What could possibly go wrong?

[Peter1469]

@Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565) hanger4
@Mac-7 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1014)
@Truth Detector (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1783)

If there is anything said in the tPF thread by the same title (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/67312?p=1659585#post1659585), feel free to post it in this thread. @OGIS (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1693) is free to kick people out of his own thread, but he has no right to interfere in this thread.

Best case scenario for the elections. As I previously said- divided government. The less government does the better Americans are.

[del]

lol

[Common Sense]

OK...that was clever.

[Peter1469]

lol

People should stop crying about tPF and start their own threads when the thread owner abuses the feature.

[Chris]

...divided government. The less government does the better Americans are.

Amen.

I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.

— Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

[Common Sense]

"The irony of complaining about the government on an internet system created by the government is lost on some."

-Common Sense, Just Now



;)

[Peter1469]

"The irony of complaining about the government on an internet system created by the government is lost on some."

-Common Sense, Just Now

The Internet created by ARPA has grown do market forces.

;)

[texan]

I think you are a weakass wimp to lock people out of a thread. Standup and debate, argue be right be wrong who cares......just don't be weak!

[del]

the internet created by arpa has grown do market forces

okay

[Peter1469]

Discuss the topic. OGIS will have to decide on his own whether he will not abuse the tPF feature in the future.

If you want to discuss the tPF feature that is another thread.

[del]

abuse being tbing pete

[Chris]

"The irony of complaining about the government on an internet system created by the government is lost on some."

-Common Sense, Just Now



;)


The government didn't create it.

It's just a means of communication. Unique in that it allows for many-to-many communication. Ever read Douglas Adams's "Four Ages of Sand"?

[Chris]

abuse being tbing pete



Shoulda made this tPF.


https://s32.postimg.org/43sr418fp/71e0a37fcf2618f4.gif

[Peter1469]

Link (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/67312-What-could-possibly-go-wrong#post1659843) Bethere

The conversation moved here.

She was shouting over him. She also misrepresented what he actually said. Listen to his entire statement, not just the part the "media" plays over and over. It will clear things up.

[Archer0915]

The government didn't create it.

It's just a means of communication. Unique in that it allows for many-to-many communication. Ever read Douglas Adams's "Four Ages of Sand"?

Actually they got it going:
The first workable prototype of the Internet came in the late 1960s with the creation of ARPANET, or the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network. Originally funded by the U.S. Department of Defense, ARPANET used packet switching to allow multiple computers to communicate on a single network. The technology continued to grow in the 1970s after scientists Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf developed Transmission Control Protocol and Internet Protocol, or TCP/IP, a communications model that set standards for how data could be transmitted between multiple networks. ARPANET adopted TCP/IP on January 1, 1983, and from there researchers began to assemble the “network of networks”

I remember going over to NCSU back in the old days just to get faster than 2400 (early adopter here, most access was at 1200) baud.

Some crafty Wolfnet BBSes did have internet access but it sucked. Still everything was different and it was mostly bulletin boards where information was shared and people hooked up to do dial-up file transfers...

[AZ Jim]

@Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565) @hanger4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=403)
@Mac-7 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1014)
@Truth Detector (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1783)

If there is anything said in the tPF thread by the same title (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/67312?p=1659585#post1659585), feel free to post it in this thread. @OGIS (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1693) is free to kick people out of his own thread, but he has no right to interfere in this thread.

Best case scenario for the elections. As I previously said- divided government. The less government does the better Americans are.15423

[Common Sense]

The government didn't create it.

It's just a means of communication. Unique in that it allows for many-to-many communication. Ever read Douglas Adams's "Four Ages of Sand"?

Without the government's ARPANET and the work of DARPA, we would be sending each other Fax's.

[Chris]

Without the government's ARPANET and the work of DARPA, we would be sending each other Fax's.

The government funded some projects, true, that used existing technology. But that in no way implies it created anything or that the Interweb wouldn't have been created anyhow.

[Chris]

Actually they got it going:

I remember going over to NCSU back in the old days just to get faster than 2400 (early adopter here, most access was at 1200) baud.

Some crafty Wolfnet BBSes did have internet access but it sucked. Still everything was different and it was mostly bulletin boards where information was shared and people hooked up to do dial-up file transfers...


Sure but that doesn't imply they were necessary.

[Peter1469]

Without the government's ARPANET and the work of DARPA, we would be sending each other Fax's.


Hardly. Private industry would have developed it on its own. The government just sped it up.

[Archer0915]

Sure but that doesn't imply they were necessary.

Yeah the Colleges did much for it with grants (private and corporate), the government, by no means, did it by themselves.

[Peter1469]

Warning: Discuss the topic. Feel free to refer to the source tPF thread. Warning tag added to the thread.

[Newpublius]

@Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565) hanger4
@Mac-7 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1014)
@Truth Detector (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1783)

If there is anything said in the tPF thread by the same title (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/67312?p=1659585#post1659585), feel free to post it in this thread. @OGIS (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1693) is free to kick people out of his own thread, but he has no right to interfere in this thread.

Best case scenario for the elections. As I previously said- divided government. The less government does the better Americans are.

Well not entirely true because divided government means institutional inertia continues to spend money and accumulate ever greater debts.

[Chris]

Well not entirely true because divided government means institutional inertia continues to spend money and accumulate ever greater debts.

Interesting observation that while a divided government cannot move forward it also cannot move backward and undo what's already set in place.

[Hal Jordan]

My candidate's best case: Cthulhu is elected. The world ends in flame.

My candidate's worst case: Cthulhu is elected. Everyone is tortured for years. The world ends in flame.

Their best case: Trump or Hillary is elected. Everyone is tortured for years. The world ends in flame.

Their worst case: Trump or Hillary is elected. The world somehow shambles on, everyone living in constant torture for the rest of their existence.

[Ravens Fan]

My candidate's best case: Cthulhu is elected. The world ends in flame.

My candidate's worst case: Cthulhu is elected. Everyone is tortured for years. The world ends in flame.

Their best case: Trump or Hillary is elected. Everyone is tortured for years. The world ends in flame.

Their worst case: Trump or Hillary is elected. The world somehow shambles on, everyone living in constant torture for the rest of their existence.

Dare you to put that in the tPF version of this thread. Lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter1469]

Well not entirely true because divided government means institutional inertia continues to spend money and accumulate ever greater debts.

But it is better than them screwing things up worse.

I have zero hope that the Congress will balance the budget.

[Cthulhu]

My candidate's best case: Cthulhu is elected. The world ends in flame.

My candidate's worst case: Cthulhu is elected. Everyone is tortured for years. The world ends in flame.

Their best case: Trump or Hillary is elected. Everyone is tortured for years. The world ends in flame.

Their worst case: Trump or Hillary is elected. The world somehow shambles on, everyone living in constant torture for the rest of their existence.
*blushes*

Think rosy tentacle cheeks?

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

[MisterVeritis]

"The irony of complaining about the government on an internet system created by the government is lost on some."

-Common Sense, Just Now

;)
The Internet was not created by the government. It did not become the Internet until the government got out of the way.

[MisterVeritis]

Without the government's ARPANET and the work of DARPA, we would be sending each other Fax's.
Nonsense.

[Hal Jordan]

Dare you to put that in the tPF version of this thread. Lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://sewlindsaysew.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/challenge-accepted.jpg

[Truth Detector]

@Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565) hanger4
@Mac-7 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1014)
@Truth Detector (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1783)

If there is anything said in the tPF thread by the same title (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/67312?p=1659585#post1659585), feel free to post it in this thread. @OGIS (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1693) is free to kick people out of his own thread, but he has no right to interfere in this thread.

Best case scenario for the elections. As I previously said- divided government. The less government does the better Americans are.

Awwww....did Ogi kick us all out of his thread so he could have a group think session with his leftist pals? How precious. :biglaugh:

[Truth Detector]

"The irony of complaining about the government on an internet system created by the government is lost on some."

-Common Sense, Just Now

;)

:rofl:

[Peter1469]

Awwww....did Ogi kick us all out of his thread so he could have a group think session with his leftist pals? How precious. :biglaugh:

Don't get butt-hurt over tPF threads. Mirror them. And out perform them if possible.

[Truth Detector]

Amen.

I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.

— Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

Once again; I never understood how anyone with even half a brain can claim that government can govern by not governing at all. I mean, who says such stupid nonsense?

I prescribe to the idea embodied in our Constitution of a limited Government by and for the people. This nonsense that somehow we would all be better off without any Government is borderline retarded.

[Truth Detector]

I think you are a weakass wimp to lock people out of a thread. Standup and debate, argue be right be wrong who cares......just don't be weak!

I understand thread banning people like Del who seldom, it ever, offer anything up other than to troll and bait, but I don't understand why one would seek to avoid others opinions or the facts.

[Peter1469]

Once again; I never understood how anyone with even half a brain can claim that government can govern by not governing at all. I mean, who says such stupid nonsense?

I prescribe to the idea embodied in our Constitution of a limited Government by and for the people. This nonsense that somehow we would all be better off without any Government is borderline retarded.

It is a libertarian idea where people work together for the common good. I think it would work in a small group of like minding people. But then so would communism.

[Truth Detector]

the internet created by arpa has grown do market forces

okay

^Case in point.

[Truth Detector]

Without the government's ARPANET and the work of DARPA, we would be sending each other Fax's.

Without the private market place, ARPANET and DARPA would still be unique to the Government operating at 2400 baud and yes, we would still be using faxes.

[Truth Detector]

Well not entirely true because divided government means institutional inertia continues to spend money and accumulate ever greater debts.

It would be hard to spend money if there is divided government and no consensus.

[Peter1469]

As a reminder, this is what the thread is about:

OK, this is turning out to actually be a tough decision. My recent research, and the apparent inclusion of Sanders as a member of the team, now has me swinging back in the Hillery direction. It is a touch choice, since I actually loath both of the candidates.

I have to choose which candidate is in my best personal economic interest.

I have to decide which candidate is least likely to start WWIII.

I have to figure out which candidate will have the worst pushback from the defeated side, and what that pushback might consist of.

It's almost a Prisoner's Dilemma scenario. And I'd like some different views on that. So here's what I'd like to see in this thread: regardless of which candidate you support, and in terms of theoretical/likely accomplishments or disasters for the next four years, what is:
- the BEST case scenario for YOUR candidate (i.e.: your version of Utopia)
- the WORST case scenario for YOUR candidate (i.e.: OMG OMG screwups!)
- the BEST case scenario for THEIR candidate (i.e.: OMG pleasant surprise)
- the WORST case scenario for THEIR candidate (i.e.: TOLD YA! TOLD YA!)

- and if a war is connected with any of the above: size? where? and against whom?

Trolls who rant against "stupid liberals" and "stupid conservatives" and all personal attacks directed against any other member will be ruthlessly TBed. There is NO reason to even MENTION another member. And I'm not looking for nit-picking on someone else's scenarios, either.

Just state your best and worst SPECIFIC case for both candidates, and this can be an interesting and informative thread.

[Truth Detector]

But it is better than them screwing things up worse.

I have zero hope that the Congress will balance the budget.

I do believe that with a Republican Congress and Trump in the White House, a balanced budget is achievable. However, until we have term limits on professional politicians who pander to low information voters and abolish the current tax code and supplant it with the Fair Tax, change will be slow.

[Truth Detector]

The Internet was not created by the government. It did not become the Internet until the government got out of the way.

^True story.

[Truth Detector]

Don't get butt-hurt over tPF threads. Mirror them. And out perform them if possible.

I never get butthurt about anything that goes on here; I have a real life, a real job and live on the beach in Fort Lauderdale....life is damned good!

[Truth Detector]

It is a libertarian idea where people work together for the common good. I think it would work in a small group of like minding people. But then so would communism.

Fascinating in that it is also a Communist idea and those who attempted communal living found out rapidly what a moronic and stupid idea it is.

[Peter1469]

I do believe that with a Republican Congress and Trump in the White House, a balanced budget is achievable. However, until we have term limits on professional politicians who pander to low information voters and abolish the current tax code and supplant it with the Fair Tax, change will be slow.

To balance the budget we have .$5T to deal with. How?

[Peter1469]

Fascinating in that it is also a Communist idea and those who attempted communal living found out rapidly what a moronic and stupid idea it is.

Both are a problem so long as the problem of scarcity is present.

[Chris]

Once again; I never understood how anyone with even half a brain can claim that government can govern by not governing at all. I mean, who says such stupid nonsense?

I prescribe to the idea embodied in our Constitution of a limited Government by and for the people. This nonsense that somehow we would all be better off without any Government is borderline retarded.


Well, use half a brain and realize that society is largely self-governing. Anyone who calls themselves a conservative who would want to preserve social traditions and institutions would realize that. But knowing that requires half a brain.

You prescribe to unicorn government, the Constitution is a grand idea in theory but in reality has not protected rights or prevented statist government. So dream on.

A divided government keeps the government at bay.

[Chris]

It is a libertarian idea where people work together for the common good. I think it would work in a small group of like minding people. But then so would communism.


Fascinating in that it is also a Communist idea and those who attempted communal living found out rapidly what a moronic and stupid idea it is.


Well, if you love the Constitution then it stands to reason you love the same concept for what does the Constitution embody but government of, by and for the people.

Here's the difference though. The libertarian view is defined by bottom-up, decentralized government while the authoritarian (communist) view is defined by top-down, centralized government.

The Constitution aimed at the former, we got the latter.

A divided government is one way to prevent further erosion of that libertarian document and further intrusion of statist tendencies.

[Chris]

Both are a problem so long as the problem of scarcity is present.


And it always will be. Life is short.

[Peter1469]

When the Western states were territories they ran like libertarian communities. Somehow they rushed onto the Statehood band wagon.

[Chris]

...Just state your best and worst SPECIFIC case for both candidates, and this can be an interesting and informative thread.

If I need to choose best and worst then I would choose Gary Johnson as coming closest to representing what this country is about according to Declaration and Constitution, and Clinton and Trump as worst in that regard. Put Stein in between leaning left.

[Chris]

When the Western states were territories they ran like libertarian communities. Somehow they rushed onto the Statehood band wagon.

Businessmen and politicians rushed to replace the anarchy of the not so wild, wild West.

[Peter1469]

A natural cycle.

[Truth Detector]

To balance the budget we have .$5T to deal with. How?

We were confronted with the same type of deficits during BillyBob's Presidency. Congress stopped the excess spending and the economy grew its way out of the deficits.

If Congress held current spending for the next five or six years with a rebounding and growing economy induced by the fact that Government will not be mirco-managing everything from Washington DC, that deficit would shirck dramatically.

If Congress passed term limits, unlikely, and abolished the current tax code and implemented the Fair Tax, the deficit would also start disappearing rapidly.

[Peter1469]

We were confronted with the same type of deficits during BillyBob's Presidency. Congress stopped the excess spending and the economy grew its way out of the deficits.

If Congress held current spending for the next five or six years with a rebounding and growing economy induced by the fact that Government will not be mirco-managing everything from Washington DC, that deficit would shirck dramatically.

If Congress passed term limits, unlikely, and abolished the current tax code and implemented the Fair Tax, the deficit would also start disappearing rapidly.


Billy didn't have to cut a half trillion in over spending. Just a couple hundred million.

Big difference.

[Truth Detector]

Well, use half a brain and realize that society is largely self-governing. Anyone who calls themselves a conservative who would want to preserve social traditions and institutions would realize that. But knowing that requires half a brain.

Link to these societies that are self-governing. DUH!


You prescribe to unicorn government,

There you go with that asinine and inane fabricated talking point again. :biglaugh:


the Constitution is a grand idea in theory but in reality has not protected rights or prevented statist government. So dream on.

It is the best document produced by man to govern to date; the notion that no document at all and anarchy is better is the realm of idiots and lunatics.


A divided government keeps the government at bay.

Partially correct; a separation of powers also serves this purpose. Perhaps you need to re-take Government 101 before you emotionally erupt again? :biglaugh:

[Truth Detector]

Well, if you love the Constitution then it stands to reason you love the same concept for what does the Constitution embody but government of, by and for the people.

Here's the difference though. The libertarian view is defined by bottom-up, decentralized government while the authoritarian (communist) view is defined by top-down, centralized government.

The Constitution aimed at the former, we got the latter.

...and you only get the latter when the sheeple allow and vote for it. You may not like it, but then, you're quite remarkably in the minority and whether you or I like it, it is exactly what the sheeple ask for.

Now, this trend can be reversed, but it will take a major reform to our Liberal controlled public educational system and some of the recommendations I keep making for term limits and a Fair tax.

But you keep cheer leading for anarchy and destruction; it makes me laugh.


A divided government is one way to prevent further erosion of that libertarian document and further intrusion of statist tendencies.

Yes; but at some point, that divided government does have to compromise to fix this broken system.

[Truth Detector]

Billy didn't have to cut a half trillion in over spending. Just a couple hundred million.

Big difference.

It was also twenty years ago. ;)

[Chris]

...and you only get the latter when the sheeple allow and vote for it. You may not like it, but then, you're quite remarkably in the minority and whether you or I like it, it is exactly what the sheeple ask for.

Now, this trend can be reversed, but it will take a major reform to our Liberal controlled public educational system and some of the recommendations I keep making for term limits and a Fair tax.

But you keep cheer leading for anarchy and destruction; it makes me laugh.



Yes; but at some point, that divided government does have to compromise to fix this broken system.


Indeed the people, many of whom are liberal and many of whom are conservative, vote for it.


What are you laughing at, you don't indicate any understanding of what you laugh at. Perhaps that's why you laugh.



Yes; but at some point, that divided government does have to compromise to fix this broken system.

That is how it became broken.

[Chris]

Link to these societies that are self-governing. DUH!



There you go with that asinine and inane fabricated talking point again. :biglaugh:



It is the best document produced by man to govern to date; the notion that no document at all and anarchy is better is the realm of idiots and lunatics.



Partially correct; a separation of powers also serves this purpose. Perhaps you need to re-take Government 101 before you emotionally erupt again? :biglaugh:



So as a conservative you reject social traditions and institutions as self-governance. Then you are not conservative.

Government doesn't imply a centralized, authoritative government body.

Your adjectives simply indicate you don't like what I say.

That best document hasn't worked.

Again, you don't understand what anarchy is.

[OGIS]

I think you are a weakass wimp to lock people out of a thread. Standup and debate, argue be right be wrong who cares......just don't be weak!

Dude. Read the first post. The rules of the thread were to post four opinions about possible results. Not whine about conservatives. Not whine about liberals. Not change the subject of the goddamned thread. There was nothing to debate: it was not a debate thread; it was a state-your-thoughts thread. But people who don't follow the rules get tb'ed.

And as a Texan, I suspect you are probably just fine with "But people who don't follow the rules get shot by police." But you whine about the rules on a fuking political debate thread? Quick! To the fainting couch!

15457

[Peter1469]

lol

[OGIS]

OGIS (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1693) is free to kick people out of his own thread, but he has no right to interfere in this thread.

Why would I want to? You are doing a perfectly fine job of showing what a putz you are, all by yourself!

[Peter1469]

Why would I want to? You are doing a perfectly fine job of showing what a putz you are, all by yourself!

All without tossing people I don't like.

How many responses are in your tPF thread?

For the record I don't care if people want to make tPF threads. I am mystified with those who don't like the system.

This thread is an example of what to do.

[OGIS]

This thread is an example of what to do.

1) refuse to follow the OP thread rules
2) get kicked off for refusing to follow the OP thread rules
3) snivel and pout and start your own thread with the same name, like a small child kicked out of the community sandbox who goes to play in the cat's litterbox.

Got it.


And you're a moderator.... Wow.

[Chris]

1) refuse to follow the OP thread rules
2) get kicked off for refusing to follow the OP thread rules
3) snivel and pout and start your own thread with the same name, like a small child kicked out of the community sandbox who goes to play in the cat's litterbox.

Got it.


And you're a moderator.... Wow.


Perhaps you were gone when this rule was created:


10. Threads marked tPF allow the thread creator to thread ban members for what they feel are violations of any of the above listed forum rules, and only for those reasons. It will still be moderated as any other part of the forum based on the above listed forum rules, so tPF will be removed if the opening post violates any of those rules. The theme is still to try to develop a place for serious discussion. By serious discussion we mean making meaningful contributions to the topic at hand free of flamebait trolling, off-topic distractions and personal attacks. Here is How to create a tPF.

@ http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/31827-The-Political-Forums-Rules-and-Regulations


Emphasis on "Threads marked tPF allow the thread creator to thread ban members for what they feel are violations of any of the above listed forum rules, and only for those reasons." There's a lot of leeway allowed in judging what is and what is not a violation of forum rules but only forum rules apply.

[OGIS]

Perhaps you were gone when this rule was created:



@ http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/31827-The-Political-Forums-Rules-and-Regulations


Emphasis on "Threads marked tPF allow the thread creator to thread ban members for what they feel are violations of any of the above listed forum rules, and only for those reasons." There's a lot of leeway allowed in judging what is and what is not a violation of forum rules but only forum rules apply.

What does this even mean in the current context? Are you trying to say that my OP somehow violated the rules? If so, spit it out son. How?

[del]

lol

[Chris]

What does this even mean in the current context? Are you trying to say that my OP somehow violated the rules? If so, spit it out son. How?


You said "refuse to follow the OP thread rules" and I was correcting that. It's not rules you might make for your threads but forum rules.

[Peter1469]

1) refuse to follow the OP thread rules
2) get kicked off for refusing to follow the OP thread rules
3) snivel and pout and start your own thread with the same name, like a small child kicked out of the community sandbox who goes to play in the cat's litterbox.

Got it.


And you're a moderator.... Wow.

You abused your tPF thread. Now people are discussing your topic in my thread.

Wow.

[OGIS]

You abused your tPF thread. Now people are discussing your topic in my thread.

Wow.

Errr.... so? Am I supposed to be incensed, or heartbroken, or something? Is this some weird sex thing?

[Peter1469]

Errr.... so? Am I supposed to be incensed, or heartbroken, or something? Is this some weird sex thing?

I don't care if you have any reaction or no reaction. Why should I?

[Don]

It is a libertarian idea where people work together for the common good. I think it would work in a small group of like minding people. But then so would communism.

I think in the future it might be possible but not now. Right now being an adult doesn't mean mental maturity. We have people who still act like children all their lives. A lot of people. A hell of a lot of people. If the internet has shown us anything it has proven this. Its not just the people in our locality, its all over the world. I truly believe that the time will come when people do mature to the point that there will be no need for most government. I think getting there will be painful though. That's usually what it takes to "grow up."

[OGIS]

You abused your tPF thread. Now people are discussing your topic in my thread.

Wow.


Errr.... so? Am I supposed to be incensed, or heartbroken, or something? Is this some weird sex thing?


I don't care if you have any reaction or no reaction. Why should I?

Statements such as the above, in red, all have an ownership pathology element and a "nanaNAnanaaa" flavor of emotional content. Sane adults have lost, or at least suppress, those reactions.

[OGIS]

I think in the future it might be possible but not now. Right now being an adult doesn't mean mental maturity. We have people who still act like children all their lives. A lot of people. A hell of a lot of people. If the internet has shown us anything it has proven this. Its not just the people in our locality, its all over the world. I truly believe that the time will come when people do mature to the point that there will be no need for most government. I think getting there will be painful though. That's usually what it takes to "grow up."

I don't think this is a new phenomenon, nor caused by the Internet. The Internet has merely allowed it to be seen more easily. My thought is that the bell curve, or the 80-20 rule, is universal. 80% of the population is in the gray, moderate middle; and the 10% at each end are composed of stupid people, a few geniuses who no one understands, maniacs, and schizophrenics.

The new obviousness of these groups is a huge importance, as it changes the dynamics of social and cultural change.