This freaks me out on many levels. One cannot reason or surremder to or with a machine. The second concern is that the divide between the masses and those in power has reached a point of of no return. One could still argue the use of this in a war zone e.g. drones but for crowd control and in situations on home ground, Im not convinced.

“You now have five seconds to comply…”

Too late

As with gunpowder and bombs, our technology has made drones of all kinds inevitible. Civilians have just as much tech to do this as the govt. I’m personally stunned we haven’t seen terror attacks using aerial drones.

Now don’t go and put ideas in people’s heads.

I have long wondered how feasible it would be to fly a remote-controlled model plane, perhaps packed with some explosives, into one of Air Force One’s engines.

Perhaps I shouldn’t write such things down - next thing I know, I get renditioned to an undisclosed destination for some, er, enhanced interrogation…

Yeah I hope if you ever try to fly overseas your trips goes well.

Of course, they’re unnecessarily paranoid about me. For one thing, I’m a tech klutz of the worst sort - I’d never get my flying bomb off the ground. More importantly, if I really hate America, then I want their prez to stay alive. For the past few administrations, they have been so bad they do far more harm to America than I ever could by eliminating the man/woman (especially if Trump takes power!). And if they ever get a really good president, then most likely I’ll start loving America, so it will remove my desire to harm them.

But try explaining this to a bunch of goons while they are pouring water over a cloth wrapped around your face…

It would be like that scene in “Saving Private Ryan” where they are about to execute a German prisoner, and he starts yelling things like “Fuck Hitler! I love America!”

Something similar happened when Saddam took power in Iraq. During his inaugural speech, televised live, he produced a list of some two hundred names of high officials who have ever crossed him in any way whatever. He announced “there are traitors in our midst” and started reading the names one by one, and as he read, they were removed from the hall to be executed. Before he was halfway through his list, the entire audience was on its feet cheering him. “Long live Saddam! Down with the traitors! President for life!” Etc. etc.

In short, I don’t think I’d withstand enhanced interrogation long before I ratted out everyone on this board. :smiley:

I think you’ve just described the best reason to have D.Trump as president. If muslims hate America’s freedom, then Trump will sort that right out.

Something similar happened when Saddam took power in Iraq. During his inaugural speech, televised live, he produced a list of some two hundred names of high officials who have ever crossed him in any way whatever. He announced "there are traitors in our midst" and started reading the names one by one, and as he read, they were removed from the hall to be executed.

He sounds like quite a convincing fellow.

For America’s sake, I quite seriously hope Trump wins. He’s the only one who will shake up the system and fuck up so unambiguously that Americans will perhaps wake up and smell the Gestapo. Bernie will likely be blocked so thoroughly in Congress that he’ll be a lame duck, and under Hillary the same slow rot will simply continue. If you check out that political compass thing, you’ll see that she is in fact almost as much of a right wing authoritarian fascist as Trump; she’s just better at disguising it.

I’ve heard this described as the “horseshoe” of politics. People on the extremes of the far-left and far-right are closer to each-other than they’d like to think… they get so far apart they start moving towards each other.

For instance: Extreme feminists want to de-sexualise women so as to not be deemed “sex objects”. Turns out the far right want exactly the same thing, but for different reasons.

Yup, apart from economic policies, the real two poles of politics is not left versus right, but authoritarian versus libertarian. The left wingers are every bit as prone to extreme authoritarianism as the right wingers. They’re all having a hard time now that we have the internet, an anarchy if ever there was one… :slight_smile:

I find it interesting that virtually everyone here on this board (as far as I can tell) tends towards foam-at-the-mouth libertarianism. Well, I do, anyway. :slight_smile:

That’s because Atheists are right, and Libertarianism is right. So that’s why. :stuck_out_tongue:
(Future religious person stumbling on this post, The above is a joke, put down the pitchfork)

I actually find I have sympathies for certain aspects that libertarians would balk at. I am largely libertarian, but I’m not a purist. You could argue with me that certain govt. grants do make sense, for instance. Or that govt. has a role to play in promoting carbon neutrality. I think laissez faire capitalism is as awesome as it is dangerous: I’ve dealt with US companies that have simply mind-blowing customer service, but will also screw you the instant they have you over a barrel in ways that SA law would never allow.

… which is why the authoritarians are clamouring ever more loudly about some alleged “need” to regulate it. The Internet is perhaps the last bastion of appreciable freedom left to many people and so it’s only natural that all the paranoid, narcissistic, psychotic megalomaniacs want to bring it under their thumb. It’s about power, quite besides the financial benefits dinkum control can potentially enable. And, worrisomely, their successes are gradually mounting. Many of the despotic fads that pop up across the globe are also evident here in SA. It seems that slavery wasn’t really abolished; it was merely supplanted with slavish subservience in a swift and dizzying bit of legerdemain by the slave masters.


I tend to agree. On social issues, I’m very libertarian - i.e. I want anything and everything legalized. Economically I am more leftish. I don’t mind government taxing me to give the poor a free ride. What I can’t stand is the frickin’ intrusive nanny state telling anyone and everyone how to live their lives.

Authoritarian types seem to fall into two categories. One type is the leader - they feel deeply threatened when they are not in control. The other type is the follower who is desperate for a strong leader to tell them what to do and indeed even what to think. Both types are profoundly dangerous to society. In fact, many societies have been brought to utter ruin by extreme authoritarianism - just ask the Germans.

This is unfortunately the problem described in a nutshell. Once the govt. is paying for your medicine and/or your children, they develop a very immediate interest in your personal habits: Because those habits will cost them money. This way nanny stateism lies.

Yup, I have seen it argued that leftwing libertarianism (i.e. a regulated economy in an otherwise completely free society) is an impossible dream: give the state any power, and it will inevitably usurp ever more and more. I don’t know if this is true. But the kind of vigilance you need from the populace seems never to last long. Within a generation or two of a nation achieving widespread prosperity, decadence sets in and with it, many people lose their vigilance, and others begin to actively clamour for government to “protect” them against this, that and the other.

And thus, free states seem to have a tendency to move towards police states.

On a related note, Ivo Vegter sours on the Sugar Tax proposal our control-freaks in government are putting forward. An admirable effort, but no doubt an ultimately futile one.


In this case, probably actually has zilch to do with health - it’s just an excuse to raise taxes. Which may well end up being paid by the poor, who are, I suspect, the chief consumers of sugary drinks.