The American Republic has Ended, What Next?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

As I've said many times, across multiple threads: to be free is to be self-directing, self-responsible, and self-reliant.

What's stopping you, fuckhead? I don't give a shit how you want to live.

Nuthin'. I am self-directing, self-responsible, and self-reliant. You should try it.

Whatever that even means. You yanks sure love your buzzwords. Saves having to bother about thinking, which is handy when you don't anything to think with. And don't try to tell me what I 'should' do. Who do you think you are? My boss? My leader?

[henry quirk]

you continually bang on about this 'freedom' thing that you are...incapable of describing.

As I've said many times, across multiple threads: to be free is to be self-directing, self-responsible, and self-reliant.

...and not being fiddled about by some totalitarian "social plan" run by elitist despots.

Oh, the fiddlers and their supporters can try, do try. That's where eternal vigilance comes in ([soon to be] followed by refreshing the Tree of Liberty).

[henry quirk]

What's stopping you, fuckhead? I don't give a shit how you want to live.

Nuthin'. I am self-directing, self-responsible, and self-reliant. You should try it.

Whatever that even means. You yanks sure love your buzzwords. Saves having to bother about thinking, which is handy when you don't anything to think with. And don't try to tell me what I 'should' do. Who do you think you are? My boss? My leader?

You know what it means.

You're right, I withdraw my suggestion you try bein' a free woman.

My apologies for the overstep.

[Gary Childress]

Many agencies County, State and Federal farm out their services to private companies. Vocational Rehab services where I live are on majority performed by not-for-profit and non-profit corporations that contract with government.

Private companies and not-for-profit and non-profit corporations that contract with government become de facto agents or employees of the state, beholden to the state. They are no longer private in any real sense.

And you become a "de facto" agent of your employer when you sign on with a "private" company. Would you rather be an agent of public service or would you rather be an agent of a private citizen's profit? What difference does it make if some people would rather be one or the other? It's about the same things with a similar result. The two approaches apply pressure on each other to perform. If the private sector gets too greedy and dysfunctional, then there is the call for more public services. It probably all evens out in the end. A little of both might be a good idea as opposed to taking an extreme approach, embracing one approach completely over the other.

[Immanuel Can]

Would you rather be an agent of public service or would you rather be an agent of a private citizen's profit?

"Public service" is something Socialism knows nothing about. It's all about "serving" the Socialist elite.

[Gary Childress]

Would you rather be an agent of public service or would you rather be an agent of a private citizen's profit?

"Public service" is something Socialism knows nothing about. It's all about "serving" the Socialist elite.

Have you never been part of a successful public service agency? It happens, just like sometimes I've come across private entrepreneurs who will take a loss, even a catastrophic one, rather than lie to customers or bleed a turnip as it were (or seek a government bailout).

[Immanuel Can]

Would you rather be an agent of public service or would you rather be an agent of a private citizen's profit?

"Public service" is something Socialism knows nothing about. It's all about "serving" the Socialist elite.

Have you never been part of a successful public service agency?

"Successful" in serving itself, or in serving the overlords? Yes. But any pretense of "serving the public" quickly evaporated.

[Gary Childress]

"Public service" is something Socialism knows nothing about. It's all about "serving" the Socialist elite.

Have you never been part of a successful public service agency?

"Successful" in serving itself, or in serving the overlords? Yes. But any pretense of "serving the public" quickly evaporated.

The "overlords" in a democracy are theoretically the voters. Who is the "overlord" in a private business other than the owner? BTW, have you ever been involved in a church that was little more than a cult of personality for the lead pastor and his personal "in-group"? That happens too, I've seen it with my own eyes. I can verify.

[Immanuel Can]

The "overlords" in a democracy are theoretically the voters.

Socialism isn't democratic, despite its desire to be thought to be such. "The people's interest" is actually determined by the Socialist elite, paternalistically acting in the name of the public...not by the public itself.

Who is the "overlord" in a private business other than the owner?

Is the guy who invented the business, risked his own capital, established his own clients, and freely offers employment to those willing to take it an "overlord"? It's hard to see how. All of his workers are there by their own consent, and in their own interest. If they like what he offers, they volunteer to take it; if they don't like what he offers, they go somewhere else. And none of their capital or risk is ever involved in the business.

Not so under Socialism. Under Socialism, you have to take what the elites decide they want you to have. There's no other party to vote for, and no alternative if you don't want the job. You just get to sit and watch them burn the economy to the ground.

BTW, have you ever been involved in a church that was little more than a cult of personality for the lead pastor and his personal "in-group"?

Yep, plenty of times.

[henry quirk]

And you become a "de facto" agent of your employer when you sign on with a "private" company.

Yes (not me personally as I self-employ).

Would you rather be an agent of public service or would you rather be an agent of a private citizen's profit?

I've never worked for the government in any direct or indirect capacity, and I'm a lousy employee, so I work for me.

What difference does it make if some people would rather be one or the other?

Government, any government, all government sez, like a highwayman says to a man: Your money, or your life. I won't be a party to that. No private employer of mine has ever laid claim to my time, my work, my efforts, my money, my self in such a way. It makes a difference.

[Gary Childress]

Not so under Socialism. Under Socialism, you have to take what the elites decide they want you to have. There's no other party to vote for, and no alternative if you don't want the job. You just get to sit and watch them burn the economy to the ground.

If a society is like the Soviet Union, then yes. If a society is like the US where there is tension between state and private sector and everyone is a voter with one vote, then at least there are some social programs for people who fall through the cracks, especially kids. Right now we have some "conservative" justices on the SCOTUS who are taking favors from wealthy private donors and living it up on favors that are necessarily going to have strings attached. A Supreme Court Justice can't be employed by wealthy private individuals and the government that works for the people on behalf of the people AT THE SAME TIME. It's a conflict of interest and these "conservative" upholders of the US Constitution don't seem to care. Is it OK for them to do that if they were appointed by Republican presidents?

[Immanuel Can]

Not so under Socialism. Under Socialism, you have to take what the elites decide they want you to have. There's no other party to vote for, and no alternative if you don't want the job. You just get to sit and watch them burn the economy to the ground.

If a society is like the Soviet Union, then yes.

In every Socialist society that has ever existed, or that exists now. No exceptions.

Think about it: Socialism requires everybody to buy into its program. Its theory is that the program will never work until every single person does. So there can be no objectors, no one not on board with its program, nobody who gets to step out, or Socialism itself is not achieved.

That's why they cannot allow dissent. That is why they rob, torture and kill those who oppose them. That's why they can't be democratic, too: democracy would allow multiple beliefs and uncontrolled voting -- including the right to vote not to be Socialist. So they can't have that.

...at least there are some social programs for people who fall through the cracks, especially kids.

Social programs are not Socialism. Socialism is a totalistic ideological-political system. It can't be had on an ad hoc basis, by its own account.

Right now we have some "conservative" justices on the SCOTUS who are taking favors from wealthy private donors and living it up on favors that are necessarily going to have strings attached.

Who would that be? Why isn't the IRS on that? Or the FBI? When did graft become okay in your country? Or maybe it's not really happening... Why would the Dems let them get away with that...unless...?

However, manifestly, something else is. Right now, you have a senile and corrupt president who's being manipulated into a horrible foreign war, so his pals can launder cash. Does that sound "Socialist"?

Actually, it does. It's what Socialism always does. Nothing inconsistent there.

[Wizard22]

He stabbed Julian Assange in the back. Pardoned some child killers instead. What a p****.

The Deep State aren't going to let Assange or Snowden get away from outing them—but I agree that was a let down.

[Wizard22]

I'm not "partisan"; I don't give a toss about the American political system. Even so, I am still alarmed at the thought of a country as powerful and influential as the USA having a complete idiot in charge. You gave a list of people you claim to be criminals; Obama, Biden, Clinton, Pelosi, Schumer. Five Democrats, and I only mentioned two Republicans, so you must be more than twice as biased as I am.

You do not have an impartial and equal view of Justice. You're unfit to weigh-in on these matters. Only bi-partisans and philosophically minded people, should weigh-in, who cannot be swayed heavily to one side or the other.

What an idiot you are.

Biden's more idiotic than Trump, with clear Dementia, which you and your ilk have to painfully ignore on a weekly basis, to avoid making complete fools of yourselves.

[Wizard22]

Biden did not START the Ukraine war. Putin started the war when he saw that our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had weakened world opinion toward us. We completely FUCKED UP the middle east with those invasions.

Are you not capable of seeing that? How badly do you wish to vindicate the Bush administration at Biden's expense? At least Biden hasn't gotten us to WWIII quite yet (though I see articles these days "assuring" us that our military is "fast-tracking" strategic bombers and nuclear weapons research).

Biden is Commander in Chief of the US Military (and by extension NATO forces).

Putin recognized that he is (cognitively) weak, addled with Dementia, US is culturally fragmented and getting worse...

Putin did not attack Ukraine under Trump for a few reasons: 1) Putin respected Trump, 2) Trump uncovered the Democrat's money laundering operation (by accident), and 3) Trump was dealing with NATO's military incompetence by holding them accountable for their failures. Basically Trump kept George Soros at bay, for a 4 short years, before the US Neo-Cons, Soros, NATO, all Trotskyites fueled the US Military-Industrial complex to engage in Eastern Ukraine.

It's about money. The US warmongers and weapons manufactures want blood, because blood is money, and they choose the weakest links across the world...this time it's Eastern Slavs.