Why do we resent having to pay for the mistakes others make?

[Moonbeam]

CycloWizard: Blah blah blah. Maybe you should take a new approach fora change. Your same tired rubbish is still just rubbish. Your point is demonstrably false:

M: Geez, I just wanted to explain to you that you are a Zombie and the first thing you do is go Zombie on me. You are very unfair. There is no way I can compete with the highly sophisticated and scientifically advanced Blah blah blah rebuttal. I'm simply overwhelmed and outclassed. And you are going to have to actually get my point before you can demonstrate it's false. Good luck with that.

Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

M: from memory it continues something like this:

"deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and establish new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness" including passing laws that force people who enjoy the happiness of that system to pay for those who haven't that capacity to be able to enjoy that happiness too.

CW: In other words, protecting me from irresponsible douchebags is the only reason to have a government.

M: And equally protecting them from you (recognizing that what makes you a douchebag is your propensity to see others that way)

CW: All of this other crap you try to superimpose on it is just that - crap.

M: Another of these esoterically derived scientific postulates I haven't the skill to deny... Sorry about having reduced you to a screaming meemie.

CW: But you have taken it to a new level by blaming me for someone else's actions, placing yourself firmly in the zombie camp where brains have been replaced by hearts. My heart can forgive if it wants, but it can't put food on the table if someone wrecks my car so I can't go to work. Your philosophy makes you feel good, but it's nothing but a shallow layer over the great hollow underneath.

M: Your heart can forgive if it wants. Hehehehe Now that's wonderful news. Any word on when it's going to want to? Too bad your heart isn't a Zombie because they it would forgive when you want to.

I told you before that I think you are a worthwhile person but you can't take that is. You are too angry to believe me. I only talk to you because I like you and see in you potential. I like you much more than you like yourself.

 

[Moonbeam]

lol @ hating myself. I haven't hated myself in a long time. You want to force your selfishness and the selfishness of others onto people, for your selfish reasons. You do not want to join together and make it mutual by asking nicely. You want force. You're nothing but an authoritarian slave owner wannabe.

There is, however, one flaw in your thesis: I'm rather well off (read here self sufficient and or up) and vote for higher taxes to pay for social needs. Must be self hate, but you wouldn't know anything about that it being buried and all under a hundred million tons of armor. Oh, God. Hehehe, it amazes me how many folk think they don't have the one thing they would die rather than know they have.

 

[JockoJohnson]

There is, however, one flaw in your thesis: I'm rather well off (read here self sufficient and or up) and vote for higher taxes to pay for social needs. Must be self hate, but you wouldn't know anything about that it being buried and all under a hundred million tons of armor. Oh, God. Hehehe, it amazes me how many folk think they don't have the one thing they would die rather than know they have.

That's good that you feel that way and want to help others. But why do you and others like you feel the need to FORCE other people to also "donate" via gov't taxes? Why not let charities handle that?

All of my self-hate does not permit me to vote for letting the gov't handle it; I donate plenty to Goodwill and other charities on my own. Your brand of self-hate must be different because you want only gov't to do it.

 

[Moonbeam]

For psychological reasons, some people will never give anything away unless they know everyone else has to do the same. Otherwise, they will end up with less than those who aren't doing the right thing. This is the flip side of Moonbeam's coin where he says conservatives are demented for wanting people to act of their own free will in doing the right thing, whereas liberals want to use the force of law to coerce people to do the same to keep a level playing field. Freedom of choice only applies when they want people to be free to choose.

As I told you I only want to use force to protect the real Christians who when they see a need give not just their shirt but everything else they are wearing. And also, don't forget, when you give to folk and do it right you can change them. Making them do something for what they get destroys apathy and promotes gogetitness, when they see reward for effort they join the productivity team. Charities just give shit away or make you listen to the Bible before you can eat, a really selfish thing that religious folk do to increase their tithers. The government can force some to pay and then force those who are helped by that pay to earn it. This will eventually result in billions and billions of folk looking around for a few stragglers who haven't become productive yet. It will eventually become so bad well have to come up with some different reason to force people to pay.

 

[JockoJohnson]

You're looking at the wrong side of my question. I have no problem with things like Advair and Symbicort being 350$ for a one month inhaler, I understand research costs. I'm just saying if someone *doesn't* make that, their life is reduced to that of being without the medication, which may be semi-productive, or it may be as bad as just meaning death.

I am not sure how we survived as humans prior to our country coming into the 21st century. I mean, without all of this medication, we should have all died off. Without gov't taking from the rich and redistributing to the poor, how do we even have poor people? They should all be dead from starving to death because no one helped them prior to gov't doing it.

I know I sound like a dick and it's cold to discuss people not being able to afford medication. But life isn't fair. It never has been and never will. Look how fair California wants to make life for everybody. Well, all of their kindness is causing them to run into massive money problems.

Until we get off of a monetary system and do something else, we will never be able to accommodate everybody.

 

[nonlnear]

You're looking at the wrong side of my question. I have no problem with things like Advair and Symbicort being 350$ for a one month inhaler, I understand research costs. I'm just saying if someone *doesn't* make that, their life is reduced to that of being without the medication, which may be semi-productive, or it may be as bad as just meaning death.

I am not sure how we survived as humans prior to our country coming into the 21st century. I mean, without all of this medication, we should have all died off. Without gov't taking from the rich and redistributing to the poor, how do we even have poor people? They should all be dead from starving to death because no one helped them prior to gov't doing it.

Screw the 21st century, I don't know how we survive today. After all I am reduced to living without cybernetically enhanced senses and abilities, cellular rejuvenation nanobots in my bloodstream, and a hovering island that travels the world, selecting destinations according to my subconscious desiress. My life is [relatively] worthless because of my lack of access to the inventions of the future!

With my current possessions and standard of living, the average 35th century human has an incredibly high suicide rate due to the worthlessness of his existence. My life may be as bad as just meaning death.

 

[Moonbeam]

As I told you I only want to use force to protect the real Christians who when they see a need give not just their shirt but everything else they are wearing. And also, don't forget, when you give to folk and do it right you can change them. Making them do something for what they get destroys apathy and promotes gogetitness, when they see reward for effort they join the productivity team. Charities just give shit away or make you listen to the Bible before you can eat, a really selfish thing that religious folk do to increase their tithers. The government can force some to pay and then force those who are helped by that pay to earn it. This will eventually result in billions and billions of folk looking around for a few stragglers who haven't become productive yet. It will eventually become so bad well have to come up with some different reason to force people to pay.

Somewhere along the line I became sick. I don't know how it happened. I remember my very first friend accidentally breaking a bird nest and having the eggs fall on the ground. He went into a fit of self rage. He was in so much emotional pain, and because he was my best friend, it hurt me. And I remember in kindergarten or the first grade there was a girl who ran like a stork. She was just terribly uncoordinated in the way she moved and everybody laughed at her or so it seemed to me, everybody, that is also, but me. For some reason I imagined that laughter must have hurt her and it hurt me to see it. There was just something wrong with me. I couldn't have any fun. All the emotional suffering I saw drove me crazy. I would have killed all of them if I could, but you know how that goes, just more suffering and broken vulture eggs.

 

[Moonbeam]

Screw the 21st century, I don't know how we survive today. After all I am reduced to living without cybernetically enhanced senses and abilities, cellular rejuvenation nanobots in my bloodstream, and a hovering island that travels the world, selecting destinations according to my subconscious desiress. My life is [relatively] worthless because of my lack of access to the inventions of the future!

With my current possessions and standard of living, the average 35th century human has an incredibly high suicide rate due to the worthlessness of his existence. My life may be as bad as just meaning death.

May you find comfort in knowing what happened to the Krell.

 

[Ninjahedge]

The "why do they have to" is simple.

Without doing that, two things happen.

1. There are never enough people willing to contribute, so the problem is never properly addressed.

2. The burden is placed on the people who want to help, with little reward or result due to lack of universal support. These people that help are then punished for their actions by earning less, and subsequently buying less. The message is sent that being a goody-goody to all these "lazy beat-niks" (yes, that is from the 50's you Dobie Gillis fans) puts you at a disadvantage. It pretty much leverages the chances of people offering help because it is seen as more of a burden than a benefit.


The main problem we have is simple. We have gotten too big and disconnected. We do not have that community spirit as much, and many communities are so isolated from the national reality that they have no urge to correct anything because it does not directly concern them.

It is no longer chipping in to get the town drunk off the streets at night. There are too many drunks and too many people that do not give a shit.

 

[JockoJohnson]

The "why do they have to" is simple.

Without doing that, two things happen.

1. There are never enough people willing to contribute, so the problem is never properly addressed.

2. The burden is placed on the people who want to help, with little reward or result due to lack of universal support. These people that help are then punished for their actions by earning less, and subsequently buying less. The message is sent that being a goody-goody to all these "lazy beat-niks" (yes, that is from the 50's you Dobie Gillis fans) puts you at a disadvantage. It pretty much leverages the chances of people offering help because it is seen as more of a burden than a benefit.


The main problem we have is simple. We have gotten too big and disconnected. We do not have that community spirit as much, and many communities are so isolated from the national reality that they have no urge to correct anything because it does not directly concern them.

It is no longer chipping in to get the town drunk off the streets at night. There are too many drunks and too many people that do not give a shit.

Well said. That's actually does explain a good bit. Government does need to fill in the gap where charity can't cover but how much "filling-in" should it do.

There does come a tipping point where the gov't can only take so much from the "haves" and give to the "have-nots". Not sure if we are there yet but I don't want to see that pace picked up any time soon. If anything, the rules that are in place now need to be followed a bit more before handing out freebies to anybody that asks for it. Yes, I know it might cost more in the long run than just giving that money to someone who doesn't really need it but all we are doing now is encouraging people to get away with whatever they can to get their piece of the free-money pie.

 

[CycloWizard]

You're looking at the wrong side of my question. I have no problem with things like Advair and Symbicort being 350$ for a one month inhaler, I understand research costs. I'm just saying if someone *doesn't* make that, their life is reduced to that of being without the medication, which may be semi-productive, or it may be as bad as just meaning death.

There are plenty of charities which will pay for medication outright if the person has a legitimate need for it. The difference between the private solution and government solution in this case is accountability. The private organization will check to see whether the person is just too lazy to work or has some other extenuating circumstances, whereas government just throws money at people based on arbitrary criteria. That's the nature of government: it applies a one-size-fits-all solution, thereby missing the mark in a large percentage of cases.

 

[CycloWizard]

M: Geez, I just wanted to explain to you that you are a Zombie and the first thing you do is go Zombie on me. You are very unfair. There is no way I can compete with the highly sophisticated and scientifically advanced Blah blah blah rebuttal. I'm simply overwhelmed and outclassed. And you are going to have to actually get my point before you can demonstrate it's false. Good luck with that.

CW: You have to have a point before I can get it. Telling me that I'm arrogant because I disagree with you is not a point, it's simply irony.

M: from memory it continues something like this:
"deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and establish new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness" including passing laws that force people who enjoy the happiness of that system to pay for those who haven't that capacity to be able to enjoy that happiness too.

CW: It goes on to say that, when government is destructive of these ends (right to life, liberty, and property), its citizens should abolish it. I notice you stopped short of quoting that. In your view, you have more right to my life and property than I do. In my view, it's mine and I can give it to you if I want, but I'll kill you if you try to take it by force.

M: And equally protecting them from you (recognizing that what makes you a douchebag is your propensity to see others that way)

CW: If asserting my rights makes me a douchebag then so be it - I'm the world's largest douchebag. Do you sleep with your doors unlocked and windows open?

M: Your heart can forgive if it wants. Hehehehe Now that's wonderful news. Any word on when it's going to want to? Too bad your heart isn't a Zombie because they it would forgive when you want to. I told you before that I think you are a worthwhile person but you can't take that is. You are too angry to believe me. I only talk to you because I like you and see in you potential. I like you much more than you like yourself.

CW: You want to use government as a weapon to take what is mine away from me. You say it's not mine in the first place. I'm angry because then I can't give it away on my own. You want to use government to impose your will on me and vacate my rights. You think your causes should receive my involuntary charity. All I want is the right to distribute what I earn to the charities of my choosing. I want you to have the same right, while you want to throw me in prison for making a choice on my own.

 

[CycloWizard]

As I told you I only want to use force to protect the real Christians who when they see a need give not just their shirt but everything else they are wearing. And also, don't forget, when you give to folk and do it right you can change them. Making them do something for what they get destroys apathy and promotes gogetitness, when they see reward for effort they join the productivity team. Charities just give shit away or make you listen to the Bible before you can eat, a really selfish thing that religious folk do to increase their tithers. The government can force some to pay and then force those who are helped by that pay to earn it. This will eventually result in billions and billions of folk looking around for a few stragglers who haven't become productive yet. It will eventually become so bad well have to come up with some different reason to force people to pay.

You want to rip the shirt off my back with a gun pointed to my head. Then I'll have nothing left to give to anyone. There are plenty of secular charities, nor do Catholic charities proselytize. If you want to get hit with a Bible, there are plenty of options, just as there are plenty of options to avoid it. You simply choose to neglect the latter because they inconveniently conflict with your flimsy argument.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Well said. That's actually does explain a good bit. Government does need to fill in the gap where charity can't cover but how much "filling-in" should it do.

That's the hard part (I know, that's what she said).

The problem we have now is multi-layered. As programs like Habitat for Humanity have shown, helping someone build their own house is a LOT more effective than giving them welfare housing. It is motivating, and you respect what you have put sweat, and cash, into.

ANY program we have needs to be geared at RECOVERY, not simply sustaining the bottom.

There does come a tipping point where the gov't can only take so much from the "haves" and give to the "have-nots". Not sure if we are there yet but I don't want to see that pace picked up any time soon. If anything, the rules that are in place now need to be followed a bit more before handing out freebies to anybody that asks for it. Yes, I know it might cost more in the long run than just giving that money to someone who doesn't really need it but all we are doing now is encouraging people to get away with whatever they can to get their piece of the free-money pie.

You give a drunk a dollar, he will go buy more booze. You give him a 99 cent slice of pizza and he will eat it (and hopefully not barf it back up).

That is only a small example. There have been other programs that have taken in homeless and trained them in carpentry and other skills that have been successful. These should be focused on, studied, and replicated.

Hell, it's what the Borg would do......

 

[LunarRay]

So taking it a step further, does everyone NEED a house or just some place to live? Do we start giving away houses because somebody thinks they NEED one? Why is an apartment or condo not enough?

In your example, a person is cold. Do they need a blanket or a heated house? What if they say they need a heated house because a blanket is not enough?

There has to be some line drawn as to what we as a society are forced to give to others via govt. That is why there are charities. Let the charities, and the kindness of those that donate to them, handle the truly needy. This is why half the country is at odds with the other half---the needy half wants the other half to give them everything.

I spoke in context of my earlier posts regarding the society mostly made up of folks who accept a supreme being and many in our society accept Jesus as a real and compelling figure while he visited back when...

I also said that I can't determine the needs of others... maybe they need a heated pool in their palatial estate as well... I don't mind if they do or not. I said that we as a society CAN meet the needs of everyone. We don't and I suspect we never will. We are concerned with valuation. We look at what we have and for some reason feel that it is ours and don't want to share it. The reason is the key to my thesis.

How can we be considered a Christian (to the extent we are) Society but yet not live according to the namesake of our belief?

How can a church like the Vatican have bazillions in gold sitting on altars around the world and not use that valuated object to trade for food for the hungry?

How can we resent giving the homeless a home and food but yet relish in the notion that we can deposit bazillions in bombs on other living beings.

It seems to me that we are only Christian in name only and not at all in actions.

"... give all your money and property away and follow me... " It is said he said... and when the fellow said I can't ... or I won't He said "... it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich person to gain entry to heaven... " or some such like that.

I guess the issue is.... who goes first in giving away all they have.... You? Me?... hehehehehe

 

[LunarRay]

Your model of government is what we have today. It sounds great: everyone's needs are met by everyone else and we all live as one big happy family. Unfortunately, it's an utter and complete failure due to completely predictable reasons. We can't force everyone to comply with the law based on what your heart tells you because my heart might tell me something else. Then you are putting people at odds with what they feel is right and that never ends well. This is obvious when we observe the political scene today, where Santorum pulls facts out of his a... heart and they conflict with reality. Obama speaks from the heart but it's utter nonsense. More importantly, Obama and Santorum arrive at completely different conclusions based on what their hearts tell them.

It seems to me that the solution to this inevitable inconsistency is to apply objective standards. These standards are determined by our brains rather than our hearts, but they are governed by logic and so are applicable to everyone. This will set a rather minimal role for government that we should all be able to agree upon by using objective standards. If an individual wants to go over and above those minimum standards using his own time, money, and talent, then more power to him. However, simple math will very quickly tell us that we cannot get enough blood from a turnip sufficient to satisfy the infinite need of 300 million citizens. Logic also suggests that the more needs we try to mandate legally, the more things will become needs rather than wants. This is exactly what has happened today as our ability to produce has finally become overwhelmed by our ability to consume, even as the law attempts to force us to produce an infinite amount to satisfy the demand. It's impossible. I can do what I can do but I can never do more, even if you legally require me to do more.

I think your post/response is rational but rational based on the fact that the heart don't do the thinking, it is the brain... or the mind function the brain enables... Your heart don't compete but it beats according to your brain's demand and so too is your view toward the lessor among us wanting what we have and the ultra rich wanting what everyone has... hehehehe.
I won't castigate you for how you feel and how you act accordingly. It is normal to do but not consistent with the notion of the US being a Christian nation. You may not be Christian and may even be Atheist and that is ok too. It would explain more clearly the objective nature of your thinking.

IF society enacts law... that is you, me, moonster, well.. everyone who has the vote... maybe not moonster:hmm: We are all obliged to comply. The law is not created by the few but by the many, usually. We'll not ever care about the poor because we are basically more interested in our own needs and wants. IF they want food let them get a job and so on... objective, rational and consistent with our historical actions... Not at all Christian, however...

 

[LunarRay]

Bullshit. You're simply being a selfish asshole by wanting to force your world view on others. You want others to live like you do, that makes you a selfish prick because you're self centered. You don't actually care about other people, you just pretend like you do because you're scared of your own mortality.

I am but one person with one vote in this society. I simply suggest what is possible and what is in conflict with what we call ourselves... Christian!
If you're not a Christian kindly disregard my comment...

For the balance of your post or actually the entirety of it, I can only chuckle at the notion that you'd be obliged to opine in such a vile manner regarding my objectives and motives. I must thank Moonbeam for letting me borrow his mirror.

 

[Moonbeam]

CycloWizard: You want to rip the shirt off my back with a gun pointed to my head. Then I'll have nothing left to give to anyone.

M: No no no, I want to force everybody else to pay a bit too so you and other generous people like you can keep your undershirts, jackets and pants etc.

CW: There are plenty of secular charities, nor do Catholic charities proselytize. If you want to get hit with a Bible, there are plenty of options, just as there are plenty of options to avoid it. You simply choose to neglect the latter because they inconveniently conflict with your flimsy argument.

M: I know that. That was just a side argument and not important to my case at all. But none of them have enough to cover the needs.

 

[heymrdj]

I am not sure how we survived as humans prior to our country coming into the 21st century. I mean, without all of this medication, we should have all died off. Without gov't taking from the rich and redistributing to the poor, how do we even have poor people? They should all be dead from starving to death because no one helped them prior to gov't doing it.

I know I sound like a dick and it's cold to discuss people not being able to afford medication. But life isn't fair. It never has been and never will. Look how fair California wants to make life for everybody. Well, all of their kindness is causing them to run into massive money problems.

Until we get off of a monetary system and do something else, we will never be able to accommodate everybody.

It does sound cold, but then again those that are without major issue can always cast stones at those that do have issues.

As for how they survived before. That's a stupid question, they didn't DUH. Seriously look at the average life span before medication ect. Without medication we'd have to do away with our high age of consent laws, by the time you were 18 you were 3/4 way through your lifespan already!

 

[Moonbeam]

That's the hard part (I know, that's what she said).

The problem we have now is multi-layered. As programs like Habitat for Humanity have shown, helping someone build their own house is a LOT more effective than giving them welfare housing. It is motivating, and you respect what you have put sweat, and cash, into.

ANY program we have needs to be geared at RECOVERY, not simply sustaining the bottom.



You give a drunk a dollar, he will go buy more booze. You give him a 99 cent slice of pizza and he will eat it (and hopefully not barf it back up).

That is only a small example. There have been other programs that have taken in homeless and trained them in carpentry and other skills that have been successful. These should be focused on, studied, and replicated.

Hell, it's what the Borg would do......

You don't give a drunk a pizza, you hide a pizza in an alley and kick him till he finds it. Then when he finds it you yell, God must love you, you worthless piece of shit.

 

[CycloWizard]

I think your post/response is rational but rational based on the fact that the heart don't do the thinking, it is the brain... or the mind function the brain enables... Your heart don't compete but it beats according to your brain's demand and so too is your view toward the lessor among us wanting what we have and the ultra rich wanting what everyone has... hehehehe.
I won't castigate you for how you feel and how you act accordingly. It is normal to do but not consistent with the notion of the US being a Christian nation. You may not be Christian and may even be Atheist and that is ok too. It would explain more clearly the objective nature of your thinking.

IF society enacts law... that is you, me, moonster, well.. everyone who has the vote... maybe not moonster:hmm: We are all obliged to comply. The law is not created by the few but by the many, usually. We'll not ever care about the poor because we are basically more interested in our own needs and wants. IF they want food let them get a job and so on... objective, rational and consistent with our historical actions... Not at all Christian, however...

Christians can act as Christians without government compulsion. Atheists can act as atheists. All I want is for the land of the free to remain the land of the free rather than the land where we are compelled to do whatever the masses see fit to force us to do at the point of a gun. That's all.

 

[CycloWizard]

M: No no no, I want to force everybody else to pay a bit too so you and other generous people like you can keep your undershirts, jackets and pants etc.

CW: Every man, woman, and child in the US has at least one set of clothing. They also have enough to eat. They also have a place to stay. Whether or not they avail themselves of these things is a choice they make with the exception of the mentally ill. We tried putting the government in charge of the mentally ill, but they kicked them all out on the street. They didn't lower taxes when this happened - they just started spending the money on something else.

M: I know that. That was just a side argument and not important to my case at all. But none of them have enough to cover the needs.

CW: There can never be enough to cover all of the "needs" of society. As the means increase, so to the needs. What does someone need? Food, shelter, water, and clothing. Oh, and education. And cell phones - can't forget the cell phones. All of these "necessities" are doled out to those in need before I can afford them myself, yet I am actively paying taxes to give them to other people. If you can define what someone's needs are, then it might be possible to meet them. With healthcare, such a declaration is impossible because healthcare needs will always be infinite. The solution is simply to pick and choose what needs are met for which group of people. After working for years in a government-run VA hospital, you will never be able to convince me that government is capable of making such decisions.

 

[Lithium381]

Are we talking about "mistakes" or habitual actions that are poor decisions now? If someone makes a mistake and learns from it, that's one thing...... if they fail to learn from others' mistakes thats bad, too.

 

[nonlnear]

IF society enacts law... that is you, me, moonster, well.. everyone who has the vote... maybe not moonster:hmm: We are all obliged to comply.

What does this mean? Are you invoking some moral principle here that people "should" obey laws or simply observing that, as a practical matter, most people will be faced with incentives that make compliance the path of least resistance?

The law is not created by the few but by the many, usually.

This sounds like a rationale from which you would argue for some sort of inherent legitimacy. I reject your premise that the law is created by the many, usually. Even if it were I wouldn't see that as a compelling argument for the moral superiority of majority-advocated force than any other gang of hooligans, be it a majority or a minority. People like to band together to make others do what they want them to do. (The control may be over members, non-members, or more commonly both.) This is human behavior. Sometimes certain such groups invent myths about the source of their authority which help them to maintain a stable grip on some type of power. These legitimacy myths are all jokes, but people raised to believe them from childhood cling to them like pearls of divine wisdom.

Of course, if divine wisdom were to exist, I suspect one of its likely delivery modes would be a joke...

 

[werepossum]

Christians can act as Christians without government compulsion. Atheists can act as atheists. All I want is for the land of the free to remain the land of the free rather than the land where we are compelled to do whatever the masses see fit to force us to do at the point of a gun. That's all.

Very well said.