Anonymous Threatens US Govt ... Operation Last Resort

[sixthcutuan]

I doubt anyone has hundreds of millions lying around doing nothing, let alone billions. Billionaires are worth that much because the companies they own are worth that much. The rest is either invested or loaned out to the government.

I used to work (on a short term basis) for an investment bank. I can guarantee some literally do. The ones I especially resent are those who buy up property in the centre of towns, rip it apart, put in modern stuff and leave them empty for 10 years or so. Currently one of our most famous squares in the centre of the city is half owned by a Ukrainian. They have been sitting doing nothing for quite some time. Could at least rent it to a homeless shelter for a low price or something, it's just a waste of space otherwise.

 

[acidie]

No I resent people who do not use their money. Tens of billions lying around doing nothing is a waste.

The fact you think money is stock piled and just "lays around" shows how economically illiterate you are.

 

[acidie]

I used to work (on a short term basis) for an investment bank. I can guarantee some literally do. The ones I especially resent are those who buy up property in the centre of towns, rip it apart, put in modern stuff and leave them empty for 10 years or so. Currently one of our most famous squares in the centre of the city is half owned by a Ukrainian. They have been sitting doing nothing for quite some time. Could at least rent it to a homeless shelter for a low price or something, it's just a waste of space otherwise.

They own it, they can do what ever they want with it, including absolutely nothing.

Just wondering, do you own a "we are the 99%" t-shirt by chance?

 

[sixthcutuan]

The fact you think money is stock piled and just "lays around" shows how economically illiterate you are.

In terms of opportunity cost, yes, the money is just lying around doing very little. It's far better to have cash flowing around an economy than sunk in houses that sit there for years. I think we all know that when it comes to billionaires, it isn't actually in bank accounts. It's held in some other form (assets etc). But some forms are far more useful to the economy than others.

They own it, they can do what ever they want with it, including absolutely nothing.

Just wondering, do you own a "we are the 99%" t-shirt by chance?

Sure but just because something "is the way it is" doesn't mean it should be. Isn't that what all of you libertarians argue? And no, I don't.

 

[jers81]

I used to work (on a short term basis) for an investment bank.

Then you should probably know an investment bank doesn't just have money sit around doing nothing (or at least not the vast majority of it). They invest it. Hence "investment bank". Even a normal bank does not have money sitting around, except the minimum required by law. They loan it out.

The ones I especially resent are those who buy up property in the centre of towns, rip it apart, put in modern stuff and leave them empty for 10 years or so. Currently one of our most famous squares in the centre of the city is half owned by a Ukrainian. They have been sitting doing nothing for quite some time. Could at least rent it to a homeless shelter for a low price or something, it's just a waste of space otherwise.

Because I'm sure that was their intention. Let's spend millions of dollars on developing properties and let them sit empty for 10 years losing money just to piss you off. I doubt they're anymore happy about their properties sitting empty than you are. Renting it to a homeless shelter may sound like a nice thought, but the real world isn't that simple. Even if you did, you'd still be the bad guy once you kicked them out to move in a profitable tennant. Also, property investment is not sitting around doing nothing, regardless of whether or not it works out.

 

[acidie]

 

[BigWill]

I used to work (on a short term basis) for an investment bank. I can guarantee some literally do. The ones I especially resent are those who buy up property in the centre of towns, rip it apart, put in modern stuff and leave them empty for 10 years or so. Currently one of our most famous squares in the centre of the city is half owned by a Ukrainian. They have been sitting doing nothing for quite some time. Could at least rent it to a homeless shelter for a low price or something, it's just a waste of space otherwise.

Why the fuck would you want to turn the building into a homeless shelter? Talk about not understanding property value what so ever.

 

[JakeStratham]

A belief in the virtues of government is as irrational as any religion. And as is true with any religious belief, it is nearly impossible to break with an appeal to logic. There is little use in trying to convince a statist that the religion of statism is irrational.

I've run across logical thinkers who believe in government. In my experience, they have never been forced to confront the contradictions that such a belief entails. Left to their own investigation, thinking, and rigorous testing, they convert. (If they value logical consistency, there is no other choice.) But they are few.

For all others, asking them to face the contradictions of their beliefs and, based on those contradictions, to abandon their advocacy of statism and its immorality is akin to asking them to admit they are themselves immoral. Worse, their lives have been devoted to propping up and furthering an immoral ideal. Admitting that is an impossible task for most people.

Converting them with logic is a pipe dream. Converting them with appeals to emotion is short-sighted because the conversion is not based on principles. Thus, it is unlikely to last.

So...

- arguing from economic efficiency is out since most are ignorant of economics.

- arguing from morality is useful only when talking to those who value logical consistency. As mentioned, they are few.

- arguing from emotion is out for reasons stated above.

So, what on earth are we left with? This is the biggest obstacle that stands in the way of spreading the idea of anarchism.

 

[lukep]

You think humans could ever reach the point of no violence?

As a consensus, yes. Enough to make policy and let the law clean out the stragglers. It's not as hard as you think without the big gun in the room called "the government."

Money can mean power too.

Without a government, there IS NO centralized power. NONE. Money would just mean that the guy who worked hard for it can buy more stuff.

Without a government, there wouldn't even be corporations, obviously, so your fear of consolidated power is so missplaced it's pretty funny actually.

Your country must be very different to mine. I know plenty of people from all walks of life that are able to string together political arguments. We are highly critical of our government. We continue to push.

It is. My country has a huge problem where the government has adopted the & enforced the very same brainwashing techniques that Germany did to create the 3rd Reich... We had no chance for education here with this nazi system in our schools, but our forefathers at least left us the legacy of a strong anti-socialism sentiment that has kept us out of real trouble so far.

Your country, which I have been to several times and love by the way, has a very different problem in that socialism itself is the norm and people think like Keynesian economists... Which is an extremely oppressive thing to do to themselves, even when they believe it's the most civilized thing to do. (Which it isn't. Slavery is never civilized.)

You yourself state earlier "without fail, bad eggs seek positions of power" and so my point was that if you had no government, money would likely be the power. So more of the "bad eggs" would push towards the top. I'm not saying everyone at the top is evil, just that some are more ruthless than others.

I'm saying that the TOP MAKES PPL EVIL. Isn't this obvious?

Give a man a fish; he eats.
Give a man the ocean; he's the emporer who controls all the fish and says who lives & who dies.

On this planet, only the immense centralization of power we call the government could give a man control of the ocean. That is wrong. It should be stopped.

I don't know, the recent US rich list still showed lots of money in a few pockets.

Fewer and fewer though, which is something you should hate, not applaud.

I resent people who do not use their money. Tens of billions lying around doing nothing is a waste.

What a silly, arbitrary thing to get upset about!

First of all, if their money sits unused like you say, then they will be punished through its' depreciation! No rich person wants that!

The only way to beat inflation is to invest it into something productive, which sounds like something you'd be all for, so I don't get why you're unhappy with this system right off the bat... It's self-correcting.

But then, and even worse, what business is it of yours to even have the slightest of say in what a rich man does with his money? He worked hard for that, as I have for mine, and we deserve to use it for the purpose we both sought it out for... Otherwise we wouldn't have worked so hard for it.

Remember, money can't make me or anyone else an emporer palpatine. At best, lots of it can buy a senator's vote for my proposed project over someone else's, and by that way I'd be able to force the government to give me an unfair business advantage. That's called crony capitalism, and it's what the USA does best.

But you want to take the "rich people" out of that equation, and not the government?!? This is pure insanity.

By doing so, you leave the corruption in place and destroy all the jobs.

Tribes could be pretty ugly to other tribes.

His point was that historically it has been shown that anarchy can work. It is possible under some conditions, and you still feel it's utter lunacy.

You're right, I HATE peace! Just love the idea of mass murder

Then you clearly don't understand the factual concept that all governments require a monopoly of force.

You don't sound like you enjoy monopolies too much. And you don't seem to like violence and force either... So why do you prefer it when your country puts all the violence and force into a monopoly?

Only the brainwashed could. Only someone who is completely brainwashed by the state could accept for one moment that the local monopoly on force will always work for them and never against them, and is therefore desirable.

 

[lukep]

So, what on earth are we left with? This is the biggest obstacle that stands in the way of spreading the idea of anarchism.

Exclusion.

That's why I've got a hardon for seasteads. You can exclude those who haven't seen the light yet.

The eventual goal, of course, would be to show the rest of the world how awesome they could have it too if only they held our beliefs... Then exclusion wouldn't be needed after some kind of tipping point.

 

[ANOMOANON]

Either way, I know its more than what Im doing with my life. OOOOOO I'm trying to make money, so original!

Anonymous re-hacks US Sentencing site into video game Asteroids | ZDNet


Meanwhile in Canada http://youtu.be/aJphX1WtVSY

 

[jhoffy22]

Anyone download these files yet from Piratebay? Curious to see what kind of information they have...

 

[eVandals]

They're giving the gov a solid excuse to take more demanding control.

Butch ass Janet Napolitano just announced cyber 9/11 could happen "imminently" a few days ago, what a coincidence.

New cyber legislation is being considered, but it is unclear whether it will get through the gridlocked Congress.


President Barack Obama is expected to soon issue an executive order that would set up a voluntary system to help protect some critical infrastructure and offer incentives to companies that participate.


But without a new law, companies cannot be granted any kind of legal immunity for sharing information with the government and within the industry about potential threats.

First it says "unclear whether it will get through the gridlocked Congress" then says "Obama is expected to soon issue an executive order". Dumbass reporter spotted.

 

[lincolndsp]

i think FEDs come up with the pretext for their future bullshit internet freedom patriot acts from hollywood films, lool
but didn't not invent a name more intimidating than 'anonymous'

 

[sixthcutuan]

Jesus Christ. I'd forgotten why I'd stopped arguing on here. Takes up far too much time.

Then you should probably know an investment bank doesn't just have money sit around doing nothing (or at least not the vast majority of it). They invest it. Hence "investment bank". Even a normal bank does not have money sitting around, except the minimum required by law. They loan it out.

This wasn't my point. My point is that if they have their money in a form that does not help create jobs and/or make the cash flow then it's much less useful than it would be in the hands of people who would make it flow.

Because I'm sure that was their intention. Let's spend millions of dollars on developing properties and let them sit empty for 10 years losing money just to piss you off. I doubt they're anymore happy about their properties sitting empty than you are. Renting it to a homeless shelter may sound like a nice thought, but the real world isn't that simple. Even if you did, you'd still be the bad guy once you kicked them out to move in a profitable tennant. Also, property investment is not sitting around doing nothing, regardless of whether or not it works out.

Yes it was his intention, one of my close friends knows him quite well. See the problem is that there is a shortage of housing in the city. It's also difficult for properties to be developed because we have a green belt around the city (which is great - its fantastic) so the city can't expand much in size. We also have fairly strict controls on a large proportion of the buildings since this is an old city and the majority of the buildings are 200+ years old (with many far more). So you can understand the frustration of the people when investors from Hong Kong, Ukraine etc come and buy property and sit on it. Quite often it's only been bought to diversify their investment portfolio (happens a lot).

So we're left with increasing house prices and many struggling with large mortgages or rents yet no increase in wages.

As a consensus, yes. Enough to make policy and let the law clean out the stragglers. It's not as hard as you think without the big gun in the room called "the government."

Out of interest (not me having a go at you), how would this work? So you believe in anarchy with some form of law at the same time?

Without a government, there IS NO centralized power. NONE. Money would just mean that the guy who worked hard for it can buy more stuff.

Without a government, there wouldn't even be corporations, obviously, so your fear of consolidated power is so missplaced it's pretty funny actually.

So some guy has a lot of money and he wants more money but he's wanting it fast. He decides to buy some assault rifles. Soon he hires a few other locals and gives them weapons. He realises that if he wants to earn money fast, why not get it from those who can't defend themselves? (inb4 tax) Then he realises that there is some hot money in dealing coke and kidnapping the kids of rich families. It isn't then long until he's good buddies with Semion Mogilevich.

Ok so the story was perhaps a bit far-fetched but how do you believe bits of this won't happen with no sort of power to stop it?

Your country, which I have been to several times and love by the way, has a very different problem in that socialism itself is the norm and people think like Keynesian economists... Which is an extremely oppressive thing to do to themselves, even when they believe it's the most civilized thing to do. (Which it isn't. Slavery is never civilized.)

We like to believe in more than economics (Americans will find this hilarious I imagine). We don't see government as a means for war (which unfortunately it has become) but we see it as a group of peoples joining together to help those that need it. And we combine the common morals of the people to create law. The law should be fair, should punish those who do wrong (although not dis-proportionally) and help those who are victims. To help those at the bottom many of those who can afford it pay a contribution to give the guys a bit of a boost up. Someone has to oversee all of this of course but we try and make sure that they represent our own opinions. We elect them.

I don't believe any of this "banning dildo's" nanny state crap, very few of us do. Unfortunately it seems that neurotic mothers like chipping in on politics.

I also don't believe that just "spending your money" is the best thing to do to help others. Try telling a homeless guy on the street that instead of donating to the local shelter you're off to buy a £2000 Taiwanese TV, but he shouldn't worry, you're helping him really.

I'm sure Guerilla would chime in here saying something along the lines of charity would still exist without government and you are forced to pay tax. I'm sure it would. You are not forced to pay tax, you can just leave the country (except for the US I believe? Pretty wrong to tax someone that doesn't live there). The difficulty comes down to who owns the land. You can't have some people paying and others not because some public services (e.g. streetlights) can't suddenly turn off when a non-taxpayer walks by. So you could chuck those people out of the country right? Well its a difficult one. They don't "own" the land purely because they were born there (all humans are born equal) but by the very same logic, neither do the community/government/council.

Difficult difficult, lemon difficult.

I'm saying that the TOP MAKES PPL EVIL. Isn't this obvious?

So how would you reduce this "evil" in a world run by money with no governments?

Fewer and fewer though, which is something you should hate, not applaud.

I would of course want to see the average person in the country get richer, not the just the top getting poorer.

First of all, if their money sits unused like you say, then they will be punished through its' depreciation! No rich person wants that!

Many richies who inherited their money just let it sit (and yes they exist - I know a few). Sure it is self correcting but the family can still go through several generations before having to do a single hour of work. They did not work for it, their ancestors did. They don't deserve an easy life just because of the family they were born to.

But then, and even worse, what business is it of yours to even have the slightest of say in what a rich man does with his money? He worked hard for that

Not all have worked hard (Inheritance) also I'm fairly sure it's not proportionate. A person working on £20k per annum is unlikely to be working 500 times less hard than someone earning £10 mil per annum.

Remember, money can't make me or anyone else an emporer palpatine. At best, lots of it can buy a senator's vote for my proposed project over someone else's, and by that way I'd be able to force the government to give me an unfair business advantage. That's called crony capitalism, and it's what the USA does best.

Unfortunately that's true and I imagine it's what has turned so many of you off the idea of government. Coming from a country with very little of that I find the experience quite different. My local MSP does his best to represent the area. He doesn't do whatever it takes to further his political career, he does the best he can to represent the people in the area. Unfortunately US politics seems far too profit driven and power-hungry.

But you want to take the "rich people" out of that equation, and not the government?!? This is pure insanity.

By doing so, you leave the corruption in place and destroy all the jobs.

I want the maximise the happiness of the people in the country. Believe it or not you don't have to be richer to be happier. If someone works hard, reward them but reward them proportionally. I don't want rich people taken out of the equation I just want everyone to have a roughly similar chance of making it in life. Someone shouldn't have more opportunity than another just because of being born in a wealthier house.

Then you clearly don't understand the factual concept that all governments require a monopoly of force.

You don't sound like you enjoy monopolies too much. And you don't seem to like violence and force either... So why do you prefer it when your country puts all the violence and force into a monopoly?

Only the brainwashed could. Only someone who is completely brainwashed by the state could accept for one moment that the local monopoly on force will always work for them and never against them, and is therefore desirable.

I was actually making a joke about Guerilla's line "It really only appeals to critical thinkers and people who value peace". It came across to me a bit like "Everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot and doesn't believe in peace". It seemed a bit like a childish statement similar to something like "everyone who doesn't like manchester is gay". Hopefully he realises that I most likely do prefer peace and that if someone disagrees with him they are still able to be a "critical thinker" (I'm not talking about me but there are plenty of intelligent opinions out there).

We used to have a party in the UK called the Monster Raving Looney Party. I think you would have liked them. They wanted to create a second competition commission because only having one was a monopoly.

 

[Phoenixz]

cyber 9/11 lolz

you know they want to restrict information flow

 

[jers81]

So we're left with increasing house prices and many struggling with large mortgages or rents yet no increase in wages.

It's called supply and demand. Your "great, fantastic" green belt is restricting the supply and driving up prices. What do you expect to happen?

Sounds like you want your cake and eat it too. You want to restrict the supply of properties with a green belt, yet don't want prices to rise.

You don't want rich people to invest their money, yet you don't want them to buy a bunch of fast cars either.

This wasn't my point. My point is that if they have their money in a form that does not help create jobs and/or make the cash flow then it's much less useful than it would be in the hands of people who would make it flow.

Businesses use investments to grow the company quicker than they otherwise could. Business growth = job creation.

Did you by chance get fired from that investment bank because you lack any knowledge whatsoever about economics, investing, supply and demand, or even the slightest clue of how the real world operates?

 

[SkyFire]

Anyone download these files yet from Piratebay? Curious to see what kind of information they have...

You need a key, that's the point of the distribution.

 

[lukep]

My point is that if they have their money in a form that does not help create jobs and/or make the cash flow then it's much less useful than it would be in the hands of people who would make it flow.

And who exactly are the people who would make it flow?

See the problem is that there is a shortage of housing in the city. It's also difficult for properties to be developed because we have a green belt around the city (which is great - its fantastic)

You sound confused here. Is it fantastic or is it a problem?

Sounds to me like it is simply a variable that is causing more demand... Making property worth more, and therefore a better investment.

So you can understand the frustration of the people when investors from Hong Kong, Ukraine etc come and buy property and sit on it. Quite often it's only been bought to diversify their investment portfolio (happens a lot). So we're left with increasing house prices and many struggling with large mortgages or rents yet no increase in wages.

Demand is a real, natural force that has consequences, much like gravity or radiation.

You might as well be hating on the mass of the planet... What a pointless thing to be upset about, much less try to do something to stop!

Out of interest (not me having a go at you), how would this work? So you believe in anarchy with some form of law at the same time?

Of course; laws are just agreements between people. Why wouldn't an anarchy have laws?

Many statists make the mistake of thinking that anarchy can't ENFORCE laws, but there are many good solutions out there to this issue, and like any other problem, it would easily be solved by a free market and entrepreneurship.

These two short, free ebooks will answer about 90% of these "how would X work in anarchy" questions you could come up with, including this one.

http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/books/FDR_5_PDF_Practical_Anarchy_Audiobook.pdf

So some guy has a lot of money and he wants more money but he's wanting it fast. He decides to buy some assault rifles. Soon he hires a few other locals and gives them weapons. He realises that if he wants to earn money fast, why not get it from those who can't defend themselves? (inb4 tax) Then he realises that there is some hot money in dealing coke and kidnapping the kids of rich families. It isn't then long until he's good buddies with Semion Mogilevich.

Ok so the story was perhaps a bit far-fetched but how do you believe bits of this won't happen with no sort of power to stop it?

Laws, courts, and enforcers that aren't part of a centralized power regime.

We like to believe in more than economics (Americans will find this hilarious I imagine).

No, it's not hilarious; it's just ignorant. Economics is about the cause and effect relationships of everything.

We don't see government as a means for war (which unfortunately it has become) but we see it as a group of peoples joining together to help those that need it.

I have no doubt that every government that lasted more than a decade was started with the same principles in mind.

BUT POWER CORRUPTS, AND CORRUPTED PEOPLE NEVER FAIL TO SEEK OUT MORE POWER.

Only the most naive of humans don't understand this flawless concept anymore.

And we combine the common morals of the people to create law. The law should be fair, should punish those who do wrong (although not dis-proportionally) and help those who are victims. To help those at the bottom many of those who can afford it pay a contribution to give the guys a bit of a boost up.

This is so cute... It sounds like you're advocating for utopia... Didn't you guys ever hear that it only takes a single rotten apple to spoil the whole barrel?

Someone has to oversee all of this of course but we try and make sure that they represent our own opinions. We elect them.

And doom him to be corrupted.

I don't believe any of this "banning dildo's" nanny state crap, very few of us do. Unfortunately it seems that neurotic mothers like chipping in on politics.

Haha, just classic. With control over the media, those in power can do anything they like just by making everyone think that 51% of you like it too.

I also don't believe that just "spending your money" is the best thing to do to help others. Try telling a homeless guy on the street that instead of donating to the local shelter you're off to buy a £2000 Taiwanese TV, but he shouldn't worry, you're helping him really.

Whew. That's good to hear. A charity would certainly help that individual more, but IMHO, not as much as simply keeping the money and creating more jobs with it.

The difficulty comes down to who owns the land. You can't have some people paying and others not because some public services (e.g. streetlights) can't suddenly turn off when a non-taxpayer walks by.

The tragedy of the Commons is the oldest problem that statists have with anarchism and solved in many different places in both of the books above. This is a non-issue. Entrepreneurs will always provide solutions when there is a need and a free market.

So you could chuck those people out of the country right?

Lulz... No. We don't even want to be a part of any country and you think we'd organize a group in charge of throwing people out of it?!? That would be a government department.

You're really missing the big picture here. In anarchy, everyone would be FREE. The guy walking is free to be there, the guy paying the light bill is free to turn it off. That's freedom. I know it sounds odd & radical to a socialist, but hey, you should give it a try sometime. It feels good.

I would of course want to see the average person in the country get richer, not the just the top getting poorer.

Sheesh. The socialism is strong with this one. Let's try it this way:

Do you know what a slave is?

A slave is someone who does not receive any of the benefit from his or her own work.

If you force someone to work hard at something, say, picking cotton, painting houses, or sex, and they never see any money or benefit at all from that work, then you are making them into a defacto slave.

My question to you is: Are they still slaves if you "raise their pay" from 0% to 1% of the worth of the work that they are doing for you? (But still forcing them to do the job.)

Think hard about this one. If they are still a slave at 1%, which percentage are they no longer a slave at?


(2 B cont...)

 

[lukep]

Many richies who inherited their money just let it sit (and yes they exist - I know a few). Sure it is self correcting but the family can still go through several generations before having to do a single hour of work. They did not work for it, their ancestors did. They don't deserve an easy life just because of the family they were born to.

You're so worried about fairness that you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Inheritards usually burn through their family money at a phenominal rate, so also self-correcting... But even if they didn't, is it really so bad that the ancestor who worked really hard for the money in the first place wanted to give his children the gift of not working?

No, they didn't work for it personally, but their father/grandfather did and did so much that his earnings extended past the number of years he had left in his lifetime. Who are you to say he shouldn't be able to pass money to his offspring when he earned the money?

also I'm fairly sure it's not proportionate. A person working on £20k per annum is unlikely to be working 500 times less hard than someone earning £10 mil per annum.

There's that fake fairness crap again. Socialists seem to think that fairness is achievable when you give one guy in the room a gun and everyone else must work much harder their whole lives. It's like a mental disease.

If you REALLY want fairness, you'd demand that EVERYONE have the same rights, not just the peasants.

"...But that'd require anarchy, too scary, so nevermind."

Unfortunately that's true and I imagine it's what has turned so many of you off the idea of government. Coming from a country with very little of that I find the experience quite different.

It's like the plight of the houseslaves versus the fieldslaves...

Since the field slave was born to work out in the hot field, picking cotton all day with the whip at his back, he's far more aware of the nature of the system that holds both slaves down... But make no mistake in your comfy house position, you are still forced to work all day just to give your earnings over to the same master.

My local MSP does his best to represent the area. He doesn't do whatever it takes to further his political career, he does the best he can to represent the people in the area.

I'm not going to pretend I know that all Scottish MSPs are corrupt to the core too; even here we get an oddball like Ron Paul once every few generations. However, make no mistake, the system itself is the core problem, not just the few people in government around you. They could be saints right now but the system can corrupt them later or have the replaced with someone else who truly is corrupted next cycle. Your feeling of safety is only temporary at best.

I was actually making a joke about Guerilla's line "It really only appeals to critical thinkers and people who value peace". It came across to me a bit like "Everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot and doesn't believe in peace". It seemed a bit like a childish statement similar to something like "everyone who doesn't like manchester is gay". Hopefully he realises that I most likely do prefer peace and that if someone disagrees with him they are still able to be a "critical thinker" (I'm not talking about me but there are plenty of intelligent opinions out there).

I am sure that he understands that you think you want peace, but the line of thinking you support will always lead you AWAY from it. All attempts at running a state involves a monopoly of force, which is used to maintain it, and will end in horrible bloodshed eventually. This simply can't be avoided; only in a well-executed anarchy could true peace & freedom exist.