Political Processes - Can we talk?

[Frybabe]

Duh, come to think of it, it would not have been called "Magna Carta" (Great Charter) if it hadn't been written in Latin.

British Library Link with nice animated intro/explanation. http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-an-introduction

Another link: http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta

[BarbStAubrey]

Evidently it was re-written in 1216, 1217 and 1225 the year you remembered. Makes sense the Latin bit.

[ginny]

Special Announcement

Our website will be down, beginning Monday evening, June 29, GMT, for a large update.   Please do not post at this time as your post will probably disappear. We do not know how long it will take the computer expert to load this update and have it working.   The website will not look as it has when it comes up until we tweak it, so please be patient. Please continue to check back for news.  We hope to be up and functioning by Tuesday, but if not, it shouldn't be too much longer. Thank you for your patience

[marjifay]

Have you been reading that the American currency is going to change?  Do you know what this means?  I don't understand it.

Marj

[jane]

I understand they are replacing the picture on the $10 bill with a woman's face.

I also know they've introduced color to some of the bills.  I had occasion to get some $100 bills at the bank, and they are, to me, a definite lavender/lilac color shading at least on one end. I no longer have them, so I can't look now.  I also think there are more holograms...in an effort to stop counterfeiting, esp. internationally, I think.

I also read that Oct. is a deadline for getting us caught up with Europe and Scandanavia (sp?) in having our credit cards have the chip in them that makes hacking into businesses for credit card info useless.  They've had this overseas for 10 years or so.

The computer chip gives the business a one time code...and so it's useless to the hackers who want to sell the credit card info.  About time, I say.

jane

[marjifay]

No, the article I read had to do with devaluation of our currency, not changing the color of the bills or the pictures on them.  I will try to find more about it.  Perhaps it was just something someone was trying to scare people with because they think the U.S. debt is getting too large.

Marj

[jane]

Marj....sounds like just that....some scare tactic, to me.  If you can't find out anything about it easily, then that's a big clue for me that it's rumor or scam.

[marjifay]

I just heard there will be a GOP debate tonite at 8 pm Eastern Time on the Fox News Channel.  (I'm not sure which channel that is, as I can't stand to watch Fox.)  I think the photographer tho snaps Trump's picture must be a Democrat, as he always gets Trump with that stupid look on his face (altho. I guess it matches his policies)  I may watch the debate just for laughs.

Marj

[Frybabe]

Marj, the debate tonight will be on CNN. Fox News ran the first one.

[marjifay]

Well I did watch some of the 2nd part of the GOP debate.  Being a liberal Democrat, there's only so much of that ilk I can take.

Sounded as if most of them could hardly wait to get us into war, either with Iran or North Korea.  Was amazed (altho I suppose I shouldn't have been) at Jeb Bush's comment that his brother had "kept us safe" by starting that war in Iraq.

Marj

[kidsal]

Believe Dr Carson just lost the Muslim vote -- stated he wouldn't want a Muslim as president.  Think he was surprised that two Muslims served in Congress.   Wish the media would stop asking about a candidates religion.  Don't believe it is a requirement to be a Christian to serve in the government!

[Frybabe]

We went through this before regarding Catholics, when Jack Kennedy ran for president.

[Jonathan]

It's a relief to hear that Scott Walker has withdrawn from the race. He seems like a fine gentleman, and I've no doubt he is a good governor, but the thought of building a wall on the Canada, USA border (all 5000 kilometers? )  is as unreal as it could possibly get. I'm just reading a serious book that proposes just the opposite: Merger of the Century: Why Canada and America Should Become One Country, by Diane Francis. She makes a pretty good deal out of it. I have no doubt Donald Trump would go for it.

But what a surprise. He's been trumped himself.  USA TODAY has Carly Fiorina as the leading candidate. What an impression she made in the debate. Showed real executive traits and commander-in-chief tendencies, with a good handle on the dangers facing the USA.

The prospect of a Carla/Hilary matchup should make for a campaign-of-the-century. God Bless America.

[Frybabe]

Yes, wouldn't that be something. I like Carly in spite of her getting booted from Lucent and HP. Have any of the people who actually worked for her weighed in? There are several others with potential, too, so my mind is far from made up.

[kidsal]

I believe there has been talk of bringing Canada, the USA and Mexico together as a North American Union such as the EU.
Wish Carly would tone it down -- she is a little strident.

[BarbStAubrey]

Ah thought - back when the concern was that it was taking so much longer to train either Afghan or Iraqi soldiers as compared to US soldiers and we were informed that it meant learning to read and to get out the mentality of the middle ages - so that there was much talk of how do we help these nations when they are living a lifestyle of the middle ages and then how long it took to get from there to democracy in the west and how do you change an entire region - well it looks like it is being done - called the biggest immigration movement since WWII with over a million so far from the Middle East walking into the twenty-first century.   

[mogamom]

While the Middle East is walking into the 21st century, I can understand the concern of Europe that this may cause them to re-enter the 6th century.  That is just a huge number to assimilate.

[mogamom]

I also had the thought assimilation is even more difficult when a people group doesn't want to assimilate.  I've heard that complaint about those flooding our border to the south - that many don't want to be citizens, they just want to work here.   And I also heard that from a symposium jointly presented by three Hispanic groups in the US.

I have also heard the plan to have a North American Union.  I believe that idea is shared by Paul Ryan - open borders - so it will be interesting to see if he becomes the House Majority Leader.

A PBS panel had a young man representing the growing tech group who shared a view of the world where each region/group would contribute to the world those things that they are best suited for: in terms of their resources, climate, work force, etc.  He envisioned our role as been 'innovation'.  When someone on the panel asked what citizens would do if they weren't gifted in that area, he replied that there would always be a need for service professions to support the innovators - nurses, teachers, mechanics, carpenters, etc. 

I kept hearing people wanting change - but didn't know what vision they were pursuing.  There is a group wanting to do away with the Bill of Rights, and some others proposing that the Constitution be dissolved and that we 'start over'.  I fear they are forgetful that those who established our government did so having a good understanding of other forms and how those have led to oppression and tyranny.

[kidsal]

Watching Rachel Maddow -- Huckabee, Cruz, and Jindahl attended a conference held by Pastor Swanson of Colorado who wants to kill all homosexuals in the world if they do not "convert."  His group had even discussed the method of killing -- throwing off a cliff, etc.?  What were these three men thinking when they showed up at this conference?  They are lucky the other news outlets didn't pick this up!

[Frybabe]

I am not fond of extremists, left or right. The National Religious Liberties Conference was created by Swanson the name of which doesn't appear to fit their agenda. This looks like another case of religious freedom only as long as it is his version/vision of religion. It is hard to believe that Huckabee, Cruz and Jindahl weren't aware of this guy's rantings. I'd like to hear their reasoning for going. Thank you for bringing this to my attention Kidsal.

[mogamom]

I’m not sure where this information comes from?  This is such a politicized, emotional issue that, in my view, it has become increasingly difficult to sort fact from opinion.

I went to Right Wing Watch as that is what came up in a google search.  Although I was told that this pastor has defended laws calling for the killing of homosexuals – and this part of the article was highlighted – I had to click on it several times before it finally took me to a source.  Many attempts sent me to other articles like this one: Cruz, Huckabee And Jindal Will Join Pastor Who Wants Gays Put To Death

Meanwhile, I kept wondering what state or federal laws could possibly be designed to kill homosexuals that this pastor would be defending.  Well, it turns out that I was finally sent to a source, a book (with no reviews) called:  Gay Rights on Trial: A Reference Handbook, written by Lee Walzer  consisting of 65 pp. (at least that is what turned up, keeping in mind that it might be an excerpt from the book) with 16 references, but no citations; apparently a history as it were of the gay rights movement.

Although the article, along with some of those I was sent to in my search, states that a pamphlet was distributed, again highlighted, none was produced.

I have only begun listening to the speeches made by the three presidential candidates listed, and have not had a chance to listen to Rachael Maddow (though I read the account given) so I can’t yet attest to what is being said here. 

I went to the site for National Religious Rights Conference and found nothing objectionable, just speeches discussing the imposition of the homosexual agenda on people of faith, a common topic given that it raises serious moral and ethical issues.

So, I researched Kevin Swanson.  He is the pastor of an Orthodox Presbyterian Church.  Now, I am fairly familiar with this denomination’s creedal positions.  And, unless he is seriously misrepresenting his denominational stance on homosexuality – which I don’t believe is the case – there is no way that he could be advocating the killing of homosexuals.

This is how such misinformation/rumor gets set in cement in people’s minds; someone on a side of an issue uses obfuscation and innuendo, along with guilt by association, as ‘fact’.

I will continue to search this out – as well as going back to listen to the actual speeches when I have more time – but, as a relatively cursory glance, I do not hold out much faith in the message given.  However, if I find these accusations to be accurate, I will certainly post that as well.

Thanks for posting this kidsal.  I never would have heard about it and, since she (and others mentioned) are making serious accusations that could conceivably have an affect on the election, it gave me an opportunity to research it for myself.  I appreciate that.

[Frybabe]

Pennsylvania is one of only seven states that have not objected to taking in Syrian refugees.

This is an article from Lehigh Valley Live about concerns over the new influx of Syrian refugees. I was particularly interested to note that the local, long standing Syrian population in the area are Assad supporters. I didn't know that. The Lehigh Valley generally takes in Allentown, Bethlehem, Easton, and surrounds.

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/11/syrian_refugees_in_lehigh_vall.html

This is an article from The Morning Call (Allentown) with a bit more detail about the Syrian community in the area. http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/pennsylvania/mc-pa-accept-syria-refugees-wolf-20151116-story.html

[BarbStAubrey]

Frybabe I cannot figure out what our government has against Assad - sure after the war on him started he used methods that the media reports show an outrageous response but if we are honest no less than our own use of weaponry. Difference ours is more sophisticated. Of Course Assad was going to fight hard, he was not going to just give up -

When you look at those who started the war in Syria they are mostly ex army officers - but cannot find out what tribes they belonged to - we do not think that way but tribal association as well as religious affiliation have been waring against each other since time immemorial - and tribes are very adept at getting others to fight for them by attacking them which brings them into the fray.

Then the biggie is that Assad is a Ba'athist as was Saddam - the Ba'athists want a sectarian run nation rather than one using Shea law or representing one religious group. Having read the history of this conflict all stemming from a terrible drought it confuses me why we are so dead set against Assad. From what I read we want Syria to be a Sunni run nation - why?

A few good links

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/12/understanding-syria-from-pre-civil-war-to-post-assad/281989/

http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/4198/tribalism-in-the-arabian-peninsula_it-is-a-family-

http://cemmis.edu.gr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=280%3Atribes-and-tribalism-in-the-arab-spring&catid=77%3Apoints-of-view&Itemid=95&lang=en

http://www.the-map-as-history.com/maps/2-history-middle-east-ottoman.php

[Frybabe]

I don't know much about Assad. The whole area is a big muddle. I was under the impression that the current and ongoing conflict between the US and Iraq, Iran and Syria has to do at least partly with the Kurds and the supposed use of chemical weapons against them.

After WWI when the Britain, France and the US got together and hammered out an agreement to carve the whole area up into states, it looks like Britain and France pretty much got their way. The report by King and Crane,sent by Wilson to study the situation, was ignored. The first map in the article I linked to shows the King-Crane suggested split. Mouse over it to get more info. I noticed that the Kurds would have gotten their own territory, but it recommended "close mandatory rule" because they thought the Kurds not capable of ruling themselves. Also, the last sentence remark about "full security" for several different groups, including Christians, lead me to believe that the Kurds were (are) a very unruly group indeed.  http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/the-middle-east-that-might-have-been/385410/

[BarbStAubrey]

Frybabe as I understand it Kurdistan was eliminated - part of Kurdistan is now part of Turkey and that is causing a problem for Turkey because the Kurds are and always had been capable of ruling themselves - I forgot the news reporters name but he is often on the Charlie Rose show and has been reporting form that part of the middle east since at least 9/11 if not before - he suggests that it is these construct nations like Iraq that no one is willing to fight for - the Kurds will fight an die to protect their area - so will the Sunni and Shea but no one is willing to die for Iraq and Turkey is so afraid the Kurds will unite and admits they are a strong fighting force given today's weapons - in order to Fight ISIS the only effective group has been the Kurds and to arm them is a problem between US and Turkish relationships - I've a text on the history of the Kurds that I have not gotten into yet, The Kurds: Nationalism and Politics

There is another new book this year that speaks to the Kurdish Spring as it is being called and how their fight against ISIS is helping them unite towards a retake of their nation that was obliterated by the Great Powers after WWI The Kurdish Spring: A New Map of the Middle East

[BarbStAubrey]

Wow what we did not know about ISIS is astonishing and it appears none of our national leaders understand who and what ISIS is all about

http://www.alternet.org/print/election-2016/6-keys-understanding-isis-barbarism-apocalyptic-vision-and-desire-end-times-battle

here are more articles by Graeme Wood - Canadian who writes for The Atlantic

http://www.theatlantic.com/author/graeme-wood/

[marjifay]

I suppose some of you heard about the horrific shooting in Southern California in San Bernardino where 14 innocent people attending a Christmas party were slaughtered.

I can't understand how anyone should be able to go into a store and buy those awful weapons and the magazine clips they used to reload.  I heard a couple of conservative congressmen talking about it, and they construed the talk about the need for gun control into what they felt was something the government would try to do to keep them from getting  shotguns.  As if hunters needed the guns used in that mass shooting which had enough power to pierce the safety vests worn by police officers.  It amazes me that people love guns so much they don't want to have their purchase controlled in any way.

Marj

[BarbStAubrey]

marjifay I think it is not so much a love of guns as a love of freedom without government mandating their behavior and also the belief that we take care of ourselves - a rampant belief the further west you go till you hit the other side of the Sierra's - it is not helping to show rogue police mis-using their fire arms which makes those who believe in self-protection more adamant.

An issue not being talked about probably because it is dicey - serving in the army teaches you about assault weapons and the use of them as a means of protection - we think the battle field should be left psychologically when it is left physically but remember these are young men, often not out of their teens when they are being trained - any training received as a young person stays or else we would not have collages available where values are adjusted - those who serve are taught to protect themselves and returning home there is a vulnerability felt when your battle field buddies are not around to help protect.

And then finally we have an industry that supplies anyone in the world with assault weapons - you do not feel it is right that others in other nations should have more fire arms than those of us at home. Finally my rational is that every product we mandate as against the law to purchase only sets up an alternate market that we have no control over and so, we are setting up another Cartel for those in Mexico just as we have for drugs and just as we have for banking off shore. Folks who want something will go to any measure, even if it is to create a new market for what they want.

I think this fight over guns is bypassing the real issues - when there are so many whose values have been discarded - see the new movie, 99 Homes to see what this nation has become - and self protection means becoming insular, taking care of yourself, making your own hope with faith only in yourself rather than the law, then those who are not as capable of letting go the dream of what was America feel not only hopeless but angry. Some can contain their anger or re-direct it but many cannot and it takes one thing like the proverbial straw on the camels back to put them over the edge.

I have a friend who is convinced the additives in our food is messing with our cognitive abilities and our behavior control is affected. And then I have seen on PBS some behavior therapists who point out each event is more horrific than the last with few coming out alive so that they believe it is a form of suicide that will take as many with them as they can AND they want to out do the last guy. There is even competition in dying .

At this point no one knows what is at the bottom of all this but as long as we focus on the gun we do not look for other influences almost like years ago we thought there was only one kind of Cancer and we were looking for the silver bullet - this behavior may have several causes. Certainly anyone not radicalized to another philosophy of death is risking their death out of a hopelessness that they can make their life better.   

[marjifay]

Looks as if young women will now be subject to register for the draft into the armed forces when they reach age 18, the same as young men, since the Pentagon has ruled that all jobs in the Armed Forces are now open to women.

I guess that's only fair.

Marj

[marjifay]

So you think, Barb, it's a love of freedom, not guns, that makes conservative congressmen refuse to do anything about controlling the sale of those awful guns?  That's what they say, but I think they are just paranoid about guns and afraid that government will take away their right to hunt, never mind that people are getting killed every day by guns in this country. No one needs those kinds of guns to hunt, except terrible people who want to hunt and kill human beings!

Marj

[BarbStAubrey]

Oh my I think Congressmen have many more influences to satisfy - bottom line they want to stay in office which means being electable - they have big money to satisfy and certainly gun manufacturers fall in the category of big money - and yes, the mandating of gun control was not specific and folks are afraid they will loose their hunting guns - in gun culture areas of this country the idea of assault weapons is not the first thing that crosses anyone's mind - their ability to have rifle or handgun in their pickup, part of actually necessary equipment on a ranch, is what first comes to mind.

As to Congressmen I do not think they are in a job that allows them to have a Mr. Smith goes to Washington value system - there are too many folks to satisfy that have far greater ability to back a future run for office than the average middle class voter who does not vote unless again big money gets out the vote. I think Congress only acts after there is a huge concerted movement that leaves them little choice - the Civil Rights movement, Mother's March on No Drinking while Driving- etc.

The 1% movement had legs that those with money were shaking in their boots over and so what happened they used their money and influence to shut it down - that is what any Congressmen knows will happen to them if they do not satisfy those with money - and so it is not only the gun manufacturers but those who are invested in stock that will be affected if guns are curtailed and then also, it keeps us on edge so that it gets harder to be a peaceful people and easier to sell the idea of another war where investors can make a bundle.

Congressmen are not the kings or queens on the chess board - they are becoming more and more nothing but pawns.

[marjifay]

Yes, I agree Barb, those congressmen who refuse to vote for any kind of gun control are afraid of losing their jobs if they don't cow-tow to those idiots who are paranoid about our government.  I wonder how they would vote if their loved ones were killed with one of those guns like the ones used by those two murderers in San Bernardino.

Marj

[BarbStAubrey]

again I do not think losing a loved one would make a difference - few folks want to loose their job and if they are working for a company that the product was instrumental in the death of a loved one they will blame the one who administered the product long before they blame the product.

You can already see the politics at play here as they are trying to be sure we understand this was an ISIS attack to drum up a 'go to war' mentality.

Have you read any of the posts on facebook from service men who were devastated by how so much of their job and what they were trained to do was taken over by Haliburton that is now a private army doing far more than the menial tasks that the armed services was sold on - Haliburton is paid of course by our national treasury and they are stymied when there is no active on the ground war so they can make their billions. All the men who fight just like our soldiers but for Haliburton are paid 4 to 5 times the salary of the average soldier. This privatization of the army is taking the stuffings out of the average soldier and is defiantly adding to the feeling of uselessness especially after being wounded when they are most vulnerable thus we have all these suicides.

There appears to be no room for emotions in todays world and what active emotion there is shown is then easily manipulated - sad - as to the removal of guns as a movement just look at how the folks in Massachusetts who were organizing after Sandy Hood were shut down - I do not even know if there is anything left to that movement.

My hope is that we can get rid of Citizens United - that would be one step but I am not naive enough to think that where there is a will there is a way and folks with more money than God have the will - I look around and see nothing left that money is not the controlling factor. It is as if it is the only thing that is valued - certainly not home or craftsmanship or a rounded education but rather only an education that will lead to a job and any craft is relegated to the lowest common denominator with manufactured anything, well advertised as 'the' preferred product - well you know - on and on it goes.     

[marjifay]

Per Barb, "again I do not think losing a loved one would make a difference - few folks want to loose their job and if they are working for a company that the product was instrumental in the death of a loved one they will blame the one who administered the product long before they blame the product."

Who said anything about "blaming the product (guns)??  I blame those people who buy and use them to kill people and those in Congress who want to continue to let people buy this "product".

[BarbStAubrey]

ah so - yes, but Wow that is a lot of folks who's behavior we hope to change and even with a law we still have the change the behavior because a law is only as good as it is processed and in order to be charged you have to be seen by someone who will prosecute - sheesh - however, if someone has an arsenal as so many of those who execute these massive shootouts - how in the world do we get just the guns that are out there out of the hands of those owners - this is an overwhelming task isn't it no matter how you come down - I guess I have been thinking more along the lines of Mother's Against Drunk Driving where yes, it took years but our attitudes have completely changed about drinking while driving, still have work to do on driving while under the influence - but to me the vast number of those who drank is similar to the vast number of gun owners who do not want their ability to buy whatever gun they can afford is restricted. Just thinking outloud here because I can see this as a huge task that I do not seeing a law will solve - not that I am against a law - its just that I do not see it solving anything.

[marjifay]

Per Barb " however, if someone has an arsenal as so many of those who execute these massive shootouts - how in the world do we get just the guns that are out there out of the hands of those owners."

Obviously, we don't.  What we DO is keep them from being able to get them in the first place.  Geezz... how hard is that to understand!!....

[BarbStAubrey]

Talk about coincidence - going through my email and this was on one of my regular news sites. 
Here’s how Vox’s Dylan Matthews, who notes that “America has 4.4 percent of the world’s population but almost half of its civilian-owned guns,” puts it:

    Realistically, a gun control plan that has any hope of getting us down to European levels of violence is going to mean taking a huge number of guns away from a huge number of gun owners.

    Other countries have done exactly that. Australia enacted a mandatory gun buyback that achieved that goal, and saw firearm suicides fall as a result. But the reforms those countries enacted are far more dramatic than anything US politicians are calling for — and even they wouldn’t get us to where many other developed countries are.

    Think about it this way. In 2013, the US had 106.4 gun deaths per million people. In 2011, the last year for which we have numbers, the UK endured 146 gun deaths total — or 2.3 gun deaths per million people.

    To get to UK levels, we’d need to reduce gun deaths by nearly 98 percent. Even if we wanted to reach the same levels as Finland — another developed country with a relatively high rate of gun deaths — we’d need to drop from 106.4 deaths per million to 35 — more than a 67 percent reduction.

For anyone who finds the new normal of seemingly daily massacres unbearable, Matthews’ conclusion is at once hard to dispute and profoundly depressing: “The U.S. doesn’t just have a gun violence problem because of its lax gun regulation. It has a problem because it has a culture that encourages large-scale gun possession[.]”

So the problem isn’t a technocratic flaw in our regulatory system; and it’s not even the currently NRA-friendly Supreme Court (as one of Matthews’ sources notes, it’s hard to imagine a scenario in which reform makes it through Congress but doesn’t survive the Court). It’s not just that there are too many “assault” weapons out there, either, since any serious attempt at reform would require looking at handguns.

All of these things may be problematic, but they are not the problem. No, the problem, unfortunately, is both simpler and more complicated. The problem is U.S. culture, which venerates firearms as symbols of self-control and rugged individualism; which is so taken by the seductive power of guns that it’s willing to give absurd myths like “a good guy with a gun” a serious hearing; which bestows someone like Wayne LaPierre with influence and riches.

The problem, in other words

[mogamom]

France has very strict gun laws.  The civilians in that attack were unarmed - the terrorists had plenty of arms.

The two who carried out the attack in California did not buy those guns, did they?  I thought a friend bought them for them.  The terms 'assault weapon' and 'semi-automatic rifles' are thrown around a lot; these rifles still only shoot one bullet at a time, they aren't like machine guns.  At any rate - the statement that 'people on a watch list can't fly but they can still buy guns' would not apply to them, since they were not on a no-fly list.  They weren't on anyone's watch list. 

You don't need a gun to make a bomb.

This man worked at the county health department for five years.  He had been to a Christmas party before.  His co-workers gave them a baby shower.  All seemed normal.

I guess it's hard to ask people to give up guns when they're told that studies show that 25% of American muslims believe it is alright to attack Americans; when other mass murders are perpetrated by emotionally ill people and we know that about 40% of adults are on some mood-altering prescription drug - many of which have suicidal/homicidal thoughts as a side effect; when they see a movement toward legalizing pot which is not 'just like taking a drink', but is fat soluble (cumulative) and alters your emotional state.  In short, I don't think you can convince people that they live in a dangerous world and that their government is not able to protect its citizens and then expect them to give up their guns.

[Frybabe]

Here is the latest face of ISiS supporters, arrested right here in Harrisburg.
http://www.pennlive.com/news/2015/12/profile_of_an_isis_supporter.html#incart_river_home

In the article, it states that neighbors didn't even know he lived there. Actually, according to last night's on air news interviews with neighbors, most never saw any of the family, and one stated he didn't know anyone was living there at all. At least one Muslim community in the area has been quick to condemn terroristic activities. Good for them.

[Frybabe]

I am reading a Scifi book which, in large part, is a comparison of Earth political and societal norms and that of another planet. The security, laws and morals of today are not too exaggerated versions of what we see today in the US. The other world is, as the title, Freehold (Michael Z. Williamson) , implies exists in what I think is from a Libertarian point of view. Government is practically nonexistent there as well as no licenses, fees or taxes, few or no laws or regulations, sexual freedom and clothing optional (not a book for youngsters), but there are contracts and insurance of all kinds is a necessary part of life, oh, and guns are recommended. The fear of being sued, or worse, seems to keep most of the populace from pursuing criminal activities, but they do try to take every advantage for gain through contracts and compensation expected for helping others. Is this an exaggerated form of Libertarianism I wonder?

Some interesting quotes from the chapter headings of the book and things to keep in mind:

"If a man neglects to enforce his rights, he cannot complain if, after a while, the law follows his example."
Oliver Wendell Holmes

"And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him
But the stanger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you..."
Laviticus 19:33-34

"I would say that my position is not too far from that of Ayn Rand's; that I would like to see government reduced to no more that internal police and courts, external armed forces--with the other matters handled otherwise. I'm sick of the way the government sticks its nose into everything, now."
Robert A. Heinlein, as quoted by J. Neil Schulman in The Robert Heinlein Interview and Other Heinleiniana

 Well, that just makes me want to read Rand even more. I've only read one short story, "Anthem". I had no idea Heinlein supported similar thoughts.

"The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility."
Admiral Sir John A. Fisher
Admiral Fisher achieved the rank of Admiral of the Fleet, and received the Victoria Cross, among other medals.

"Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer."
Ludwig Von Mises

"Prostitution involves sex and free enterprise. Which of these are you opposed to?"
Joseph A. Hauptman
Gee, this sounds like my best friend's attitude, although I have no indication that he has ever availed himself of such.

With freedom comes responsibility for your own self and actions, as the main character in this story is finding out as she adjusts from a crime ridden and increasingly repressive government to one of almost total freedom. Along with her, I am a bit uncomfortable with some of those freedoms. She is learning, and beginning to adapt.