13

Going Galt virtually

Posted by jack1776 8 months ago to Politics
50 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

It has become painfully obvious to me that we are no longer in control of our government. The government uses the monetary system as a means of control as the value of the money has no meaning when they print more of it as needed. I come to this obvious conclusion due to the fact that the government creates an order of magnitude more money than it collects in taxes. Why collect taxes at all, the government can just devalue the money we have to pay its bills. They collect taxes to keep us under control, running on the hamster wheel of life. With this money they create, they are using it to weaken us, the money to Ukraine, the money handed to countries that wish us ill.

Has anyone contemplated a modern-day version of “Going Galt” and what it would look like? I think something like this is necessary in response to a stolen election this November.

Objectives should include:
- Not participating through withholding your production from the government.
- Not participating by sequestering your wealth from the government
- Build an alternative economy, producing goods and services within.
- Securing our autonomy from the government.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by term2 8 months ago
    One thing that is easiest to do is withholding ones purchases at least 10%. Most people waste at least 10% of their income on things they don't really need. That would cut sales tax expense by 10% right there. Not trying so hard to increase income would also cut income tax expense. Not buying that new car until absolutely necessary custs sales taxes and registration fees. Forget that expensive electric car- just drive 10% less to cut the cost of fuel.

    If everyone cut their expenses by 10% to help cut government intake, it would mean they have less money with which to control us.

    Another thing is to stop hiring companies to do work for us whenever possible. Deal with individuals through craigs list and offer up and pay with cash whenever practical.

    Call it passive resistance in preparation for active resistance later when the government is less
    powerful. No one can object to cutting expenses
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by nonconformist 8 months ago
    You were never in control of your government. They only made it look like you were. These parasites were in control ever since the age of warlords and raiders. Over time they developed more advanced methods of control (such as brainwashing). It is just that sometimes they fuck up and are unable to maintain the illusion.

    By the way, taxes are armed robbery / extortion under the threat of death or imprisonment. Nobody can reasonably claim you have to pay them for their 'services' they 'provide' by force from which you cannot opt out, or opt to purchase from a competitor (because they outlawed competition, lol). What a bunch of fucking thugs.

    Money printing is theft.

    The only way to get rid of these parasites is to trick them into killing each other.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CrustyOldGeezer 8 months ago
      The PEOPLE actually still had some control until the creation of the FEDERAL RESERVE and going off the Gold Standard, then dumping the Silver Standard as well.

      The expense of printing a one dollar bill is, oddly, EXACTLY THE SAME COST AS PRINTING A $5, OR A $10, OR A $20, OR A $... (you get the message)

      Minting a GOLD or SILVER Coin has actual expense relative to the VALUE of the currency.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CaptainKirk 8 months ago
      My Russian friends have always said:
      Capitalism is a form of serfdom where they allow some people up to the second tier for improving the lots of those below them.

      But at no point will those people become 1st tier. Because that tier is the same as it always has been. You can hang out with them. But you are in a CASTE system.

      It's quite genius...

      I cried a little!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • 11
        Posted by 8 months ago
        I listen to people that decry capitalism for various reasons, the intelligent ones never provide an alternative because they know there isn’t one. Laissez-faire capitalism has done more positive for humanity than any other economic philosophy in history.

        “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

        This is embodied in Ayn Rand’s quote above, with every other economic philosophy, you are subject to living your life for another. Sorry for loading the first paragraph but I truly think laissez-faire capitalism is he only solution that allow man to thrive, please enlighten me if I’m wrong.

        P.S. we don’t have laissez-faire capitalism, we have socialism heading to something no one wants.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by nonconformist 8 months ago
          My two cents:

          Capitalism is a bad term. It was coined by Karl Marx as I understand, and he meant it as an antisemitic insult. A better term would be 'free market'.

          People who decry 'free market' are brainwashed by the state to think that free market is that which creates whatever problem they are complaining about. In reality, the problem was actually created by the state, but the state redirected the blame from itself by using psychological tricks and such.

          Example 1: corporations buy up single family houses and driving up prices for private individuals. The problem here is not 'free market' but creation of money out of nothing (money printing) facilitated by the state, where corporations may have unfair advantage (vs private individuals). So, the state allows fraud to happen (money printing) and prevents other security services from existing that may possibly stop this fraud. You see, 'free market' didn't cause this problem.

          Example 2: monopolies supposedly are 'free market' problem. However, these are not created by the free market but by unreasonable state-invented/enforced rules. The state grants monopolies on 'intellectual property'. Too big to fail? FINRA. Etc. Monopolies are state-created problems, or more accurately, something that is a result of violence or fraud.

          Even if you don't have socialism and you have absolute 'free market', it is still not going to be 'free' if there is a state that imposes improper made up arbitrary rules on it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CaptainKirk 8 months ago
            Any control point. When farmers were rich, we got DEATH TAXES. Owed based on the value of the farm. How nice.
            The laws are construed to TAKE from the masses.
            See the book. The Great Taking.
            We are living it, right now.

            Totally agree with the core of your arguments.

            BTW, #1) after buying up the single family homes, they then PRESSURE the counties to decrease their property taxes, and increase them on non-entities. (The way I would prevent this is the exact opposite. I would make it like Florida. Where you DO NOT get a homestead reduction in taxes if you are a corporation. You pay more, real people pay less).
            Watch them push to change that!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by nonconformist 8 months ago
              You still have the statist mindset. I would decrease violence (get rid of taxes and money printing). We need sound money and strictly voluntary interactions (except in self defense). If they can't print money, they wouldn't be able to do much. If there is no tax allowed then they can't mess with the rates.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by CaptainKirk 8 months ago
          Exactly Right. We started out with some capitalism and it made a few people so wealthy, they quickly were tapped on the shoulders by the Rothschilds to take control of our banking system.

          There is NO better system. Unfortunately you can control it by controlling money and taxes.
          Income tax is slavery. And it's graduated which should be a problem for our constitution... But, hey... Whatevs.

          We created Obese Poor People. You don't get more successful than that! (Health, Fit, Poor People not needing T2D drugs, but shhhh)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by nonconformist 8 months ago
            "There is NO better system."

            I disagree, a better system is no state, anarcho-capitalism / agorism / etc.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by CaptainKirk 8 months ago
              That's how it starts out. Then it degrades due to the optimization impacts of centralizing some decisions and not bothering everyone over every little detail.

              IMO, that argument is the "Real Communism has never been tried", applied to "anarcho-capitalism".
              Where is it? I think the Amish are the closest living towards the ideal?

              When you can never find something in the wild (working communism), there is usually a reason.

              That reason is MOSTLY that people are flawed, and untrustworthy. And they only get worse when given power over others!

              Again, just my opinion.

              So, I will rephrase.
              "I've never seen a better system" (than laissez-faire capitalism)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by nonconformist 8 months ago
                I agree that it degrades, but for a different reason. My understanding is that predation (violence/fraud) tends to increase in society unless some forces act on it to decrease it. It is the reason for the disintegration, not centralization of decisions. Unless if by 'centralization of decisions' you mean take my personal sovereignty by force and give it to a central authority, in which case that's just predation.

                When society starts out, everyone is playing fair. Eventually, so much wealth is generated that it becomes easier to steal than to produce. So, actors spawn that switch to predation. Predation breeds predation, so eventually mostly everyone steals. The cycle returns back to the beginning when everything is stolen, spent and all the predatory actors fight it over the remaining scraps. Society disintegrates. The cycle repeats. At least that is one possible solution to this system of differential equations. Another solution is when some dampening occurs and society becomes stuck mid way, everyone being poor as dirt, barely surviving, half-stealing their way through life.

                The question is, how do we create a force that opposes the occurrence of predation in the beginning? That is a question that I have not yet found an answer to.

                The 'laissez-faire capitalism' ('free market' under control of the state) will also fall apart or stagnate when subject to predatory forces. It will probably do it quicker because the state is a predator.

                "they only get worse when given power over others!"
                Ya no shit, predation (power over others) is evil. How can you expect evil to beget good? Maybe you guys should listen to me when I propose getting rid of the state (centralized control?).
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 8 months ago
                  Regarding your comment: “'laissez-faire capitalism' ('free market' under control of the state) “

                  Definition:
                  Laissez-faire capitalism is a form of free-market capitalism that opposes government intervention in economic affairs123. It is based on the principles of private ownership, competition, free trade, self-reliance, and self-interest4. It also implies a separation of economics and state, similar to the separation of religion and state5. Laissez-faire capitalism is considered to foster innovation and productivity, as businesses are free to compete with one another.

                  Laissez-faire capitalism is not under the control of the state, hence the laissez-faire, which translates from French as literally ‘allow to do’.

                  We need some limited government to control litigation, constitutional rights, natural law, and protect personal property but that is about it. Without some form of government, we would descend into Mad Max beyond Thunderdome quickly. Ayn Rand had some very solid opinions on Libertarianism and by extension communism, socialism, and anarchy. We must have a way to protect personal property and liberty for a society to thrive.

                  “All kinds of people today call themselves ‘libertarians,’ especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies who are anarchists instead of leftist collectivists; but anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That’s worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement.” – Ayn Rand

                  I think she nails the argument here…
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by nonconformist 8 months ago
                    "We need some limited government"

                    Allow me to attempt to destroy your statement with my limited ability to think logically.

                    I have arrived at a conclusion (based on logic) that the only correct way to have laws is to derive them by logic from basic universally accepted principles. The laws/rules that government (the state) create sometimes match the the logical laws but most of the time they are utter garbage. For example, if I imagine myself stealing, government punishment is not what is on my mind. What is on my mind is a guilty feeling about what the victim may think of me when they find out (maybe they will want to kill me). This is a demonstration of how laws are not a result of government decree. In fact, I am going to go so far as to claim that the only way to have laws is to derive them scientifically/academically/etc. Laws are not something optional or something that can be compromised on with voting/etc. They are constant, universal, and eternal. So, we don't need the state to have laws.

                    I have also arrived at the conclusion (based on logic) that monopolies cannot be maintained without violence. Therefore, monopolies are a violation the 'logical laws'. The state is a monopoly on providing security services ("control litigation", "protect personal property") within some geographical area. This monopoly is maintained by the state itself. If there was another organization that would compete with them, the state will destroy it by force. This is a violation of the logical laws from above.

                    So, we DON'T need limited government. What we need is security services. We don't need them to be a monopoly, and we don't need them to make up laws, that can be done by anybody that can do math. We need a security service that enforces laws that have been proven to exist. If a security service goes off the rails and starts enforcing laws that are not real, its customers would stop paying them and other security services would come in and put them down.

                    "Without some form of government, we would descend into Mad Max beyond Thunderdome quickly."
                    Unfortunately, this is statist propaganda.
                    1. It sounds exactly what a state would say to try to defend its ability to rape and pillage. It is like having a thief claim you need him to guard your house, when in reality all he is doing is providing himself with the opportunity to rob you.
                    2. Laws don't need a state to exist.
                    3. Monopoly of security service is not required to have security service provided to you.

                    Regarding the quote from Ayn Rand: She is wrong.
                    "anarchists are collectivists" -- nope, that is wrong. Those are different things entirely, apples and oranges. Also, these are not mutually exclusive things.
                    I can only assume that she defines anarchism in some different way then the widely accepted one.

                    From DuckDuckGo:
                    "anarchism /ăn′ər-kĭz″əm/
                    noun
                    1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
                    2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
                    3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority."

                    There is nothing there about collectivism. Please do explain to me where I am going wrong with my logic. Her argument (that you say she nails) makes zero sense to me. The only thing I can come up with is that you guys are failing to see that the state is not required to have laws and security.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by freedomforall 8 months ago
                    Perhaps Rand was just trying to get more libertarians to be objectivists? [/s]
                    I agree with her first comment. Lots of people pretend to be libertarians and maybe she was seeing the future of the libertarian 'movement.' She certainly saw the co-opting and castration of the Libertarian party by elements of the Deep State.
                    But that co-opting doesn't make the libertarian 'movement' wrong any more than the objectivist 'movement' after Rand's death.
                    I agree with your comment on a very limited 'government' being needed to provide an alternative to force in disagreements,
                    but every time that has been done it has devolved into corrupted central power. Like communism, maybe its time to stop
                    pretending that a little tinkering will fix 'government' and try a different path.
                    Could that path be a 'free market' alternative as partially described by David Friedman in The Machinery of Freedom ?
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mac...
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 8 months ago
                      "Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism" - Rand is clear, she doesn't mince words. We don't have to agree with Ayn Rand but in this case, she is clear, and I do agree with her statements on this fact.

                      Anarchism is dangerous to a free people; it isn’t survival of the fittest but survival of the most ruthless and strongest. In a true anything goes society, what would keep me from assassinating any competitors before they became strong enough to challenge me? Why not just cut to the chase and assume ownership of their property before they have the ability to even become stronger. Then I can tax them, repress them, enslave them and making them live their life for me. Sounds like we have another unelected government, a dictator but I thought it was Anarchism. Let me tell you, as soon as the government is gone, there will be nearly 50 of the population that switches to this mode. It will be chaos; it will be anarchy.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by freedomforall 8 months ago
                        Government doesn't work to solve the problems it is (supposedly) intended to solve.
                        Repeating the same failed action is the definition of insanity.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 8 months ago
                          Agreed, our founding fathers never intended a federal government like we have today. We need an extremally limited government, bound be a constitution with fewer holes.

                          Anarchism is the lack of government which leads to, well, anarchy.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by nonconformist 8 months ago
                            I believe what you are saying is a common statist propaganda, twisted meaning of words that leads to confusion and "anarchy" in one's brain.

                            By 'anarchy' you probably mean 'general raping and pillaging' (and not 'lack of coercive authority').
                            We don't want general raping and pillaging, do we? I guess we better let only one organization (the state) to rape and pillage us, instead of us raping and pillaging ourselves. Lol.

                            If 'anarchism' is 'a rejection of coercive authority' and 'anarchy' is 'general raping and pillaging', then your statement is not defensible. It also appears to get you to believe what the state wants, which is the goal of this propaganda.
                            "Anarchism is the lack of government which leads to, well, anarchy."
                            turns into:
                            "A rejection of coercive authority leads to general raping and pillaging."
                            But 'coercive authority' IS 'raping and pillaging', just not 'general'.
                            So again, what you are saying is that you are for 'raping and pillaging' but one that is done by one party (instead of everyone?).

                            As person of anarcho-capitalist persuasion, I would be against ALL 'raping and pillaging'. I wouldn't allow anybody to do it.

                            Also, "a rejection of coercive authority leads to general raping and pillaging" is not necessarily true. If there is no master, the slaves don't necessarily start killing each other. They might, or they might form a fair society in which nobody is a master and everyone has equal rights. Some of them might even provide security services for each other to make sure those rights are protected. Obviously, they wouldn't want to have a monopoly on those because that would just mean that the monopolist is a master.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ pixelate 8 months ago
                  Thank you for giving me more to think about as I continue a road trip back to Arizona. I will likely develop questions and post them on a future dialog / discussion here in The Gulch.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ jdg 7 months ago
              CHAZ demonstrated what happens in anarchy. Nature abhors a power vacuum.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by nonconformist 6 months, 4 weeks ago
                No, CHAZ was a bunch of parasites stealing and damaging other people's property. They were are actually not much different from your typical statists running any state these days. They set up borders, for example, and were preventing people from entering. I'm not sure what you mean by 'anarchy', but in my idea of anarchy (statelessness, more accurately), you can't steal from other people and you can't limit their movement through a public space. Also, police is allowed to exist and can enforce the law. I just don't think police monopoly is allowable. Also, the law is not what some self-imposed organization says it is, but a logically provable principle.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 8 months ago
    Having been educated in accounting, and via philosophy, in Ay Rand, I have never felt government was in our best interest.It has always used pseudo altruism to take money from the worker, and hand it to the sheep they wish to create. Then they take your taxes, and finish us off. The encourage schools which teach anti capitalism to our children, tell them they are victims, of what, liberal teachers? I have mostly given up charitalbe donations, which turn people into slaves to those dollars. I have boycotted industries which supported BLM, whose gola was to deconstruct black families. In the last 3 years our phony POTUS has manipulated, lied to us, and tried to depopulate us via a faulty vaccine. I also want as little interaction with them as possible.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by nonconformist 8 months ago
    One recommendation I can give is to deprive the beast of your data. Don't use software as a service things. Don't give your data to companies. Keep everything self-hosted/on-premises. Use decentralized or federated protocols/software/services.

    Here are some suggestions:
    - set up a home server with your email, calendar, file storage, etc, (nextcloud) or alternatively use something like protonmail / tutanota (encrypted email)
    - use anonymized cryptocurrencies (monero / zcash) to make payments, or gold / silver if physical presence is possible and verification devices are on hand
    - use decentralized search engine (presearch.com, yacy.net)
    - help build community mesh networks in your area (guifi.net, freifunk)
    - use open source software and contribute to its development, such as switching to using linux on your pc and installing stock android on your phone, use firefox or chromium instead of chrome
    - use onion routing software (tor / brave)
    - use decentralized services (openbazaar / bisq.network)
    - use end-to-end encrypted, preferably anonymized or federated messaging software (signal.org, getsession.org, matrix.org)
    - use decentralized social networks (mastodon / diaspora)
    - don't use websites that are on cloudflare (block cloudflare browser extension)

    I would be happy to help anyone with questions about pursuing the above.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 8 months ago
    For starters, look at moving to a state that doesn’t have income tax. Made a substantial difference for me. Start a small business for the tax write off. Invest in a thing or two (vs holding fiat currency) …real estate. Stay off social media. I’m very fortunate that I love the work I do and it pays. So, I’m still doing a little. Otherwise I’d be quite incognito. Try to live in a place that leaves you alone. (Libertarian, non-liberal). Just my thoughts…
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 months ago
    "There is no good and evil, there is only power and those too weak to seek it." - Lord Voldemort
    This is what we are rebelling against, because it takes unusual will power to not seek the power over others.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 months ago
      I don't think all men are created equally here, there are those that seek power, those that are too weak to seek power and then those that wish to not have the power that is instilled though their actions. The last being very rare.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ gharkness 8 months ago
        I think those latter men are the ones who realize just how much responsibility is transferred as an adjunct to said power. I'm not saying that's bad. I actually think it's pretty smart of them to forego that power.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 months ago
    We would have to abandon our identity, using an assumed identity. Liquefy everything under your old identity to tangible assets, which would become the undeclared possession of the assumed identity. In a sense, our current identities would have to fill bankruptcy.

    We would have to have a way to communicate among ourselves, without participation from the government or uninvited people.

    We would have to have another form of money that cannot be traced, or circumvented.

    We would need a way to argue contracts to resolve disputes.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by freedomforall 8 months ago
      Keep any such discussion in non-specific terms.
      Google (and the fedgov) are watching and listening and recording.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by nonconformist 8 months ago
        AI is very good these days, getting better by the day. Non-specific terms aren't going to help much.

        I recommend using onion routing software and not revealing identifying information.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 months ago
          You're correct, we are truly never anonymous today... Here I'm a fly on the ass of the donkey and I've said nothing actionable.

          Tor net has its flaws as well, government has nodes, if you select an inbound government node, your toast. VPN are a joke but in your first post you spoke about non-centralized, or distributed architectures, this is a saving technology. I have been thinking about a process to utilize SignalR (or equivalent WinSockets client) and something like a multi-master replication to share posts on an open-source client. I don't have enough time to build it...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by nonconformist 8 months ago
            Yes, actors that have visibility of the network traffic of source and destination can de-anonymize you with a timing attack. Normally, state actors have that.

            However, there are some defenses, such as messing with traffic profile so that it can't be matched:
            1. by pumping extra random traffic through parts of the paths your actual traffic is taking
            2. by using an anonymized intermediate system as a remote desktop (such as vm paid for with monero)
            3. scheduling an anonymized intermediate system to do a delayed action (such as vm paid for with monero)
            4. jumping from another unmonitored network onto the monitored network, such as using a yagi antenna and connecting to a coffee shop wifi from far away
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by nonconformist 8 months ago
              Forgot this one: bouncing signals off the moon. I would like to see them try to trace that one, lol. Install a receiver/gateway somewhere anonymously and you are good to go.

              Also, there is nothing stopping you from using proxychains to build your own onion route using anonymous vpn services, etc.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CrustyOldGeezer 8 months ago
    AUDIT THE FEDERAL RESERVE, and ERASE IT!!!

    Throw the guilty in prison for life in solitary confinement with cornmeal gruel for 3 meals per day.

    GET BACK ON THE GOLD STANDARD AND STAY THERE!!!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ pixelate 8 months ago
    Going Galt ... I am a solitary man... and live such a life.
    The Government -- it's one big hamster wheel... recognize it as such and get off of it to the extend that you are able. Being solitary makes this much easier and simpler.
    I moved from a 3Bdr 2bath to a single wide (expenses are super low).
    I put the difference into physical assets.
    I do some contract work and hire contractors for mostly cash.
    I do not consume much in the way of physical items.
    I do invest in driving / road trips and running events (I purchase experiences) - however, I avoid the big ticket nonsense such as cruises, etc.
    I hate UBI -- but now I think it can "work" as a means to kick the can down the road for another 10 years. I will be close to 70 by then... nice long full life. I will have something physical to leave behind for a few like-minded younger folks.
    We are in for a long cold hard winter.
    When things get too bad, I am thinking about disappearing on a snow covered ridge line just prior to sunset. I have thought about fighting this monster, the Government, the totalitarian state, the bureaucratic apparatus ... it's just that reality has a way of filling that vacuum with more parasites.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 25n56il4 8 months ago
    What a great idea. I am so depressed with all the money going to people who don't deserve it. I personally have two dear friends who are attempting to survive on $800 a month in SSI. They worked hard during their younger years but were in low paying jobs. Thankfully we have food banks. Every Thursday I see 84 or more cars in line at our two food banks in my small town. And I would like to know who is going to buy all the $350,000 homes they are building here. Strange. I personally frequently pay one of my friend's electricity bill and give her money to support her 6 puppy dogs. n
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo