Justice in Anarchy

The perceived subjectivity of ethics and justice within society complicates contemplations of how justice can be maintained especially in an anarchic world where no single agent has this knowledge. Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher who had grown up in a time of civil war and strife, reasoned that, through the rational consent of self-interested individuals, the burden of bringing order, justice and an objective ethic could be set on the shoulders of a hegemonic violent territorial monopoly (i.e. state). Yet, because state power is limited to its domain, effectively dividing citizens from human beings (Makinda 21), the international order is one where justice is solely defined by states; meaning that the problem of subjectivity can only be solved within a certain sphere and beyond that, supposedly, nothing can be unjust (Hobbes 188). In this essay, we will be examining Hobbes’ state of nature in relation to reality and investigating its implications on the current world order. Subsequently, we will conclude that Hobbes’ state of nature is ultimately a poor design of anarchic behavior as it does not take into account the power of institutional (e.g. NGOs) and individual justice establishment; while, at the same time, trusting other individuals, those who have the power of the state, to do the same. Overall, we will be concluding that, contrary to Hobbes’ analysis, a hegemonic power is not the sole foundation for justice.

It would be wise to consider the inconsistencies of Hobbes’ design before exploring its implications on the current international order. Most obviously, although group self-determination supposedly provides the foundation for the creation and sovereignty of a state (Makinda 30), consent does not exist within this paradigm. Since undermining consensual relations, something which is typically viewed as just – maybe even by Hobbes (Beitz 30), the state violently legitimates itself as the ultimate decider of justice while all external justice is supposedly obsolete; as a result, states have the power to label unjust/amoral, self-interested actions as just, while voices of dissent are either subject to their bureaucracy or silenced. Furthermore, since states are composed of individuals, any claim regarding human behavior is necessarily a claim regarding state behavior. Thus, Hobbes’ negative paradigm of human behavior, which inevitably leads them to war (Beitz 29) (Hobbes 185), should also be applied to state behavior. Consequently, this discredits hopes of justice establishment through diplomacy, diversities in decision making (Makinda 27), state accountability (Makinda 29) or reform since its unjust methodology naturally attracts the most unjust individuals. Also, it is difficult to comprehend why states would not rationally give up their sovereignty onto a higher hegemonic power especially when individuals are expected to do the same. The argument is that states do not need to give up their sovereignty once they create conditions for society to flourish (i.e. industry) (Hobbes 186, 188). However, not only is the extent of ‘necessary power’ for a functioning state completely arbitrary, but also, following Hobbes’ hypothesis, individuals and states always seek to maximize [except one uses a monopoly on violence] thus sovereignty is not given up as a result of self-interest. Through this, we realize that the interacting agents within anarchy are not self-interested autonomous individuals, but rather, self-interested sovereign states with totalizing ambitions for justice (Makinda 30) not through peaceful negotiation but through power calculated diplomacy and violence; contradicting Hobbes’ very rationale for state creation and discrediting attempts to escape from anarchy using states (Beitz 31). Moreover, Hobbes’ anarchy excludes a recurring tit-for-tat situation amongst individuals which undervalues institutional cooperation overtime. As a result, this system tends to further the cause of war and injustice rather than of justice and morality.

Outlining the differences between individual and state methodology, sovereignty, justice and interest can help distinguish between societal/individual and political/international moral skepticism (Beitz 15). The state fallacy is the counter-intuitive reality that law does not breed cooperation, but rather, cooperation breeds’ law. Justice is an emergent phenomenon encompassing the customs, norms and ethics of localities, not a top-down strategy decided by the power wielders. States that recognize this emergent design are more likely to be diplomatic and inclusionary while those that do not are more prone to use violence and be exclusionary. States can, however, use justice as social constructs (Makinda 31) to argue for cultural relativism (Beitz 17), annex existing norms as their own to further their interests and, if there are external criticisms, imply a threat to their sovereignty. For example, lex mercatoria (i.e. merchant law) was an emergent progression by which justice had been executed until states fused it with common law as it increased tax revenue. These assumptions, of the state´s ability to establish justice, have encouraged state building around the world, sometimes resulting in disastrous consequences (e.g. Africa & Middle East). Likewise, monopolies have no incentive to bring about quality and, as a result, states are induced to further the political agendas of those who have its power (e.g. war on drugs, marriage laws, corporate welfare, victimless crimes, religious doctrine, etc.) and, especially in inclusionary states, cloak them as justice. Additionally, state sovereignty and borders provide barriers for states to point fingers at each other’s atrocities while ignoring and committing their own (e.g. USA versus Iran). Globalization provides some hope for justice and cooperation as states may be more incentivized to focus on their economic power while institutions, through intercommunication and diminishing border influence, may be able to ethically contest state sovereignty and authority for action by broadening and deepening perceptions of rights and justice (Makinda 33). States, however, do have the final word and, as we have seen in some past situations, some well-intentioned institutions can be prohibited or constrained (Makinda 21) as competition with the state is not tolerated, while others join the state apparatus, becoming corruptible in nature through monopolization.

In conclusion, it is unreasonable to think that states can establish and maintain justice as they are not only breaking it when they enforce it, but they are always looking after the interest of those who control them (e.g. lobbyists, politicians, majorities), whether or not it is aligned with justice; which is much more dangerous than individual self-interest, as it is incentivized to use, and is inherently, violent. Yet, this does not mean that justice is obsolete; instead it means that we must concentrate our reliance on institutional justice establishment while diminishing our use of violent means to solve our complex social problems. The evolution of justice should not cling on to utopian ideas about state reformation or a one world bureaucracy, but rather, decentralization/localization and autonomous decision making. The problem of subjectivity is complicated and can only be dealt with through philosophic thought, not quick fix solutions or pseudo-answers; as we are not necessarily in a world of all against all but rather, we are in a world of continual interaction and we must make the best of it.

Works Cited
Beitz, Charles R. Political theory and international relations: ‘International Relations as a State of Nature’. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1999. NetLibrary.com. Web.
Hobbes, Thomas, and C. B. MacPherson. Leviathan. New York: Penguin Classics, 1982. Print.
Makinda, Samuel M. Ethics of Global Governance: ‘Contesting Sovereignty’. Ed. Antonio Franceschet, Colorado: Lynne Rienner, 2009. Print.

Age vs Level Grades in School

In every other field, at least up to the end of high school, which class your child is in depends on their level, not their age. In swimming, music, languages, private tutoring classes etc. your child's admittance depends on how well s/he can swim, read, or add not how many times s/he has been around the sun (See http://compellingcontemplations.blogspot.com/2009/07/age-legality-and-state.html). Rather than grouping children with other children who learn differently and at different speeds, children need to be put in an efficient environment where their individual learning needs can be taken care of.

For example, your child can be in classes with level 4 math and level 3 gym students, or classes with level 2 art, level 5 science and level 3 history students(whatever).

Then, there can be different graduation types as well, instead something like a meaningless 'high school' diploma there can be a 'basic knowledge + advanced math' diploma or 'honors in basic knowledge + intermediate music'. Imagine if you had this individualized university-like experience where you could advance whatever knowledge that is necessary while focus on your interests, strengths and/or weaknesses sooner.

Instead, when you are put into classes where someone raises their hand for the third time asking a relatively repetitive question, it may be a perfect learning speed for them but the quality of the learning environment is corrupted as a whole. However, at the same time, that same individual may be much better than you in their field, so if you cannot pass the ball quick enough, the quality of that soccer game is also corrupted. (I like giving classic examples of jocks vs nerds).

Age, Legality and the State

What does a birthday represent? In reality, all a birthday represents is how many times a person has been around the sun or an orbit. Yet, this has nothing to do with the actual age of a person. This is only a measurement by which we try to label maturity, but this is obviously flawed. In reality, people grow, learn, develop, go through puberty and heal at different speeds. It is possible that someone who has been around the sun 16 times could have the same maturity level of someone who has been around the sun 22 times and vice-versa.

The 'legal age' has nothing to do with biology; rather, it is just another easy, fast and arbitrary way for the state to gain control. In all its wisdom, the state claims that age X is the age by which smoking is allowed and age Y is the age by which people can drive... which makes little sense. Moreover, instead of putting kids into grade classes based on level or success rate, as a result of what the state does, kids are clumped into classes where everyone is learning in a way or in a speed they are not accustomed to, instead of learning in their own way at their own pace.

Murray Rothbard also touched up on this in chapter 14 of The Ethics of Liberty (can be found at mises.org). Children have a "right" to succeed from their parents if they are able to do so. Surely, understanding and being capable of succession qualifies for some sort of adulthood. Also, Rothbard tells us that child labor protection takes away the right for children to succeed as they have little choice but to stay in their households, making them vulnerable to abuse - this restriction must be lifted.

Sure, you might ask, is there a better way to measure? I am not a scientist so I can't come up with any methods for actually testing this, but I do know that the authority to draw these lines comes from no where and the lines do not make sense.

An alternative would be to end 'ageism' - just how it makes little sense to make up some sort of group consciousness for race and sex, it makes little sense to have a group consciousness of '16'. Sure, much like race and sex, there are some things we can generalize (e.g. the older you get its harder to have kids when your a woman) but there is no way we can rely on generalizations.

Giving growth an orbital measurement is flawed, and we need to judge all people based on merit and level, not capricious lines.

How did states/religions come about? Why are they still around?

NOTES

The history between the relationships of states and religions are very interesting to me, that is why I have taken upon myself to add this project to my list.

Reason for the creation of states:
At some point in human history, survival required the use of violence. Avoiding predators, catching prey, territorial conflict between groups and mating all required violence to function. Related to mating, the alpha of the group is usually chosen through their ability to beat another in combat. Over time, these hierarchical relationships had gotten increasingly complex - relationships between alpha and non-alpha within groups grew into an alpha/non-alpha relationships between families and alphas learned that they can take over other the groups of other alphas, which helped them gain power and ultimately, security. The elites of these groups then lead their societies against other elites of other societies. This hierarchical structure eventually grew into a state which then went on to take many forms.

Reason for the creation of religion:
An explanation of the unknowns.

Reason for the continued existence of religion and state:
Children raised in households where parental authority is not legitimated rationally but rather through blind allegiance which usually takes the form of a 'moral duty'. This corrupts children which leads them to believe in an omnipotent/moral deity or state.

Realism and War: Anarchy of States versus Anarchy of Individuals

After a history of state warfare, probably the foremost cause of human bloodshed, many are questioning the possibility of a lasting peace among states, giving strength to the political philosophy of realism. The philosophy is one that uses the primal survival instincts of human beings to highlight the significance of anarchy and its consequence of war being an unavoidable reality in international relations. Furthermore, one can easily observe the practical impacts of the realist ideology at work in the real world. Conversely, although through some perspectives realism may be gaining momentum, other philosophical perspectives see it to be a theory which excludes critical factors, lacks consistency and has a self-prophesizing nature. After examining realism and clarifying some criticisms, it will be understood that although realism can explain the nature of state-behavior in its analysis, it leaves out the most crucial aspect of the state, the individual, which is the major weakness of the theory.

Realism starts by trying to find and understand the objective laws, which are rooted in human nature, that govern society (Morgenthau 7). One of the primary goals of a human being is to ensure their own security and survival thus they would transfer their sovereignty onto a state so that safety can be collectively protected. Therefore, states have an ultimate duty to protect their own security. Power is then seen as the rational method by which security can be guaranteed; power can be anything that establishes control over people/nations (Morgenthau 11) and is usually employed through economic, diplomatic and military means (Mearsheimer 13). Much like an individual, the primary role of the state is to continue its existence within a world where there is no rule/contract enforcer, no court and war is likely and possible. States are the most important actors within the world system because they are the only entities which claim to be the moral authority - where one cannot apply universal moral principles to states - while making use of their self-legitimated monopoly on violence within their domains (Morgenthau 12). As a result of this, they are constantly at odds with each other as they all strive to be the ultimate moral authority or hegemon. Although domestic political affairs are important based on leadership qualities, size, location and the capabilities for attaining power, ultimately, it accounts for very little in a state’s behaviour since all states are likely to maximize their power in all situations as they have the same goal of security. Since a state holds the lives of many in its hands, it must try and act efficiently and rationally which means promoting its own self-interest in the face of an anarchic world and, unlike individuals, it loses its right to sacrifice itself for those not within its domain. Acting rationally also means that states need to make evaluative judgments of the position they are in, relative to other states within the world. This means that with every decision a state makes, there is a cost-benefit analysis which calculates the expected utility that will be gained from a choice. It also means that states are put into a situation of a ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ with other states; where, simply put, a state cannot raise its own security/power/arms without threatening and reducing the security of another state. As a result, states are in a constant struggle with one another since they cannot know each others intentions and war is a real and likely possibility. And even though states may occasionally cooperate, at root they have conflicting interests as they are constantly striving to be the hegemon and gain relative power over one another (Mearsheimer). When the five assumptions of political realism are combined, including the fact that states have offensive military capabilities, states do not know each others intentions, states strive to survive, states act in rational and self interested ways and they do this all in an anarchic structure, we may also see the dangers that neo-realism claims the system inherently produces (Mearsheimer 29); in contrast to the human nature aspect that classical realism proposes. Neo-realist and realist thought are not necessarily at odds when it comes to a state’s fear from potential threats, rational self-interest and power maximization but differ in their premises for why they do what they do (i.e. human nature VS system structure). However, the concepts of regional and relative power can be used for both since these are the steps that need to be taken to become the absolute power.

Realists claim that in the real world, politicians may use liberal rhetoric when dealing with each other, when really politicians are using strictly realist philosophy to make their decisions. For example, during the war in Iraq, politicians used moral rhetoric to gain support for the war such as getting rid of a dictator, spreading democracy, enforcing civil rights, freeing the Iraqi people etc. but, within the higher echelons of government, they must have been discussing the economic power Iraq was draining from the United States by selling its oil in Euros rather than US dollars or the military advantage that will be gained with a base in Iraq especially with anti-American sentiment in Iran. There were also realist reasons that were open to the public such as threat of an Iraq holding weapons of mass destruction as it induced fear. Whatever the reasoning behind the plot, a realist would point to what s/he thinks are the real, rational, power maximizing and self-interested reasons as to why a state made the decision it did. Nations gain power through their influence on other nations, by force, by trade or by negotiation, and capabilities, through resource, knowledge and technology. The corruptibility in partnerships is very much a real phenomenon, where even after years of cooperation, interests change. The war in Iraq is also a prime example of a past partner, one which was obedient and cooperative, that started to siphon power away from the United States, working in its own self-interest, but where finally war ensued. Another example would be the ancient city states of Greece. Although always at war with each other, they tended to only band together when there were powerful intruders. The last example is the European Union where even though all the states say that, or at least claim that, they have the same interests, they would rather not give up their own sovereignty.

For a state, power is the ultimate goal and an end in itself. Power does not exclusively refer to the capability to use violence but also monetary and ambassadorial capabilities. One mistaken liberalist argument against realism is that realists pay too much attention to the problem of war and peace and not enough attention to the politics of economics or diplomacy. However, these are obviously issues of power mechanisms that states need and do address in the realist perspective. States have an overwhelming incentive to interfere with the economic situation within their domain as that is where they get their operation funding. The prominent ways a government could take control of an economy within its domain is by monopolizing the monetary system, so it would be easier to tax people and manipulate the money supply, and controlling the interest rates. This will also come in the forms of industry protection, subsidization, tax-cuts, tariffs etc. which always results in a mixed economy. In this way, a government can make sure that its home-grown businesses, the ones that bring home the bacon, are profitable. An economically powerful nation like the United States advocates open border policies while poorer nations that cannot compete obviously do not. Some nations, those that can compete in some sectors but not others interfere only when necessary; the Canadian government allows for freer trade when trading lumber but does not allow for exotic products to come back without a heavy tax (e.g. Persian rugs). Even in simple representations of nations, such as Dale Thomas's “Isle of Ted Simulation,” some countries have incentives to completely cut off trade as it can easily free ride or get benefits without paying. We can also point to the many instances of mercantilism, where firms help governments make money, and neo-mercantilism, where firms and governments help each other, such as the collaboration between the East India Company and England to exploit India’s resources with state protected monopolies and tariffs. Becoming a state-protected monopoly, like the water companies in Chile and Monsanto, is what many firms dream of becoming as they do not need to worry about being competitive, serving quality, or adjusting prices.

The general mixing of economic and military power creates huge incentives for government to make a business out of its military power; this is of course related to what President Dwight Eisenhower famously referred to as the “military-industrial complex”. Nations sell arms to themselves, as in the case within the United States where all parts from the same military vehicle are made by all 50 states so that every state can profit, they sell arms to other nations, as in the case with the Soviet Union after the cold war and Britain selling submarines to Canada, and they sell arms to non-state entities, as in the case with the United States and the Taliban and the countless states that sell arms to the people of Somalia. Some nations are able to hit two birds with one stone just by combining their military and economic goals. By selling old technologies that it itself can deal with, using its newer technology, it can keep up-to-date with newer mechanisms of power holding, make money and increase the potential of a multi-polar system in a distant region that does not need to be dealt with; both make the trade since one state gains absolute power and the other gains a relative power in its region, much like the current situation of the United States and Soviet Union.

Another way states flex their muscle is by using diplomatic means. This could mean having a huge populace of your citizens within another country as in the case with Russia and the former Soviet states. It could also mean recognizing the same interests (e.g. trading with comparative advantage and specialization) and ideals (e.g. democracy) of another nation with your own, signaling intent to cooperate. However, it is obvious that diplomatic power can only rest on a foundation of military power and it influences how much diplomatic power one has, that is, your bargaining power raises when you increase your military might. As a result, nations wouldn’t mind having an inarticulate leader if they had big guns.

Thus, because of the gains made in the relative-power system, the strive for its survival and security and its endless task to be the moral authority and world/regional hegemon, the decision for what a nation would do, when placed in an anarchic prisoner’s dilemma situation, has already been made; the choice is always to protect itself, protect its self-interest, and prolong its own existence even if this means doing the exact opposite for rival states. This is why states, according to realism, will always live in a war of all against all and why war is ultimately inevitable.

The cause of war for the realist comes from the tragedy of anarchy while the cause of war for the liberalist comes from evil and has to do with assumptions about morality. For liberalism, there is a differentiation between good states and bad states, where a good state cooperates, trades, represents its people (or at least the majority) through democracy, and rarely goes to war alone and bad states solve everything using force. Liberalism questions whether self-interest actually connects to power seeking through security and recognizes that the domestic political situation is important in a state’s behavior, such as the changes in Iran’s political and foreign policy after the Islamic revolution in 1979. It also views realist thought as indeterminate since there are many ways to deal with international pressures. In addition, liberals view the formation of cultural norms and morals to have some effect on the actions a state takes; for example the banning and freeing of gay marriage in different parts of the world. These concerns do have some merit but they eventually fall short of doing any long term damage to the theory since realists can argue that to be a rational self-interested state, the state should act as a power maximizer and for safety, everybody should expect states to do this and they can place any definition under the power scheme, including the control of norms (Morgenthau 9). This is why many view realism as being a self-prophesizing theory which is not necessarily an argument against it.

Constructivism criticizes realism by arguing that anarchy is what you make of it. This rings true to an extent as individuals who live in anarchy are not necessarily in a war of all against all. Realism however, is not necessarily saying that it is either but rather, it is saying that it would be best to assume this so as to protect yourself, just in case. Furthermore, constructivists claim that if we have a different outlook on this structure of anarchy (i.e. one of an evolving cooperation and interaction and changing our view from a cost-benefit analysis to one of social appropriateness), it would form in a cooperative manner. In this way, constructivism tries to be self-prophesizing.

Realism does, however, have some very fundamental flaws when it assumes that war is inevitable. First, even if we assume that self-interest is indeed apart of the nature of human beings and what human beings are motivated by, realism does not take into account that rational individuals would like nothing more than to avoid war, negotiate and trade as this is what is in their own self-interest. This is exactly what the foundations of economics rest upon. This process unconsciously creates a collective good as technologies becomes cheaper, more efficient and readily available causing progress, innovation and a better standard of living for all. The primary power that an individual strives to achieve is not military power but economic power since, for an individual, the size of your wallet matters more than the size of your gun. Individuals, unlike collective entities, have a limit to what can kill them (i.e. one bullet is enough) and therefore have a limit to the amount of military (but not economic) security they need, but its much harder for collective entities to die [where several nukes would probably be needed] so their security is almost limitless. In contrast, for a monopoly of force to retain its power in an anarchic world filled with other monopolies of force, it is crucial that it has a reasonable sized gun. While for an individual to retain their power in an anarchic world filled with other individuals, they won’t need any weapon that is too big to carry. War is only inevitable when monopolies on violence are vying for power.

Furthermore, unlike individuals, states are not allowed to sacrifice themselves for the sake of others, making them incredibly resilient to beneficence without self-interest; when Kuwait, a stable nation that had an already established oil extraction scheme, calls for help, the United States comes charging in to save the day but when Darfur, an unstable nation in need of investment, calls for help, the United States only rescues its own citizens. This adds to the notion that only states, not individuals, are prone to war as states are not even capable of beneficence.

Another essential difficulty to realism is the concept of state interests. States are only comprised of individuals and when one speaks of the ‘interests of the state’ one is ultimately talking about the ‘interests of those who call themselves the state’. It is impossible for anyone to claim that they represent the interests of a collective unless all of those individuals have contractually consented; so in a situation where there is no consent within the social contract, the closest one can get to reach a ‘collective interest’ is the interest of the majority. By speaking of state interest in this way, realists assume that a signed social contract manifests itself deep within the confines of human nature, which is more than just assumptive.

Additionally, realists assume that states do not exist and cannot be judged by universal moral laws but they can enforce them. Again, since states are basically groups of individuals, when one says that a state cannot be judged by universal moral laws is to say that one group of individuals get morality type A and the other group of individuals (who call themselves the state) get morality type B. Needless to say, this is one of the very causes of corruption and state tyranny. States solve the problem of violence using a monopoly of violence and solve the problem of theft using a monopoly of theft. It is incomprehensible to think that an objective universal moral reality exists, where states claim the moral authority, but not within the confines of parliament.

In conclusion, realists are right when they view states as violent, war mongering entities but miss the importance of individuals within the system. The ultimate end for a state is security and power, which means having enough influence so that everyone does exactly what they want them to do. Bargaining/diplomatic power is the end to, and economic power is the means to, military power. Throughout this essay, we examined realism, studied the prisoner’s dilemma, observed some practical real world explanations, investigated many forms of power maximizing, outlined some barriers and situations of eventual break downs for state cooperation and analyzed its relation to liberalism, neo-realism and constructivism. We then brought in some criticisms where some could be dismissed while others found themselves to be fundamental problems. Through all this, we have learned that realism explains at least some aspects of state behavior and the inevitability of war but ultimately, war is only the health of the state, not the health of individuals. Although living in a war of all against all may be true in a world filled with monopolies on violence, in a world of individuals, this notion is completely flawed. The problem is our view that we live in a world of states but in reality, we live in a world of individuals. In our current situation, some individuals (those that call themselves the state) live in relative anarchy while others live within the confines of a moral authority. Overall, we have learned that war is only inevitable when monopolies on violence fight to keep, hold and expand their power and their domain where their monopoly is protected.

Works Cited
Mearsheimer, John J. "Anarchy and the Struggle for power." Tragedy of great power politics. New York, N.Y: W.W. Norton, 2003. 1-45.
Morgenthau, Hans J. "Politics Among Nations: Six Principles of Political Realism." International Politics. 1985. 7-14.

Objective Morality, Authority and Humility

Whether or not an objective morality exists, all I know is that I cannot know it for sure and because of this, I can have no authority to force it on others. Since all other human beings are also equally stuck in this predicament, they cannot hold this authority either. To claim that anyone actually has this authority is, therefore, the greatest of all evils.

Thoughts on Iran, the Internet and Contradictions

As more photos and videos of governmental atrocities come through, the more hopeless I feel about the situation. This government is not one that is willing to give up its power. The Shah, in 1979, was a humanitarian compared to this. Now, even those who thought they wanted a revolution hold guns against their fellow human beings. Khamenei's words give me shivers. If it wasn't for the Internet, this 'revolution' would have been crushed days ago. I guess twitter does have its uses, even the news stories are following it and the regime cannot block it.


Repulsive Contradictions
Iranian nationalism is at an all time high. Instead of seeing it as a 'human disaster' they see it as 'a disaster for my people'. Instead of a dictatorship, they want democracy, even though 'democracy' is how they got here in the first place. They hate the Islamic republic but they still yell "Allah-o Akbar!". They do not want external interference but sign UN petitions against the Ayatollah. I'm afraid that nothing worth mentioning will come from this, the most that will happen is that they will replace one slave master with a less oppressive one.

Second Iranian Revolution?

The Iranians are at it again. The only problem is, even if anything does happen, people have different views on how to move forward and this will result in hundreds trying to grab hold of the state apparatus. It is not likely that true freedom will emerge.

Contrary to what the government says...the federal bailout will NOT last

As some of you may know, this bailout is only to buy time. Coincidentally, it also seems to be an investment in worsening the problem. Retain the failed gov't created monopolies!?

Also, if your interested, you should give a little time to this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qkks0S4_s4Q

They also censored 2 comments from youtube:

"That election was rigged... Not that it matters now."

Reply to your comment on: MOBILE BULLETIN 0035GMT 13 Jun 09
"What state election isn't rigged?"
MOBILE BULLETIN 0035GMT 13 Jun 09
The latest news from Al Jazeera.
See all comments

Kind of, evil, isn't it?

Well, I'm guessing it will hit late august and then blow up by october.

Destroying the internet free market

Obama wants to keep us safe from the internet... that is... the government wants more control. Of course this is not surprising, but scary nonetheless. The only reason why the internet thrives is because of its non-governmental regulations and open source capabilities.