Government.

[Reise]

Somebody else handle this I can't be arsed to type all night, I gotta work in the morning.

[Barotix]

Somebody else handle this I can't be arsed to type all night, I gotta work in the morning.

I would suggest reading some of Austrian/Libertarian books while contrasting their points with conditions in modern society. I would also suggest Keynes writing (It's the economic theory most countries follow) so you'll know what the Austrians are criticizing. On top of that read The Communist Manifesto and any other socialist books that catch your eye. It doesn't seem like you really understand the mechanics behind a free society. I need to pick up a copy of the Communist Manifesto, excerpts aren't as good as the real deal.

[XemnasXD]

[Blurred]

Somebody else handle this I can't be arsed to type all night, I gotta work in the morning.

I would suggest reading some of Austrian/Libertarian books. It doesn't seem like you really understand the mechanics behind a free society.

I'm still wondering what will this society do when a bigger country desires its land.

lol... let me stop.

[inky]

I'm loving SRF tonight; keep the questions coming.

The same goes for governments. 2]Would you actually put your faith in humanity and believe that everyone is good at heart and 3]that they wouldn't take the opportunity to rob, kill, or rape you or your loved ones if they knew that there would be no government to impose laws or spend thousands of dollars trying to hunt them down or investigate crimes? 4]Then again, would you say that this government works specifically to serve the people in their best interest and would never treat another "innocent" human being like some expendable pawn?

1]There's a reason why a utopian country does not and could not possibly exist.

1]I see the problem. Such a society is not a country. Countries aren't living entities. Only individuals exist. The individuals are naturally entitled to certain property rights that are universal and cannot only be infringed upon if someone uses force. Since such a society would exist as a group of individuals first and as a "society" (or group of people that share the same ideals and principles. That's as far as it goes.) second one would never have to worry about another's idea of a perfect "country" as they (countries) are not important; third, liberty minded people do exist.

2]People are selfish and do what is in their best interest. So let them do what is in their best interest. As long as they respect property rights only minor disputes should arise.

3]A liberty minded group of individuals that chose to abolish their government would have one understood "law": Respect property rights AKA Human rights. Private detective agencies exist and are superior to police. Private protection is also superior to state owned protection. Since all property is private how would a rapist get away with rape, how would a killer get away with murder, and how would a robber get away with theft? It's impossible. State owned police help after crimes happen; Private protection agencies and private police are on the patrol all the time. Since the owner of that street would seek to protect his property he would hire such agencies to do the job. Now, why do crimes increase when gun laws take effect? Because people who commit crimes are cowards. If you know every street is private and that every property owner has private protection then why (unless mentally unstable) would someone attempt to commit a crime? You would lose far more than you would gain unlike in governments where crime goes unchecked and the only crime that gets any attention is victim less crime.

4]Government is coercive monopoly that can only exist by using force to manipulate it's subjects.

If your definition of a Utopian society is one consist of a small group of people, then there is a possibility of it actually working. What you have to keep in mind though is that is it truly possible for such a Utopian society to have enough people to actually: 1. abolish or secede from the government (Civil War anyone?), 2. become completely independent and operate by itself (security, technology, resources, etc?), and 3. make sure that it doesn't end up like the Soviet Union or China?

**edit: In addition, even if you have succeeded in establishing such a society after overthrowing the government, how would such a system make sure that other individuals would not try to take advantage of other people especially since the production of even the most basic things, such as canned goods, have to operate as a company? What if the owner or the "board" suddenly decides to lower the salary? What couple possibly prevent them from doing such a thing if there's no "law" stating that a minimum wage exist? And what motivation would such people (company owners) have to lower the salary? To get rich of course, unless that is, you're planning to revive the barter system of goods. To further analyze the situation, what do you think would happen over time when these owners start getting richer? There's a reason why Trusts between companies were broken, ironically, by another monopolizing force -- the government. Keep in mind that I'm only talking about a single canned goods producing company here. What more if we get into agriculture? What's your solution? Become farmer Joe? Then what about security? How about security from foreign nations who wish to, maybe, colonize your land?

Throughout history, there have been numerous groups of people who managed to overthrow their previous government or secede from it. Although these people have different ideas, the outcome is always similar -- there will always be another group of "freethinkers" who will rise against the current system in order to create what, in their minds, is a better society. Utopia is nothing more than an unattainable and unfathomable state created by constant wars and/or clash of ideas between free-thinking individuals.

If you ever manage to lead a revolution and successfully overthrow the current system, keep in mind that conflicts, crisis, and certain things that you would consider to be undesirable will arise overtime because humans have intellect, free will, and the ability to think for themselves -- even if that means to revolt against your Utopia.

[Reise]

I understand completely Barotix.

I just can't convey my understanding to you in a timely fashion, especially when even the most obvious flaws in your proposals are more or less ignored.

Sorry if I disappoint you.

[XemnasXD]

sokay, you tried...

[Barotix]

Hmm; This is hard (that is: conveying this message to those that understand the basics but not the full nine yards). The basic tenants of a Free Libertarian Society would be:

Non-Initiation of force. You can't force others to do your bidding (no involuntary servitude).
No form of Governmental (No violent coercive monopolies) control. (If a free society is prosperous then why would free thinkers think of ways to control the society rather than ways to make the society more free, autonomous, and prosperous; one would jeopardize their freedom and the freedom of others around them by trying to think up ways to control others. Using force to control others goes against the non-initiation of force and is not in one's best interest)
Respect for Private Property Rights (respecting claims to property and thus claims to ownership of ones own body [i.e.] Human rights.)

That's all it takes. I believe I highlighted the best way for such a society to form: Without war, or rebellion. Simple freedom of choice, freedom of information, and free thought will lead to a society without government.

How can such a society achieve autonomy? Does one need government to compel them to think, invent, trade, and interact with other men? The market (and because the people make up the market: the cells make up the body) is self-regulating.

If you ever manage to lead a revolution and successfully overthrow the current system, keep in mind that conflicts, crisis, and certain things that you would consider to be undesirable will arise overtime because humans have intellect, free will, and the ability to think for themselves -- even if that means to revolt against your Utopia.

It can't be created from violence. If you violently overthrow a government people will look for a leader. If people decide that they can work better without being controlled or manipulated then the shackles of government will be cast off. They would not be rejecting a utopia. There is nothing to revolt against in such a society. No government to be at odds with, you just happen to trade with your neighbors and share a similar mindset (that is freedom). Such intellectuals would think things through and hopefully look towards history for examples of why force is not in one's best interest. Forcing others to do your bidding or follow your way of life is against all libertarian credos. One must choose to be free or not at all.

[Draquish]

In a free society there are no rights. Just the assumption that people should cooperate.

As said by Draq, a free society could work if it were structured properly. Such a society structured, under Liberty, freedom, and the protection of private property rights, would understand all the underlying principles that keep their society prosperous and would not forgo them. You still ignore awareness and education.

Baro, I also labeled my view of such a society as idealist.

These things you speak of are nice and all...but our current culture/society(as a collective) isn't fit for the cause.

[Barotix]

In a free society there are no rights. Just the assumption that people should cooperate.

As said by Draq, a free society could work if it were structured properly. Such a society structured, under Liberty, freedom, and the protection of private property rights, would understand all the underlying principles that keep their society prosperous and would not forgo them. You still ignore awareness and education.

Baro, I also labeled my view of such a society as idealist.

These things you speak of are nice, and all...but our current culture/society(as a collective) isn't fit for the cause.

Exactly. There is nothing wrong with social freedom but if a society is not educated and prepared for a shift from Anarchy among violent monopolies to anarchy among free-thinking individuals that value freedom it's only a dream (as I said on page 1).

[XemnasXD]

if its impossible for us as people to sustain such a society why are arguing so much in its favor. You know its impossible....

[Barotix]

if its impossible for us as people to sustain such a society why are arguing so much in its favor. You know its impossible....

It's impossible for us as we are now. Possible for 18th-early 20th century Americans; Impossible for 21st century Americans. We're to easily manipulated and not well-informed. The internet can change that; The internet (the free flow of information from all around the world, the convergence of different mindsets and ideologies, the passing of ideas from one group to another.) is liberation.

[Jstar1]

You know what? This thread is starting to look like the religion thread. This is like trying to argue with a religious person about God: people will say your wrong or they'll disagree but you'll just go on and on about what you think without a care for anyone else's opinion.

[Draquish]

I'm waiting for the world to do a massive wipe again so that this hunk of rock we live in gets another chance.

[inky]

@Barotix:
Trade with your neighbors? You really think such a system would have enough resources and workforce, if it would even exist, to advance further? Do you really believe that people are willing to give up technological advancement for a more simple life? Or that people are willing to rely on public stoning (or whatever punishment the village elder decides to impose) in the case that your neighbor got overwhelmed by testosterone and decides to rape someone? There's a good reason why the majority of Americans are not Amish. By the way, don't count on the thought that every one of those "freethinkers" is an intellectual. And even if they are, that only means that they have their own free will to think..which, going back to my point, could involve revolting against your system if they feel that such a society is too vulnerable or that they wish to take the opportunity to control other vulnerable "utopias."

**I added a few things on my previous reply that are relevant to this as well.**

[Grimjaw]

if its impossible for us as people to sustain such a society why are arguing so much in its favor. You know its impossible....

It's impossible for us as we are now. Possible for 18th-early 20th century Americans; Impossible for 21st century Americans. We're to easily manipulated and not well-informed. The internet can change that; The internet (the free flow of information from all around the world, the convergence of different mindsets and ideologies, the passing of ideas from one group to another.) is liberation.

Not trying to undermine your Admirable theory,but what makes you think conflict won't also occur on the Internet?

[Barotix]

bla

Nothing like religious threads.

You really think such a system would have enough resources and workforce, if it would even exist, to advance further? Do you really believe that people are willing to give up technological advancement for a more simple life? Or that people are willing to rely on public stoning (or whatever punishment the village elder decides to impose) in the case that your neighbor got overwhelmed by testosterone and decides to rape someone?

Simple? Such extreme examples: Tell me, did government or the market usher in the industrial revolution? Do governments or individuals create technology and ideas? Simply buying something from the store is "trading with your neighbor." He values my fiat more than I value his gum. People set up shop and sell what is available. Resources? Workforce? The resources are there; use them. The workforce? The people are the workforce. Do you need to be in a society controlled by government to get a job or buy someone's services? So the cashier of a corner store that sells fruits is going to get overwhelmed and rape someone, sure. How does government prevent that from happening? How does government regulations and restrictions decrease the prevalence of crime? Village elder? Stoning? Please, read the whole thread. What you have in mind is vengeance, not justice. You don't overthrow government: Such a society cannot be created from violence. There are no minimum wage laws. The market determines the value of each and every job. Minimum wage destroys jobs and causes unemployment. Corporations cannot exist in a free market (Companies can); Market Competition will prevent such a thing from happening. Government creates monopolies and corporations; not the market. Say you raise the minimum wage to 30 USD an hour for all jobs. Naturally; those jobs that aren't worth 30 USD an hour will disappear. Would you pay a paper boy 30 USD per hour? How about a bagger? Jobs that aren't worth the minimum wage get outsourced.

Not trying to undermine your Admirable theory,but what makes you think conflict won't also occur on the Internet?

Conflict does occur; conflict is part of trading thought. It's why compromises and mutually beneficial ideas exist. Many friendships start in conflict but similarities bond people together.

[XemnasXD]

if its impossible for us as people to sustain such a society why are arguing so much in its favor. You know its impossible....

It's impossible for us as we are now. Possible for 18th-early 20th century Americans; Impossible for 21st century Americans. We're to easily manipulated and not well-informed. The internet can change that; The internet (the free flow of information from all around the world, the convergence of different mindsets and ideologies, the passing of ideas from one group to another.) is liberation.

the further you go back the less the masses were informed. If its impossible for us what makes it more possible for them. They were less educated, fewer people owned property, and it was harder to communicate. That trend gets worse the further back you and better the further ahead you go. Its safe to say, as it has already been pointed out, that your ideals are little more than science-fiction.

[Beto_Chavez]

McCain is an asshole. Period.

[inky]

bla

Nothing like religious threads.

You really think such a system would have enough resources and workforce, if it would even exist, to advance further? Do you really believe that people are willing to give up technological advancement for a more simple life? Or that people are willing to rely on public stoning (or whatever punishment the village elder decides to impose) in the case that your neighbor got overwhelmed by testosterone and decides to rape someone?

Simple? Such extreme examples: Tell me, did government or the market usher in the industrial revolution? Do governments or individuals create technology and ideas? Simply buying something from the store is "trading with your neighbor." He values my fiat more than I value his gum. People set up shop and sell what is available. Resources? Workforce? The resources are there; use them. The workforce? The people are the workforce. Do you need to be in a society controlled by government to get a job or buy someone's services? So the cashier of a corner store that sells fruits is going to get overwhelmed and rape someone, sure. How does government prevent that from happening? How does government regulations and restrictions decrease the prevalence of crime? Village elder? Stoning? Please, read the whole thread. What you have in mind is vengeance, not justice.

Case in point, your sense of justice is different that mine. If people managed to overthrow the government and create an autonomous system with a stable economy, there will always be these issues, mainly ethical issues, that "freethinkers" tend to differ on. What you consider as vengeance or deprivation of human rights might be interpreted by someone, such as myself, as a rational, practical, and just form of doing things. I'll tell you one of the things I wish such a society would have: a place to execute murderers, rapists, and armed robbers by harvesting their organs, performing experiments on them, and/or torturing them (for auction -- money will go for funding orphans or research for diseases). I highly doubt that you would see that as a form of justice, but I personally believe that it is.

**anyway, i really gotta get some sleep now. it's been a good discussion so far, i'll visit again tomorrow**

[Draquish]

McCain is an asshole. Period.

*sprays troll-be-gone spray*

[Burningwolf]

McCain is an asshole. Period.

lol?

epic fail?

[Beto_Chavez]

McCain is an asshole. Period.

lol?

epic fail?

Epic fail i think not.

[Barotix]

if its impossible for us as people to sustain such a society why are arguing so much in its favor. You know its impossible....

It's impossible for us as we are now. Possible for 18th-early 20th century Americans; Impossible for 21st century Americans. We're to easily manipulated and not well-informed. The internet can change that; The internet (the free flow of information from all around the world, the convergence of different mindsets and ideologies, the passing of ideas from one group to another.) is liberation.

the further you go back the less the masses were informed. If its impossible for us what makes it more possible for them. They were less educated, fewer people owned property, and it was harder to communicate. That trend gets worse the further back you and better the further ahead you go. Its safe to say, as it has already been pointed out, that your ideals are little more than science-fiction.

The people of the 18th-20th century were far more liberty minded than us and dreaded the idea of big government. If one were to say government should help the poor, control wage rates, regulate jobs, force workers to work.. etc they would look at you and wonder if you're mentally stable (just as you probably question my mental health when I suggest a pure capitalistic society). As uninformed as they were they understood and appreciated freedom. Science-fiction (as you call it) is nothing more than Science-Future, if the people knew that the federal reserve puts the country in perpetual debt they would be outraged, if they realized gun laws increase crimes they would want them gone, if they knew banning certain products from being bought and sold caused crime they would be against the banning of such products or services, if they knew the government could arrest you in your sleep (latest FISA acts), take your house, and throw you in prison indefinitely for suspicion of dissent there would be rebellion in the streets. As uninformed as they were they did not trust government and expect it to fix everything. The rule of law reigned supreme.

If your company did such a thing and managed to make a profit then kudos to you, inky, but I doubt a company with such ideals would survive on the free market. I doubt the death sentence would be used in a society that believes in private property rights.

a choice to disobey laws that infringe on civil and economic liberties, combined with the proper amount of information will inevitably lead to such a society.

[XemnasXD]

The people of the 18th-20th century were far more liberty minded than us and dreaded the idea of big government. If one were to say government should help the poor, control wage rates, regulate jobs, force workers to work.. etc they would look at you and wonder if you're mentally stable.

This is a generalization. Alot happened during the 18th-20th century including a civil war. If ppl were as informed and as outspoken as you say they would've stopped the the first Federal Bank instead of letting it run its course then making it again, and again, and again.

if the people knew that the federal reserve puts the country in perpetual debt they would be outraged,

A $700 Billion dollar bailout just passed the House and the Senate, if these institutions are reflections of the people, and they should be, then clearly the people don't mind being sunk deeper and deeper into debt, or at least nto enough to do something about it.

if they realized gun laws increase crimes they would want them gone,

The NRA has been a powerful force in American politics since its creation, this is not because the NRA are masters of politics, its because they have a LARGE number of support. People would rather be able to buy a handgun legally to protect themselves from those who buy them illegally than ban guns from the country altogether.

if they knew banning certain products from being bought and sold caused crime they would be against the banning of such products or services

Weed and crack, the drug industry altogether including legal drugs, all support crime. They perpetuate addiction and cause the user to lower their standards of living. Your not getting a headache because you have an aspirin deffeciency, drug are not a cure they are an industry and a harmful industry and i can guarentee if you suggest taking drugs off the market the people would actually riot.

If they knew the government could arrest you in your sleep (latest FISA acts), take your house, and throw you in prison indefinitely for suspicion of dissent there would be rebellion in the streets.

Aside from the sleeping thing, which i didn't know about, the rest of the stuff has been in the news, the papers, the internet. Its safe to say its common knowledge and so far no ones representative in Gov't has made a real move to take away these rights because not only do they fear retaliation from the Gov't, they fear losing their position for being seen as unpatriotic and for terrorist in the eyes of the people.

[Barotix]

If ppl were as informed and as outspoken as you say they would've stopped the the first Federal Bank instead of letting it run its course then making it again, and again, and again.

Jackson had fun, didn't he?

A $700 Billion dollar bailout just passed the House and the Senate, if these institutions are reflections of the people, and they should be, then clearly the people don't mind being sunk deeper and deeper into debt, or at least nto enough to do something about it.

Those jokers don't represent the people or the constitution. The people may be against the bailout (according to several non-scientific MsM polls: they are) but it doesn't mean they are outraged enough to do something. There were some people that went that extra step, myself included. I phoned my senators and congressmen. District 3 in GA didn't change. BIG NO to the garbage bailout.

The NRA has been a powerful force in American politics since its creation, this is not because the NRA are masters of politics, its because they have a LARGE number of support. People would rather be able to buy a handgun legally to protect themselves from those who buy them illegally than ban guns from the country altogether.

Woah, we said the same thing: "If people realized gun laws (banning guns) increased crime they would be against them." Is my English really that bad?

Weed and crack, the drug industry altogether including legal drugs, all support crime. They perpetuate addiction and cause the user to lower their standards of living. Your not getting a headache because you have an aspirin deffeciency, drug are not a cure they are an industry and a harmful industry and i can guarentee if you suggest taking drugs off the market the people would actually riot.

Loled@weed. They perpetuate organized crime because they're outlawed. Why would I suggest taking drugs off the market: No/little government, non-initiation of force, libertarianism. Either make them legal or not at all. Freedom or not at all. Liberty or death. Alcohol becomes illegal *Boom* Crime sky rockets. Alcohol becomes legal it all drops down. Same applies to every other "drug."

Aside from the sleeping thing, which i didn't know about, the rest of the stuff has been in the news, the papers, the internet. Its safe to say its common knowledge and so far no ones representative in Gov't has made a real move to take away these rights because not only do they fear retaliation from the Gov't, they fear losing their position for being seen as unpatriotic and for terrorist in the eyes of the people.

O.o? You called it common knowledge. I know the internet knows it but... Maybe Georgians in my area are really unaware of whats going on. Yeah, they don't need permission anymore to violate all your liberties. Maybe you and I know it but I don't think the majority of the people know of it.

[Grandpa]

Barotix, you must be sure that you continue to choose your words with care, because saying, "I have trust in Human Ingenuity" is very close to saying you have faith, isn't it? In point of fact, you cannot have "trust" in human ingenuity - without hoping for the best. What assurance can you offer that your faith in mankind is well placed? Can you think of any examples that might disprove your beliefs?

I know the UN supports your belief - they quote the Prophets, "And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."


I don't think we're there yet (because we aren't). The prophecy for our time comes from Joel: "Proclaim ye this among the Gentiles; Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up: Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong."

It's always interesting to me when those who do not pray nor fear God start taking up His word in error.

[inky]

Ah, hell, I can't sleep. I'm gonna go play some Cabal for a few minutes later =p

On topic:

Barotix, there's at least one important phase missing and a few elements in that ideal system of yours that you're ignoring or simply, for whatever reason, fail to recognize or consider. But before that, I want to make it clear that I'm not opposed to your system (except maybe in the "Justice" system) -- in fact, I do think a system which fosters real freedom (intellectually and physically) and promotes individuals rather than a government body is ideal. I do not, however, think that this is possible.

Let's start with the missing phase: the shift. You cannot simply assume that in a world where nations value their military strength, people would simply wake up one day and decide that the system's not working for them so it's better simply love one another. Human desires are natural (not innate) -- they develop as humans experience new things and interact with one another. Diamonds, for example, are quite useless to our survival. But because our society values them, we learn to do so as well which means that acquiring one could possibly make someone feel better about themselves. That's when greed kicks in -- our desire to possess. To sum it all up, it is unreasonable to assume that everyone in that Utopian system of yours values certain rights that other people (should) have because no pair or group of individuals could undergo the same developmental process and have similar experiences. I believe in probabilistic epigenesis so I strongly believe that people are mainly shaped by their interaction with the environment and others around them. You're ignoring the fact that freethinking doesn't mean that everyone would just rely on the beneficence of others -- freethinking simply means thinking freely on your own as I am now. You have to keep in mind that not all freethinkers subscribe to your ideology, neither are they limited to thought -- yes, they can plan and initiate a revolt if their freethinking leads them to the conclusion that they are not satisfied with your version of Utopia. You simply can't expect billions of people to just abandon their way of life in exchange for your system because they have their own opinions and beliefs. In other words, the only way for you to overthrow or secede from a government is through violence; even the so-called "Bloodless" Revolution of 1688 wasn't completely free of bloodshed.

[Barotix]

people would simply wake up one day and decide that the system's not working for them so it's better simply love one another.

I typed it once; I'll type it again: It is a selfish society. Working in your best interest to satisfy your needs and wants without using force (simply using the market [i.e.] your own hands and intellect) will be how it works. When you get a job at a store you get it for yourself. You get it to take care of yourself or your family. You're still working for your own benefit and doing such a thing is beneficial to society. A farmer making wheat for a profit is helping himself yet helping society. If people are starving and the farmers make more wheat they successfully decrease the price and those who are starving can afford it. Abundance of wheat or food products in time of great need/want will hold starvation at the bay. All such a society ask for is respect of property rights (human rights) and diligence. Like I typed earlier: "A tree does not create a forest in a day." When people simply choose to trade as they want to trade and ignore laws that infringe on property rights (civil and economic liberties [i.e.] Human rights.) Respecting human rights is not about loving your neighbor. If one loves their neighbor in such a society it would be because it is in their best interest to love.

@Granps; plenty of people see holy books as nothing more than books. Many Atheist libertarians that I speak with quote the bible. It's ideas are very libertarian. It makes it easy to get Christians (especially fundamentalist) to join the cause of liberty. Many Christian libertarians quote the bible as well (that's a given). The Christian founders of America used the bible when they were creating this country. It's just a good book, but that doesn't mean I have to accept the spiritual aspects.

[Sharp324]

people would simply wake up one day and decide that the system's not working for them so it's better simply love one another.

I typed it once; I'll type it again: It is a selfish society. Working in your best interest to satisfy your needs and wants without using force (simply using the market [i.e.] your own hands and intellect) will be how it works. When you get a job at a store you get it for yourself. You get it to take care of yourself or your family. You're still working for your own benefit and doing such a thing is beneficial to society. A farmer making wheat for a profit is helping himself yet helping society. If people are starving and the farmers make more wheat they successfully decrease the price and those who are starving can afford it. Abundance of wheat or food products in time of great need/want will hold starvation at the bay. All such a society ask for is respect of property rights (human rights) and diligence. Like I typed earlier: "A tree does not create a forest in a day." When people simply choose to trade as they want to trade and ignore laws that infringe on property rights (civil and economic liberties [i.e.] Human rights.) Respecting human rights is not about loving your neighbor. If one loves their neighbor in such a society it would be because it is in their best interest to love.

@Granps; plenty of people see holy books as nothing more than books. Many Atheist libertarians that I speak with quote the bible. It's ideas are very libertarian. It makes it easy to get Christians (especially fundamentalist) to join the cause of liberty. Many Christian libertarians quote the bible as well (that's a given). The Christian founders of America used the bible when they were creating this country. It's just a good book, but that doesn't mean I have to accept the spiritual aspects.

Heres my honored and valued opinion. baro, every time i read your posts all i see is bullshit, seems your confused yourself and trying to be something in life. Rather annoying.