Need For State Banks

I hate Michael Moore. He is the ultimate bleeding heart liberal whose holier than thou philosophies are so detached from reality that were he to champion perfect positions for the next 80 years he could not undo the damage he's done.

That being said, I agree that we need localized banks (point 4).

We didn't have a central bank originally (1776) for a population of ~2.5 million, which is less than 1/14th the population of California today. End the Fed.

Shiff Calls Democrats Nazi Vampires

Will bring garlic and stakes if he's elected to the Senate.

Freedom is Radical

There are a lot of people, young folk especially, who want to find a cause to stand behind. I want to tell you, now more than ever, freedom is the most radical stance you can take - and it needs you.

Freedom is the idea that you are beholden to no one and that you can do whatever you like so long as it does not impinge on your neighbour; particularly their life, liberty, and property. It's the freedom to make mistakes and learn from your mistakes. It's the freedom to take risks. It's the freedom to fail, and the freedom to succeed. It's the freedom to claim as yours decisions that affect your life. It requires, though, that freedom loving people fight ideas, and unfortunately sometimes the physical manifestations of ideas, that would enslave us. And that is radical, and noble.

You Can't Have War Without Collectivism

Nazi Germany was Socialist
They were beaten by one of the most collectivist US presidents ever

Collectivist power comes from a common goal. At best that goal is to provide services for the people, with only the inefficiencies of a monopoly. At worst, and more commonly, it villainizes an "other" against which the collective must unite to defeat. At best that other is an abstract daemon, such as an environmental problem. At worst, it is a foreign people easily and advantageously scapegoated for the benefit of the leaders.

Concomitantly, history teaches us that any people that does not defend itself will be conquered.

Objectivism v Collectivism aka Rand v Marx aka Capitalism v Socialism: slippery slope

Your need does not create an obligation in me v From each according to his means, to each according to his need

I have a right to produce and disperse the fruits of my labor as I see fit, including giving to charity v I have a right to the fruits of your labor because of my need or because I am a member of a disadvantaged group

I choose to work because I benefit directly and because I can improve the lives of the ones I love, repay those I'm indebted to, and help those I deem worthy v You may work and we will decide how the fruits of your labor are disbursed, you may even get to keep some

I am a free man and choose to work to not only survive, but thrive v you are our slave as evidenced by our ability to tax you on threat of imprisonment

Collectivism in vivo: Harsh Climate v Tribalism

I've been thinking about how we got into this collectivist mess and, as with many things in homo sapien, it is likely a combination of nature and nurture, with natural selection as the guide. So what forces were brought to bear upon us to create such an abomination?

My guess is that there were two primary drives: survival against harsh environmental conditions and survival against other tribes. The environmental version probably had it's greatest effect in the northern climes where communal living is more necessary. Imo, an Viking would be much less likely to survive on his/her own than someone living along the Nile. Everything in the North seems to be communal: hunting large game, surviving the elements - imagine living through below freezing temperatures for long periods without communal support. In the northern situation you have vast resources, but need a collective to realize them. I believe we see this type of collectivism in the environmentalist Hippie and Global Warming Fan Boy group think that has occurred recently. This collective also has fewer small tribe conflicts because they are more likely to feel brotherly love, but large wars are still possible when large cultural and genetic difference reduce personification of an objectified enemy (think world wars).

Collectivism born out of tribalism on the other hand would have smaller communes, and would be much more belligerent and war like. The enemy, by necessity, would more easily objectified with a smaller set of differences required to objectify. Personal loyalty would be highly prized and continually tested, with even mild dissension villainized. Think of rising stars in (collectivist) political parties, gang members, even sports teams.

The difference I see between them is that in the first you would naturally tend towards inter species win/win (even out of species win/win with domestication), while in the later you tend towards win/loose.