Live Free and Die Bareheaded

Freedom means the right to make unwise decisions.

CNN brings us the following sad news:

A bareheaded motorcyclist participating in a ride to protest mandatory helmet laws was killed when he was thrown over the handlebars in Onondaga, New York...

State police say evidence at the scene plus information from the attending medical expert indicated Contos would have survived had he been wearing a helmet as required by state law.

Asked about the apparent irony of Contos' death, the statewide president of ABATE, Thomas Alton, said, "We are riding at an increased risk and accept that. ... This individual was a seasoned rider, not a newbie. He made an adult decision. A full decision to ride in the manner he rode in."

Philip Contos' untimely demise on Independence Day gives Americans the perfect opportunity to ponder what exactly it means to be free.  He died doing what he loved, in the way in which he loved doing it, and in a manner that harmed nobody else.

So why is it anybody else's business?

Now, you might say Contos was a fool.  Perhaps so.  So what?  What right have you, or anyone else, to tell him he can't ride his own bike sans helmet?

But his behavior was unhealthy!  Obviously true.  So is smoking, drinking milkshakes, and eating Big Macs.  The first is nearly banned, the second frowned-upon, and the third, well, San Francisco and New York have tried to limit McDonalds' marketing and even dictate the ingredients they use.  What right has government to do any of that?

Let's go further.  Various research has shown that drinking a daily glass of wine confers all manner of health benefits.  Assuming the studies aren't flawed, and we have no reason to believe they are, drinking a little vino would save all kinds of money.  Yet most Americans would rightly quail at the idea of forcing everyone to drink a daily glass, or even to eat a daily apple.

Mr. Contos may not have borne a gun or slain an enemy.  He may not have been the finest example of American manhood in the rest of his life - or perhaps he was; we simply do not know.

But in his death, he died to defend the rights of Americans to live in their own way, free of oppression and governmental tyranny, just as surely as did the freezing soldiers at Valley Forge.  For a government that can dictate what you may or may not do to your own head, can and will dictate every other aspect of how you live your life - and goodness knows, it's trying to.

Petrarch is a contributing editor for Scragged.  Read other articles by Petrarch or other articles on Law.
Reader Comments

But forcing Americans to drink a glass of wine every day would keep all sorts of undesireables out, eh?

July 7, 2011 11:49 AM

"But forcing Americans to drink a glass of wine every day would keep all sorts of undesireables out"

Or, through alcohol addiction, create a lot more undesirables from within.

July 7, 2011 11:55 AM

The analysis here is good, but you're missing one key aspect of the "to enforce, or not to enforce" question.

Just like the belief that "not wearing a helmet hurts no one but himself", there is also the belief (from the opposite side) that "forcing him to wear a helmet does NOT hurt anyone including himself".

The same can not be said for your wine example. You could not force everyone to drink a glass of wine every day without hurting some people. In fact, you'd probably hurt quite a few once you factor in religion and health issues (susceptibility to alcohol addition, etc).

Forcing a rider to wear a helmet does not ever harm him - physically, mentally or otherwise.

I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion - in fact, I agree with you in this case - but the issue of harm works both ways.

July 7, 2011 12:04 PM

"So why is it anybody else's business?"~Petrarch

Absolutely. I agree fully with this article.

I also would like to promote a lack of hypocrisy on the question, "So why is it anybody else's business?"
And have so-called 'conservatives'apply it to the use of drugs, the choice of sex partners, the choice of a woman as to her own body...
And so many other questions out there the really are only the individual's business.

I think it is the busybodies who should be outlawed.

What I eat, drink, smoke, or think, isn't anyone's business but my own.
And I gladly give that freedom to all in return.


July 7, 2011 12:05 PM

"forcing him to wear a helmet does NOT hurt anyone including himself".~Ifon

But this is a spurious argument that presumes that the only type of harm is physical.
This is not true at all. In fact emotional and psychological traumas can be seen as just as distructive to human life as blunt force trauma.

Feelings of being oppressed have caused those in full physical comfort, convenience and wealth to give it all up to be free in the sense that they define it personally. The Founders of this nation come to mind...

July 7, 2011 12:12 PM

Willy, pray tell what "emotional and psychological traumas" does a rider undergo for having to wear a helmet? I'm looking for specifics here, not a screed on oppression.

As I already said, I am not in favor of helmet laws for the same reasons Petrarch already pointed out. I believe in freedom through actions and consequences.

I am merely suggesting that forced regulations on one's body are not all equal. Some are more harmful than others, and some not at all.

July 7, 2011 12:15 PM

"Willy, pray tell what "emotional and psychological traumas" does a rider undergo for having to wear a helmet?"~Ifon

That is my point Ifon, it is not for I, nor for you to define. It is merely for the individual to determine.
All of this falls under the general catagory of "victimless crimes," technically termed, Malum Prohibitum--"statutory crimes."

What this boils down to is Taboo.

Now I agree with you that there is a variety in degree in the harms caused by malum prohibitum. It is a question of domino effects, slippery slopes, and precedent in law.
To my mind it is the most wise approach to stear far clear of sink holes and quicksand.

I do not set out to get your hackles up in every exchange Ifon. Pease keep this exchange on a friendly level here. Like I have said countless times, I have no particualar animus--simply a desire to seek temperance and a rational position.

July 7, 2011 1:03 PM

It does hurt others in that insurance costs are related to the probability of claims. But by this same logic we would have to allow draconian rules to be placed on us to keep those insurance costs lower. "No, you can't go out doors, it is unsafe" may not only apply to our minor children, it could be applied to us all by a nanny state and the above logic. Freedom does have some costs, and that is why the founders of this country tried to draw a line with limited government. Our current Health Care bill passed by the ever wise Harry Reid and others has the authority within it to pass such draconian rules to keep our insurance costs down. Time to move to Vermont - Live free or die!

July 7, 2011 1:16 PM

"Our current Health Care bill passed by the ever wise Harry Reid and others..."~SparkyVA

Yes, exactly, and it was the Insurance industry itself that wrote this "health care" bill along with the Pharmaceutical industry. Again, no one wins in this political charade but the corporatists and their financiers.

July 7, 2011 1:40 PM

Sure, forcing him to wear a helmet harms him. Presumably you did not give him the helmet for free, did you? No, you are requiring him to buy one - or, put another way, you are enslaving him for the period of time it takes for him to earn the amount of money required to purchase something he does not want. Oh, and exactly the same is true when you require him to purchase health insurance.

Which, by the way, is highly regressive for those who care about such things. Bill Gates is enslaved for a fraction of a second, but your local McD's fry-flipper is enslaved for a week, to purchase the same helmet. Much harsher on the poor.

Now, if his auto insurance policy required him to wear a helmet, that's fine, because it's a private contractual agreement voluntarily entered into. And he could always find a different insurance company without that requirement - no doubt charging more, but the free choice would be up to him.

July 7, 2011 4:43 PM

Well answered, Petrarch. I withdraw my assertion except to note that, again, harms vary in degree. Forcing a glass of wine is vastly more harmful than the cost of a motorcycle helmet, even by cost alone.

July 7, 2011 4:50 PM

"or, put another way, you are enslaving him for the period of time it takes for him to earn the amount of money required to purchase something he does not want. Oh, and exactly the same is true when you require him to purchase health insurance"

No, that's wrong.

Motorcycles are entirely optional. One is not required, forced or regulated into buying one. It's a choice that comes with certain requirements like wearing a helmet. Don't want to wear a helmet? No problem - don't ride a motorcycle.

Healthcare, on the other hand, IS required no matter what you choose because you are a living breathing human. You cannot choose not to have it without committing suicide.

If you really believe that helmet requirements enslave people for a period of time, then you must also believe that auto insurance enslaves people too - and for a much LONGER period of time. Auto insurance is required; there is no way around it. Or to put it in your analogy, the government is enslaving someone for weeks every year of their life into buying insurance that they may not want to buy. As you pointed out, the McDonald's employee for far longer than Bill Gates. Not fair.

July 7, 2011 5:04 PM

You're confusing several different issues.

So far as I know, states do not require comprehensive auto insurance. They require LIABILITY insurance. This protects other people from the actions of the insured driver - if you smash up someone else's car, your insurance will compensate him for it. It is not inappropriate for the state to protect innocents from the actions of others, that is in fact a large part of the purpose of the state.

In contrast, how does the presence or absence of a motorcycle helmet affect anyone else? It doesn't - so there is no justification for state interference.

Re health insurance, twibi, you have a point - but ONLY given that the state has enslaved doctors and hospitals by requiring them to provide medical care to all comers regardless of ability to pay. That's the fundamental wrong. I believe that individuals should bear the consequences of their own choices, and if that means that they cannot afford medical treatment and have chosen not to purchase insurance, so be it.

Of course, in a compassionate society, there will be charity assistance for the deserving as there always has been throughout human history. But I see no reason why I should be forced to pay for a liver transplant for the wino in the alley who has contributed nothing to society and whose own choices led to his health problems. I like to refer to this issue as "who gets the liver?" and wrote about it a while back.

Certainly there is a vast continuum of harm, and a $100 motorcycle helmet is at the low end of it. The principle, however, remains the same - and exploring first principles is what Scragged is all about.

July 7, 2011 5:13 PM

"Motorcycles are entirely optional. One is not required, forced or regulated into buying one. It's a choice that comes with certain requirements like wearing a helmet. Don't want to wear a helmet? No problem - don't ride a motorcycle."~twibi

What a totally spurious argument to put forward on a conversation about liberty, freedom and personal choices.
I find this assertion absurd and self evidently so.


July 7, 2011 5:19 PM

The amount of harm is what is interesting here. Regardless of it's purpose, forced auto insurance harms the person who has to buy it much more than the person who has to buy a motorcycle helmet.

If we were being purely freedom-loving libertarian here, we would not force drivers to buying auto insurance, but instead require them to pay damages AFTER the fact for whatever damage they caused. Insurance would be a choice that intelligent people would want to buy, knowing what they would risk if they didn't.

For purposes of lfon's specific point - the amount of harm involved - the type of insurance (liability versus comprehensive) that states require makes no difference.

July 7, 2011 5:23 PM

"What a totally spurious argument to put forward on a conversation about liberty, freedom and personal choices"

How so?

Why are you not equally angry that the government forces you to buy auto insurance as you are that they force you to wear a helmet?

Auto insurance costs vastly more than a simple helmet, and there are far more people that drive cars than motorcycles.

Your rejection of one as "spurious" but the other as "freedom" demonstrates a clear double standard.

July 7, 2011 5:25 PM

No. What matters is the underlying purpose.

Taxes obviously harm us all, but in principle, taxes are both appropriate and necessary because they are the only way to provide certain essential common goods such as the common defense (military and police) and a fair justice system.

The purpose of requiring liability insurance is to protect other innocent drivers from harm. twibi is correct that a better way would be to require the at-fault party to pay for the harm after it's been done, and that's how it used to be - but unfortunately, it seems that most drivers have not the wealth to pay for a good big accident anymore. So insurance is the only way to protect the innocent, a proper purpose of government. I still don't like it but haven't come up with any better and workable idea.

With the motorcycle helmet, the purpose is entirely different. There is no innocent third party present. The only purpose of the law is to protect the motorcyclist from HIMSELF - which is unwarranted tyranny and anathema to a free society.

July 7, 2011 5:32 PM

"I still don't like it but haven't come up with any better and workable idea."

There's a clear alternative which I suggested in my last reply - don't require anything and, as is done with myriad other situations, require the driver to pay for whatever damages they cause after the fact.

Why is insurance the "only want to protect the innocent" in the case of driving but not in other scenarios?

You could harm someone merely walking down the street minding your business.

For example, you could accidentally spill your coffee on the ground which in turn makes someone slip, crack their head on the ground and die. Yet the government doesn't force everyone to pay for a "personal umbrella liability" policy so that any innocent person who is harmed has a well-known way of getting compensated.

For example, you could own a gun which accidentally discharges and kills someone. Yet the government doesn't require anyone that owns a gun to have liability insurance on it.

You say "requiring helmets for drivers that don't want them" is anti-freedom.

I say "requiring me to pay for expensive auto insurance year after year as a person who is an excellent driver and has never been in an at-fault accident" is even MORE anti-freedom.

As conservatives, we sometimes pick and choose which freedoms to get riled up about and which not to.

July 7, 2011 5:44 PM

Quite simply, operating a large mechanical devices has the potential for vastly more possible harm than anything else an ordinary person does every day, and a vastly higher probability of it too. Car accidents are far more common than any other sort, and do more damage. When you combine medical costs as well as property damage, the total is more than most people's net worth, so they couldn't pay it even if they wanted to.

July 7, 2011 6:08 PM

I'd just like to point out that forcing Americans to drink a glass of wine every day would keep... certain *types*... out of the country. <wink>

I'm sure if those Christians who have an issue with wine-drinking stopped a moment and considered just who those *types* were... They might be willing to go with the lesser of two evils, eh?


July 7, 2011 6:24 PM



Hadn't thought of that. But since I'm a teetotaler myself, can we go with forcing bacon instead? That would do the same trick.

July 7, 2011 6:26 PM


You didn't think that one through.

July 7, 2011 6:38 PM


That was the other half of the joke.

July 7, 2011 6:40 PM


Are you saying you DID think it through? Not sure I get your half of the joke -- your proposal would be a bit more broad in scope than many US Christians would be willing to get behind.

Bacon on Fridays, though... You might get some of them to change their minds.

July 7, 2011 7:03 PM


Sigh. Yes, obviously, forcing people to eat bacon is stupid for a hundred reasons and defeats the original purpose.

I didn't realize I would have to add a disclaimer to the joke.

July 7, 2011 7:05 PM

"Why are you not equally angry that the government forces you to buy auto insurance as you are that they force you to wear a helmet?"Twibi

But I said nothing about not being mad at having to buy liability auto insurance. Did I?

And as your assumption is wrong, the remainder of your critique at me is misplaced as well.

All of us are coerced into things we would not take par in otherwise.
I like very little of what the supposed "government" demands of us.

July 7, 2011 8:09 PM

To my knowledge no state requires that a person purchase car insurance they simply require that a person be able to pay state minimums for liability. So in Kansas you need 25/50/25 coverage eg 25,000 per person for injuries, up to 50,000 total for injuries in the accident and 25,000 for property damage. So a person can register as a self insured person if they are able to put up a bond for that amount of money, I believe its $75,000 using Kansas as an example.

I worked in the car insurance industry until recently and only once saw a self insured private individual in an accident so I don't know all the rules on it but it is possible to legally operate a car without car insurance.

The government should limit itself to preventing a person from using force or liability to harm another person or entity. We are agreed upon this in principle. If I am liable for injuries or damage than I should pay to fix it. I should not steal or murder. The question is how to enforce these as a society, retroactively or proactively.

To not require liability insurance would be devastating for the vast majority of people involved in an accident. Insurance doesn't just pay for damages. It also determines liability, assesses damage, and litigate cases. Without insurance companies determining liability in car accidents it would be come a matter for the legal system. Despite what many people seem to think the police do not ever determine liability in car accidents. They present their opinion but they do not determine it. They are not trained in liability law and always see everything as black and white. It is a rare accident indeed where everyone agrees on who is at fault. This would overload the legal system.

Further the poor would not be able to afford to litigate for damages to their vehicle, siren chasing lawyers never care about propriety damage they would have to claim injuries to have a chance of getting a lawyer interested.

Also without insurance companies determining what are legitimate expenses to an accident attempted fraud would go through the room. I received many claims on a regular basis that came in months after the accident because the person who admitted they were at fault did not believe the other person was being honest with them about the extent of the damage. Yet more issues that would have to go before the courts.

The harm to everyone would be far, far greater if insurance companies didn't handle these problems. Yes I know, insurance companies are fun to hate, because they didn't pay you 'enough' because they found you at fault. I'm not going to say that insurance companies are always fair nor always honest but I can tell you that the company I worked for wrote a check for millions of dollars every year to the state of California for not sending the right letter or nor being detailed enough as to why someone was at fault. When you're writing checks that large for issues that quite honestly do not affect a customers wallet in any way I can assure you its in your best interest to always act in good faith, the fines are far more per claim not handled properly than the expense of handling them correctly.

Every time I forgot to send a letter or add the DOI language to a letter or failed to make my contact attempts on time that could be a $10,000 fine. The company I worked for was big on being in compliance with the DOI.

As a side note you can always go to your state's Department of Insurance (DOI) if something isn't handled properly in your opinion they will look into the matter, they get huge checks if you're right so they do look into it.

Yes it is always better to under legislate than over legislate but there are times when forcing people to do something is good. To me this is only true if the benefit is significant to a significant portion of the population and it has the effect of protecting people from others.

July 7, 2011 9:12 PM

Anyone who has been to Vegas understands who's money built those fabulous castles of gambling and excess.
Anyone who has scanned a cityscape and seen the 'castles" of gleaming steel and glass with the names of the Insurance companies in glowing lights can equally garner who paid for those.

It is apologia for the corporatist system jonyfries, to internalize their mythos, and propagate it thus.

"Spin" is telling the truth, but out of context.
If the context is to be liberty and justice, you have just spun out of the courtyard.

Your mythos makes sense within the corporatist paradigm--which is more vicious than this particular aspect of it attends.
Upon the larger central matter of Liberty, corporatism based upon monopoly finance capital is the antithesis of freedom and liberty.

Yes--we are all caught in this web now--but we will never untangle ourselves by internalizing the central absurdities of the enemy, International Finance and it's attendant corporations.

July 7, 2011 9:33 PM

I don't bike but I have biker friends. They tell me that helmet laws are abominations. Seems they feel that there's something mystical about wind in the hair. Like runners getting high on oxygen deprivation and low blood sugar.

Anyway, the NH lack of a helmet law is economically important. NH has a "bike week" which pumps gazillions into the local economy. There's a hotel in Laconia which gets 80% of its annual income during bike week.

Couple years back, the cops got out of hand. The bikers threatened to go to a different state the next year. The local merchants leaned on the cops. The following year was the biggest bike week ever.

Not that the merchants were in favor of mass drunk and disorderly, mind you, but bikers will be bikers and life free or die, etc. Not to mention profit, income, tax revenue, and cop's salaries.

Fine balance between economic reality, cop and biker philosophies of life, and all that.

July 8, 2011 6:57 AM

"Like runners getting high on oxygen deprivation and low blood sugar."

Running and other physical work outs cause a high on endomorphines. Has nothing to do with "oxygen deprivation and low blood sugar."


July 8, 2011 3:56 PM

@willy - are sure it's endorphins? Or do I have the wrong word? My spell check had not heard of endomorphines. Google said:

Showing results for endorphins. Search instead for endomorphines.

Either way, "endorphins and exercise" is a popular search.

The question is, what produces whatchamacallits? How are they products of physical activity? Lactic acid produced in the muscles? Or is oxygen deprivation sufficient? I have heard that some people get high on nearly choking themselves to death which suggests that low oxygen makes 'em.

This article says you're right: says:

Improved self-esteem is a key psychological benefit of regular physical activity. When you exercise, your body releases chemicals called endorphins. These endorphins interact with the receptors in your brain that reduce your perception of pain.

Endorphins also trigger a positive feeling in the body, similar to that of morphine. For example, the feeling that follows a run or workout is often described as "euphoric." That feeling, known as a "runner's high," can be accompanied by a positive and energizing outlook on life.

OOH, they start with "improved self-esteem," they don't tell us how the endorphins are generated, and they say "reduce your perception of pain." If you reduce pain enough, it flips over and you get a high, as I understand it.

To each his own, of course. Maybe bikers' skulls generate whatchamacallits when the wind blows through their hair? And the faster they go, the bigger the high, not to mention the adrenalin rush of outrunning a cop?

I still think oxygen deprivation is one of the ways exercise makes whatchamacallits; the web doesn't go into the biochemistry that I could find. Can you?

July 8, 2011 8:55 PM

Endorphins, are a natural anolog to the molecule of morphine. These are called endorphine which is a shortening of endo-morphine. It is so that the endorphin is the popular version or term

These are released by the body registering pain. They can be released from trauma such as blunt force, deep cuts, and other injuries--extreme trauma can produce enough to knock you out, like any overdose--this is why people black out from pure trauma.

Exercise however produces these chemicals in measured amounts, from what athletes call "burn"--when the muscles are pushed beyond previous demands.But there is actually a great deal of oxydation in this process, as there is deep breathing involved in exertion.

I worked out in gyms and dojos from many years. When I left the gym, I always felt high, and light. It was like effortlessly walking on air.
Advanced excitements can lead to the release of endorphines as well. It is a complex system. adrenalin is more like an analog to meth, in that it is a stimulant flushed into the system for the flight or fight response. Thus in a fight, we can often get a 'cocktail' of both endorphines and adrnalin, as we recieve and give concussive blows.
This also changes time perception, events seemingly happening in slow motion.
Hah...a short story long here...Lol

July 9, 2011 1:00 AM

@willy - thanks for the explanation. It sounds possible that other things you enjoy such as riding a bike bareheaded might release such chemicals.

from what you are saying, since the process is complex and not fully understood, there might be other reactions in the body that release them depending on a person[s genetic makeup.

I wonder of some people get high by beating up on other people?

From what you have said about conspiracies, could they be made up of people who either get high by doing something secret or get high by having power over other people or perhaps both?

said that some researchers say that some genes are associated with tendencies toward violence. Could it be that those genes make people generate endorphins when being violent?

Sounds like you're saying that any person will enjoy anything that releases endorphins in his or her particular body. Is that about right?

You liked exercise because for you, exercise released enough that you felt high. Did I get it? Thanks.

July 9, 2011 10:39 AM

NYT reports people going nutso over another death of someone doing something he loved - trying to catch a souvenir baseball.

Grief and Questions After Death at Ballpark
A fan fell over a railing at Rangers Ballpark while trying to catch a ball, prompting a look at previous accidents.

ARLINGTON, Tex. — Josh Hamilton doesn’t make a habit of tossing baseballs to fans in the stands, so when he fielded a foul ball early in Thursday night’s game against the Oakland Athletics, he did what he usually does — he turned it over to the ball girl along the left-field line at Rangers Ballpark.

"Ball girl" - how sexist, how insensitive of the Times!

As he did, though, he heard a shout from behind the left-field fence. There stood a father and son, the two of them in the first row of an elevated bank of seats. “Hey, Hamilton, how about the next one?” the father asked.

“I just gave him a nod,” Hamilton, the All-Star outfielder for the Rangers, said.

And when, in the second inning, Conor Jackson of the A’s sent a foul ball to left, Hamilton chased it down. This one wasn’t going to the ball girl.

“When I got it, I found them again,” he said of the father and son.

Hamilton tossed the ball, right at the father. It was a touch short, and so Shannon Stone, a firefighter from Brownwood, Tex., leaned in front of his 6-year-old son, Cooper, to grab the ball. In an instant, Stone flipped over the railing and fell 20 feet to the concrete pavement below.

Paramedics scrambled to treat him, but Stone, 39, died of his injuries. His son was in the front seat of the ambulance.

“It’s like it happened in slow motion,” Hamilton, his eyes moist, said as he met reporters before Friday night’s game. “Here was a little boy, screaming for his daddy after he had fallen.”

Of Stone, Hamilton said: “I saw him just tip over the edge there. It was disbelief.” Hamilton said it was all the harder to absorb after he returned home after the game to his own children.

“I can’t imagine what they’re going through right now,” Hamilton said of the Stone family. “All I can think about is just praying for them and that God has a plan and we don’t always understand what that plan is, but these things happen.”

Such things, it turns out, have happened before at the Texas ballpark.

And more prose about limiting freedom to take risks.

July 9, 2011 11:19 AM

I haven't seen the numbers, but I've heard Staten Island alone has more lawyers than the entire nation of Japan. The Japanese tend to settle things out of court much more often than US citizens do.

I visited Japan about ten years ago (and highly recommend it to anyone considering), and one of many things that struck me was the condition of a shrine in one of their parks. There was a large metal bell atop a cube of solid granite that must have been at least 10 feet to a side. Stairs (without a railway) led up to the top of the cube where one could examine the bell. One side of the cube was perched on the edge of a fairly steep embankment with an angle of about 60 degrees; this embankment hosted a fair number of sapling trees that would probably have prevented anyone who fell off the cube from rolling all the way down.

There was nothing else on the sides of the cube. No walls, no fences, not even a warning sign. In the United States, this cube would have had a railing on the stairs, fences on all four sides of the cube, and several signs posted exclaiming, "HEY! STUPID! YES, YOU! Do NOT get drunk, climb the fence, and try to dance around on the edge! YOU MIGHT FALL AND GET HURT!"

An observation more about legal concerns than freedom, but maybe of some significance to the discussion.

July 9, 2011 12:56 PM

The Japanese seem to think that if a seeming adult is in fact not an adult, the gene pool would be better off without.

If parents are too stupid to teach their kids not to fall off cliffs, or if the kids are too stupid to listen, don't need them either.

July 9, 2011 2:14 PM

"You liked exercise because for you, exercise released enough that you felt high. Did I get it? Thanks."~Nate

Ha ha ha...nope, I liked exercise because it made me strong, and fast, and attractive to the opposit that order.

The 'high' after a good workout was an added benefit.

As far as the 'attraction' to violence, that has more to do with brain structure, especially the Amygdala, which has been found to be stunted and even partially or entirely missing in the psychopath. Generally this is a genetic defect, although head injury at a formative stage can also account for it.
The way ponerism is distinguished, that is Psychopaths from sociopaths, is that a sociopath is due mostly to environmental traumas, etc. Whereas true psychopaths are born.
[See: Political Ponerism]


July 9, 2011 3:39 PM

From what you have said about conspiracies, could they be made up of people who either get high by doing something secret or get high by having power over other people or perhaps both?"~Nate

Again, it would be more beneficial to look into Political Ponerology for an explanation of the personality type involved in a brutal reach for political power.
In such studies it has been found that such personalities can identify oneanother easily, while they can in fact con a "normal" person by learned mimic skills.
There is the same range of intelligence in these types as in the general population.
One can be an idiot and a psychopath, and usually end up in prison.
One can be a genius and a psychopath, and usually end up in a position of great power--in government or business, even in religious institutions.
It is estimated that from 1 to 2 percent of the human race are born psychopaths.

July 9, 2011 3:54 PM

So which are the guys who are trying to assume power over us - psycho or socio? Which is Obama? Hillary? Bill? Someone once told me that Bill Clinton was a pathological liar in that when he lied he believed for the moment that he was telling the truth, and when he said the opposite, he believed that, too.

Being stronger and faster, you will collect social security for longer, assuming you get it at all. Bad for everyone, right?

July 9, 2011 4:34 PM

At this point Social Security is due to any who put into the fund.
It is not coming out of Federal tax money. The fund, in fact has been illegally tapped to fund government programs. THAT is why there is a problem with the fund now--it has been robbed by these crooks by moving the whole package into the "general funds", utterly spurious and ultra vers...but a done deal.

Obviously it is another part of the overall scam. And agenda worked out by the numbers for the last 100 years [1913 Federal Reserve Act]>>

What is "bad for everyone" is that this criminal syndicate posing as the central government is tolerated, praised, and paid for by a population of lunatics. For no other term can define the idiocy of a people supporting their own bondage.

This isn't a "conspiracy", it is an agenda that is right in your face.
Only psychological denial can hide something so huge and pervasive.

July 9, 2011 5:07 PM

EDIT: Ultra Vires

July 9, 2011 5:09 PM

"Which is Obama?"~Nate

A Mancherian Candidate. A complete fraud, a 'legend' created by the social engineers. He is a Monarch mindslave, an automaton with several alters.
The orator is a neurolinguistic spellbinder. A scientific manner of posturing, speech cadence, and hand signals. All directed at the subconscious of the audience.

Obama is a puppet totally under the control of the High Cabal. He has been groomed from youth to play this role.

Sure, it reads like science fiction...where do you think science fiction is inspired?
But the data and facts are there that make this scenario very likely.

July 9, 2011 7:21 PM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...