Deleted
Joined: Jun 16, 2024 16:36:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2013 15:06:48 GMT -5
I'm as Floridian as Ponce de Leon Explain to me how "accept my authority to limit your freedoms, or be exposed to gangs and tyrants and bears, O my" isn't a threat, and I'll endeavor to see how you're not perpetrating a fallacy. In fact, explain to me how the State can reserve to itself the right to execute me for a crime it falsely believes I committed, but doesn't hold a gun to my head.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2013 15:07:35 GMT -5
What entertains me about this is the incoherence of a position that holds your blameless neighbor responsible in potentia for the most monstrous crimes, unless he actively petitions you for the power to perpetrate them with impunity as a guardian of this nebulous and implicit social contract, whereupon he magically becomes trustworthy. the hyperbole used on both ends of this analogy forbids further comment.Because if he isn't trustworthy as the maker of Law, then the Law is no protection from your neighbor; and if he isn't a threat to your prosperity as a fellow citizen, then there is nothing against which the Law need protect you. i have no need to trust people i elect, nor interest in doing so. if they fail to do what they say, i can vote them out (using "i" in the rhetorical, royal sense, here). you are also conflating individuals with institutions, here. this is like saying that since i would not trust Trent Lott with my teenage daughter, i cannot trust the public school system with my teenage daughter. one has little or nothing to do with the other.Juvenal's satirical enquiry, echoed by the scholarly Alan Moore, remains in wait of a satisfactory answer. not familiar with it. but please, i have enough on my plate today.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2013 15:15:40 GMT -5
I'm as Floridian as Ponce de Leon Explain to me how "accept my authority to limit your freedoms, or be exposed to gangs and tyrants and bears, O my" isn't a threat, and I'll endeavor to see how you're not perpetrating a fallacy. in the word "accept". it is a toothless word. the social contract does not say "our leaders should force us to accept their authority in order to defend us against X" as you and Paul claim. rather, it is more like "we empower our leaders, through our consent, to work on our behalf, including providing law enforcement, to protect the greatest and least among us against varying threats. if they fail to do so, then we shall appoint someone else in their stead that will". but seriously, the alternative is totally untenable, as well, unless you are a hopeless romantic for civil anarchy, like Paul and Chomsky.In fact, explain to me how the State can reserve to itself the right to execute me for a crime it falsely believes I committed, but doesn't hold a gun to my head. i don't believe the state should have that right. so you are barking up the wrong tree.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 16, 2024 16:36:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2013 15:33:36 GMT -5
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - But who shall watch the watchmen?
dj, as a purveyor of flowery verbiage, I am confident that there is no practical difference between "do as I tell you or terrible things will happen" and a threat, however wordy you get about the things either side of the 'or' that makes it an ultimatum.
Our leaders have the power. Can we really take it from them? Have you tried? Do the words Ruby Ridge mean anything to you?
Is it, in fact, our consent that empowers them, or their ability to deploy the legitimized violence of the police power against our objections? Is not the substance of their power in fact their ability to overmaster our attempts to gainsay their decisions?
And are the threats against which we are protected so much worse than the threat of arbitrary disenfranchisement, disassociation, discommodation, silencing, penury, and termination which are the explicit threat of our benevolent government against any of us who, like Anwar al-Awlaki, speak out against it? Are they even as real?
Further, and to advance a Stevensonian argument from the Sinking Ship, is there really a difference between being shot to death and sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole? Or is that another right you don't believe the State should have, in which case what protection is it from monsters like Ted Bundy (a monster who operated, last time I read the case file, in a community under a social contract)?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2013 15:41:57 GMT -5
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - But who shall watch the watchmen?
in a representative government, WE do, and the judiciary does.
dj, as a purveyor of flowery verbiage, I am confident that there is no practical difference between "do as I tell you or terrible things will happen" and a threat, however wordy you get about the things either side of the 'or' that makes it an ultimatum.
i think you mistook me. what i was saying is that the implication of your statement is not how it works. so it really doesn't matter if it is a threat or not. it is not a power that the government has, in the abstract. you are arguing that there is no practical difference between law and despotism. that might be true, depending on the law, and depending on the despot. but it is actually not relevant to the social contract in the case of the US, since we are not under despotic rule, despite what they might say on FOX.
Our leaders have the power. Can we really take it from them?
yes.
Have you tried?
yep. every year.
Do the words Ruby Ridge mean anything to you?
do you read any threads? i mentioned them either today or yesterday.
Is it, in fact, our consent that empowers them, or their ability to deploy the legitimized violence of the police power against our objections? Is not the substance of their power in fact their ability to overmaster our attempts to gainsay their decisions?
we have the right to challenge that, according to the constitution.
And are the threats against which we are protected so much worse than the threat of arbitrary disenfranchisement, disassociation, discommodation, silencing, penury, and termination which are the explicit threat of our benevolent government against any of us who, like Anwar al-Awlaki, speak out against it? Are they even as real?
Further, and to advance a Stevensonian argument from the Sinking Ship, is there really a difference between being shot to death and sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole?
of course there is. the possibility of exoneration. 100+ people have been freed by DNA evidence alone in the last (20) years.
Or is that another right you don't believe the State should have, in which case what protection is it from monsters like Ted Bundy (a monster who operated, last time I read the case file, in a community under a social contract)? LWOPP is just that, since the DP was reinstated. no person has ever been released or has escaped with that sentence, UNLESS it was overturned, as i specified above.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 16, 2024 16:36:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2013 15:44:31 GMT -5
It's telling that there was a question there that you didn't answer. Beyond that, I find your arguments as unpersuasive as you find mine. Pray neither of us is ever in a position to shape the contract that binds the other
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 16, 2024 16:36:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2013 15:46:07 GMT -5
I wonder which contributors to this thread have read Kafka's The Trial...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2013 15:51:03 GMT -5
It's telling that there was a question there that you didn't answer. not in the way you think. i was saving it for a separate post. i find your impatience in this respect odd, given the long intervals between posts, typically. but whatever: And are the threats against which we are protected so much worse than the threat of arbitrary disenfranchisement, disassociation, discommodation, silencing, penury, and termination which are the explicit threat of our benevolent government against any of us who, like Anwar al-Awlaki, speak out against it? Are they even as real? they are far more real. i don't believe in the bogeyman, either, if you are wondering.
but i don't have to fight my government with guns. i have the courts.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 16, 2024 16:36:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2013 15:59:04 GMT -5
Not at all. I could wait for your evasions all day. The fundamental inconsistencies of your 'argument' here are hilarious. Let us suppose your government sends its agents to remove you from your home and family, citing a nebulous National Security concern. You have consented to their having this right. Let us suppose you protest your innocence. Let us suppose they respond by clubbing you in the mouth with a length of rubber hose. Let us suppose you tell them, somewhat indistinctly, that they are in breach of the social contract. I imagine at this point they release you back to your life, and pay you recompense. No? *** But your government would do none of these things, right? And you have whose assurance of this? Your government, you say? Ever heard that Al Wilson song about the snake?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 24, 2013 16:04:21 GMT -5
That's a big bunch of hooey. And it's not an intellectual argument- it's a threat. It's the old protection racket language yet again. EDIT- this is important- nevermind the ominous predictions of what "might" happen without the "social contract". Make the intellectual argument for government. I'll tell you what- you can't. I know where the argument for government comes from, and none of you lefties are gonna wanna go there. There's really no moral, or intellectual underpinning for government. What you call a threat, I see as having a realistic view of human nature. My realistic view of human nature is why government cannot be trusted. If none of us is capable of governing ourselves, who is capable of governing others? My entire point in this thread is simply that government is just a bigger, better armed group of thugs than the smaller bands of thieves and pirates we'd otherwise have to deal with.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2013 16:04:59 GMT -5
Not at all. I could wait for your evasions all day. really? answering every one of your questions within (15) minutes is evasive? spoiled much?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2013 16:12:11 GMT -5
Not at all. I could wait for your evasions all day. The fundamental inconsistencies of your 'argument' here are hilarious. har har. glad i can amuse you.Let us suppose your government sends its agents to remove you from your home and family, citing a nebulous National Security concern. You have consented to their having this right. no. i have consented to rights that are enshrined in the constitution. that includes the right to challenge their authority on that basis. you are ignoring that fact, repeatedly, and thus failing to recognize my position as internally consistent.Let us suppose you protest your innocence. Let us suppose they respond by clubbing you in the mouth with a length of rubber hose. let us suppose i take them to court and sue them for $100M, and build myself a castle in Florida across from Paul's house.Let us suppose you tell them, somewhat indistinctly, that they are in breach of the social contract. if they are acting unlawfully, they are by definition acting NOT in accordance with the social contract. likewise, if i shoot some random person, and he dies, i am ALSO acting unlawfully, and would expect the state to come down on me, and deprive me of that "right". the right do something is not because "i say so", no matter who says it. it is ONLY "so" when it survives a court challenge. is this to say that no unjust law has ever survived the courts? NO. it is NOT to say that. but ones as blatantly silly as yours would scarcely need a challenge. even the THREAT of a challenge would result in massive cowering before the law.I imagine at this point they release you back to your life, and pay you recompense. No? *** But your government would do none of these things, right? if you are expecting me to say "yes", then you don't know me very well. the government periodically acts lawlessly.And you have whose assurance of this? Your government, you say? see, i know you are not reading my posts now. i already said i have no reason to trust the government.Ever heard that Al Wilson song about the snake? i have heard more songs than most posters.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2013 16:15:07 GMT -5
Mojo- this dialog did point out something really important to me. a SCOTUS packed with despots would be the end of the republic, imo.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 24, 2013 16:16:32 GMT -5
Paul sees your perspective as parasitism. I'm about half way between you and him. You're definitely not "100% for self-reliance". Unless you decline police, banks, firefighters, sidewalks, schools, and technology standards, you by no means desire 100% self-reliance. Self-reliance means you're exclusively reliant on the self for your needs. It doesn't mean that you can [more than] compensate others or [more than] compensate society for services rendered. In short, it isn't a "net" phenomenon. I do understand that you want to be a net contributor--and as great of one as you can be. Mercy, what a good laugh. The image just popped into my mind: DJ with giant wings taped to his arms, standing on the edge of a cliff with Mojo. Mojo says, "Only birds can fly like that. Can men really fly like that too?" DJ replies, "Yes." "Have you tried?" "Yep. Every year." Charging toward the edge of the cliff, taking a mighty leap, DJ cries, "I'm freeeeee---aiiiiiieeeeEEEEEEEEEE!" And shortly thereafter is heard: *thump* *thump* *CRACK* *thubba-thubba-thubba-thubba* *BAM!* Just then, DJ's personal surgeon shows up in his Rolls. As he sets off carting a gurney down the trail leading to the bottom of the gorge, his voice is heard faintly on the wind: "DJ, my boy, you're putting my kids through college!"
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2013 16:17:47 GMT -5
What you call a threat, I see as having a realistic view of human nature. My realistic view of human nature is why government cannot be trusted. If none of us is capable of governing ourselves, who is capable of governing others? My entire point in this thread is simply that government is just a bigger, better armed group of thugs than the smaller bands of thieves and pirates we'd otherwise have to deal with. disarming the government would be a great first step.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2013 16:19:00 GMT -5
Paul sees your perspective as parasitism. really? in what way is my position parasitic? please explain it to me. take as much time and detail as you like, but leave out the math.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 16, 2024 16:36:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2013 16:19:32 GMT -5
I'm not ignoring your right to challenge your government, dj. That's why your teeth are all over your shoes in that example. You asserted that right. Bravo. What on earth makes you think the government that would brutalize you would first afford you due process? How do you get to a court? Who do you think authorized your disappearance?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2013 16:20:42 GMT -5
You're definitely not "100% for self-reliance". Unless you decline police, banks, firefighters, sidewalks, schools, and technology standards, you by no means desire 100% self-reliance. Self-reliance means you're exclusively reliant on the self for your needs. It doesn't mean that you can [more than] compensate others or [more than] compensate society for services rendered. In short, it isn't a "net" phenomenon. no, that is absolutely false. i will challenge you to consider WHY it is false.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Sept 24, 2013 16:23:32 GMT -5
What you call a threat, I see as having a realistic view of human nature. My realistic view of human nature is why government cannot be trusted. If none of us is capable of governing ourselves, who is capable of governing others? My entire point in this thread is simply that government is just a bigger, better armed group of thugs than the smaller bands of thieves and pirates we'd otherwise have to deal with. To a certain extent, I can see your point. This is one reason why our founding fathers set up the government with a separation of powers, and one reason why all of us should keep a close eye on what government is doing. But even with our government's faults, I still feel safer her than I would in Somolia.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2013 16:25:55 GMT -5
I'm not ignoring your right to challenge your government, dj. That's why your teeth are all over your shoes in that example. You asserted that right. Bravo. after i get my $100M, hopefully they won't be so disrespectful of my rights.What on earth makes you think the government that would brutalize you would first afford you due process? this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cases_of_police_brutality_in_the_United_States looks like $10-20M is more average. but i will aim high.
How do you get to a court? Who do you think authorized your disappearance? you are moving the goalposts all the way to Guatemala.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 24, 2013 16:27:02 GMT -5
Paul sees your perspective as parasitism. really? in what way is my position parasitic? please explain it to me. take as much time and detail as you like, but leave out the math. You support a breadth of government programs than Paul does not. Paul sees government largely as a wealth transfer engine from the haves (who "have" because they're useful, industrious, intelligent, creative, and productive) to the have-nots (who "do not have" because they're useless, lazy, stupid, uninspired, and/or unproductive). A relationship between two organisms in which one organism derives all the benefit to the detriment of the other is parasitism. Ergo in Paul's world your position is parasitic. Or more accurately, your position is more parasitic than his. Because you don't define 100% self-reliance as 100% reliance on the self? Or are you sticking on the difference between "100% for self-reliance" and "for 100% self-reliance". What would it mean if you were "85% for self-reliance"? Would this not mean you found self-reliance was best for 85% of one's needs, and not best for 15% of one's needs?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2013 16:27:46 GMT -5
My realistic view of human nature is why government cannot be trusted. If none of us is capable of governing ourselves, who is capable of governing others? My entire point in this thread is simply that government is just a bigger, better armed group of thugs than the smaller bands of thieves and pirates we'd otherwise have to deal with. To a certain extent, I can see your point. This is one reason why our founding fathers set up the government with a separation of powers, and one reason why all of us should keep a close eye on what government is doing. But even with our government's faults, I still feel safer her than I would in Somolia. there are about 100 countries that you could name that have worse social contracts than this one. and there are several dozen that have better ones. anyone with $1,000 and a passport can go shopping for one they like.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2013 16:30:29 GMT -5
really? in what way is my position parasitic? please explain it to me. take as much time and detail as you like, but leave out the math. You support a breadth of government programs than Paul does not. correct. and Paul supports a breadth of government programs that i do not. we BOTH pay more than we take. so, what gives him, you, or anyone else the right/grounds to call ME parasitic?Paul sees government largely as a wealth transfer engine from the haves (who "have" because they're useful, industrious, intelligent, creative, and productive) to the have-nots (who "do not have" because they're useless, lazy, stupid, uninspired, and/or unproductive). A relationship between two organisms in which one organism derives all the benefit to the detriment of the other is parasitism. Ergo in Paul's world your position is parasitic. Or more accurately, your position is more parasitic than his. bullcrap. our positions on government size are identical, and we both pay more than we take.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 24, 2013 16:36:52 GMT -5
I'm not calling you parasitic.
I've stated that Paul finds your position (on government, in this thread) conducive to parasitism. He can correct me if I'm mischaracterizing his views, but they seem pretty straightforward to me.
As for whether he supports a breadth of government programs that you do not, I'll let him speak to that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2013 16:46:59 GMT -5
I'm not calling you parasitic. note- i made a list there, Virgil. it included ANYONE. so, the correct reply, if you were looking to deny it was: nobody is calling you a parasite.I've stated that Paul finds your position (on government, in this thread) conducive to parasitism. if so, then so is his, since he supports approximately the same amount of government that i do (as far as i can tell).He can correct me if I'm mischaracterizing his views, but they seem pretty straightforward to me. As for whether he supports a breadth of government programs that you do not, I'll let him speak to that. why? don't trust me? we both want a significantly smaller, less intrusive government. i will let him put numbers on how much smaller. i doubt that they are smaller than what i want, but i welcome the comparison.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2013 16:51:19 GMT -5
Because you don't define 100% self-reliance as 100% reliance on the self? ok, guessing is not your forte.Or are you sticking on the difference between "100% for self-reliance" and "for 100% self-reliance". What would it mean if you were "85% for self-reliance"? Would this not mean you found self-reliance was best for 85% of one's needs, and not best for 15% of one's needs? nope. let me ask you two questions that will help sort it out: 1) do you believe in charity of any sort? 2) if so, do you think it fosters dependence?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2013 17:15:44 GMT -5
Mercy, what a good laugh. The image just popped into my mind: DJ with giant wings taped to his arms, standing on the edge of a cliff with Mojo. Mojo says, "Only birds can fly like that. Can men really fly like that too?" DJ replies, "Yes." "Have you tried?" "Yep. Every year." really strange analogy. but if you expect to fly every time you vote, that explains a lot. Virgil- that was a tongue in cheek reply. surely you knew that. right?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 24, 2013 17:21:11 GMT -5
Because you don't define 100% self-reliance as 100% reliance on the self? ok, guessing is not your forte.Or are you sticking on the difference between "100% for self-reliance" and "for 100% self-reliance". What would it mean if you were "85% for self-reliance"? Would this not mean you found self-reliance was best for 85% of one's needs, and not best for 15% of one's needs? nope. let me ask you two questions that will help sort it out: 1) do you believe in charity of any sort? 2) if so, do you think it fosters dependence? "Yes", and "sometimes", respectively. You'll have to give me more than that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2013 17:31:06 GMT -5
nope. let me ask you two questions that will help sort it out: 1) do you believe in charity of any sort? 2) if so, do you think it fosters dependence? "Yes", and "sometimes", respectively. You'll have to give me more than that. of course. in the "sometimes" cases- is it DESIGNED to do that, or does it just sorta happen on accident?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 16, 2024 16:36:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2013 17:37:34 GMT -5
Millennia ago, the "social contract" was "tribal".
"We" banded together to prevent "Them" from wiping "Us" off the face of the earth... and stealing "our" stuff.
|
|