Seal

Ok, although I consider it is less about the model, but more how I act as a human being: Education should have a simpler purpose. Firstly it should encourage a child to find what they love in life. Then it should teach them how to make a living from what they love. I think that it should also include things like keeping yourself healthy, and perhaps how to grow your own food. I think that an honest education system should teach these things and I struggle to get behind an education model that doesn't do this. I think the need for a healthcare system can be greatly reduced by individuals being individually responsible for their own health. I think that the healthcare model that we have is unjustified in many ways. But I appreciate that there would always be a need for some sort of system - and should be people over profit for a start. Like I said, I don't have a desired model, not have I argued for a rule less society, nor even rejected outright the concept of a government. I have no wish to tell anyone else how to live or what their beliefs should be. It is just me trying to live my life in the way I would like to see the world. As opposed to living how a group of people I have never met, of dubious moral character, tells me is the best way to live. I also agree that taking this route requires responsibility. So I would suggest if you don't think it would work you take another approach. It certainly may not be for many. Maybe that it doesn't is indicative that the education system isn't working in the model we currently have? Maybe not. People do have different ways of judging good choices for their relationships to other humans. However things can still be judged on what harm these 'good choices' have. Currently we have a system where a great deal of harm is caused because governments make good choices for their relationships with humans? Wars exist. Poverty exists. etc. "this doesn't half look like a lawless society to me...you say lets see where this goes, well i can tell you exactly where it would go" I think we have different opinions on the state of humanity. I think humans are ALL capable of being good, and I think the vast majority are good, I think that the state that society often looks is a reflection on the society itself. People measure themselves by what society says is good, but also society is made up of individuals. It is a bit chicken and egg, but I think the way forward is for individuals to assume a responsibility. I also think that if you look at society through the window of the media, it looks pretty lawless out there now as it is, just with a society based on selfishness to bring it to life. And I think that is due in a large part to the actions of government.

I get what you are saying and don't think it is incorrect. I do consider this fundamentally more of a moral position than a political ideology. I would consider myself an anarchist, although appreciative that it is a spectrum (there is both right/left wing anarchism). I would consider anarchism not to be the absence of a state, but perhaps an absence of unjustified hierarchies. I do get that the position I stated above is associated with right wing politics (libertarian), however personally I tend to avoid right and left wing as I think it is not the best model to view politics through. I would say that I would give my consent to be governed to a government that I felt was good. Obviously I have ideas over what this would look like that differ from what there is. I think this government would need to justify its hierarchies. I guess what I think is that I suspect a better political system would come if people took responsibility for their own lives (their own health, their own choices, their own betterment and their ability to make good choices for their relationships to other humans). I don't really see humans out there at the minute who think government works for them. And to be honest I think that the best answer to that lies not with expecting a government to be better (which perhaps it should be) but to work on being the best you can be for your self and for others, and seeing where this goes. I think a government that is built this way, rather than from an elite down stands a better chance of being justified than unjustified. I suspect it wouldn't look like the pictures of a government in the right or the left wing colouring books.

This is a good question so no need for forgiveness for ignorance. My personal approach is to withdraw from any links that I have or minimise them. I have never voted nor have I registered to. I have never been registered to a GP, although I was fortunate to have a father who was one. I have also been fortunate to not really suffer illness. I have used the NHS for sports injuries, although I didn't have this philosophy at the time. I would err towards using it but refer to my comments about tax, below. Tax is an interesting one. I personally get around this by considering myself to be a victim of tax theft, rather than a payer of tax. I.e by shifting my perception. I appreciate that this could be considered a lazy way out. But it works for my happiness and perhaps that of the taxman also. Things like VAT or council tax I guess their is a spurious argument that I pay by choice, but really it doesn't really feel like a choice. I am sure other people just pay tax, but then find they have a debt collector out to re-connect them to government. My way is cleaner But also tax can be perceived to be a bit of a life ring in terms of navigating the services provided by the government. For instance I intend to take my state pension. I intend to be morally inline with my aforementioned philosophy. I would thus consider taking my state pension to be taking back the tax that I consider to be a victim of theft too. I guess this could also legitimise the use of services provided by the government also. I would also add that it is very tricky weeding out all these ways that consent could be garnered. So I do by no means consider myself to be properly disconnected. I consider it something to aspire to rather than something I have achieved. I think if I were audited on it, there would be a number of audit issues. The other thing to think about is what government is. It is fundamentally not something real, like a brick. It is a construct of human creation, mainly I would argue through ideas and thoughts. Ultimately it is mental construct rather than a physical one. So to not have a government I think is a mental based exercise, rather than one of physically doing any revolutions or anything.

Being honest, I myself don't consider myself to have a government nor do I recognise the nation state or the nation state system. I personally think it is quite important that a government runs by consent, which means that if someone does not consent, then that is their choice. If not you have a dictatorship. Personally I do not think consent of the majority quite cuts it. Where I think this is stupid, is that you don't need to say some words to get out of it, you just need to change your perceptions of what reality is. Surely it may well be that there is a moment in history where government became illegitimate (perhaps the enclosure act)? I think that people who do this, don't always do it to look edgy, albeit that is certainly how it comes off in Rickys video. I think they often do it to change themselves inside because after all you cannot change the world yourself but you can change yourself. Doing stuff like this can be quite effective at changing your own internal world. Albeit it at a cost of looking stupid to others. But ultimately it is often a symptom of someone who has got to a point they think that being true to their own sum of thoughts and experiences is preferable to paying lip service to the collective consciousness. Lets face it no-one can say anything with objective certainty, because unless you know everything you cannot presume that the stuff you don't know invalidates the stuff you think you know. So I think trying on different reality hats, exploring them, discarding them if they don't fit, is a pretty valid way to explore whatever this reality is.

I would guess it means that he is declaring himself sovereign, and or the highest authority (maybe excepting the possibility of a creator) over his own life. In essence to become a Dictator of himself. It means he is withdrawing himself from the concept of having a government, at least in the words he is saying, if not his actions? I presume based upon the principle that to be governed requires the consent of the individual.

I recall that when english football was taking off in America, this article was like the only real guide on the net for helping someone to choose an English side. I think they were just positioned in the right place in the table and geographically at the right time and did the right things about it. Its a shame because a few years earlier maybe that could have been Villa, and I think this article and others like it had quite an impact. https://www.espn.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/060719_2

my chess.com user name is Grealush if anyone ever fancies a game.

No. But you remain my power, my pleasure, my pain, babe.

That is the second time we have spoken and the second time you have said that and the second time I have had to bing what you meant. if anyone ever asks what our 'thing' is. it is that.

Ah that is cool. Great video and the lyrics are so great, at least in what I look for in words. Sounds like Beck mighta been listening to this when he wrote loser?

I have yes and I love them (just to prove my credentials on this, I have written a novel of which Freebird is a major plot device, albeit the first scene was basically taken from situation in a DBT song - if you ever fancy reading lemme know, its nearing completion and could do with beta readers, listened to so much skynyrd when i was writing). However - I would always gravitate towards a best of Lynyrd Skynyrd. It just suits my taste more, maybe I find the more experimental stuff a little more in need of a deep listen, which also is not how I listen to music these days. That is on me. I think Drive by Truckers first five albums are also rammed with total classics also, and I think that Southern Rock Opera and The Dirty South are two of my favourite albums. Although that is also just my taste. Musically Skynyrd are superior. In song writing and ability. But for me Drive By Truckers lyrics, and the stories are way more exotic, and I guess resonate with me more. Obviously it is subjective, and I appreciate my personal tastes are not always in line with the consensus. Drive by Truckers obviously agree with you by virtue of their song lyrics!

Have you ever listened to Drive By Truckers album 'Southern Rock Opera'? Kinda a rock opera about growing up in the South, and paralleling the rise and fall of the South and the rise and fall of Lynyrd Skynyrd or something along those lines. It is well worth a hour or so of your time. If I am being honest, whilst Lynyrd Skynrd are the unquestionable high vista of Southern Rock, and rightly so. I reckon Drive by Truckers have a stronger back catalogue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-5MCdmG7Rc&list=PL6_O1spBL-YWXFYfxqFnat6qN3TFwug1z I also just found out Molly Hatchet are touring the UK as we speak.

I caught Ed Sheeran doing this neat trick at Woodstock 94. 1 min 58 in

is that Ross Mccormack?

To be fair I really dislike it when teams come to Villa Park and try their hardest too. This salty fella is my favourite: Where was that effort to hold out v city last season.Absolutely detest every other club in England.Between those c*** Brighton throwing the game on Thursday to these spiteful villa c*** today 0laying like it's a cup final.Watch the London c*** not even bother during the week https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=354166.160

Existence is fantastical

I dunno. I think non-disclosure agreements are quite widespread these days. I think if your owner has enough power then the football authorities can be easily navigated. But I also wouldnt put it passed being centrally managed by the Premier League to manage their products. I am sure there are drugs out there that are so unknown they are probably not even illegal. Just immoral. Whilst I do see why it is hard to believe, and thus respect your viewpoint. I would actually find it hard to believe that high level sports don't have doping issues based upon the nature of competition and that some people do anything to win. I dunno, I just look at what I see - and it looks like some teams get unnaturally good performances on an unaturally regular basis from an unnatural proportion of the whole team.

I think it is far more widespread, at least among the "top" clubs, and is managed. I suspect there are players / upcoming managers, that are caught cheating (Guardiola/Howe), and others known to be open to cheating (klopp) who are known to be open. They get taken by the big clubs who have enough power influence to cheat, get given a tactical plan that clearly favours those on PEDS - high intensity and pressing - which ultimately gives all the advantages to team on the juice. This can then be put on the 'cult of personality' of the manager (guardiola and klopp both have this, arteta and howe seem to be building it, that these managers are just somehow much better than the rest of them all). It seems to manifest itself - if my suspicions are correct - in dominant runs, followed by weird defeats when they seem to be unaturally off (7-2, or even the 3-0 we had against newcastle (on this I wonder if the reason emery never took the job was because he wasn't on board with PEDS, which I guess makes it hard for them to be juiced against us? I dunno that is very conspiratorial). We get glib statements like Klopps mentality monsters - which basically sounds to me like his way of justifying their intensity. For years andy robertson has been looking like diego maradona scoring a goal at the 94 world cup every time he takes a defensive throw in. Just look howe juiced up the newcastle players were against Spurs. There eyes were all black holes.

But he was at Barcelona originally. So I am team 360

Technically that was Salah's third season in England. He managed two goals in his first season, and zero in his second.

i can see why you think this, but actually he is just looking like he got called up to my ff team two gameweeks ago. don't worry he is out once more.

PEDdie Howe?

serious question here. Newcastle are on the magic juice right? Like to me its really obvious, but is it that to anyone else? Or am I insane.

the thing that annoys me/I don't get about the mitoma handball, is that he only (possibly) handballs it because he is pushed by the defender. As the goal gets disallowed, can it not be said that this push prevents a goal scoring opportunity, so even if it is a handball (I don't think it is) it should still be a penalty to brighton for the push?

AAAAAWWWOOOOOFFFFFF!!!!!!