dennislmay

Guns Sales

Recommended Posts

Obama is a Maoist revolutionary with Islamo-Fascist ties ...

As words have meanings, President Obama is no more a Maoist revolutionary with Islamo-fascist ties than Dennis L. May is a crypto-nazi with neo-fascist ties. The President is an Ivy League liberal and Dennis L. May is down-home conservative.

Perhaps you missed an entire year and a half of Glenn Beck's thorough video documentation of Obama's past and associates, you obviously don't understand the roots of Black Liberation Theology and the Maoist Revolutionaries who created Liberation Theology to break the Catholic church's political influence in Latin America - nor the Catholic Church's fight against Liberation Theology inside its own ranks as priests were involved in terrorism and smuggling terrorists across borders in Latin America. Obama spent 20 years bathed in Maoist revolutionary theory at his Black Liberation Theology Church. He has ties to Islamo-Fascist going back to his college years and volumes of them at present.

Have you never listened to or watched Glenn Beck?

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main concern is .... guns, gun and ammunition sales.... guns and ammunition,

For the record, I own no guns. Zero. However, I do own pens... .lots of pens...

A fine Monty Python skit - I am a huge fan.

I own lots of pens as well. I guess if the shit hits the fan you could use your metal pens in

a pipe with blackpowder to protect yourself. Not the best system but it would work.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama is a Maoist revolutionary with Islamo-Fascist ties ...

As words have meanings, President Obama is no more a Maoist revolutionary with Islamo-fascist ties than Dennis L. May is a crypto-nazi with neo-fascist ties. The President is an Ivy League liberal and Dennis L. May is down-home conservative.

Perhaps you missed an entire year and a half of Glenn Beck's thorough video documentation of Obama's past and associates, you obviously don't understand the roots of Black Liberation Theology and the Maoist Revolutionaries who created Liberation Theology to break the Catholic church's political influence in Latin America - nor the Catholic Church's fight against Liberation Theology inside its own ranks as priests were involved in terrorism and smuggling terrorists across borders in Latin America. Obama spent 20 years bathed in Maoist revolutionary theory at his Black Liberation Theology Church. He has ties to Islamo-Fascist going back to his college years and volumes of them at present.

Have you never listened to or watched Glenn Beck?

Dennis

I know a couple other people who used to post on Objectivist Living or other Objectivist sites who refuse to listen to Glenn Beck so they have no clue. You can argue with them all day about Obama because they refuse to do their basic homework or watch videos of Obama and associates saying what they are about in their own words. I had to give up on a couple of them because they refused to be informed.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama is a Maoist revolutionary with Islamo-Fascist ties ...

As words have meanings, President Obama is no more a Maoist revolutionary with Islamo-fascist ties than Dennis L. May is a crypto-nazi with neo-fascist ties. The President is an Ivy League liberal and Dennis L. May is down-home conservative.

Perhaps you missed an entire year and a half of Glenn Beck's thorough video documentation of Obama's past and associates, you obviously don't understand the roots of Black Liberation Theology and the Maoist Revolutionaries who created Liberation Theology to break the Catholic church's political influence in Latin America - nor the Catholic Church's fight against Liberation Theology inside its own ranks as priests were involved in terrorism and smuggling terrorists across borders in Latin America. Obama spent 20 years bathed in Maoist revolutionary theory at his Black Liberation Theology Church. He has ties to Islamo-Fascist going back to his college years and volumes of them at present.

Have you never listened to or watched Glenn Beck?

Dennis

I know a couple other people who used to post on Objectivist Living or other Objectivist sites who refuse to listen to Glenn Beck so they have no clue. You can argue with them all day about Obama because they refuse to do their basic homework or watch videos of Obama and associates saying what they are about in their own words. I had to give up on a couple of them because they refused to be informed.

Dennis

In case you think I came to the party after listening to Glenn Beck my Officer Training School [OTS] paper which I presented to the class [Flight] was on the future dangers of Maoist revolutionaries. That was in the late spring/early summer of 1985. You have to watch them like a hawk and they have only gotten worse and more influential.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody has "ties" and influences, and has associated with and listened to others' ideology. How many millions have read Atlas Shrugged, and yet remained or become leftists?

Obama is a Democratic politician who has been adroit and lucky. I cannot believe he believes in or wants to further permanent revolution on the Maoist template.

Gog and Magog aside, presidents simply do not have the power to overthrow the existing machinery of government, and Obama does not wish to destroy America. The man lives with his mother-in-law - have you seen her? She would not let him go in for such foolishness for one minute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody has "ties" and influences, and has associated with and listened to others' ideology. How many millions have read Atlas Shrugged, and yet remained or become leftists?

Obama is a Democratic politician who has been adroit and lucky. I cannot believe he believes in or wants to further permanent revolution on the Maoist template.

Gog and Magog aside, presidents simply do not have the power to overthrow the existing machinery of government, and Obama does not wish to destroy America. The man lives with his mother-in-law - have you seen her? She would not let him go in for such foolishness for one minute.

So I gather you have also not seen the work of Glenn Beck documenting their plans in their own words on video. I gather you are also not familiar with the words of their government appointees on video either - not just influences and associates but people placed in positions of power to make policy - law created by bureaucrats behind the scenes. These are people who have said they want to destroy the America we know.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct, my statement was general. I don't watch videos (except entertainment ones and those produced by OLers) unless there is absolutely no other way to obtain information, as I resent the time it takes to watch as opposed to reading text. Also, i find Beck's highly effective oratorical style tiresome, but I do read the Blaze.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct, my statement was general. I don't watch videos (except entertainment ones and those produced by OLers) unless there is absolutely no other way to obtain information, as I resent the time it takes to watch as opposed to reading text. Also, i find Beck's highly effective oratorical style tiresome, but I do read the Blaze.

I occasionally read the Blaze and get their e-mail highlights but find the Blaze/TV much more informative. Beck's old Fox News program was groundbreaking and the Blaze/TV is well on its way towards being more informative than Fox News in total. If things go well in a few years the Blaze/TV could become the primary source of real information out there.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama is a Maoist revolutionary with Islamo-Fascist ties ...

As words have meanings, President Obama is no more a Maoist revolutionary with Islamo-fascist ties than Dennis L. May is a crypto-nazi with neo-fascist ties.

Yes. Yes, yes and yes.

Gog and Magog aside, presidents simply do not have the power to overthrow the existing machinery of government, and Obama does not wish to destroy America. The man lives with his mother-in-law - have you seen her? She would not let him go in for such foolishness for one minute.

I lost sight of what Dennis was arguing for, a full-thrusters exaggeration run on Maoist.

It's similar to what Adam does when he denotes Obama as a Marxist.

What are the concepts in play, besides Marxist and Maoist revolutionary? What is being measured here in those two distinct terms?

I say Leftishness, to coin a word.

There is thus a measurement available. Over-riding measurement is the very antipode under examination, Right/Left.

Let's find an undeniable manifestation of Maoist revolutionary. The Moros in the Philippines and the Maoists of Nepal.

Let's find a Marxist liberation force closer to home. Columbia.

So, what do they have in common? Avowed marxism (Mao brand) and violent revolutionary goals and actions. An enemy armed and fighting against them.

What else? Oh yeah, in the larger sense, 'leftism.'

Okay, haul out the "Left" ruler. Put the Moro and the Colombians and the Nepalism maniacs under the mark way over to the left of the ruler. Now place the other end of the ruler along the 'left' axis. Look down in the corner to Whistler's Mother (leftish beeyotch as she was) and swing the ruler around to put her at the 'right' end. If this is the first time measuring something, that's okay. You are doing good.

Now, stretch out the ruler further down in the corner to Hitler. And mark that off as Right. Now run the tape measure between Stalin and Hitler, mark down the length and then mark down the length of half that length. This is your radius. Now, cut a length of string with to that length and nail down one end to the Moros on your chart. Tie a pencil to the other end of the string, and then draw the half-circle with the radius line.

Step back. You're done, Dennis!

Now the final check. Check a few random data points, like, oh, Carol and William. Are they on the side of Hitler or on the side of Maoist revolutionaries?

That's right! By your own careful checking of reality, both Carol and William and 90-odd percent of Canadians are Maoist Revolutionaries. And you are a Nazi.

That's what Michael Marotta was trying to point out to you, Dennis. It's a lesson Adam still struggles with, but we know you are smart enough to get it.

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, haul out the "Left" ruler. Put the Moro and the Colombians and the Nepalism maniacs under the mark way over to the left of the ruler. Now place the other end of the ruler along the 'left' axis. ...

Now, stretch out the ruler further down in the corner to Hitler. And mark that off as Right. ...

A few years ago George H. Smith suggested I read "The Counter Revolution of Science" by F. A. Hayek. I suggest you do the same. Hayek clearly lays out the history and

philosophy connecting Fascist Socialism and Communist Socialism as connected movements both on along the way towards authoritarian Socialism. All sprung from French

and German philosophers - all leading to the same kinds of outcomes. A tiny amount of study will show Islamo Fascism in its modern roots was well connected to Fascist

European Socialism as well. Islam forms a ready base for related forms of authoritarian Socialism - hence the modern alliances between Maoists, Islamo-Fascists, and various

other socialists.

The right/left line is a creation of those not wanting to discuss freedom. A more correct line stretches from various forms of socialism and authoritarianism on one end to

limited government then at the very other end anarcho-capitalism [market anarchy].

Andrew Wilkow has discussed this many times on his radio show, it seems like I've known about it since I was a kid - the first time I heard it flushed out in great detail

was probably 20 years ago on a talk radio show. Don't fall for the middle being between communism and fascism - both are on the same end.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis, the point being that using polar measurements gives only digital readout. There are only two 'states'. One is an all-purpose bad (Maoist Hilter Mullah yadda) and the other sunny meadows.

We only get two categories. And so half the world is swept into one category on faulty premises.

I'm saying you can indeed measure a level of devotion to harsh ideological autocracies and the active revolutionary movements in the world that advocate for it. By this measure, Breivik moves under the same tent as a Nusra Front suicide bomber. As with Pol Pot, etc, Hitler, Ceaucescu, Franco-ist Spain, neo-fascists in Europe, jihadis elsewhere as well as regimes such as in Belarus and North Korea.

A pole of evil.

At the other end butterflies, meadows, freedom, running water and electricity.

Where do I fit there, Dennis, given my avowals here? What measure of fiendishness do I share with the President, do you think, along that measure of brutal oppression?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you never listened to or watched Glenn Beck?

Dennis,

Heh.

Michael was bashing Glenn from the time I first started posting about him. After seeing a few misrepresentations, I asked if he had seen anything by Glenn at all, and he confessed he had not. Then he watched one show and said it validated his opinion, but I believe he was already bashing inside his mind during the first 30 seconds.

That discussion is around here somewhere.

I came to the conclusion that his opinion of Glenn--like that of so many other people--is visceral, not rational.

Note, Michael is highly intelligent and many others who react the same are, too. And well-intentioned. And, I believe, sincere.

So I came to the idea that this has to do with core story people hold. I have since seen enough to think this idea holds water, but that is for another discussion.

For the moment, let's just say that in a certain kind of core story, deeply religious Christians (including Mormons) have been portrayed as villain archetypes who wield power and hold back the advance of human progress. They are usually anti-intellectual in this kind of storyline. Glenn doesn't fit that archetype, but he looks like it. Thus, many people--the ones who adhere to a certain kind of core story--hate him on sight. So long as that archetype (and storyline) holds in their minds, no facts will dislodge that visceral hatred his image prompts. (Note that Sarah Palin tends to cause this reaction in people, too.)

This is similar to what happened to Rand at the end of her life in her aesthetic judgments of people's sense of life. Except her villain archetypes were ones she created in a core story she created. They did not come from a storyline promoted in the culture around her. So while her condemnations of certain people look odd from the outside and don't really correspond to the reality of those people, they made perfect sense to her from within the core story she allowed to harden in her mind.

Here's a tip. If you want to get Michael to look at data or some plausible idea that actually explains events in light of the fog in the mainstream, I believe you will have far more success if you do not say it came from Glenn.

:smile:

That sounds like a quip, but it really isn't. That's just the way it works with Glenn for many, many people. I had to get used to it when I started presenting the dots he was connecting--ones that have since proven to be accurate and now presented as obvious in the mainstream--and sourcing him.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William,

I suggest the problem is different than where this discussion is going.

The problem is inherited power.

Small government people don't want others to wield power over their lives. Pure and simple. They realize that power has to be present in some degree like a police force, but they want none of it in their economic and social lives. They operate on the principle that they will belong to any group they choose--or no group at all--by their own choice, not by coercion. Not by decree. Not by designation from any bureaucrat or regulator.

The benevolent dictator argument, which is one I see you and Carol and others present, goes like this. Look, the government technically has the powers you suggest, but it doesn't do anything that bad with this. Where are the outrages? Where are the corpses? Where are the starving hordes? You compare this system to Hitler, but it's nothing like Hitler.

I say the problem with massive power comes when the benevolent dictator leaves and a new one gets the reins. If the newcomer is an evil bastard, the capacity to perpetrate atrocities and consolidate more and more power is easy when massive power is that person's default.

People who think small government (like I do) see the only solution is to limit the power any one person can hold right from the start. It doesn't matter if a dictator is benevolent or a bastard. That person (or worse, oligarchy) is still a dictator with power to pass on to an heir. If there are no dictator-like powers, the problems inherent to inherited power disappear.

The connection to Mao and Hitler and all the rest is not in the present of a benevolent dictator. That reality is often sunny. It's in the future. And history has proven time and time again just how dark that future can get. As it will continue to prove so long as there is massive power to grab when a power vacuum occurs.

The part that gets to me (and I believe others who think like me) is that many conservatives--ones who claim they are defending capitalism--are just as much power-mongers as the most hardline Progressives--the ones who openly seek to confiscate the property of others in the name of "the people."

Conservative versus Progressive is usually a false dichotomy. Both seek massive power.

The standard of the argument from a small-government perspective is the very existence of power and how to limit it, not who should wield it.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis, the point being that using polar measurements gives only digital readout. There are only two 'states'.

The actual situation is a set of many variables - a multi-dimensional graph having possibilities which vary with the

level of societal development. I have discussed this elsewhere - on Atlantis_II I believe.

Since you spoke of an incorrect line - the simplist error usually discussed - I didn't think a more complex discussion

was going to occur.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to get Michael to look at data or some plausible idea that actually explains events in light of the fog in the mainstream, I believe you will have far more success if you do not say it came from Glenn.

Advice Glenn Beck gives his listeners all the time. Don't use his name use the source material.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The part that gets to me (and I believe others who think like me) is that many conservatives--ones who claim they are defending capitalism--are just as much power-mongers as the most hardline Progressives--the ones who openly seek to confiscate the property of others in the name of "the people."

Conservative versus Progressive is usually a false dichotomy. Both seek massive power.

The standard of the argument from a small-government perspective is the very existence of power and how to limit it, not who should wield it.

You seem to be mixing in Progressive Republicans and Progressive RINO's with conservatives then equating the mix with the ills of Democratic Progressives. Mark R. Levin and many other conservatives do not view Progressive Republicans and Progressive RINO's as conservatives at all. Conservatives are for small-government - the rest are not conservatives.

I of course do not fit the conservative mold by any means but they are the only political group with even half a clue at present - which isn't saying much.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis,

In my use of the term conservative in this thread, I roughly meant Republicans in general as they evolved before the Tea Party. For instance, George W. Bush is a conservative. They call him neoconservative and so on, but the public perception is he is a conservative.

That's a valid mainstream meaning for the term--one of the definitions. I don't expect agreement here. Just so long as the reader understands the concept I was referencing...

(It's perfectly OK in the English language for a term to have more than one definition. Any dictionary is my proof.)

But I admit, when it comes to naming these things, the waters can get awfully murky. Just to think that liberal used to mean libertarian instead of Progressive, it's semantics trying to hide the concepts.

It's fog.

And that's my point. A fundamental concept is being hidden and obliterated by terminology. The frame is always Democrats against Republicans, Fascists against Communists, Socialists against Communists, Progressives against Conservatives, and on and on. And they all have one thing in common (within this kind of dichotomized framing): no matter who wins, the government always gets bigger and more intrusive in the lives of individuals.

The Tea Party was the first mainstream political effort I have seen to focus on small government and mean it. (The Libertarian Party did, too, but it is not mainstream in the sense the Tea Party is.) I do not equate Tea Party with traditional conservatism of the Bush kind.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis,

In my use of the term conservative in this thread, I roughly meant Republicans in general as they evolved before the Tea Party. For instance, George W. Bush is a conservative. They call him neoconservative and so on, but the public perception is he is a conservative.

That's a valid mainstream meaning for the term--one of the definitions. I don't expect agreement here. Just so long as the reader understands the concept I was referencing...

(It's perfectly OK in the English language for a term to have more than one definition. Any dictionary is my proof.)

But I admit, when it comes to naming these things, the waters can get awfully murky. Just to think that liberal used to mean libertarian instead of Progressive, it's semantics trying to hide the concepts.

It's fog.

And that's my point. A fundamental concept is being hidden and obliterated by terminology. The frame is always Democrats against Republicans, Fascists against Communists, Socialists against Communists, Progressives against Conservatives, and on and on. And they all have one thing in common (within this kind of dichotomized framing): no matter who wins, the government always gets bigger and more intrusive in the lives of individuals.

The Tea Party was the first mainstream political effort I have seen to focus on small government and mean it. (The Libertarian Party did, too, but it is not mainstream in the sense the Tea Party is.) I do not equate Tea Party with traditional conservatism of the Bush kind.

Michael

Well said, conservatives in the sense I understand it does not include George W. Bush, nor his father, nor Newt Gingrich [who on video has said he is a Progressive]. Conservatives amount to about 20% of the population at most. Most - but not all - of those elected under the Tea Party banner recently would qualify as conservative.

I got an e-mail this morning relating stories of Twitter and Facebood threats to start riots if Obama loses. The advice given:

"First of all, avoid areas where a riot is apt to happen. This would be downtown, around government buildings, highly populated areas, entertainment districts, or the inner-city. Pay attention to the news, not only your local television stations, but alternative news sources on the Web. Twitter feeds and Facebook usually break news before you see it on TV."

I think the dangers are much greater if it turns out to be a close election decided by protacted litigation [something Beck has said many times]. If it is a clear loss by Obama I think the shock will dishearten those who would seek to change things through burning down the system. Even better it would be a kick in the gut to the mainstream media.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, me and the other Maoist revolutionary from Canada, Carol, will be heading the Marxist contingent at the after-election party. We hope to keep our distance from the Stalinists and the Hitlerites and the Francoists and the Mullacrats, but after a few drinks it all gets a bit murky.

May the Americans not riot in the streets, Maoist remaining in the White House or not. May New Jersey and New York get their shit together after Sandy's blow. May your economy prosper. May your plans to flee to north to freedom remain in the bunker unsealed.

To the ramparts, to the keyboards, to the couches!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny you should say "bunker". A relative is just finishing up building one. Similar to the fall-out shelters of old. Hopefully it will end up being an underground additional living room and nothing more.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway, me and the other Maoist revolutionary from Canada, Carol, will be heading the Marxist contingent at the after-election party. We hope to keep our distance from the Stalinists and the Hitlerites and the Francoists and the Mullacrats, but after a few drinks it all gets a bit murky.

William,

Will you be enjoying the gustatory delights of roast baby?

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, me and the other Maoist revolutionary from Canada, Carol, will be heading the Marxist contingent at the after-election party. We hope to keep our distance from the Stalinists and the Hitlerites and the Francoists and the Mullacrats, but after a few drinks it all gets a bit murky.

May the Americans not riot in the streets, Maoist remaining in the White House or not. May New Jersey and New York get their shit together after Sandy's blow. May your economy prosper. May your plans to flee to north to freedom remain in the bunker unsealed.

To the ramparts, to the keyboards, to the couches!

What he said (it's the Groupthink they teach us at school)..

I am programming the karaoke machine and the OL Women's Auxiliary is preparing tasty crow, hat and pride bar snacks for losing bettors, extra cover charge for crowing winners.

Carol

Neutral Election Observer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny you should say "bunker". A relative is just finishing up building one. Similar to the fall-out shelters of old. Hopefully it will end up being an underground additional living room and nothing more.

I might have spoken too soon. Speaking of rankings and measures, America has apparently fallen out of the top ten nations of the Prosperity Index recreational hockey league standings. From the vile socialist rag Digital Journal:

The index evaluates and ranks 144 nations in eight categories: economy, entrepreneurship and opportunity, governance, education, health, safety and security, personal freedom and social capital.

According to the index, the world's 10 most prosperous nations are: Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Finland, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Ireland.

Leaders in each category include: Switzerland (economy), Denmark (entrepreneurship and opportunity), Switzerland (governance), New Zealand (education), Luxembourg (health), Iceland (personal safety and security), Canada (personal freedom) and Norway (social capital).

The 10 least prosperous nations are: Central African Republic, Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, Chad, Haiti, Burundi, Togo, Zimbabwe, Yemen and Ethiopia.

The United States fell two places from 10th to 12th on this year's index. The US scored 20th in economy, 12th in entrepreneurship and opportunity, 10th in governance, 5th in education, 2nd in health, 27th in safety and security, 14th in personal freedom and 10th in social capital.

Okay, Nunavut has no roads. One third of its people (10,000) don't speak anything but an Inuit tongue. The Northwest Passage is getting ready. They like mining, but you have to deal with the local government (of the 30,000). As big as Greenland but fewer roads than Fire Island. How do you think they get their fuel in? Mining is good, diamonds and gold are worth it. Bring your own town, kind of. We have tax breaks, but no roads.

Dennis, I didn't mention the way the feds interfere in Nunavut. They fund all these unsavoury measures like business development banks and one-stop business portals and joint-venture support and lots of local training and education. And media. Heck, the feds guaranteed and delivered high-speed internet (via satellite) to all these places. Okay, there is a little bit of socialism, but just a small amount, just enough to have let the Inuit survive up there in those long centuries before gold and diamonds and arctic tourists.

A Galtian kind of socialism, in a way, those ancient frozen Inuit days. You know how I can say that, Dennis? Because according to your rule of thumb, nice weather predicts Maoism. But the thoroughly Maoist nations of the top ten are on average freezing fucking cold compared to the US of A. Which makes me question their Maoishness or the usefulness of your barometer.

You want freedom? Where else can you ride your snowmobile into next week and no stop signs?

And guess where this beautiful lady is from? Hint: Her name is Susan Aglukark and she is four feet twelve, and this was number one on the country charts, who knows why.

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Denmark (entrepreneurship and opportunity) [#1]

It is no surprise the USA rankings are falling like a rock. No one wants to invest a dime while Obama is still president, faith in the government is dropping

out of sight. Zoning, taxes, new laws and regulations continues to strip away all our freedoms.

Okay, Nunavut has no roads. One third of its people (10,000) don't speak anything but an Inuit tongue. The Northwest Passage is getting ready. They like mining, but you have to deal with the local government (of the 30,000). As big as Greenland but fewer roads than Fire Island. How do you think they get their fuel in? Mining is good, diamonds and gold are worth it. Bring your own town, kind of. We have tax breaks, but no roads.

Dealing with the local government is why South Dakota is no good. Getting government at all levels out of the way is required.

Dennis, I didn't mention the way the feds interfere in Nunavut. They fund all these unsavoury measures like business development banks and one-stop business portals and joint-venture support and lots of local training and education. And media. Heck, the feds guaranteed and delivered high-speed internet (via satellite) to all these places. Okay, there is a little bit of socialism, but just a small amount, just enough to have let the Inuit survive up there in those long centuries before gold and diamonds and arctic tourists.

A Galtian kind of socialism, in a way, those ancient frozen Inuit days.

If the government would stay entirely out of everything that would be the kind of freedom that would be interesting for business.

Natural resources, wildlife, access by water and air, the freedom to build roads where, when, and if they are needed, but most

of all no government interference. Provide the non-interference and the business opportunities will find themselves.

I have a good fraction of a mile of private road on my land and paid for a great deal of gravel on the 3/4 mile of public road running

through it as well. If there is a business reason for roads it happened by private means in the past and will again.

Government business incentives are a trap and of no interest whatsoever. Letting the mob in just insures they will be back

later for their cut and the cut will grow larger and larger with the passage of time along with more interference.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...