiques I am able to find in a light,
> superficial Google search, nothing so exciting is
> planned. It looks rather like campaign rhetoric
> alluding to vast sums of money (that will be found
> later not to exist) to be spent on vast, amorphous
> works (which will also be found later not to exist).
One hopes so but "national security force" ... "just as
powerful as the army" sounds distinctly alarming.
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obamas_civilian_national_secur.html
> http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69960
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/barack_obama_the_community_org.html
Those guys are conservatives. They think everyone is a
conservative, thus they think Obama is a conservative. I
am a radical, I always have been a radical, I come from
the same sort of intellectual circle as Obama comes
from. I predict state terror - Ruby ridge and Waco on a
much larger scale. That is what the people he was
pandering to at the time would have understood him to
mean, and that is what people in the intellectual
circles he comes from would have understood him to mean.
And even so, had I not voted for Cthulhu, would have
voted for Obama, for his opponent actually destroyed
freedom of political speech, while Obama merely *might*
destroy democracy - and democracy that produces McCain
Feingold is not worth having.
*Anarcissie*
> James A. Donald:
>
> > > I assumed that either Obama or his audience expected
> > > his government to face an existential threat from
> > > the nation. He was at the time pandering to the
> > > nutroots.
>
> "*Anarcissie*"
>
> > Judging by the critiques I am able to find in a light,
> > superficial Google search, nothing so exciting is
> > planned. It looks rather like campaign rhetoric
> > alluding to vast sums of money (that will be found
> > later not to exist) to be spent on vast, amorphous
> > works (which will also be found later not to exist).
>
> One hopes so but "national security force" ... "just as
> powerful as the army" sounds distinctly alarming.
>
> >http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69960
> >http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/barack_obama_the_community_org...
>
> Those guys are conservatives. They think everyone is a
> conservative, thus they think Obama is a conservative. I
> am a radical, I always have been a radical, I come from
> the same sort of intellectual circle as Obama comes
> from. I predict state terror - Ruby ridge and Waco on a
> much larger scale. That is what the people he was
> pandering to at the time would have understood him to
> mean, and that is what people in the intellectual
> circles he comes from would have understood him to mean.
Obama _is_ a conservative. Or maybe even a reactionary,
if that means going back to an imagined past; Obama 1.0 is
apparently going to be an FDR rerun. If so, that is very,
very conservative. Exigencies may supervene, of course.
Thus far I am unable to discover any concrete plans for
either compulsory service or a vast internal national
police force.
> ...
James A. Donald
> > Those guys are conservatives. They think everyone
> > is a conservative, thus they think Obama is a
> > conservative. I am a radical, I always have been a
> > radical, I come from the same sort of intellectual
> > circle as Obama comes from. I predict state terror
> > - Ruby ridge and Waco on a much larger scale. That
> > is what the people he was pandering to at the time
> > would have understood him to mean, and that is what
> > people in the intellectual circles he comes from
> > would have understood him to mean.
"*Anarcissie*"
> Obama _is_ a conservative. Or maybe even a
> reactionary, if that means going back to an imagined
> past; Obama 1.0 is apparently going to be an FDR
> rerun.
Would you think that return to an imagined Leninist past
was conservative?
*Anarcissie*
> James A. Donald:
>
> > > Those guys are conservatives. They think everyone
> > > is a conservative, thus they think Obama is a
> > > conservative. I am a radical, I always have been a
> > > radical, I come from the same sort of intellectual
> > > circle as Obama comes from. I predict state terror
> > > - Ruby ridge and Waco on a much larger scale. That
> > > is what the people he was pandering to at the time
> > > would have understood him to mean, and that is what
> > > people in the intellectual circles he comes from
> > > would have understood him to mean.
>
> "*Anarcissie*"
>
> > Obama _is_ a conservative. Or maybe even a
> > reactionary, if that means going back to an imagined
> > past; Obama 1.0 is apparently going to be an FDR
> > rerun.
>
> Would you think that return to an imagined Leninist past
> was conservative?
The U.S. does not have a Leninist past, so an American
conservative or reactionary cannot hold to it or go back
to it.
In Russia, one might see Lenin as an heir of the tsars --
he reinstituted the tradition of the secret police and
political concentration camps -- so perhaps one could
say he was a conservative, although it is my impression
that he flirted with liberalism (e.g. the NEP). Stalin and
now Putin can similarly be construed as conservatives
within their context.
James A. Donald
> > > Obama _is_ a conservative. Or maybe even a
> > > reactionary, if that means going back to an
> > > imagined past; Obama 1.0 is apparently going to
> > > be an FDR rerun.
James A. Donald:
> > Would you think that return to an imagined Leninist
> > past was conservative?
"*Anarcissie*"
> The U.S. does not have a Leninist past, so an American
> conservative or reactionary cannot hold to it or go
> back to it.
FDR sought to destroy capitalism, or might plausibly be
imagined to have sought to destroy capitalism. A return
to an imagined FDR past might well seeking to complete
the job. FDR revised the constitution by threatening to
stack the supremes. A return to an imagined FDR past
would likely mean some fairly radical constitutional
revision by some fairly drastic means, which does not
sound very conservative.
*Anarcissie*
> James A. Donald:
>
> > > > Obama _is_ a conservative. Or maybe even a
> > > > reactionary, if that means going back to an
> > > > imagined past; Obama 1.0 is apparently going to
> > > > be an FDR rerun.
>
> James A. Donald:
>
> > > Would you think that return to an imagined Leninist
> > > past was conservative?
>
> "*Anarcissie*"
>
> > The U.S. does not have a Leninist past, so an American
> > conservative or reactionary cannot hold to it or go
> > back to it.
>
> FDR sought to destroy capitalism, or might plausibly be
> imagined to have sought to destroy capitalism. A return
> to an imagined FDR past might well seeking to complete
> the job. FDR revised the constitution by threatening to
> stack the supremes. A return to an imagined FDR past
> would likely mean some fairly radical constitutional
> revision by some fairly drastic means, which does not
> sound very conservative.
FDR did not destroy capitalism, and he did not try
to destroy capitalism. His rich friends would have
been very angry if he had.
Obama might have to go further than FDR, however.
His predecessor has already nationalized some of
the banking industry. I am sure it was not an
ideological preference for him. We might be
observing a transition to the sort of _dirigisme_
which seems to be going on in China.
When I compare Obama to FDR, though, I am
thinking more in terms of style than substance.
Just as the Peace Corps harks back to the WPA
and the CCC, so my guess is we'll see new
"corps" harking back to the Peace Corps -- in
order to reduce unemployment and get restless
youth off the streets.
My concern is whether these will be voluntary
or some kind of draft or impressment will be
employed. There is a certain type of mentality
that not only makes light of other people's
money but the rest of their lives as well.
James A. Donald
> FDR did not destroy capitalism, and he did not try to
> destroy capitalism. His rich friends would have been
> very angry if he had.
The core appeal of socialism is an end to competition,
an end to the frightening social mobility of capitalism,
which if the free market took its course right now would
result in a lot of stupid rich people being swiftly
separated from their money. The appeal of socialism is
that the worker will be chained to his bench (a
guaranteed job from which he cannot be fired - or
resign), and the elite will be given whips to apply in
place of tips - which program was as appealing in FDR's
time as it is now.
Similarly, the current bailout, which involves giving
several hundred billion dollars to very rich people who
massively screwed up and did various things both stupid
and wicked, is the nationalization of the commanding
heights of capitalism, but the wealthy bunglers do not
seem to be complaining much.
> Obama might have to go further than FDR, however. His
> predecessor has already nationalized some of the
> banking industry. I am sure it was not an ideological
> preference for him.
Compassionate conservatism: He feels compassionate to
those poor bankers victimized by the dreadful
fluctuations of the free market and in danger of being
denied their rightful place at the top of the heap.
What do you bet they will be in even less danger of
losing their rightful place when Obama takes charge?
Observe Obama wants to bail out General Motors - the
proposed bailout will result in them taking over another
car company, instead of another car company buying up
GM's stuff at the bankruptcy auction. Obama
proclaims he will set the management of GM to work
making low carbon cars - at which task they will
continue to have power, privilege, and huge sums of
money, whereas the free market alternative is that their
creditors seize the buildings and factories, kick the
management onto the street, and auction their stuff off
- presumably to other people in the car making business.
Obama socialism looks like being even nicer to the
successors of the guys that built fortunes, nicer to the
people who wasted those fortunes, than Bush socialism.
> When I compare Obama to FDR, though, I am thinking
> more in terms of style than substance. Just as the
> Peace Corps harks back to the WPA and the CCC, so my
> guess is we'll see new "corps" harking back to the
> Peace Corps -- in order to reduce unemployment and get
> restless youth off the streets.
Conscript the potential trouble makers - an old
solution.
Michael Price
> James A. Donald:
>
> > > I assumed that either Obama or his audience expected
> > > his government to face an existential threat from
> > > the nation. He was at the time pandering to the
> > > nutroots.
>
> "*Anarcissie*"
>
> > Judging by the critiques I am able to find in a light,
> > superficial Google search, nothing so exciting is
> > planned. It looks rather like campaign rhetoric
> > alluding to vast sums of money (that will be found
> > later not to exist) to be spent on vast, amorphous
> > works (which will also be found later not to exist).
>
> One hopes so but "national security force" ... "just as
> powerful as the army" sounds distinctly alarming.
>
> >http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69960
> >http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/barack_obama_the_community_org...
>
> conservative, thus they think Obama is a conservative. I
> am a radical, I always have been a radical, I come from
> the same sort of intellectual circle as Obama comes
> from. I predict state terror - Ruby ridge and Waco on a
> much larger scale. That is what the people he was
> pandering to at the time would have understood him to
> mean, and that is what people in the intellectual
> circles he comes from would have understood him to mean.
>
> And even so, had I not voted for Cthulhu, would have
> voted for Obama, for his opponent actually destroyed
> freedom of political speech, while Obama merely *might*
> destroy democracy - and democracy that produces McCain
> Feingold is not worth having.
>
will
be eaten last!
Miguel O'Pastel
You could try asking them what they plan to do; enlist or compel. Or would
you prefer just to fantasize with the other armchair politicos?
M
*Anarcissie*
>...
> You could try asking them what they plan to do; enlist or compel. Or would
> you prefer just to fantasize with the other armchair politicos?
I prefer to fantasize. I'm sitting on a desk chair, though.
As far as I know, the whole business is a fantasy of
Emanuel's. It gives us an idea of how he thinks, but
there is no concrete proposal on the table at this time.
Michael Price
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
On the contrary his rich friends were very happy with his
efforts to destroy capitalism and competition and replace
it with cartelised national socialism. He didn't do the
job completely of course but he got most of the way
there and would have completed it if he hadn't died.
Michael Price
Personnel is policy, who's practically the first person hired?
*Anarcissie*
Emanuel has other unpleasant qualities which are probably
useful for the role he's taking on. However, I do think the
possibility needs careful attention. As soon as any concrete
proposals are made, appropriate resistance can be organized.
(M)-adman
Why would you want to resist policies that may be necessary? It is obvious
that we cannot keep terror out of America. It is obvious that we cannot
prevent natural disasters. While I do NOT condone a national police force,
nation ID card and the like, it may be necessary to train a population to
survive as well as fight.
--
It is all about the truth with:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
*Anarcissie*
Obviously, I don't think the policies are necessary. And
I think the coercion attached to them is pernicious, so
it ought to be resisted. At least I intend to resist it (if it
comes into being) and to encourage others to do
likewise.
(M)-adman
Other then to resist authoritarianism,(which seems to be a badge of honor
for you), why? Why resist something that could help with survival?
Let's assume a senaro.
1) dirtybombs are released in houston, kansas city and chicago. This would
effectivly cut the east and west choasts off from each other and divide the
country in half.
2) the ripple effect would be a total cut off of commerce. Lack of food,
lack of gas etc. Prices would skyrocket because everything would have to
travel by air. Wide spread looting and chaos would follow outside of the
target zones. Death tolls would be insurmountable and mass graves would be
needed. Hospitals could not cope. Basically your "worst parts of the bible"
stuff to use a phrase from a famous movie.
Do you really think a volunteer force and few full time Personnel could
handle such a situation? Could the local, state and national governments?
I'll throw FEMA in as a joke. Could Fema handle even a part of it?
We need a trained and aware population that can survive, fight if necessary.
James A. Donald
> Why would you want to resist policies that may be
> necessary? It is obvious that we cannot keep terror
> out of America. It is obvious that we cannot prevent
> natural disasters. While I do NOT condone a national
> police force, nation ID card and the like, it may be
> necessary to train a population to survive as well as
> fight.
People are naturally inclined to fight and survive.
Governments are likely to obstruct them, rather than
help them - which is what happened in Katrina: Walmart
attempted to rush huge amounts of bottled water and
portable generators in, but the government turned them
back - I suppose that they were worried that Walmart
would profit from people helping themselves to survive,
when people should be surviving on government assistance
and thank the mighty and benevolent government for their
survival.
Similarly consider the security theater on boarding a
plane. All that is needed is reinforced cockpit doors
with a couple of gun ports in them, and allow the
captain to carry guns.
(M)-adman
> "\(M\)-adman"
>> Why would you want to resist policies that may be
>> necessary? It is obvious that we cannot keep terror
>> out of America. It is obvious that we cannot prevent
>> natural disasters. While I do NOT condone a national
>> police force, nation ID card and the like, it may be
>> necessary to train a population to survive as well as
>> fight.
>
> People are naturally inclined to fight and survive.
> Governments are likely to obstruct them, rather than
> help them - which is what happened in Katrina: Walmart
> attempted to rush huge amounts of bottled water and
> portable generators in, but the government turned them
> back - I suppose that they were worried that Walmart
> would profit from people helping themselves to survive,
> when people should be surviving on government assistance
> and thank the mighty and benevolent government for their
> survival.
>
You will not get an argument from me that we have a 'nanny' state.
> Similarly consider the security theater on boarding a
> plane. All that is needed is reinforced cockpit doors
> with a couple of gun ports in them, and allow the
> captain to carry guns.
Exactly.
*Anarcissie*
It's simple logic. I am a willful being, therefore I desire
freedom in order to work my will. Since I cannot rule
the universe, the best way I can have freedom is to
agree with others to respect their freedom if and as
they respect mine. Part of respecting their freedom
and protecting my own is to help them resist unjust,
unnecessary coercion.
>
> Let's assume a senaro.
>
After Katrina I gave a certain amount of thought to
disaster management and concluded that the best
plan would be based on existing local organizations,
which would then associate themselves into larger
units of cooperation. I think police and fire
departments already do this to some extent. The
behavior of the system as a whole would be thus
driven by the needs of the people actually
confronting the problems and providing the
services, instead of being governed by far-off
great leaders and bureaucrats. The reason this
isn't being done now is that the people have been
turned into sheep who expect the state to do
everything for them. In any case no one that I
know of has prepared an estimate of how many
people would be needed, and what supplies and
equipment would be required.
Anyway, all this business about a draft has
nothing to do with needing the people; that is
merely the cover story. The point of the
exercise is to subjugate people and get them
used to the idea that they have to take orders
from their superiors. It is purely a desire for
power.
Michael Price
I see, you don't condone them, but you will if someone tells you
they're
"neccesary". Let me ask you, is ending the war on drugs necessary?
Because
that's a LOT more likely to prevent a terrorists attack on America
than anything
coercive. It's well known that the war on drugs funds terrorist
groups the world over.
But guys like you never seem to think that increasing freedom is
neccesary, no matter how much it would help achieve the goals you use
to
justify your tyranny.
> --
>
> It is all about the truth with:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Yeah, right.
Michael Price
> James A. Donald wrote:
> > "\(M\)-adman"
> >> Why would you want to resist policies that may be
> >> necessary? It is obvious that we cannot keep terror
> >> out of America. It is obvious that we cannot prevent
> >> natural disasters. While I do NOT condone a national
> >> police force, nation ID card and the like, it may be
> >> necessary to train a population to survive as well as
> >> fight.
>
> > People are naturally inclined to fight and survive.
> > Governments are likely to obstruct them, rather than
> > help them - which is what happened in Katrina: Walmart
> > attempted to rush huge amounts of bottled water and
> > portable generators in, but the government turned them
> > back - I suppose that they were worried that Walmart
> > would profit from people helping themselves to survive,
> > when people should be surviving on government assistance
> > and thank the mighty and benevolent government for their
> > survival.
>
> You will not get an argument from me that we have a 'nanny' state.
No but you seem intent on giving nanny even more power.
Bit of a submissive streak perhaps?
>
> > Similarly consider the security theater on boarding a
> > plane. All that is needed is reinforced cockpit doors
> > with a couple of gun ports in them, and allow the
> > captain to carry guns.
>
> Exactly.
>
Exactly what? I mean you're going on about how giving the
State more power is great, then when someone proves giving
the State more power is useless you say "exactly".
Michael Price
> "\(M\)-adman"
>
> > Why would you want to resist policies that may be
> > necessary? It is obvious that we cannot keep terror
> > out of America. It is obvious that we cannot prevent
> > natural disasters. While I do NOT condone a national
> > police force, nation ID card and the like, it may be
> > necessary to train a population to survive as well as
> > fight.
>
> People are naturally inclined to fight and survive.
> Governments are likely to obstruct them, rather than
> help them - which is what happened in Katrina: Walmart
> attempted to rush huge amounts of bottled water and
> portable generators in, but the government turned them
> back - I suppose that they were worried that Walmart
> would profit from people helping themselves to survive,
Nope, Walmart was donating. What they were really worried
about was that Walmart would take the credit. Naturally they
weren't going to allow someone to take their credit just because
they deserved it.
> when people should be surviving on government assistance
> and thank the mighty and benevolent government for their
> survival.
Similarly people were able to look after their own security without
the
help of government after Katrina. The government's contribution was
to
fire at people attempting to flee disaster zones and later disarm
those
who had defended their neighbours. Admittedly this was done only to
the darkies, but still...