Political and economic history

[Dak]

Because it's impossible for them to get off in the system we currently have. They can't hope to raise children and make a decent living at once.

It's not impossible.....well, maybe after popping out 8 kids from 8 different dads, none of whom are around (but who cares cause 'someone will take care o mah kids', it might be hard to adjust. People respond to incentives, and socialism creates and incentive to be non-productive.

It doesn't advocate the ownership of people, it advocates the collective ownership of property and means of production.

You are circling back into your original statement. If a person does not own where he lives, what he eats, or what he does, it makes no difference whether the owner is "everyone else" (which we know won't happen in practice, since "hierarchies always form") or whether the owner is a 18th century slaver.

Access to information always has something to do with it; but you don't think those same "thinkers" were actively engaged in the production of new information? There were obviously those who were more attentive and observant and who voiced opinions on the phenomena they witnessed.

Opinion/observation and information are not quite the same thing, at least, for the purpose of this discussion I would prefer to define them differently.

I'm sure there were many more observant and attentive thinkers throughout history, who did not have the benefit of living an upper class existence on the back of a vibrant slave trade, or whose writings did not last through the destruction of time.

That's possibly the biggest copout I've ever seen you write.

How is that a copout. That is standard psychology/sociology. Very few people revel in the concept of being evil/bad/of less worth than those around them, regardless of how their actions are perceived. As society is merely an outgrowth of that, I see no "copout".

I mean that the principle of self-ownership only generates very limited use rights, e.g., you can't take the shirt I'm wearing right now, whereas if I have a full property right in my shirt, then you also can't take it if it's, for instance, hanging in my closet.

If both the shirt I am wearing and the one I am not wearing were both acquired in a voluntary transaction, or produced through a voluntary chain of events, why not?

 

[Einherjar86]

It's not impossible.....well, maybe after popping out 8 kids from 8 different dads, none of whom are around (but who cares cause 'someone will take care o mah kids', it might be hard to adjust. People respond to incentives, and socialism creates and incentive to be non-productive.

I think this claim is absurd. I think people would still continue to work even without incentive, and I think our contemporary liberalist ideology instills in us the prospect that without incentive no one would want to work.

You are circling back into your original statement. If a person does not own where he lives, what he eats, or what he does, it makes no difference whether the owner is "everyone else" (which we know won't happen in practice, since "hierarchies always form") or whether the owner is a 18th century slaver.

You're valorizing ownership. There's no reason to believe human beings can't exist freely whilst not being the sole possessor the land they're working on.

Opinion/observation and information are not quite the same thing, at least, for the purpose of this discussion I would prefer to define them differently.

I'm sure there were many more observant and attentive thinkers throughout history, who did not have the benefit of living an upper class existence on the back of a vibrant slave trade, or whose writings did not last through the destruction of time.

I see what you're saying; but between the invention of the printing press in the late Middle Ages, and the advent of the information age with radio, television and the internet, I don't think the spread and dissemination of information changed all that much, and there were a plethora of complex thinkers that emerged during that time. Granted, all the intellectuals we recognize today came (for the most part) from an high middle-upper class bourgeois lifestyle; but I think it's fair to say that most of the population didn't share the skeptical atheism of someone like David Hume.

How is that a copout. That is standard psychology/sociology. Very few people revel in the concept of being evil/bad/of less worth than those around them, regardless of how their actions are perceived. As society is merely an outgrowth of that, I see no "copout".

You're making it sound as though it's pointless to explore and expose cultural values, because cultures will inevitably valorize their own existence. That's the copout. It's important that we recognize the ways in which specific cultures view themselves in a superior light; but your comment just brushes that all aside by claiming "Well, they'll all claim themselves superior, and that's just the way it is."

 

[Dak]

I think this claim is absurd. I think people would still continue to work even without incentive, and I think our contemporary liberalist ideology instills in us the prospect that without incentive no one would want to work.

Well, "work" is a relatively vague term. Some people enjoy doing something as a hobby that is undesirable work to others. But on a large scale, the "dirty" or "difficult" jobs that must get done will go generally undone on a scale large enough for society to function, and eventually even those who sacrifice to do them will eventually quit when they see advantage taken of the system with impunity. These claims are not absurd, but based on historical observation. The collapse of the socialist collective is inevitable and in short order.

You're valorizing ownership. There's no reason to believe human beings can't exist freely whilst not being the sole possessor the land they're working on.

I am not "valorizing" ownership. Socialism is just as concerned with ownership as any other idealogy. And your second sentence is extremely vague and could be interpreted numerous ways so I would prefer you clarified it.

I see what you're saying; but between the invention of the printing press in the late Middle Ages, and the advent of the information age with radio, television and the internet, I don't think the spread and dissemination of information changed all that much, and there were a plethora of complex thinkers that emerged during that time. Granted, all the intellectuals we recognize today came (for the most part) from an high middle-upper class bourgeois lifestyle; but I think it's fair to say that most of the population didn't share the skeptical atheism of someone like David Hume.

And what happened shortly after the spread of the printing press? An explosion of philosophical works. Coincidence? I think not. As many of the philosophical writers were writing wildly divergent works at similar time frames, it is unlikely they were feeding each other as much as some like to claim, but rather the thoughts that had existed for ages finally had an outlet.

You're making it sound as though it's pointless to explore and expose cultural values, because cultures will inevitably valorize their own existence. That's the copout. It's important that we recognize the ways in which specific cultures view themselves in a superior light; but your comment just brushes that all aside by claiming "Well, they'll all claim themselves superior, and that's just the way it is."

I'm not saying it's pointless, I'm saying there is very little to expose. It's a fairly straightforward psychological/sociological template into which cultural specifics fall into with undeniable consistency.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, "work" is a relatively vague term. Some people enjoy doing something as a hobby that is undesirable work to others. But on a large scale, the "dirty" or "difficult" jobs that must get done will go generally undone on a scale large enough for society to function, and eventually even those who sacrifice to do them will eventually quit when they see advantage taken of the system with impunity. These claims are not absurd, but based on historical observation. The collapse of the socialist collective is inevitable and in short order.

What historical observation, out of curiosity? Because I think most would agree that the Soviet Union, while a catastrophe for collectivist action, did not demonstrate the ideal form of social organization, since a vast majority of wealth was horded by the party, not the people. The Bolshevik Revolution was not a "people's revolution."

I am not "valorizing" ownership. Socialism is just as concerned with ownership as any other idealogy. And your second sentence is extremely vague and could be interpreted numerous ways so I would prefer you clarified it.

You're valorizing complete personal ownership, I should clarify. People can exist in a free society of individuals even if property is owned collectively. Any society made up of individuals, even without political or economic hierarchies, will attempt to prohibit specific action. In a society of collectivist principles, everyone would have a say, everyone would volunteer their opinions. There is no monopoly on power or coercion.

And what happened shortly after the spread of the printing press? An explosion of philosophical works. Coincidence? I think not. As many of the philosophical writers were writing wildly divergent works at similar time frames, it is unlikely they were feeding each other as much as some like to claim, but rather the thoughts that had existed for ages finally had an outlet.

I think you're right, these thoughts had existed for some time; but I don't think a peasant in rural Tuscany believed that God was an implausible hypothesis. It's my belief that the tradition of scholarly philosophy and skepticism, while elitist, did nuture a group of individuals who voiced opinions that were different than those that the majority held. I also disagree that the popular thinkers of the day were not in conversation with each other. Collections of letters, essays, and references to each other in their works suggest otherwise.

I'm not saying it's pointless, I'm saying there is very little to expose. It's a fairly straightforward psychological/sociological template into which cultural specifics fall into with undeniable consistency.

It's fairly straightforward now, perhaps; but our society is immeasurably more complex than it was when the printing press was invented, or even than it was in the nineteenth century. I think there's much more to be exposed than you claim.

Also, I don't want to speak for Cyth, but perhaps he's referencing the definition of private property that Proudhon espoused; the idea that property must be related to use.

A crop grown on a piece of land might be regarded as property; but the land itself, when not in use, is no one's property (I think that's the idea, in a nutshell).

 

[Dak]

What historical observation, out of curiosity? Because I think most would agree that the Soviet Union, while a catastrophe for collectivist action, did not demonstrate the ideal form of social organization, since a vast majority of wealth was horded by the party, not the people. The Bolshevik Revolution was not a "people's revolution."

You obviously didn't read the link I posted earlier about attempts at collective settlements in the US.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/americas_socialist_past.html

If we are going to discuss revolutions, you could have included the American revolution as one that was also not a "people's revolution".

You're valorizing complete personal ownership, I should clarify. People can exist in a free society of individuals even if property is owned collectively. Any society made up of individuals, even without political or economic hierarchies, will attempt to prohibit specific action. In a society of collectivist principles, everyone would have a say, everyone would volunteer their opinions. There is no monopoly on power or coercion.

You are completely ignoring everything I have typed so far on this, not to mention changing the focus. But it's cool you think everyone should have a legal say in how other people live, what they have to do on a daily basis, etc. Very authoritarian of you.

I think you're right, these thoughts had existed for some time; but I don't think a peasant in rural Tuscany believed that God was an implausible hypothesis. It's my belief that the tradition of scholarly philosophy and skepticism, while elitist, did nuture a group of individuals who voiced opinions that were different than those that the majority held. I also disagree that the popular thinkers of the day were not in conversation with each other. Collections of letters, essays, and references to each other in their works suggest otherwise.

I didn't say they weren't in conversation, I am saying that it had much less to do with the explosion of philosophical works than is claimed. If you weren't already *thinking*, why would you even bother conversing with those who were? It would be heresy/traitorous/etc.

It's fairly straightforward now, perhaps; but our society is immeasurably more complex than it was when the printing press was invented, or even than it was in the nineteenth century. I think there's much more to be exposed than you claim.

The details have exploded and the interconnectedness is probably beyond our comprehension, but basic human action has not changed. There is just more stimuli.

Also, I don't want to speak for Cyth, but perhaps he's referencing the definition of private property that Proudhon espoused; the idea that property must be related to use.

A crop grown on a piece of land might be regarded as property; but the land itself, when not in use, is no one's property (I think that's the idea, in a nutshell).

But use is a vague word in itself. A field must lie fallow between plantings. That does not mean it is not "in use". It is merely in a different stage of the growing process. Just like a shirt in my closet is awaiting direct use, when the current one I am wearing is dirty/destroyed. Excluding the possibility I stole the shirt, no on else has any basis for a claim on the shirt I have on standby.

 

[Rick Parry]

Required reading:


Karl Marx

Fredrick Hayek

Ludwig Von Misses

Noam Chomsky

Murray Rothbard

Lew Rockwell

Emma Goldman

John Locke

Pierre Joseph Proudhon

Benjamin Trucker

Leo Tolstoy

Mikhail Bakunin

Henry David Thoreau




Politicians to read about:

Robert Taft

George McGovern

Michael Badnarik

Harry Browne

Ed Clark

Ron Paul

Gary Johnson

Eugene McCarthy

Frank Church

David Walsh

Arthur Vandenberg

Robert La Follette Sr.

Calvin Coolidge

Grover Cleveland

Martin Van Buren

Warren G Harding

Russ Feingold


FYI, I'm a self described Left-Libertarian as you can all tell from my list.

 

[Einherjar86]

You obviously didn't read the link I posted earlier about attempts at collective settlements in the US.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/americas_socialist_past.html

If we are going to discuss revolutions, you could have included the American revolution as one that was also not a "people's revolution".

The American Revolution wasn't a people's revolution. I never said it was. And the link you provided offers all nineteenth century examples at latest, societies that are not comparable to today; and furthermore that periodical (or whatever it is) also has articles about the danger of separating God from government, or something along those lines.

You are completely ignoring everything I have typed so far on this, not to mention changing the focus. But it's cool you think everyone should have a legal say in how other people live, what they have to do on a daily basis, etc. Very authoritarian of you.

You are completely misconstruing the kind of response that would come from a society where people have a direct influence on policy-making. The reason there are laws and regulations on private individual behavior today are due to partisan political intervention, not individual opinion. If you left it up to purely individual opinion, gays would be able to marry, people could use whatever drugs they wanted, and abortions would be a completely rational option. Political intervention and special interest groups poison the well and influence people's opinions through propaganda and advertising. If these decisions were left up to entirely individual choice, our society would be far more liberal than it is. Your connection of collectivism with authoritarianism is entirely flawed and misguided.

I didn't say they weren't in conversation, I am saying that it had much less to do with the explosion of philosophical works than is claimed. If you weren't already *thinking*, why would you even bother conversing with those who were? It would be heresy/traitorous/etc.

The details have exploded and the interconnectedness is probably beyond our comprehension, but basic human action has not changed. There is just more stimuli.

Society has changed, that much is certain; but philosophy/cultural theory/what have you has certainly given a name to the changes that have taken place. Without their input, changes in society/culture would likely go uninterpreted, if not unnoticed.

You seem to be suggesting that the desires or reasons behind "basic human action" are easily unveiled. But I don't think that your simple approach to human cognition is efficient, much less exhaustive. Human action and thought is far more complicated than you're making it.

But use is a vague word in itself. A field must lie fallow between plantings. That does not mean it is not "in use". It is merely in a different stage of the growing process. Just like a shirt in my closet is awaiting direct use, when the current one I am wearing is dirty/destroyed. Excluding the possibility I stole the shirt, no on else has any basis for a claim on the shirt I have on standby.

I suppose this depends on your definition of the word "use." This might poke a hole in your earlier theory of words pointing to specific, objective abstract concepts.

 

[Dak]

The American Revolution wasn't a people's revolution. I never said it was. And the link you provided offers all nineteenth century examples at latest, societies that are not comparable to today; and furthermore that periodical (or whatever it is) also has articles about the danger of separating God from government, or something along those lines.

I don't follow the periodical, it was just a convenient collection of historical examples of attempted collectivism in the US. Many religious groups attemped collectivism, with little success.

You can't just dismiss repeated failings by saying "well that was then/this time is different" etc. That is a copout that get used to defend a wide variety of empirically undefendable choices/positions. I saw it over and over in the Marine Corp. Incidently, the military is highly collectivist, yet not democratic.

Your connection of collectivism with authoritarianism is entirely flawed and misguided.

Not at all, as all the recent discussion has shown. Collectivism is inherently authoritarian. You do not own yourself, yet you partially lay claim to others lives. As I stated earlier, this merely swells the ranks of authority. My position is one of voluntary cooperation and individual rights. Collectivism is one of forced cooperation and rights limited to what the majority of your neighbors feel like at the moment, in short, an attempt to justify mob rule.

You are completely misconstruing the kind of response that would come from a society where people have a direct influence on policy-making. The reason there are laws and regulations on private individual behavior today are due to partisan political intervention, not individual opinion. If you left it up to purely individual opinion, gays would be able to marry, people could use whatever drugs they wanted, and abortions would be a completely rational option. Political intervention and special interest groups poison the well and influence people's opinions through propaganda and advertising. If these decisions were left up to entirely individual choice, our society would be far more liberal than it is.

Way to make my argument for me

Society has changed, that much is certain; but philosophy/cultural theory/what have you has certainly given a name to the changes that have taken place. Without their input, changes in society/culture would likely go uninterpreted, if not unnoticed.

You seem to be suggesting that the desires or reasons behind "basic human action" are easily unveiled. But I don't think that your simple approach to human cognition is efficient, much less exhaustive. Human action and thought is far more complicated than you're making it.

I could understand the exhaustive charge, but not the efficient charge. It's obviously efficient. As I said, human action falls into a basic template, the details are nearly irrelevant. Humans are easily herded and manipulated, and for obvious reason. History repeats itself, for the same reasons. We don't learn from it, and we do the same things over and over............like attempts at forcing everyone to live how we want.

I suppose this depends on your definition of the word "use." This might poke a hole in your earlier theory of words pointing to specific, objective abstract concepts.

No, we just need to enter more specific words as opposed to sticking with a vague one like "use".

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't follow the periodical, it was just a convenient collection of historical examples of attempted collectivism in the US. Many religious groups attemped collectivism, with little success.

You can't just dismiss repeated failings by saying "well that was then/this time is different" etc. That is a copout that get used to defend a wide variety of empirically undefendable choices/positions. I saw it over and over in the Marine Corp. Incidently, the military is highly collectivist, yet not democratic.

It can be used because the nature of society, information, and ideology is very different today than it used to be. There are many examples of collectivist societies that have been successful, including twentieth-century ones; so to simply cite the failures doesn't suffice.

Not at all, as all the recent discussion has shown. Collectivism is inherently authoritarian. You do not own yourself, yet you partially lay claim to others lives. As I stated earlier, this merely swells the ranks of authority. My position is one of voluntary cooperation and individual rights. Collectivism is one of forced cooperation and rights limited to what the majority of your neighbors feel like at the moment, in short, an attempt to justify mob rule.

An equal collectivist operation results in freedom, since each person has a say in everything. In a collective, the actions of every person has an effect on every other person; so there must be an equal opportunity for individuals to comment on and criticize the actions of their peers.

Way to make my argument for me

No, no; you're confusing collectivism with a lack of individual choice. This is not the case, as I'm trying to show. Don't conflate my point with yours.

I could understand the exhaustive charge, but not the efficient charge. It's obviously efficient. As I said, human action falls into a basic template, the details are nearly irrelevant. Humans are easily herded and manipulated, and for obvious reason. History repeats itself, for the same reasons. We don't learn from it, and we do the same things over and over............like attempts at forcing everyone to live how we want.

The details are not "nearly" irrelevant, they are always relevant. The details are how we understand and prove the abtract theory. You cannot simply claim general human action and disregard specifics.

No, we just need to enter more specific words as opposed to sticking with a vague one like "use".

Then offer another term. Personally, I think you simply define use differently. I'd like to see how you frame the argument.


Final note: it's Christmas Eve, why the hell are we talking about this shit?

 

[Dak]

It can be used because the nature of society, information, and ideology is very different today than it used to be. There are many examples of collectivist societies that have been successful, including twentieth-century ones; so to simply cite the failures doesn't suffice.

I would be interested in reading about the successful ones. I have not come across any so far.

An equal collectivist operation results in freedom, since each person has a say in everything. In a collective, the actions of every person has an effect on every other person; so there must be an equal opportunity for individuals to comment on and criticize the actions of their peers.

But this sidesteps the initial mutual contention with both collectivism and "anarchy", which is the inevitable formation of a hierarchy. In the light of that, which idealogical foundation provides any protection to the actual individuals? Not collectivism.

No, no; you're confusing collectivism with a lack of individual choice. This is not the case, as I'm trying to show. Don't conflate my point with yours.

You can't substitute partial control over someone else for lack of control over yourself.

The details are not "nearly" irrelevant, they are always relevant. The details are how we understand and prove the abtract theory. You cannot simply claim general human action and disregard specifics.

They are not disregarded as specifics. They are disregarded as having any affect on events, in opposition to the assumption of the basic template, until proven otherwise.

Then offer another term. Personally, I think you simply define use differently. I'd like to see how you frame the argument.

I offhandedly resort to the "court of superior claim" , absent logically fallacious claims of course (appeal to authority, etc). Otherwise, no one owns anything they are not currently clutching in their hands, which isn't even a clearcut definition of ownership in itself. Principles or ideals of ownership of "things" would require a completely different thread/discussion.

Final note: it's Christmas Eve, why the hell are we talking about this shit?

We don't celebrate that bullshit holiday beyond what extended family niceties require. I would much rather be sharing a beer with you and discuss this stuff . Just don't make me share the beer

 

[Einherjar86]

We don't celebrate that bullshit holiday beyond what extended family niceties require. I would much rather be sharing a beer with you and discuss this stuff . Just don't make me share the beer

In the spirit of Christmas, I would give you a few of my Great Lakes Blackout Stouts.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I'm way behind on this thread, but i realized i needed to get more specific on what i'm interested in learning, so i've been reading the Wikipedia article on the Industrial Revolution for a start.

Meanwhile, i came across an excerpt that i think provides a good rebuttal to Richard's retarded nonsense about governments being pointless institutions that "do nothing but lie, cheat and steal":

Child labour had existed before the Industrial Revolution, but with the increase in population and education it became more visible. Many children were forced to work in relatively bad conditions for much lower pay than their elders, 10-20% of an adult male's wage. Children as young as four were employed. Beatings and long hours were common, with some child coal miners and hurriers working from 4 am until 5 pm. Conditions were dangerous, with some children killed when they dozed off and fell into the path of the carts, while others died from gas explosions. Many children developed lung cancer and other diseases and died before the age of 25.

Workhouses would sell orphans and abandoned children as "pauper apprentices", working without wages for board and lodging. Those who ran away would be whipped and returned to their masters, with some masters shackling them to prevent escape. Children employed as mule scavenger by cotton mills would crawl under machinery to pick up cotton, working 14 hours a day, six days a week. Some lost hands or limbs, others were crushed under the machines, and some were decapitated. Young girls worked at match factories, where phosphorus fumes would cause many to develop phossy jaw. Children employed at glassworks were regularly burned and blinded, and those working at potteries were vulnerable to poisonous clay dust.

Reports were written detailing some of the abuses, particularly in the coal mines and textile factories and these helped to popularise the children's plight. The public outcry, especially among the upper and middle classes, helped stir change in the young workers' welfare.

Politicians and the government tried to limit child labour by law, but factory owners resisted; some felt that they were aiding the poor by giving their children money to buy food to avoid starvation, and others simply welcomed the cheap labour. In 1833 and 1844, the first general laws against child labour, the Factory Acts, were passed in England: Children younger than nine were not allowed to work, children were not permitted to work at night, and the work day of youth under the age of 18 was limited to twelve hours.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Also, Dak & Pat: if you guys drive everyone away from this thread by clogging it with pages of your endless nitpicky debates, i'm gonna be pissed.

 

[King Richard]

Alright man, don't call my opinion retarded unless you want me to get all worked up and unless the fury.

You need to read up some more on history, especially about our own government. I could write books, hundreds of them, on the greed and corruption that came to light in this past decade alone. That doesn't include all of the crazy shit that happened for HUNDREDS of years prior to that. And that's just our government.

I will admit that I was wrong to say that the only thing governments do is lie, cheat, and steal. I left out a word. The only thing they do good is lie, cheat, and steal.

edit: Btw, I'm confused as to how that piece (article?) you posted refutes anything I said. So the British government raised the child labor age from four to nine, big fucking deal. Are nine year olds not considered children anymore? And does that make up for the fact that they allowed that to happen in the first place? What did they do for the families that were fucked by the assholes who enslaved those children? Probably nothing huh? question mark

 

[Einherjar86]

I have decided that i want to study these topics in my free time. Anyone here who studied either in school should explain some of it and send linx to boox plz.

Uh, discuss i guess?

I don't know much about this shit, but one thing i'm interested in finding out is how much of the increased cost of living in recent history is due to scarcity of resources as opposed to political/business inefficiencies. Also want to see if there is any historical legitimacy in the Republican and Democrat agendas in terms of what effect their platform policies have had in the past.

I'm way behind on this thread, but i realized i needed to get more specific on what i'm interested in learning, so i've been reading the Wikipedia article on the Industrial Revolution for a start.

Meanwhile, i came across an excerpt that i think provides a good rebuttal to Richard's retarded nonsense about governments being pointless institutions that "do nothing but lie, cheat and steal":

Ever since the Industrial Revolution, however, the collusion between government and big business has been apparent; which makes your initial question about cost of living being influenced by minimal resources or government intervention even more interesting.

I'm ignorant as to the actual amount of raw materials and resources; but regardless of the numbers, companies and government both definitely have a say in how commodities are regulated.

I'm interested to know more about private influence on the creation of child labor laws. I don't believe that private enterprises or companies had nothing to gain by the institution of those regulations. The era typically termed "progressive" in this country was actually nothing but an opportunity for large corporations and the government to increase their stranglehold.

Also, Dak & Pat: if you guys drive everyone away from this thread by clogging it with pages of your endless nitpicky debates, i'm gonna be pissed.

That's fair, and I actually feel bad about this thread; our discussion went off on a tangent because of something Dak said earlier about Chomsky.

 

[Dak]

Richard is right, child labor in mines was a symptom of a problem, and making laws to address symptoms merely forces symptoms to manifest themselves in other ways.

 

[King Richard]

Which is exactly what Ron Paul has been preaching for years. Stop focusing on the symptoms and the disease and try and understand the cause and eliminate that.

Btw, am I the only one who finds it very peculiar that Afghanistan is the worlds largest opium producer in the world? Over 90% of the worlds supply of opium is grown in Afghanistan. And opium cultivation in Afghanistan has grown significantly with the arrival of the United States in the country, much more so than any other time under Taliban rule. Also, Afghanistan is the largest producer of cannabis in the world as well.

So we invade Iraq because of WMD's which there were none and Iraq just happens to be one of the largest suppliers of oil in the world. And we invade Afghanistan on the hunt for "terrorists" and Bin Laden and just so happen to stumble upon the world's largest supplier of opiates and cannabis. Gee, I wonder if there were any ulterior motives to invading these countries guys? $$$$$$ /liecheatsteal

 

[Rick Parry]

Also check out the Zeitgeist movies while your at it.


http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

The zeitgeist movies are shit. Almost made me ashamed of being an atheist.

 

[Rick Parry]

They are some of the greatest documentaries out there explain the lies of the United States government. Think about that muthafucker scumbag named Nicholas Rockefeller that ploted the murder of Aaron Russo. They should be required watching in school, especially the Moving Forward film. Are you one of those DUers that think Zeitgeist is right wing conspiracy crap or some Alex Jones fanboi that believes Zeitgeist is part of the Illuminati.