Well said. In a sense, what I was saying is that we are living in
anarchy right now. It's just that
'those-group-of-people-who-armed-themselves' have taken over everything
in the intervening 6-10,000 yrs. But as YakWax pointed out in a recent
post, if we can achieve true anarchy today, we are better equipped to
sustain it than previous generations.
>> Curious. Tell me how a small-time operator in 1919, when there was
>> little or no access to telephones, radio, TV or big-town newspapers,
>> would find the time take on the herculean task of mounting a public
>> opinion campaign against Rockefeller? He would surely go out of
>> business in the process.
>You don't seem to know much about the period. Phones were widespread
>(and there was even competition in that market!) and every town had a
>newspaper that was the primary source of information, not nationwide
>talkshows or corporate faux journalism like most people waste their
I'll just say here, that although phones were available they were not
widespread. It wasn't until after WWII that phones saturated the middle
and lower income households. Yes, they didn't have mainstream media (a
blessing in many ways), but a necessary evil I think, in order to reach
a wide-enough audience sufficient to take on Rockefeller...
I have learned a lot on this thread from yourself and others. Your
arguments have been appreciated! Thanks.
Get Private Web-Based Email Free http://www.hotmail.com