you mention it being a nation state, but there is no sign that it is. there is a scene where the guy with the million years is being told by the rulers of other zones who seem to just be the wealthiest people in those areas to get control of the situation, we also see boards up with information from everywhere on earth, showing this system is not just in place in the developed world it is global, we also have no time scale as some of the rich could have been around thousands of years since our time, making the gradual changes from our world to this. it is not de facto that nation states would remain, this is a world completly run for and by its economy and super rich, no government, no elections, no signs of police or military or national borders, only borders between economic areas, no regulation of the price fixing, no labour laws. there are people such as the koch brothers and other libertarians and anarchists that want, not this world, but one with no courts or government or nations or taxes or any kind of public services, and therefore no military, who believe it would be better, the nationstate is not an inevitability that must always remain, in fact its not uncommon in dystopian sci fi for the world to end up run by corporations and all civil government to vanish, explaining why, such as in this story, the only concern is profit and status quo, not justice, human rights, the public good etc. this is a world where its normal to see people just drop dead in the street and know no one is doing anything about it, a pretty far cry from our own society.
again i think youre too tempted to see this as simply a new currency, but otherwise our world, with countrys rather than a global system of control, with the same careers etc. from what we see there are just those who sit on top of the system and those who prop them up, we dont see or hear of any celebrities, tv stars, sports teams, fortune tellers, tattoo parlours, just those who actually produce or manafacture something for those above or those who help keep the system of control running smoothly.
theres really no sign anywhere in the movie of any regular cops outside of timekeepers, who deal exclusively with keeping control of the time supply, hence the name, or any form of military. if you have no nation that could come attack you, seeing as you are in league with the 'rulers' of everywhere else and all collude with each other to keep your privledged status, therefore there are no enemy nations even if nations did exsist, which they dont seem to, you still live in a very unfair society, and youre gonna have the poor filling the ranks because what millionaires son is gonna live a soldiers life, the military can only pose a threat of an armed coup detat, many societies have gone through military juntas, especially in places with a big gap between rich and poor and a lot of corruption, so a military would really be all threat, no benefit. there just is no reason to presume there would be any veterans, either to hire, or to be a threat youd have to be trained for. but also how would there be big security/bodyguard agency? unless youre too rich to wanna work, you cant sit around without a job waiting to fill up the ranks, youd die, theres no idle population. so no if you did have training, youre going to have a full time position, not be waiting around hoping theres a crisis which means you get hired before the clock on your arm runs out.
they could have his picture actually painted on their face, if he comes up behind while they are looking the other way, they still cant see out the back of their head. they could only have a spotter who had been appointed to look the other way if they all have to face the other way at the same time, if they were expecting exactly this ploy and had drilled for it, and there is still no reason to think they are much above your average security guard.
the hookers who dont look good dont make enough to live, so only the good looking ones make it to the end of the week. plus the movie is about people being genetically altered to stay young/healthy/pretty forever. plus no one can afford to over eat and they spend a lot of time running everywhere. jogging to work a few times a week is a far cry from martial arts training or spending time in a fighting gym. and again, there being no military is totally feasible, what would they exsist for?
the thugs had guns, that doesnt make them trained or experienced, they got beat pretty good. they had the edge over most people in the ghetto who had no time to even practice shooting at cans, so they were a big threat that could keep a whole neighbourhood under the thumb and they showed no skill or training whatsoever. they are the biggest threat a security detail would ever expect to face and they were on the same side, helping make sure no worker drone ever managed to become a threat as theyd just kill anyone who seemed to be practicing how to fight or shoot before they became a threat.
he has what would be elite for that world with no terror groups or organised/trained threats. that still doesnt mean theyd match the level we are used to. anyone who doesnt benefit from the society only has days of life if they stop working, no spare time to go train up or join a guerilla group, even if you did, youd just die before you could carry out what you trained for. actally its ridiculous to just assume it does, there are real world nations without any military, costa rica has it in their national constitution that they can never have a military. thats in a world with rival nations and terror groups etc, so if you can get by without a military in this world, why would you have to have one in this? that is what you are used to maybe, but its not the only way a society could exsist, especially in this hypothetical world where any attempt at dissent is just stamped on before it can do anything. this doesnt even HAVE to be a nation state. did you see any sign of anyone answering to government? afraid of prosecution for their corruption? did you see any mention of a government? did you hear the name of a country mentioned at any point?
also you say theyd have a military to defend their economic interests, but this world is basically just a few multinationals that took over everything, they wouldnt owe allegiance to any nation even if one exsisted, they reached such a level of power they became the power in their own right, seperate and distinct from any government, and by the looks of it, ended up replacing all governments. apart from owning property/businesses and brick and mortar savings and loan type banks, there are no signs even of a complicated financial market place, no sign there is even a stockmarket, they are just able to manafacture X ammount of time that is then distributed (unfairly) by those who own the means of production in return for service etc. essentially the rich have no limits no laws no taxes, just a god like exsistence as long as the masses can never all rise up at once, which they can prevent by controlling the ammount of surplus time in circulation at any one moment, thats why the timekeepers were obsessed with stopping time being handed out and watching how much timemoney was circulating in each area.
from the movie, there is no mention of the name of any country or government at any point, its basically an ultra libertarian society, with no elected or public control or legislation, theres no one stopping the price fixing etc, no regulation, no anything, the only authority we see is bank balance, if you have enough timemoney that someone will do something for it, you can have them do it. we see hookers openly propositioning cops in front of other cops (the time keepers are the only somewhat law enforcement we see and there seem to be about a dozen total for their part of the timezone) we see no one investigate the deaths or crimes in the ghetto except when its part of the trail to those stealing time, those gangsters kill with impunity in front of witnesses.
if all the world is run by a cabal of super rich (the ones from other zones who chastised him by phone) and they all cooperate to keep their system running everywhere, so there is no population outside their control to pose a threat, then why would they need a military? if over centuries power was consolidated to the point they came to own everywhere, a military would be a monumental waste of resources, they can simply control the population because if people start to resist, and they only have a couple days spare to live, you can simply hunker down, stop paying them, wait a couple days, revoloution over as they nearly all die. unless of course, someone gave them enough time where the majority wont just expire in a few days, ie the climax of the movie. they never had time to protest or organise or fight back before, because if they didnt show up to work tomorrow, they wouldnt have enough time saved to reach the weekend, they were too poor to rock the boat that is why wages were lowered as prices were raised, thats the social control method instead of military force, thats the whole point and premise of the movie, society controlled through poverty.
reply
share
eYeDEF
12 years ago
I'm willing to consider the notion that there was a one world government which was minarchist, and that this was some sort of anarcho-libertarian dystopia where, like you said, if you're not working you die as the libertarian ideal worked to its ontological conclusion in the real world would have it. It certainly appeared to be a world dominated by corporations.
But I still have a hard time conceiving of why such a world wouldn't have specialized crack teams competent enough to handle bodyguard work. Again, being competently organized enough to not let a lone guy get a jump on the guy you're guarding really isn't rocket science. It's really not complicated. Being aware and familiar with who is guarding on your left and rank flank is just basic common sense. You seem to think that it requires great military prowess to develop bodyguard teams as well as we have today to prevent a lone guy getting a jump on them. It's not that complicated.
Furthermore, while such a world might not have had governments with standing armies it certainly would have had corporations with standing militias. This is just a byproduct of how a no or minimal government world would work. Public tyranny would just be replaced by private tyrannies and their militias would need to exist to protect their private interests and their important execs and CEOs as rigorously as heads of states are protected in our world. In such a world, private security firms that offered the services of armies of mercenaries to the highest bidder would be a dominant form of power. So it's still inconceivable that bodyguard work wouldn't be at a premium enough to have developed and trained pros on the free market willing to sell their services to the highest bidder.
A world with no government, and periods of anarchy and private states have been studied in depth in this regard, has been researched intently in attempt to answer whether libertarian ideology could ever be implemented as practical reality. The conclusion: doubtful. A world with no government would instead have its territory divided up by private security firms that treated their territory as their own fiefdoms. It'd be like a separate mafia family owning each territory. In fact, you could fairly speculate that each zone was owned by a separate "family" specializing in security who had contractual working agreements with the other families on the rules that would apply across zones, perhaps agreeing to have Time Cops that protected the time of the elites in each territory.
Even so guess what? Mafia families have to have decent bodyguards to survive.
reply
share
tom_grainger88
12 years ago
im saying you have no guys to hire who are trained to a high level, and no one who might come after you is trained to a high level, so there is less risk and less need anyway, so you dont make the same preparations until its too late. this system has been running fine for maybe centuries, with no selfless robin hood making waves, why keep up the expense for all that time.
you say a lot of research has been done on possible futures and make it sound like there is a consensus of this is the way it would turn out everytime, in fact there are many differing theories, some are certain it will work, otherwise there wouldnt be people actually trying to make the world move that way, others are certain it wont. if you listen to this guy its the smartest thing ever, listen to that guy it would be hell on earth. there is no right or wrong, it would be exactly this, there is no, well that justy cant happen, people must always have nations/militarys/taxes. once upon a time none of those things exsisted, in fact go back about a hundred years and you wouldnt find a proffessional military in many places outside europe/north america china and japan. police forces only began with the bow street runners in about 1749, before that there was no full time police force, and even a good century later many places still did not have one.
in the real world you may not be able to kidnap donald trump, he may have former special forces guys, but if you really wanted to, you could go for someone who had a security detail made up only of people with about the same level of training as mall cops and get the jump on them for a couple seconds. these arent agent smith from the matrix, these arent delta force, these arent ninjas, there just guys. if you throw a curve ball at them they could easily be thrown for a couple seconds. throw a smoke grenade at some russian mob boss and see if there isnt a few seconds delay. even the secret service can get thrown off at times, thats why they use red cells, who are special forces whos job it is to test security by carrying out mock attacks on facilities to see if they could of breached it. they carry out mock assassination attempts against the secret service sometimes to see if they need to make changes to secret service protocols etc. and yeh sometimes even the secret service when they arent expecting something can make bonehead mistakes, any person can if you surprise them, thats why the secret service change their tactics etc, if there was some perfect system youd never need to make changes. the original red cells under richard marcinko even made it aboard air force one and nuclear submarines without even being noticed, and allegedly made off with nuclear material or had the oppurtunity to do so. the idea that any security system is impenetrable is always false, anyone can be killed, anything can be stolen, its just a matter of is it worth it, are you prepared to die for it or maybe start a war over it. the bodyguards in this are going to be nowhere near that level so it will take much less to startle them.
say that is what happened between there being nation states and the world of the movie, then say the richer security firms just purchashed the smaller ones and consolidated power, and eventually they decided on a merger where all the current board members of each group become board members in anew more powerful group and continue to be extremly powerful, minus the cost or risk of being overthrown by an armed force. ceos are gonna be far more interested in ruling the world through bank balance than relying on the skill or loyalty of men who will have family members who were allowed to die thanks to the ceos policies. in a story where people are genetically redesigned to live forever if they get enough of a certain energy, the fact that corporations would simply agree to get along to increase each of their own wealth is not exactly a hard push. so why have militias? the milita can turn on and kill you, the other areas have no reason to attack because they dont want to disrupt the system and risk things changing plus it would mean arming their peasents and wasting money, instead of just having everything they could ever possibly need anyway through cooperation, why would they risk it? once you have no outside dangers and no chance of some rebel or terrorist army rising up, your just choosing to burn money and arm a bunch of guys with a lot more to gain from replacing you than saving you.
think of it this way, in britain, when they banned adverts for cigarette companies, every cigarette company benefitted by millions of dollars. although your company cant advertise, neither can your competition, so they get no edge over you, you all continue basically with the same market share and make sales through exsisting customers and word of mouth, and you save the millions of dollars spent on marketing. if everyone in your industry agrees to all cut their marketing costs and theres someway like a law making sure its kept to, you all benefit and profit, from losing the right to advertise. if you are a bunch of companies wasting even 1% of your profit margin on security, you can just all agree with each other to all drop it together, and you all lose the expense and become even more streamlined. if anyone did try to break the deal they only control a small enough area that everyone else united against them could stop it before it starts. essentially if a bunch of people are content to rule as part of a board or committee, with no one trying to make themselves emperor, the system can stay in place without problems, just like the way nearly every coporation runs in reality, or like being a member of a privy council where the council could make joint decisions and each member while not having supreme control, had a lot of power without painting a target on their back for others who want their position. like the board of the american mafia, where families agreed to share power and make more money with no one being overall ruler, they grew faster and became much bigger once they ruled at the very top by the comission made of all the dons voting like on a council. its all part of game theory, you benefit more from cooperation than competition where you expend energy blocking each other and stopping someone else get bigger than you, that you could spend making yourself stronger instead. its the basis for almost all international trade agreements now.
most real mafia families are made up of guys whove had a few fist fights and again practice shooting cans off walls, not crack troops, the reason more arent killed is simply that it brings legal attention and interupts business so it makes more sense to cooperate and have a larger network of contacts than to eliminate someone who might help you out in future. if you look through even the most violent mob wars, the number of dead is actually a pretty small percentage and they nearly all ended with business style negotiations and cash. most real world mafioso work out of the back rooms of delis or laundromats. most dont even have bodyguards unless there is a problem at the time, and when they do have bodyguards, its someone on the level of the gangstas in this movie, someone who knows which way to point a gun and can throw a punch, not someone checking the corners and radioing back to say the coast is clear. the bodyguards in this were far more than 99% of any crime bosses bodyguards, unless youre talking drug cartels who do in fact hire former special forces. if you really want to kill a mafia don, you yourself could do it, you just have to know somewhere they go outside their house and be at least a mediocre shot, as long as you are prepared for payback on you later on or legal consequences, the middle age fat guy with a snub nose tucked in his belt isnt going to be much of a problem unless they see you coming, he might shoot you after his boss is already dead, but chances are if they dont recognise you, you could just walk towards them then pull the gun suddenly and pop them both before either could react. i mean real world leaders guarded by actual special forces still get assassinated by lone nut jobs with no training.
reply
share
eYeDEF
12 years ago
Maybe you need to read my last post again because you appear to have missed completely some of the points I made.
"im saying you have no guys to hire who are trained to a high level, and no one who might come after you is trained to a high level, so there is less risk and less need anyway, so you dont make the same preparations until its too late. this system has been running fine for maybe centuries, with no selfless robin hood making waves, why keep up the expense for all that time."
First I pointed out that your assumption there would be no on trained at a high level is all wrong anyway. Even if there were no standing armies there would certainly be well trained private corporate militias.
You keep trying to paint the world like it could have existed without highly trained individuals. This is just simply ridiculously inconceivable.
Anyone that knows anything about foreign policy understands that even without ever engaging in conflict having powerful and well trained militaries is still fundamentally important for their ability to project power. Projecting power gives one a better negotiating position. Even better yet is when military is capable of flexing its muscle by demonstrating their power once in awhile. It gives a country an even better negotiating position. This world would definitely have well trained private militias. There's really no way of getting around that.
Furthermore, think about what you're proposing here. A single fugitive with no military background and training gets a jump on a team of bodyguards who know exactly what he looks like and expect him that were the best that time could buy in this society? I mean we're not talking about some well trained professional hit man with a sniper rifle from a distance taking out Weiss. We're talking about a rank amateur with barely any pre-planning.
Think about how ludicrous what you're proposing is. How plausible is that really? If they had provided additional explanation of how Timberlake could have conceivably got a jump on such a unit, then fine. But they didn't. Can you literally tell me with a straight face that it's not a plot hole?
I mean, the very fact that you're having to go to such lengths to defend such a thing demonstrates it's a plot hole. By the way, the byline of the movie says "in some distant future" implying that this is OUR world this movie is conceived in.
reply
share
tom_grainger88
12 years ago
again according to game theory that would make no sense, reread my post.
you keep trying to paint the world as if there have always been militarys, this is just simply false.
anyone who knows that in a world with no such thing as foreign policy, such as a world with no foreign nations, that nothing about current foreign policy realities is even slightly relevant. what power would be projected and where to if there is no foreign anything, a one world order. you also wouldnt need embassies or international trade agreements to negotiate. theres everyway of getting around it because your assuming there would be a foreign policy to start with though it makes no sense, who would they need to flex their muscles at? martians? there would be no foreign power on earth.
single fugitives with no training manage to wipe out dozens of people in mass killings pretty easy and have succesfully assassinated world leaders. the guy who shot reagan was only stopped by not being a better shot, not secret service. but i guess john hinckley was just a super warrior and the president would have less security than a ceo. i mean that makes sense. or maybe you heard that story as the president wasnt shot, because the secret service could see out the back of their head and it was impossible to get the drop on them.
yes, i have. its not even a great movie, its just not a plot hole if you put any thought into it and the different geopolitical landscape.
reply
share
eYeDEF
12 years ago
Again I don't think you're comprehending what I'm saying. There WOULD be foreign zones if territory was carved up into different zones. And again, the byline of the movie reads "In a future where people stop aging at 25" implying it is a future of OUR world. So what you're implying is that the knowledge of foreign policy of the past was just thrown out the window? That's ludicrous. I'm plenty aware of game theory. That would mean multiple cartels vying for dominance would require armies of militias in order to maintain equilibrium. To think they would all give up their training is just bizarre. To think one cartel or corporation wouldn't have figured out that having well trained militias to project their dominance is equally bizarre.
reply
share
tom_grainger88
12 years ago
who said territory was carved up? theres nothing saying they have to stay out of other zones or they controlled a defined area, try to comprehend that, hes just one of the company who was closest, not a feudal lord. there is no foreign anything, ergo, there can be no foreign policy. you said yourself it could be a one world ruling class, so you admitted there could be no foreign nation, but now say there must be a military to project force in negotiations between foreign nations. its just one board of directors for earth, no one is boss, rule is shared between them.
no game theory in no way says there must be competing forces keeping each other in check, game theory says that if they are balanced with forces, they have no need of any forces as its simply expending resources for no gain, and that all parties would benefit from demobilising, hence the real world example i pointed out to you.
if they are one cartel, who are they going to have dominance over? they have the world, there is no one outside to dominate.
you are failing to grasp a point you had already conceded previously.
reply
share
eYeDEF
12 years ago
Did you hear what I said? This is a future of OUR world. Why would foreign policy understanding of the nation states of the past that conferred competitive advantage be lost? Nor is this foreign policy knowledge anything special to modern nations. Throughout written history the best trained militaries conferred dominance and power projection.
I think I finally get what you're saying. You're saying that in a one world government the ruling class would just hold hands and sing kumbaya together. There would be no vying for power or territory or split into their separate tribes or factions that shared common interests, they would all just miraculously share while ruling the world and repressing the poor and middle class who of course they wouldn't have to fear and protect themselves against either even though it would go against everything we know about human nature.
Got it.
reply
share
tom_grainger88
12 years ago
do you hear what i said? even in our world people can see things evolving to a point of no military, even with knowledge of them, you link things as if this must mean this and will always mean this as if social trends are as steady and constant as gravity.
in a world with no governments, anyone having a military would be shot in the head eventually and replaced by a general, like sulla, marius, caesar, qadaffi, hussein, pinochet etc etc etc etc etc. the point is there are no tribes or factions, it all evolved and merged into one, hence one world government. when was the last time chicago went to war with detroit? when was the last big conflict between california and oregon? remembar that blood bath when new orleans invaded austin? no? well surely they all have militias to guard themselves from each other right? i mean just because they are all one nation under one rule doesnt mean they dont have standing armies ready to destroy each other right?
the whole point and premise of the film is, the poor have no power, they cant even spend time organising without dying, there is no middle class other than those who personally serve the ruling elite and get their entire status and safety by obeying the system, and if they had a military, it would be giving guns and training to a lot of the poor, which, with everything we know about human nature, would mean they wouldnt stand being the doormat forever when they had the means to take over. ie, a military in a world like this, like in other oppressive regimes that have coups and military juntas where the military actually wages war on their own leadership, would become inevitable. your sitting around with your buddies, armed to the teeth, outnumbering anyone who could resist you, knowing society is evil and unfair, but decide to just bend over and take it because?????
you seem to think no soldier could ever be a threat to those who pay them, or that populations in the same country go to war so often that it must be prepared for.
reply
share
eYeDEF
12 years ago
"in a world with no governments, anyone having a military would be shot in the head eventually and replaced by a general"
ROTFLMFAO!
Got it. Anyone having a military would be shot in the head. Somehow, some way even though the person with the military would have a dominant form of power in a world with no military and instantly take over the ruling class. Even though that person with a military WOULD have a highly trained military to protect him where he could keep his loyal generals happy by handing out the spoils to. But somehow, some way a lone wolf would penetrate his highly trained military and assassinate him. Even though all the dictators you mentioned were overthrown because of an overwhelming outside nation-state known as the USA, or were the exceptions to the rule of all dictators throughout history. Meanwhile, the rest of the ruling class wouldn't be trying to raise their own armies to defeat him.
Gotcha. You make perfect sense.
reply
share
tom_grainger88
12 years ago
ok so you just pointed out another perfect reason, if one guy trys to build up forces, he becomes a threat to the rest of the ruling class. so what does the rest of the ruling class do? hey, your boss is threatening us, kill him and you can be immortal, take his place, or back him, remain at his mercy, and pray he wins. mr i have an army just got his head blown off. theres no police, theres no going to prison for it, there is no anything, theres just we can give you the world, he broke the contract, kill him. that kind of thing on offer to your own bodyguards, you really gonna just hope they choose to stay loyal because you have just such a winning smile?
no lone wolf, they would just offer his position to whoever takes him out, what soldier is going to choose to remain a servant, when all they have to do is pull a trigger and become a god? no negative consequences, they just take over from the old boss and keep up the deal as planned. you ever notice how many mafia dons were murdered by their own underboss or one of their own capos? its most of them, usually by someone in the family who got backing by other families, that if they remove their own boss who is not playing ball, they can take power and be recognised with no war.
oh my god so the usa put qadaffi in power? and hussein? wowee do you know some history, oh and the usa overthrew sulla and julius caesar? wtf are you talking about. oh dont abuse your place in the military and take power, in 30 or 40 years the us might come kick your ass, or they might do arms deals with you and help you maintain power over egypt, ya know, one or the other.
i would accept your pointing out that it would be impossible for a military to be a threat to its own leader, if you could even come up with some reason why all those other leaders got removed from power or killed by their own military, which you have completly blanked, just like you blanked the fact a real world president was gunned down in front of the secret service by a lone nut with no training, which is, according to you, ridiculous. not to mention other leaders with similar protection who have been killed by lone nuts.
wake up and rediscover logic, you said your familiar with game theory then totally missed the point and ramifications of game theory, i also noticed you dropped your point about how obviously parts of the same country are constantly preparing for war with the rest of the same country, where did that theory go to?
reply
share
eYeDEF
12 years ago
ROTFLMFAO!
Got it. Anyone having a military would have his underlings bribed off. Somehow, some way even though those raising armies throughout history only in exceptional cases had their underlings bribed off. Even though great commanders throughout history knew how to keep his lieutenants loyal. Even though that person with a military WOULD have a highly trained military to protect him where he could keep his loyal generals happy by handing out the spoils to. But somehow, some way they would bribe off one of his underlings. Even though all the dictators you mentioned were overthrown because of an overwhelming outside nation-state known as the USA OR were the exceptions to the rule of all dictators throughout history. All those successful emperors of China, Persia, even Rome that garnished loyalty from their commanders were just chopped liver. Meanwhile, the rest of the ruling class wouldn't be trying to raise their own armies to defeat him.
Gotcha. You are a living genius.
reply
share
tom_grainger88
12 years ago
its one thing to be bribed by an enemy nation, its another when its your own country to stop someone going rogue. if everyone disarmed together like the cigarette companies with their marketing as i pointed out before, then no, he would have no military of any sort, would he, because, now see if you can get this, if he doesnt have a military, then? what does he have? a military? or no military? when he had one everyone else would have one so no way to use it without mutually assured destruction, which is not exactly the first choice of many wallstreet brokers. he would only have an advantage over people with no military, if when they agree to stop wasting money and stop risking being deposed, hed somehow kept an army in secret, which was not possible due to time being monitored. so 'he' has no generals, lieutenants or anyone else. so unless hes just delusionally ordering about phantom armies, there is no army.
wether they were overthrown decades later didnt stop them taking over did it? or did they cease to exsist and to have never come to power if one day power was taken away? you seem to think this is looper where by killing them they never exsisted. there also is no overwhelming, underwhelming, or slightly feeble outside nation state, because, as you yourself said, one world ruling elite, ie no outside nation state of any sort. and your right, only about half the roman emperors were murdered by their own men, so therefore none of them were, i mean obviously the times when the praetorian guard murdered the emperor and auctioned off the throne time and time again, that was just like a big practical joke and doesnt count right?
id like to say your a genius too, but honestly id be afraid to let you cut paper with big boy scissors.
reply
share
eYeDEF
12 years ago
Your pure genius just keeps shining through and impressing me like no tomorrow. Everyone just decided to put down their arms and forget their training, link arms, and sing kumbaya together because of a marketing campaign.
Damn I am impressed. Have you considered law school?
reply
share
tom_grainger88
12 years ago
have you considered grade school? they cant all have high standards.
not because of a marketing campaign, that was an example of where the companies actually benefit from giving up part of their expense which would usually give them an advantage, thats game theory. the board of rulers decide to disarm, the military get no say in getting fired. youre the one thinking that the leading class would sit around holding hands putting daisies in the barrels of the guns of the general that executes them and seizes power.
reply
share
eYeDEF
12 years ago
Actually, successful coup d'etats involving the military have almost always involved co-opting the upper class and elites or vice versa so the depth of your knowledge on this subject is just astounding ... astoundingly bad.
Carry on professor.
reply
share
tom_grainger88
12 years ago
so thats why generals and colonels have never made themselves the new leaders? except for, ya know, about 9 out of 10 of military coups in modern history. your quoting 'facts' that you just made up, then being prissy about it, youd be funny if you werent so petulant. wanna quote a couple of actual examples instead of just making sweeping statements?
reply
share
eYeDEF
12 years ago
I don't need to make things up. I have facts on my side. What I said was an incontrovertible fact smart guy. Most modern military coup d'etats have successfully co-opted the elites. Why? Because often times the elites and the military are one and the same. Look at Pakistan's history. Their many coups have served to keep civilian institutions weak. Their primary industry is their military which enjoys all the wealth in power. It doesn't matter that a general assumed power because the wealthy and powerful elites are ONE AND THE SAME. All that matters is that the economic interests of the elites were preserved.
Just look at every successful coup d'etat backed by the USA. They were done in the interests of preserving the status of the economic elites of that country AS WELL AS USA's interests when those interests were being threatened.
Just look at about every coup that has happened in Africa over the last 60 years. In fact, I can't even think of an exception at this point.
So don't accuse me of making things up just because you're too lazy to know your history. Higher education could do you a whole lot of good.
reply
share
tom_grainger88
12 years ago
and that was the case in all the south american military coups? nope. the middle east? nope. the pakistani coups were all with the consent of people already in power anyway? nope. so basically your quoting untruths? yup.
if they were really so elite what would they need a coup for? they would already be in power.
yeh and the us was usually backing a coup overthrowing some kind of socialist group, without the involvement of socialists. ie no the rulers of the time did not take part in a coup against themselves. why would the rulers of this film back a coup against themselves?
erm yeh, again, look at ever coup in africa, when was the government complicit in its own overthrow? oh yeh, never.
your quoting half truths and plain making crap up. oh yeh obviously the ruling class would overthrow the ruling class, thats what always happens fact, and now il just name some places and say they fit the mold. wrong.
any education would help you.
reply
share
tom_grainger88
12 years ago
also how is every military coup and junta, of which there are many still in place and have been many more throughout the last few years, be the exception to the rule of dictators? there are countless nations where the military seized power, especially if there was inequality and corruption with a ruling elite who did not care what happened to the lower groups, who often made up the ranks or were the soldiers families. your talking out your rear end, or you just dont know enough.
reply
share
eYeDEF
12 years ago
Wow. You really are a genius. You just made my point. These militaries seized power. They had a general/dictator that these militaries were loyal to. They SEIZED POWER. I am so impressed that you figured this out.
reply
share
tom_grainger88
12 years ago
seized power from who? there were people in power, they got taken down by having a military, my entire point, the one you thought was wrong. they get rid of their military first, instead of getting taken down, rather than waiting for the inevitable, my entire point. i am so unimpressed with your attempt to flip sides. once they get rid of their military, there is no general who can take them out, so there self preservation means they would be inclined to get rid of their militaries. jeez
reply
share
eYeDEF
12 years ago
And the military seized power because they are the military and the trained armies with weapons that held all the physical power. That's what made political power so easy to seize. My entire point.
But this is why I remain so truly impressed with you. Because now you're pushing the theory that the military would just cooperatively lay down their weapons, forget their training, link arms, and sing kumbaya together. This is why I believe you deserve a brilliancy prize. Until we see modern military powers dismantle themselves completely at the instruction of civilian leadership your figurative imagination is just brilliant, which is why I commend you for your creative ingenuity. But until then, there's no reason to believe a branch of government as mighty as the military would just sing kumbaya and put themselves out of work. Nor is there any reason to believe leaders would agree to give up their military, even if agreeing to form a one world government. There are far too many good uses for the military to just cooperatively disband it, but primarily power projection and intimidation of the masses. If anything, separate military's would agree to be combined in a one world government.
If you actually knew anything about the function of the military throughout history you would know that not only is it to protect from outside threats but it also serves the essential role of keeping its own people in line by those in power. This is just undeniable. To think a one world government of elites involved in repressing the masses would even consider dismantling their ability to do this is what makes you look like such a mental giant.
But it's a very gigantic world of creative fiction. I'll give you that much. You've made a fan out of me for sure.
reply
share
tom_grainger88
12 years ago
your entire point originally was no nation would ever willingly get rid of its military, because a military was a necersary advantage that never had a downside. why if you are the ruling class, would you keep a military whose only remaining task is removing you? your entire point was it would help them in foreign policy and would never overthrow them, or have you forgotten? your the one who claimed they would just keep paying guy who now had nothing to do but take them out. jeeez, dont even read a book, just try to learn to read your own posts.
the military doesnt need to cooperate, you just have one divison demobilise, if they refuse you use 3 or 4 others to take them out, then you get another to demobilise a few years later, and use the rest of the military to police them, and so on, then the last few you give cushy jobs, just like everytime in history militarys have disbanded, like when armies would always disband to return home to rome, or you just let their time run out, even easier.
militaries have disbanded in reality, yet according to you the real world is fairy land where all those armies then slaughtered everyone (except they didnt) and they always refused (which they didnt) the first full time proffessional army in england was the new model army under cromwell in the 1640s, every army before that was raised, fought, disbanded, the army after agincourt, the army after hundreds years war, army after wars with scotland, armies after well every war in english history before that. so go ahead, tell me how actually, they always erm, pretend disbanded and went and hid in the woods like robin hood to make you right without anyone else knowing. jackass.
in fact, oldest regiment or unit in active service in the world was formed in sweden in 1521 and only consisted of 16 guys as a bodyguard until it was expanded 2 years later. every unit ever formed before that disbanded, the oldest regiments in the world were all formed after that, and even into the 16 and 1700s there were countries that kept no standing army, just called one up if needed. so yeh, the fact that every army in human history til the last few hundred years disbanded, dont let that get in the way of your new version of history. if you ever learn about caesar, the whole big deal about him returning from gaul without disbanding, was because for centuries every army had to disarm and disperse to return. the few times they didnt stand out but the fact is they are the tiny minority and got the edge because most armies did willingly disperse, and not to be reassigned to new units, that was usually just it, you all went home and other legions and armies were entirely seperate units rather than an integrated military. but hey, historical fact is too silly for your down to earth captain space man army rangers fantasy right.
they dont put themselves out of work, they are disbanded, just like a huge ammount of the military was put out of work after ww2, it wasnt until the cold war large numbers were maintained, demobilisation happened at a furious pace with hundreds of thousands returning home in a few years, often with no certainty there job would still be there. oh but i forgot the great massacre of 1946 when the army refused to give up power. but i guess they were all just a bunch of hippy pussies right? the greatest generation all sung kumbayah, and kudos on the, see how many dozen times i can use the same dumb phrase prize. it shows a lack of imagination but at least you are consistently ignorant.
what in hell are you talking about? theres no reason to think that leaders, now with no foreign enemy, would have any reason to give up the military which is a bunch of armed dudes that could turn on them and depose them, but has no enemy to defend them from? so what, they just decide after taking over the world to light up a joint and mellow out as they wait to be executed by the guys they continue to pay for the privledge. i mean why would people try to remain in power right? such a bummer when you could get stoned and listen to some dylan.
name one good use? you say too many, name one? the masses are under control through economic suppression that kills them if they try to rise up so a military can do diddly squat there, there are no foreign powers, no terrorist groups because living outside the system means you run out of life, so name one, i know you dont have many, but name one realistic use? if the become all one military, what are they there for? when there is less threat, militarys shrink anyway, look at the end of the cold war, the world wars, and every other major conflict in, oh, i dont know, all of human history. jackass
yeh, in a world where the people dont die in 2 days if they stop working that would be true, but, duh duhh ddduuuuuhhhhhh da whole point is, they dont need to, the whole point and premise and concept of the whole movie is, a society controlled by and lives and dies by the economy. wtf is a military going to do to the population that is killed already without any need for a dude to go shoot them, they just drop dead, you just stop their paycheque. you look like such a mental defunctive because your pointing out that oh my god all those people who will drop dead tomorrow if they try to rise up, we need an army to kill them, or at least we will for the 30 seconds they are still alive when they actually walk all the way from the ghetto to new greenwich, i mean arrrrrrgghhh run, a bunch of dead bodies, who will save us, if only we had a military that could go bomb all the already dead people. jackass
reply
share
eYeDEF
12 years ago
"why if you are the ruling class, would you keep a military whose only remaining task is removing you?"
Have I been speaking to a brick wall? Because the military and ruling class are often so intricately co-dependent if not one and the same. There is no point in removing rulers that preserve your own interests. None. Instead of using me as your educational resource you really should try and get your own higher education, but first having the functioning logical faculties is sort of a prerequisite. You have to first be able to think through the logic of what you're claiming which you have utterly failed to do.
"your entire point was it would help them in foreign policy and would never overthrow them, or have you forgotten?"
You need better reading comprehension skills. That was when I was discussing nation states and prior to considering the "one world government" scenario. In any event you've never bothered to address why corporations wouldn't build up their own private militias to protect and defend their interests, especially in a world with a one world government without a military. Game theory doesn't apply. Why? Because game theory would require both parties to believe that the other will play by the rules. Corporations as we know by reality often shirk the law in order to NOT to play by the rules in order to gain competitive advantage. If a court decides against one party in favor of another, how the hell do you think the court would be able to enforce that ruling unless there is a military in place that could back the court? The fact that you haven't bothered to consider such things and instead think corporations would all play fair and by the book is why I call you Kumbaya Man.
"your the one who claimed they would just keep paying guy who now had nothing to do but take them out."
Your straw man. You're the only one claiming they would have "nothing to do but to take them out".
"militaries have disbanded in reality"
This is why I went back and put italics and bold around the word "completely", because I was so sure of your poor reading comprehension skills. There's a difference between disbanding military units, especially when consisting of the enlisted or drafted, while keeping the infrastructure in place to ramp up again if necessary than eradicating a military completely, especially the elites in that military.
This invalidates the rest of your rambling diatribe. You could save yourself time if you improve your reading comprehension capabilities although I'm really not sure that's possible.
reply
share
tom_grainger88
12 years ago
you are really talking so much garbage. in a world run by wallstreet brokers, they are all guys with military experience? oh and every general has a great portfolio. how in this world would the business leaders of our time also have been our greatest generals? even if they were 'often' linked, which is a generalisation, they are not linked here, this is our world where the banks took over, how many banks own an army? none? oh right, so they arent intricately linked or even slightly linked. your making up the idea that they would be connected then saying it is a fact. if you are rank and file of the army, ie poor, ie losing relatives to the current system, you are not being served, therefore you overthrow. like libya, like chile, like argentina, like brazil, like iraq. the military was not served well by letting the elite have everything at the expense of everyone else, thats why they removed them, thats what a military coup is. this is really basic stuff, we are discussing coups when you dont understand what a coup is or what causes one.
the fact there are think tanks, made up of people oh my god so much smarter than you, who already look at the situations where militaries would fail to be neceresary and would be removed, kind of destroys your wah but i like armies wah they cant take away armies even if they dont need them wah unfair i like armies, rambling point. serious political theorists already have ideas of how they would be disbanded and under what circumastances, you moron.
yes i have, because in a one world government where you are the government with total utter control, what would you need a military for? what threat could face you? there are no rival factions, the people cannot rise up, there are no foreign armies, so why would they waste their resources on giving guys guns that could turn on them. there is no benefit, only risk. there are real world leaders who have tried to diminish the power of their military leaders because they are paranoid about a coup, but cannot totally disarm in the current world, in a world where there is no exterior threat, they would have disarmed in a heartbeat. what interests do they need to protect and from who? just answer that, but you never do no matter how many times you get asked.
the same reasons they dont need a military is why they dont need a militia, they jointly own everything, the whole point of the movie is they have a new form of social control that does not involve military, that, is, the, most, basic, point.
game theory yes, says both sides will obey, but when there is just one side, and no other side to even need to trust, then there is no need to trust the other side, there isnt one. corporations, as i say, shirk the law, but they dont fight themselves. they already control everything, what more is there to take? nothing. how many cities in the same country maintain forces to fight each other or defend against being invaded by another city in the same society? none. how many corporate departments keep forces ready to fight the rest of the same company? none. this is sooooo simple.
no, there is no court, they are just one entity, none of them are in the military, none of them are linked to it, they are a board of executives who all have to pay out for any forces they have, they take a vote, hey who wants to stop paying these guys and not risk them getting ideas, all say aye, ok, the board votes to cut the armed forces. done. no court settlement, no oh i cant disarm because that rival might not, they are all equal members who equally own everything as long as they keep their system in place, they all have a vested personal interest in making sure there is no one out there with the means to upset it. ie they all are equally in danger of a coup of rank and file guys who decide to redistribute and nationalise things.
yeh i know why you call me it, because you think leaders sit and giggle listening to bob dylan and certain no organised group of poor guys with guns will ever be unhappy with their lot in life and consider just taking more. you also think that one corporation would somehow have other corporations to worry about. we are talking one world government, owned by one corporation, where everyone in power is all part of the same ruling group. that is the thing i have been repeating and it covers all of what you fail to grasp, everything considered and explained. you just dont understand it.
ok mr scarecrow, what would they have to do? they have no foreign power to guard against, there is no one to negotiate with, so no show of force needed, ok, the people are controlled by a new means of social control, check. so what would they be needed for? according to you they are needed for negotiation, we have taken care of that, needed to control the people, not even slightly, fight against another nation or corporation, there are none. ok, so....... what are they needed for?
countrys have completlty one hundred percent removed their military all through history. youre failing to read something even as you complain that im not reading your imaginary points that make sense only to you.
you cant comprehend, you then say wah, why arent you getting my garbage i made up, mommy says im special and always right, why are you arguing, wah. save us both time and learn about something before you make up crap about it.
reply
share
eYeDEF
12 years ago
If you want me to bother even reading your posts you should try to speak English. After you started breaking down and crying "wah" between every word I didn't even bother reading the rest. Go back to school and come back when you've improved.
reply
share
tom_grainger88
12 years ago
hahahahaha oh my god are you pathetic. i cant win so erm, well ive decided im too good to even try to argue. well done, now just walk away and concede. you stopped reading on the last line, that explains why you cant argue any of the rest of the message, hahahahaha you are so transparent.
you start the sarcasm and insults, acting like youre a grade schooler, now your complaint is that its being done back to you, so suddenly youre too high and mighty to even reply. funny you werent too high and mighty to start it off, huh? funny you suddenly become high and mighty when you lost. everyone can see straight through you.
reply
share
eYeDEF
12 years ago
LOL. So now you start deciding to type concise messages in English again so that I'll read your posts. LMAO! Well guess what genius it worked. So what were you saying again? You were saying something with garble in between and your prose like I've mentioned many times is too torturous to read so I've probably read about 50% of what you've bothered typing total.
Like I said, I warned you to be concise but I just couldn't handle it when you stopped even using English.
So do you want to re-state what you said? If not, I can understand because you probably didn't have much of a point to make.
reply
share
tom_grainger88
12 years ago
wow you are the first person on here to start trying to win an argument by complaining about grammar when you have no argument whatsover. did you come up with that all on your own sherlock? well no actually its the method used by everyone who loses an argument here hahahahahahaha
oh you warned me hahahahahahahahahahaha oh tell another one. oh tell me again how if you go bankrupt you drop dead, that was a classic.
yes having lists of points is proof of no points, where as finding excuses to not answer any is proof of great intellect pfft hahahahahaha oh so sorry i really tried to keep a straight face jackass.
reply
share
eYeDEF
12 years ago
I don't know why you're giving me such a hard time. You're really hurting my feelings. All I've done is compliment you on how intelligent you are and all you can do is put me down. People like you just like to build yourself up by putting other people down.
PSYCH!
ROTFLMFAO!!!
reply
share
tom_grainger88
12 years ago
so you officially have no argument at all, ie, you lost buddy boy. dont worry, when you grow up im sure youl win something.
reply
share
eYeDEF
12 years ago
Seriously though what's clear is that you really should for your sake get an education. It will really open your eyes. It's funny to watch you try and cite political theorists when in fact you have no idea what you're talking about.
I would recommend you go down to your local community college and enroll. This is for your sake and your future kid, not mine.
reply
share
tom_grainger88
12 years ago
yeh im not sure my degrees need any addition, thanks sweetypie. but hey then i guess thats why i can understand projections and ideas forumulated by the cato institute without thinking its magicland. i mean my god. oh i got to the last line, but i couldnt read the rest, the bit with nothing after it. that was your witty retort to one. then after saying you read to the end your next message was you could only get through 50% you cant even remember what you just posted, ya might wanna go for a CT scan, that is some serious memory damage. apparently you also lost the ability to read the english language at one point, whats that about.
reply
share
tom_grainger88
12 years ago
so have you grasped the point yet? i notice your posts got shorter and shorter as you abandoned more and more points as your position became untennable. so to recap a few of the main ones.
one world government, so no foreign powers, no need to project power to negotiate with non exsistant foreign powers.
ultimate capitalism that rids itself of any morals or regulations, motivated purely by profit at all costs for those that own the means of production, so no police or civil government.
no feudal warlords controlling their patch of turf, just one giant entity, each member being a joint owner of everywhere, not an owner or one place that works with the owners of other places. like if a multi national has a problem in the hong kong office, they might designate one of the board memebers to go oversee things, that doesnt mean that board member owns the hong kong office, they own an equal share of everywhere, they just delegate in a time of crisis. the guy in this movie didnt himself own or control anywhere, he was just one of a council/board that controlled everywhere.
game theory isnt a marketing campaign as you seem to have struggled with, its the idea that things that usually would give you an advantage, are actually just an unneeded cost if your rivals all gave it up too, each for their own self interest to save themselves their expenses. so marketing, usually boosts your market share, but if no one in your industry can do it, you dont lose any market share to them but you save the marketing budget. military might would usually give you an advantage against foes, but if there is no one outside your congolomerate to fight, they are simply an expense and a risk, game theory.
the whole point and concept of the movie, world run by economic warfare, not military might. whole, entire, point.
no there is no reasearch that proves that the future, if it went super libertarian, would definitly turn out any kind of way, it could be one of many, this is just one possible idea. its a sci fi movie, the whole point is to say, if this happened, this is how it could be. dont see a concept movie if your just going to decide that you wont accept any concept other that your view of the exsisting world.
as you pointed out, and simultaneously argued against, a military could overthrow an elitist group of rulers. if you are one of the group of elitist rulers, why would you want to take that chance when there is no enemy nation for them to protect you against? how many wall street brokers are going to choose to play out being general patton rather than just running the world through board meeting and phone calls, manipulating the supply of currency to have an unlimited, unregulated indulgent life. there are plenty of corporations with unbelievable ammounts of resources who do totally immoral things for profit, there are very few corporations that hire mercs to bomb their compettitors headquarters. a merger where both sides stay in power, is always going to be preferable to a business negotiator than going to war, both coming out weaker, and therefore more vulnerable to being overthrown.
that is the point of game theory, instead of wasting resources to block someone else succeeding, and them doing the same to you, you both save yourself the resources and both end up still equally balanced, but both more powerful.
in history powerful overlords are often killed by their own men, not extreme cases. the roman emperors bodyguards made a business of murdering emperors they did not like and auctioning off power, this happened in many other empires including china, the byzantines, the macedonians were notorious for poisoning rulers to replace them, etc etc etc, many kings throughout the world were overthrown or murdered by a son/nephew/cousin. the war of the roses was people who did not like the current king fighting him backing another relative they found more agreeable, and kings executing even rather distant relatives to make sure they could not be toppled. most mafia dons who are killed are killed by their own men, if a rival family does it theres all out warfare which costs many lives and power for both sides, leaving both sides, the winner and loser, weak, and therefore at risk of being taken out by triads/gangbangers/russian mob etc, so its far more usual, as mobsters are businessmen, for them to simply make a new deal with a member of a family, they eliminate their own boss, no one is blamed, one side doesnt have to make a show of strength to avoid looking weak, business goes on with one or two deaths instead of dozens. world leaders who fall to coups, were all taken out by their own military, that they paid for, because in this world, if other people have a military, you need one in case, but if no one else has one, and you have no mission or purpose for yours, you are not going to keep yours and just sit and wait to be overthrown. in this world all they had to do was stop paying and the army dies, even easier than demobilising armed forces in the real world, no more big group of armed guys with tanks eyeing all your stuff. no more praying they just stay loyal out of the good of their hearts and dont sucumb to human nature.
so is there any others you need spelled out or do you just want to continue missing the entire point, continue to contradict yourself and make yourself look like you dont understand what youre talking about and keep being childishly sarcastic and rude. or do you want to come up with some logical and sensible argument instead of just quoting things that arent true as facts to try help your argument.
reply
share
eYeDEF
12 years ago
Actually to be honest my brain became so dulled from the barrage of non sequiturs, flawed reasoning, and deadening monotony that I nodded off while reading your replies before remembering that I also work for a living.
Has anyone ever told you that your prose is rambling, tedious, and practically impenetrable? Well if not, now someone has. Let me give you a hint, try and be more concise.
I'll also point out that all of your points are ridiculous and flawed. I just have better things to do than reply to all of them. Instead I believe my time is better spent pointing out the fallacy of one of them. Only takes one gargantuan hole to sink a boat. Not 10.
"one world government, so no foreign powers, no need to project power to negotiate with non exsistant foreign powers."
You've officially earned the nickname of Kumbaya Man. See my other reply.
reply
share
tom_grainger88
12 years ago
yes you did have a lot of flawed reasoning, especially when you started to simultaneously argue in favour of opposing views, that a military both could not, and most certainly would, overthrow the civilian leadership. that was impressive piece of lunacy. and yes the monotony of just repeating your orginal thought with no regard for evidence of logic, was quite astounding.
i started out concise you started arguing basic points, that it is just fact a military must always be kept, even in a sci fi story where they are not needed to keep the people in line or do anything else, and continued to argue essentially that, well you say so, so its true. your very basic ideas were flawed, they work in our current times but have not been the way of things in history and there are plenty of political theorists who believe they will not remain the way in certain possible futures. you failed to grasp this rather simple concept so it had to be explained to you over and over as you failed to grasp it.
yes my points backed up with facts are so flawed compared with just making stuff up off the top of your head and then quoting it as well known fact. try to build your knowledge base before you start another pointless ramble where you basically just insult a bunch of people on a thread for understanding something you couldnt. you might notice no one agreed with you at any point.
yeh you kept coming up with points which were flatly disproven, but way to make a feeble attempt at a save their sport.
ah if only you had realised that this is a movie where people are killed by their bank manager ending their line of credit, not armies, ya know, the kind of stuff you can find out in a 4 sentence synopsis of the plot. but still you struggle. the fact you still think that people would blind themselves to human nature and greed and just trust that they will never be turned on like all the other leaders in history and decide instead of taking action to sit around a prayer circle and wait for death shows an almost childlike innocence.
youve officially earned the nickname undeservingly condascending muppet.
reply
share
eYeDEF
12 years ago
"yes you did have a lot of flawed reasoning, especially when you started to simultaneously argue in favour of opposing views, that a military both could not, and most certainly would, overthrow the civilian leadership. that was impressive piece of lunacy. and yes the monotony of just repeating your orginal thought with no regard for evidence of logic, was quite astounding."
Actually they're not opposing views. It's just your inability to understand nuance that makes it so befuddling to you. See my other posts on this topic. It's tiring having to repeat myself.
"i started out concise you started arguing basic points, that it is just fact a military must always be kept, even in a sci fi story where they are not needed to keep the people in line or do anything else, and continued to argue essentially that, well you say so, so its true. your very basic ideas were flawed, they work in our current times but have not been the way of things in history and there are plenty of political theorists who believe they will not remain the way in certain possible futures. you failed to grasp this rather simple concept so it had to be explained to you over and over as you failed to grasp it."
Actually you never started out concise. This rambling paragraph and the rest of this rambling post just proves my point where you spend far too long saying absolutely nothing. Cite your "political theorists" then. If they exist they will be far easier to read than your deadening prose. If you want me to consider your points you really need to work on being concise.
reply
share
tom_grainger88
12 years ago
ok so the fact that something is/isnt a threat, and can/cant do something is not an opposing view to you? jackass
i have to go into minutia because you failed to understand the main points and demand it be explained how things could happen that other people would just get. you complain you want it explained, then when you cant keep up complain it was explained. not that those are opposing views to you.
reply
share
eYeDEF
12 years ago
What I can't handle is how you babble and ramble about absolutely nothing.
Seriously, if you put a concerted effort into editing your posts so they don't meander and drone on then that's one thing. But you don't.
So like I said, it's time to put up or shut up. Who are these political theorists hot shot? They don't exist because you were talking out of your ass.
reply
share
tom_grainger88
12 years ago
yes the cato institute, the pet project of the koch brothers, the spiritual home of libertarian theory dont exsist jackass.
put up or shut up hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha this coming from a guy who has surrendered even attempting to come up with a retort other than personal insults and complaining that i can write and read more than 3 lines at a time hahahahahahaha no wonder you were so drained you were afraid your work would be affected.
yeh the nothing is all the points disproving every idiotic fart you have released.
so ok ive told you who i was referencing, you still havent once given an example of anything, oh and smooth turning round when someone asked you to back up what your saying trying to swing it round and ask for the same back instead of answering. my 9 yr old niece wouldnt come up with that, well she would, but still, well done slugger.
how about you either come up with an actual argument or run on home, or this is just gonna get sad.
reply
share
eYeDEF
12 years ago
ROTFLMFAO!
Is THAT the best you can do?
Oh my fuqn god. You're citing the CATO INSTITUTE as envisioning a world without a military?!?!?!
WAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA.
This post proves that you are literally a blithering idiot. A total fuqn tool.
You just confirmed it and sealed the deal. It's soooooooo obvious you have not a fuqn clue what you're talking about.
LMAO!
Scrap what I said earlier about giving you a chance to narrow your post down into one post to make your points. This absolutely proves that I am talking to an absolute FOOL who is not worth my time.
Thank you ahead of time for the muffled embarrassed-for-you laughs. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
reply
share
tom_grainger88
12 years ago
this is why the cato institute doesnt self publish pamphlets on the dangers of the militarisation of the police force. or complain about police powers. or the cia. or the military. and why they have spent time working on what criteria would need to be met to relinquish the military. read a fcking pamphlet.
oh and learn to read, working out the criteria necersary for, is not the same as advocating disarming right now. but yeh, look up the cato institute, see if they are pro or against all police powers, no knock warrants, swat teams, government surveilance, the military industrial complex and just the military and police in general. i guess you hadnt had time to go google them and try make out you knew their work in depth already. look up overkill, its about the longest you could pay attention for, and the whole thing is dedicated to making people see that armed police and no knock warrants are a terrible thing. then try make your baby comments about how cato is actually all about extending and protecting government/military and police powers like you seem to be dying to do.
awwww so what youre really saying is, holy crap i dont know how to reply to any of these points, so erm, oh i know il claim im so smart that i cant answer, im just too smart to think of anything whatsoever, yeh people will totally buy that.
dana nah nah, hey heeeey gooodbye.
reply
share
tom_grainger88
12 years ago
oh and non sequitor, please look this up. it means using a specific truth and applying it to general terms, like oh i dont know. the ruling class will always want to keep the workers in line, therefore even if they have discovered another method which is the whole point of the story they will think that only a military can do so because i said so.
you see, the truth is they will keep people in line, but have done so through gaining a monopoly on lifeforce, in fact thats the whole entire reason they went to the trouble of having it done to everyone, to have a new method of control. the false and illogical part is that then would want to double up and continue using the methods they only needed before they had this new way which could not depose or threaten them.
or how about another one. you need a military to protect you from other nations and project power in foreign policy, so if there are no other nations, you still need a military even though they are a double edged sword at the best of times.
you see the truth is you need one if there are other nations. the falsehood is that when there are no other nations you still need things exactly the same way as if the geopolitical landscape would carry on as if there still were other nations, basically societies maintaing there single biggest expense as part of a mass game of make believe.
are you starting to get the hang of it bright spark? or would you like me to repeat every point you made and show the difference between the truth part and the following false conclusion?
reply
share
eYeDEF
12 years ago
"oh and non sequitor, please look this up. it means using a specific truth and applying it to general terms, like oh i dont know. the ruling class will always want to keep the workers in line, therefore even if they have discovered another method which is the whole point of the story they will think that only a military can do so because i said so."
Your speculation of "another method" is fiction. The only thing that is different in this movie is that time is the commodity of survival that can be used as a medium of exchange rather than money. Time is money. So your meandering illogic that it would be fundamentally different in the way it's used to control the masses is fiction. Time to go back to school and come back when you've improved.
reply
share
tom_grainger88
12 years ago
except people can live without money, they can just become self suffiecient, they dont drop dead when their bank account hits zero, so no, it is not just currency. you can go bankrupt and survive, if you couldnt youd be right, but well im guessing you will experience bankruptcy if you work as well as this, and yet you will still be here to whine about things as you fail to understand them. the point is, they are completly controlled, their lives are totally ruled over, in the real world you could quit your job, go live by hunting and gathering, train up into a resistance group viet cong style and fight back. thats if time was exactly money. but its not, even if you can live without buying anything, you die in a few days. big, difference. that, is, the, point, sherlock.
time to learn to understand a synopsis.
reply
share
eYeDEF
12 years ago
Once again you have no idea what you're talking about.
You can live without money in THIS society because we have social safety nets like welfare for those that don't work. Unless you're talking about being a survivalist out in the middle of nowhere. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about living in society, in this case a large metroplitan. This is a libertarian society extended to its logical conclusion. If you're not working and not providing some service that contributes to society, you die. There are no social safety nets. Check out Nozick's Libertarianism if you want to get a sense of what I'm talking about.
reply
share
tom_grainger88
12 years ago
yeh actually that is what we are talking about here. in the real world you could get by and fight back with no money, in this world you cannot, hence its not the same as currency, its also a social control which dictates how you spend your time by limiting your free time. that, is, the, whole, point, you, jackass.
you arent talking about anything, this isnt our society where if you run out of money you can find someway of getting by going hunting and foraging if you have skills, this is about a world where if you hit zero, you die. ie no its not just an example of how our society will be if we become a libertarian dystopia, because we wont actually die or have our every waking moment controlled and limited by price fixing. the very most basic point of the whole movie, the thing you find out in the trailer or reading the synopsis and you have still managed to miss it. hahahahahaha well done you looked up a libertarian idelogue, but still have no idea about the ideal libertarian future with no power, government, courts, or means of imposing any, including police and military.
swing and a miss there sport.
reply
share
eYeDEF
12 years ago
You still don't have any idea of what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about this society. I'm talking about this fictional world. In this fictional world, if time weren't the currency and money was it would be no different. It would be a world where if you didn't work you died. Like I said, it mimics the world of Nozick's Libertarianism. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what they modeled the world after.
But you wouldn't know anything about that because political theory is not something you know anything about.
reply
share
tom_grainger88
12 years ago
but time is the currency, that is the whole point jeez its like like talking to a brick. this is a sci fi story where life force is currency, time to live, it has been brought about by a united one world ruling cabal, which is why they need no military, which is why they dont have trained dudes, its a new method of social control that would never exsist, thats why it is sci fi, and has been said repeatedly even in the real world with highly trained secret service, whack jobs with no training or skills manage to just walk up and shoot presidents and other world leaders. like with hinckley, who just just walked up and shot the president who only survived because he was a poor shot.
i know more about political theory than what i find retroactively on wikipedia dum dum.
reply
share
tom_grainger88
12 years ago
oh and kudos on avoiding the john hinckley question, ya know the dumbass with no training who just walked up pulled a gun on the president, and then shot him right in front of secret service. ya know the guy who did what you said only superman could do, a real world example of the very most crack of the real worlds bodyguards, completly failing against just some dude with a gun.
but im not too surprised you just stopped every point as if it had never been mentioned once you got shown up.
you claim no army would every disband voluntarily, i point out the thousands of times they did, you go quiet.
you claim no one would ever be afraid of their own military, i point out the reason they would be based on real examples, you try to twist it to say that the military being a threat is an example of why they would be kept.
you claim these guys would each be feudal warlords controlling a turf, i point out that is not how the corporate structure works, you go quiet.
you claim military coups are almost always with the help of those already in the ruling class, this is just so self evidently false it doesnt even need saying, you go quiet.
you claim that the military is always an advantage so would be against self interest to give it up, i point out game theory that shows that actually doing something that usually would be against self interest can be in your self interest, you try twist it, claim to understand game theory, then drop that point and go quiet.
you claimed roman emperors and mobsters were always safer by having a lot of armed guys around, i point out more emperors and mobsters were killed by their own men than by an enemy power, you go quiet.
you claim that no lone wolf could ever take out a powerful leader without it being long range with a sniper rifle, i point out hinckley, you go quiet.
its almost like there is a trend here.....
im pretty sure you have not managed to successfully back a single one.
reply
share
eYeDEF
12 years ago
You should really work on narrowing your posts and making each point ONCE if you want me to bother reading through and addressing them. Else it's really not worth it to me to risk reading through another post where you make the same flawed non sequiturs over and over again. It's not worth my time. Like I said, I work for a living.
reply
share
tom_grainger88
12 years ago
jeez you must be poor. if you make a living relying on being able to count to 10 id be impressed. we all work sherlock, some of us just dont find basic logic to be so draining.
you cant argue something so you drop it, that was the point of the post, and you couldnt even argue that and dropped it. thanks for conceding the argument.
you failed to answer any of the points once, as soon as you got stumped you pretended theyd not been mentioned, hence why you just dropped point after point and tried to cling on to one, which, with your inability to understand the simple fact a military with nothing to do has nothing to do, was still wrong.
and yes i see why you want a point only made once, then you can ignore it and pretend you werent proven wrong without having to try to answer it. your honour, i object, my opponents comments contained logic, that gives him an unfair advantage, i move it be struck from the record and ignored as thats the only way il win this. im sorry but if you get into an argument of logic, protesting that you came unarmed isnt a defence.
reply
share
eYeDEF
12 years ago
Tell you what, if you want to narrow all your drivel into one point by point post I'll address every one of your points. But please BE CONCISE and DON'T REPEAT YOURSELF 50 TIMES.
reply
share
tom_grainger88
12 years ago
already have, your still side stepping it. funny huh. it has to be reiterated to you because its like trying to teach a 3 yr old astro physics. they have no clue whats being said and they get upset.
reply
share
eYeDEF
12 years ago
LOL! OK. I gave you a shot to make your case and as I suspected you've chosen to epically fail yet again. LMAO!
I really don't think I'm asking too much by politely requesting that you use complete sentences and be concise. But you must not have much of a point to make if you can't come up with a concise post minus the blather. So thanks for conceding. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
reply
share
tom_grainger88
12 years ago
i laid them out in bullet points about a line each. and you still cant handle it. i guess thats just too long winded for you to handle when youre more used to reading spot the dog. ive made the post, you fail to respond other than finding reasons why you cannot. so thanks for already losing loser hahahahahahahahahahahaha
reply
share
MrAgmoore
12 years ago
Where did they get the 2 centuries for the bribe, is the real question...
reply
share
muskeato
12 years ago
Haven't they already broke into the loan/bank place at this point? They stole a lot of that, I presume that's where they get the bribe time.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
11 years ago
Man, your ass got owned hard by that guy. Lol.
Dude, seriously. When I saw you kicking ass in the earlier part of this thread, that was pretty nice. Educating a bunch of idiots.
But now it turns out you are actually one of those idiots yourself too. Sigh. If you don't have it, just gracefully bow out instead of resorting to the exact same thing those earlier idiots did or worse. Shame on you.
reply
share
actionmanrandell
11 years ago
its one corporation just a dozen or so wealthy individuals who control wealth there would be absolutely no need for them to have there own militia. they are not trying to steal from each other or compete with each other. they all work together to maintain there own immortality. the time keepers are the ones that maintain economic order between the time zones. and they have been shown to not even be able to properly chase after a fugitive so why in the world would a few body guards
reply
share
actionmanrandell
11 years ago
If you look at the real world things like this have happened hundreds if not thousands of times.
when training in evasion techniques you learn that to blend into a group such as this its as easy as grabbing the same cloth put on some glasses and alter the appearance of your height ie bend down slightly. what really likely happened is they went there way earlier then him payed off someone so that they would not be found out he hid behind something and waited until they all turned around. then ran up behind them just remember this is a society that the people who live in the wealthier time zones do everything slowly. its not inconceivable that a man who has spent his entire life running every where he goes would be able to quickly get the drop on them when they never do anything fast
reply
share