Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[Brian Blackwell]

Non-US citizens being told they just can't waltz into the country without checking in first is loss of liberty?

Of course. It's a man with a gun inhibiting the free movement of an innocent individual. There is no valid property claim to this land mass on the whole, and what's more, it is violating the right of free association of every individual upon that land mass.

How is that different than a man with a gun inhibiting the movement of an innocent individual on his private property? What makes his property claim valid?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

That there is a lineage of ownership rooted in labor of some kind. If you build a house, then agree to sell it, then that person names their child as an heir, and that child gifts it to someone else...

There are grey areas, of course, but it’s rooted in the idea that if I mix my labor with something, it is an extension of myself, be it a chair, a piece of art, a house, a garden... that doesn’t mean you can paint my house while I’m sleeping then say it’s yours, there is a prior claim that hasn’t been satisfied.

And common sense tells you that you can’t claim ownership over a piece of land you’ve never seen just because you say so, and you can’t monopolize a continent and say you own everything and everyone on it. A lot of property rights has to do with people being reasonable, which is an unfortunate characteristic, because everyone will not always agree, but all legislation does is put down on paper one person’s idea and punish anyone who doesn’t agree.

Successful life on this planet does require that people be able to sort out differences in the absence of guidelines written in the sky. But making one person’s arbitrary idea law doesn’t solve the problem.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

First, no I am not an anarchist, but you fools keep defending statism and force my hand. Secondly, because the state can do nothing but impair and deprive. That is all it does.

I don't believe we can ever get to a state of anarchy because too many people think they are moral because they are beholden to a set of religious rules handed down by other people in the name of a supreme being.

Because too many people rely on others to tell them what is moral, rather than using their brains, we are inevitably stuck with a state. That doesn't mean I have to like it or defend it.

Well, again, we can choose our own position and foster this understanding in others to help move us closer to the ideal, which you have been doing here. In addition, one of the primary benefits of freedom which provides fertile ground for peace is the ability for people to group up and live under their own ideals. Sort of like the Amish.

Right now we've got rural Christians in Alabama and urban atheists in California vying for control over the rules that will apply to everyone. Each finds themselves in the majority on some issues, and the minority on others, and thus all are oppressed. It creates division and hatred between groups that could otherwise just ignore each other. That's the evil of democracy in all its forms - everyone becomes both a slave and a master in an endless cycle of domination. People don't want to talk about it, but this is verifiably one of the ideals of dark occultists, for anyone open enough to research it. Just sayin'.

The only solution to the folks from Alabama and Cali disagreeing is to have them separated and each has their own little commune, excluding the other.

Is that how you perceive your utopia? Thousands upon thousands of small islands of people that exclude those that do not think like they do?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You just keep repeating the same shit we have already exploded over and over again. You're a geyser of talking points that don't mean jack shit. You are immune to facts and logic.

What are you exploding?? Are you finally getting some balls and acting on your convictions


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

We have exploded your hilarous attempts at logic and your incessant trolling. You don't debate. You post talking points fed to you by your ideological masters.

This from the anarchist Trump cheerleader...too fucking funny!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Oddball]

And finally (for now), it's impossible to ensure that immoral people won't get into positions of power - in fact, psychopaths are exceedingly skilled at hiding their dysfunction, and are known to be drawn to such positions - so power will always only magnify the immorality it's instituted to address. The idea that the "instruction manual" would ever, or could ever, save us is the epitome of naivety.

F.A. Hayek devoted a chapter to this in his magnum opus "The Road to Serfdom"...Such authority attracts to it the immoral, who look upon that power as an end unto itself, like trash dumps draw rats.

As a recovering minarchist, I now recognize that the mindset of the authoritarian will not allow even the most minimal of state structures to stay minimal...They will always seek to expand the scope and reach of their mythical authority.

Why the Worst Get on Top | F. A. Hayek

 

[Harpy Eagle]

[QUOTE="Some Guy, post: 19842407, member:]
Which inherently suggests that morals are more absolute. The more advanced critical thinking and scientific society will arrive at the better/correct morals, or at least have more conviction in practicing them, unless of course you disagree that some society's have better or worse morals.[/quote]

Nothing that is changing can be absolute. Morals have evolved over time, thus they cannot be absolute.
You have to remember that as critical thought and science progress there will be less and less room for emotion in the discussion of morals.

Eating to survive doesn't really get into morality though. You might say that it's not moral for the spider to eat a bird, or by extension, anything else living. Would it be moral to die instead? Nope, not really. But that's beyond the point that spiders and mantis' aren't intelligent enough to really address morals. I think morality clashes with nature but only in so-far. Is it immoral for humans to eat cows? Nope. Is it immoral for humans to raise cows strictly to be slaughtered for food? That's debatable.

If morals are based upon the intelligence to understand them, then again they have nothing to with nature and everything to do with society.

Do you think a society has “higher” morals because it has progressed, or does it progress because it has higher morals.

Also, not everyone would agree that we are more moral than we were 50 years ago. At one time, being a unwed mother was the height of immorality, now it is commonplace and not seen as immoral. Is the new view better or worse? Or is it just different?

I think critical thought and science is the pursuit of absolute truth (and morals along with that). So, i guess you're right in that morals reflect the current enlightenment of those espousing them but the end-game is to try to get to the absolute truth/morality.

I agree that the the pursuit of absolute truth drives those, but I have to assume you agree it is an unachievable goal, neither critical thinking or science will ever go “well, that’s it, we have hit perfection”.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Some Guy]

Nothing that is changing can be absolute. Morals have evolved over time, thus they cannot be absolute.
You have to remember that as critical thought and science progress there will be less and less room for emotion in the discussion of morals.

What's changing about people's minds? Nothing really, other than small developments as a result of evolution. What's changing is that we're getting smarter, more experienced, and thus able to understand more about the world around us and what's happening. It helps us get closer to the absolute truths that are out there to be discovered. We'll never get there about everything but we're trying.

If morals are based upon the intelligence to understand them, then again they have nothing to with nature and everything to do with society.

Take physics as an example. People once thought that the sun revolved around the earth. People thought the earth was flat. This was indisputable. Some really smart people came around and made a strong case for why that wasn't the case, and it became accepted thought even though it wasn't definitely provable. We kept getting smarter and more experienced to the point where we could shoot a rocket into space with a person in it who could definitively prove that yes, the earth is round.

The earth was always round, no matter what people ever said about it not being round while they were living on it.

Do you think a society has “higher” morals because it has progressed, or does it progress because it has higher morals.

There's an interplay, but primarily because people (not necessarily society) have progressed. We've built up a wealth of knowledge, looking at what works and what doesn't, whats provable and what's not, and we've grown closer to observing those absolute morals even when we think it might be beneficial not to. Killing, again, is an easy one to look at. Past societies have looked at killing someone in your way as the moral, strong (or whatever positive descriptor you want to use here) thing to do, and they've been proven wrong.

Also, not everyone would agree that we are more moral than we were 50 years ago. At one time, being a unwed mother was the height of immorality, now it is commonplace and not seen as immoral. Is the new view better or worse? Or is it just different?

Good example for why Anarchy won't work in practice, not yet anyway. There's still a whole lot of immoral people out there who would espouse the morality of being a single mother, even when it's not the most moral thing you could do for the future of your child (on a macro level anyway). You can't prove that single motherhood leads to a bad outcome for the child all the time, but you can prove that it's not as advantageous as growing up in a two-parent household, in aggregate anyway.

I agree that the the purist is absolute truth drives those, but I have to assume you agree it is an unachievable goal, neither critical thinking or science will ever go “well, that’s it, we have hit perfection”

Yep, i agree, but it's not a reason to not get as close as you can. I think the ultimate show of intelligence is in acknowledging that you can't and never will know everything. That you can always learn something new even from people who you might not think you could on the surface. Socrates said that "True wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And finally (for now), it's impossible to ensure that immoral people won't get into positions of power - in fact, psychopaths are exceedingly skilled at hiding their dysfunction, and are known to be drawn to such positions - so power will always only magnify the immorality it's instituted to address. The idea that the "instruction manual" would ever, or could ever, save us is the epitome of naivety.

F.A. Hayek devoted a chapter to this in his magnum opus "The Road to Serfdom"...Such authority attracts to it the immoral, who look upon that power as an end unto itself, like trash dumps draw rats.

As a recovering minarchist, I now recognize that the mindset of the authoritarian will not allow even the most minimal of state structures to stay minimal...They will always seek to expand the scope and reach of their mythical authority.

Why the Worst Get on Top | F. A. Hayek

There will always be authoritarians among humans, it is part of human nature, the best possible outcome is to limit them as much as possible.

No matter what system of order a society has some always want more, some will always break the rules, some will always be happy doing nothing.

Something will replace the vacuum left by government being removed. Controlling what it is that fills that void would be the key


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I am telling people to have strength to their convictions. We have people that talk a mighty game on an internet forum but will not back up that talk. Here we are more than 1000 post in and the anarchist have told us all that time how evil the US government ia, and when they have a chance to live government free, they all of a sudden decided shit is not so bad after all.

Seems things are not really as bad as they pretend

You are insinuating that an American anarchy will unequivocally look like a desert shit hole full of tribal dumbasses literally trying to kill each other, as they have been for thousands of years. Liberia is supposed to be set up just like the U.S. Yet, there's no way in hell you would go there to practice your perfect form of government.

Why?

Because Liberia is a shit hole full of tribal idiots warring with each other, a general lack of education or innovation, and little to no commerce. Liberia has had all the advantages of the U.S. form of government, yet it is a steaming pile of shit.

So, from here on out, you can take your ass to Liberia if you demand that we go to Somalia.

Deal?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

There will always be authoritarians among humans, it is part of human nature, the best possible outcome is to limit them as much as possible.

I agree with this.

No matter what system of order a society has some always want more, some will always break the rules, some will always be happy doing nothing.

And those who want more can pay for it.

Those who want to break the rules can be shot or exiled.

Those who do nothing can starve.

Simple solutions.

Something will replace the vacuum left by government being removed. Controlling what it is that fills that void would be the key

I agree with this also. Those committed to anarchy must be armed and ready to kill to protect the society they set up. Again, I think anarchy is a temporary state at best, and is not an inert condition. In other words, it will quickly revolved back to statism. The only hope for anarchists is to keep throwing off government. That does what I think needs to be done, as a libertarian. Constant distrust and revocation of government.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I believe that is called the rule of law.

If you don't like it you can leave, right?

I mean it isn't like you don't have a remedy to it.

We have multiple remedies. One is to do what our founders did, and they justified in the Declaration of Independence.

That option will no doubt result in a bunch of killing. Maybe we could reach a compromise, but most of us would take death and the opportunity to kill some slimy statists in the process, rather than the "get out" option.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, again, we can choose our own position and foster this understanding in others to help move us closer to the ideal, which you have been doing here. In addition, one of the primary benefits of freedom which provides fertile ground for peace is the ability for people to group up and live under their own ideals. Sort of like the Amish.

Right now we've got rural Christians in Alabama and urban atheists in California vying for control over the rules that will apply to everyone. Each finds themselves in the majority on some issues, and the minority on others, and thus all are oppressed. It creates division and hatred between groups that could otherwise just ignore each other. That's the evil of democracy in all its forms - everyone becomes both a slave and a master in an endless cycle of domination. People don't want to talk about it, but this is verifiably one of the ideals of dark occultists, for anyone open enough to research it. Just sayin'.

The only solution to the folks from Alabama and Cali disagreeing is to have them separated and each has their own little commune, excluding the other.

Is that how you perceive your utopia? Thousands upon thousands of small islands of people that exclude those that do not think like they do?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You just keep repeating the same shit we have already exploded over and over again. You're a geyser of talking points that don't mean jack shit. You are immune to facts and logic.

What are you exploding?? Are you finally getting some balls and acting on your convictions


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

We have exploded your hilarous attempts at logic and your incessant trolling. You don't debate. You post talking points fed to you by your ideological masters.

This from the anarchist Trump cheerleader...too fucking funny!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So says the boot licking commie who claims to be a libertarian.

Just as I said, you don't debate. You post personal attacks and insolent redneck demands.

 

[bripat9643]

And finally (for now), it's impossible to ensure that immoral people won't get into positions of power - in fact, psychopaths are exceedingly skilled at hiding their dysfunction, and are known to be drawn to such positions - so power will always only magnify the immorality it's instituted to address. The idea that the "instruction manual" would ever, or could ever, save us is the epitome of naivety.

F.A. Hayek devoted a chapter to this in his magnum opus "The Road to Serfdom"...Such authority attracts to it the immoral, who look upon that power as an end unto itself, like trash dumps draw rats.

As a recovering minarchist, I now recognize that the mindset of the authoritarian will not allow even the most minimal of state structures to stay minimal...They will always seek to expand the scope and reach of their mythical authority.

Why the Worst Get on Top | F. A. Hayek

There will always be authoritarians among humans, it is part of human nature, the best possible outcome is to limit them as much as possible.

That's funny. Authoritarians are people who say things like "Murica, love it or leave it."

No matter what system of order a society has some always want more, some will always break the rules, some will always be happy doing nothing.

Something will replace the vacuum left by government being removed. Controlling what it is that fills that void would be the key

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So your solution is just to cave in to fascism?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The only solution to the folks from Alabama and Cali disagreeing is to have them separated and each has their own little commune, excluding the other.

Is that how you perceive your utopia? Thousands upon thousands of small islands of people that exclude those that do not think like they do?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You just keep repeating the same shit we have already exploded over and over again. You're a geyser of talking points that don't mean jack shit. You are immune to facts and logic.

What are you exploding?? Are you finally getting some balls and acting on your convictions


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

We have exploded your hilarous attempts at logic and your incessant trolling. You don't debate. You post talking points fed to you by your ideological masters.

This from the anarchist Trump cheerleader...too fucking funny!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So says the boot licking commie who claims to be a libertarian.

Just as I said, you don't debate. You post personal attacks and insolent redneck demands.

I am having a fine discussion with everyone but you, while all you are doing is attacking those who will not bow down to your wisdom.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I think those of you arguing are kinda talking different things. I've seen Bootney acknowledge that Anarchy isn't viable in practice, maybe Brian would as well. So from that standpoint, Golfing Gator is right.

But to inform the practice, you need to form the ideal, which is what's being attempted to do here. If people were totally moral and respected the sovereignty of their fellow man at all times, every time, then yes: no government is needed. Because, people are capable of associating, coordinating and working together in absence of government. We do that every day. We don't need a government to give us permission to sell ice cream cones in a store on the corner, and we don't need a government to tell us that the piece of paper i give you in exchange for the ice cream is worth something valuable. We also don't need government to tell us that it's in our best interest to treat other people fairly and kindly.

Government exists because not all people all the time will act morally. But that doesn't change the fact that government is a force designed to enforce morality via the use of immoral actions. In other words, government is an immoral means to a moral end. It's a necessary evil, one that should be limited to the greatest extent possible (in many people's opinions here).

Consent isn't implied by not leaving. I don't consent to paying the taxes i do, but i pay them because a force much greater than me will take my life away if i don't. I value not being in prison more than not paying taxes. And i don't see a better situation available for me and my family to move to considering all the governments there are in relation to the location, and such. That doesn't mean i consent to a lot of what the government imposes on me, and thus why i'm interested in understanding what the ideal state would be in order to inform how i would/could change things around me.

That's my take anyway.

Great post, thank you. The notion of a "necessary evil" concerns me because - although people don't seem to intend this - it implies that immorality is a fundamental requirement for the success of mankind. This is a troublesome premise on it's own, never mind the fact that it flies in the face of natural law.

Morality offers guidance for how to successfully navigate the cause-and-effect of human behavior. It is impossible that evil, or immorality, can be necessary for good to be achieved. The notion of man's law somehow addressing the problem of immorality with immorality is inherently flawed. Not only for the obvious reason that whatever level of immorality it introduces into the system, it must eliminate that much and more to be effective; but also because the consequence of immorality is more immorality, not less.

All evil is theft of freedom. Rape, for instance, robs one of their choice to freely decide who they will have such interactions with. Taxation robs one of the freedom to decide how their labor should be applied. Logically, this means that all good is intrinsically linked with freedom. So any infringement on freedom purported to serve good is demonstrably misguided, and inevitably doomed to failure.

 

[Oddball]

 

[bripat9643]

You just keep repeating the same shit we have already exploded over and over again. You're a geyser of talking points that don't mean jack shit. You are immune to facts and logic.

What are you exploding?? Are you finally getting some balls and acting on your convictions


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

We have exploded your hilarous attempts at logic and your incessant trolling. You don't debate. You post talking points fed to you by your ideological masters.

This from the anarchist Trump cheerleader...too fucking funny!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So says the boot licking commie who claims to be a libertarian.

Just as I said, you don't debate. You post personal attacks and insolent redneck demands.

I am having a fine discussion with everyone but you, while all you are doing is attacking those who will not bow down to your wisdom.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

They are putting up with your horseshit. I'm done with that. You don't debate honestly. You make personal attacks and spout talking points over and over no matter how my times they have been debunked.

What you don't bow down to is logic and facts. Your claims are totally unsubstaniated. I don't know why Brian Blackwell put's up with your crap.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Conversely, the chair wouldn't necessarily exist if not for the employer. If someone is making and selling kick-ass sponges out their garage, and eventually the demand exceeds the capacity, that's when someone is hired to help meet the demand. It would depend on what he's getting paid, but should the employer not make more than the employee? The employer is taking the risk. The employer is the one who created the need for the employee and the one who is directly charged with informing the employee what he/she needs to do in order to meet the demand. From there, the employee can decide to start his own sponge-making operation if he'd like, or he can prove to the employer that he's worth more than what he's being paid via innovating the manufacturing process or coming up with a new product offering and thus earn more.

Yes, there are many variables that could alter the scenario. At the most fundamental level, making a chair for an employer who can sell it for $20 but will only pay you $10 for the time it took to make it means that the employee's labor has been devalued by 50%. But perhaps the employer has inroads into markets you do not have access to, and you would not be able to get more than $10 on your own; or maybe he has tools and machinery that enables you to make a chair in half the time, etc. I was speaking on the principle level - employment is exploitation by definition, regardless of other factors like the employer's risk - but there can be ways in which employment would be the best option available to the laborer, short of starting his own business. If averting the risk of forming your own business is worth being devalued to you, then the arrangement is preferable. You are effectually paying the employer the amount of your devaluation for that desirable element.

 

[Some Guy]

Yes, there are many variables that could alter the scenario. At the most fundamental level, making a chair for an employer who can sell it for $20 but will only pay you $10 for the time it took to make it means that the employee's labor has been devalued by 50%. But perhaps the employer has inroads into markets you do not have access to, and you would not be able to get more than $10 on your own; or maybe he has tools and machinery that enables you to make a chair in half the time, etc. I was speaking on the principle level - employment is exploitation by definition, regardless of other factors like the employer's risk - but there can be ways in which employment would be the best option available to the laborer, short of starting his own business. If averting the risk of forming your own business is worth being devalued to you, then the arrangement is preferable. You are effectually paying the employer the amount of your devaluation for that desirable element.

If you're referring to exploitation in the more pure sense of the word, which is basically a synonym for "use", then yea. At my job, i'm basically considered a "resource" and the managers and executives above me will figure out how to use their resources (i.e. skilled man hours) at hand for the initiatives requested by our business stakeholders. From a resource allocation standpoint, i've never heard someone say (for example) "here's how we plan to exploit our resources to get that software project done." It's more use, allocate, deploy, etc.

So i think we're saying the same thing here. Just that when someone uses the word "exploit" or "exploitation" today, it's suggestive of some nefarious underpinning.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Of course your speculation about the "natural consequence" of anarchy is disputable - you're provided no reasoning to support the assertion. A baseball team is an entirely voluntary arrangement - why can't this exist in a society with no ruling class?

A baseball team has its own ruling class.

There is the league that makes the rules and enforces the rules.

There is the owner that rules the individual team.

There is the manager and coaches that answer to the owner and who control the players.

Then there are the players that according to you are being exploited because making 100 million dollars to play a game is unfair to them.

You still fail to understand what makes government government. It is the claim to an authority over you that supersedes your own. It is the fallacious right to rule you. That is a claim to ownership over you. Everything you do that is not imposed upon by law is something they "let" you do, and they reserve the right to change their mind about that at any time. This is the only thing removed by anarchy. All the organizational elements can remain on a voluntary basis.

Yes, that can all remain and when someone says “fuck that I am not following your rules” then what is the consequence, NOTHING.

If you tell me “this is my land” I can say “nope, it is my land” and shot you in the head and then it is my land and nothing can be done.

Unless of course you have something like a government with a different name to deal with the guy that says “fuck it”.

Contrary to your assertion, morality is discovered, not devised. Moral relativism merely indicates subjective preference. It is a denial of morality, not a version of it. My understanding of morality, as well as mankind's, is not currently sufficient to answer all questions. This includes questions about beings who do not have the capacity to understand morality, like animals.

This is where you go the most wrong and I think this error by you is why you think that anarchy is viable, you do not understand nature.

Morality is a construct of society to help society to survive, it is nothing more than that unless you are appealing to a higher authority than nature, some form of deity from which morals flow.

In nature morality makes no sense. A praying mantis kills its mate because that is the way nature designed it, there can never be a morality assigned to it any more than you could call a hurricane immoral.





Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

[/QUOTE]

A baseball team does not have a ruling class. They have one power in that context, the power to say “I choose to no longer associate with you, and since I own this team, you cannot play here.” This is the same right of association and property that anyone else has. A ruling class claims rights that others don’t have, which we call authority. The reason why others don’t have these rights, is because they are not rights at all, they’re license to infringe on the rights of others.

The recourse for infringing on rights are always the same, with or without law - defensive force. You seem to think law can give you something more than that. People can organize to provide better defense, investigate crimes, do DNA and all that jazz, whatever. But the people who do that job would not have a claim to additional rights recognized in a free society as they do now.

I understand why you put a supernatural connotation on natural law, but I’ve proposed no such thing. Think of natural law as consequentialism. Our behaviors have certain consequences. Much of these consequences have to do with how others respond. Man is inherently free. Any attempt to plug up his freedom will express in other, less desirable, ways. Animals do not have the same level of thought, so their cause and effect would likely be different. Our moral concerns do not apply to them, to the best of my knowledge.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

You choose to stay here when you could leave and go to a place that has the system that you claim to prefer. you are just a fraud that lacks any strength of conviction.

Please stop this, it's demeaning... to you, I mean.

Never mind the fact that combating injustice where you are is more noble than running away (we're not just talking about preference here) but arguments are to be judged on their own merits. So his character - which I do not question - is irrelevant.

Is this discussion what you consider combating injustice?

Question that no one has answered, why does anarchy not work the way you predict it will in Somalia?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Yes, it is combating injustice because the injustice is permitted by its victims. Authority is largely and erroneously recognized as valid. The transition to a free society must come from a widespread understanding of why it is invalid or it will not last. So this is the work.

Somalia’s anarchy (if it is so) did not come about in this way; they are apparently still operating on a low level of consciousness. In addition, they do not have the means of defense that we have in this country.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

He couldn't construct a logical syllogism if his life depended on it.

The saddest part - for all of us - is that it actually does.

Now you are being a drama queen. My life is not in danger. I have roughly 40 to 50 years left on this side of the ground if I am lucky.

The world not transitioning to the anarchist utopia you dream of will have no impact on my life at all. In a decade I will retire and golf and cook to my hearts desire


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Maybe you will, maybe you won’t. This thing is going to break eventually, and probably not in the way I hope. Monarchy fell and was replaced with a more cunning system. This will fall too. You simply cannot deny nature and get away with it. You may not live to see the shit hit the fan, but your life is not at full expression, whether you realize it or not, because you are not free.