How much do you actually believe in the political system? (2 Viewers)

[BlackDragon]

I was just interested to see whether people actually have faith in politics and what it can achieve in the world? What do you view the role of politics as? Do you think it lives up to this?


Although it is important to have insightful and intelligent people in the political arena, I really don't think that any political system has the ability to achieve much. Democracy is completely restrained by social and economic forces and is not a mechanism for change. It is more a reflection of society and a force that works to maintain the status quo. As we can see with global warming, the current state of affairs will work to keep things the way they are until it is absolutely necessary to make a change..until we are dying. I think we need to keep great people in the parliament but that it is much easier to have bad governments and almost impossible to have good governments. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't always try..

How do you feel about politics?

 

[annabackwards]

I chose the 3rd option

 

[Senator111]

I believe it can make change, but only if any party has their mind set on the longer term good for society. With, elections being held every 3 years - they are looking for short term fixes just to hold power. If we get long term solutions it has the potential for action, but that hasn't/probably will never happen!

 

[KFunk]

How do you feel about politics?

Pessimistic. To my eye it would seem that the economic powers that be have the upper hand. The idealist in me would like to believe that we can 'perfect' society over time through small political gains, by realistically I feel that deviations from the status quo will probably require crises in order to startle folks out of idle acquiescence.

Revolutionary change or bust.

 

[Slidey]

Pessimistic. To my eye it would seem that the economic powers that be have the upper hand. The idealist in me would like to believe that we can 'perfect' society over time through small political gains, by realistically I feel that deviations from the status quo will probably require crises in order to startle folks out of idle acquiescence.

Revolutionary change or bust.

Cynic.

 

[SylviaB]

disillusioned

 

[Planck]

Fuck the politicial system, you can have change outside of it.

Agorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is where your lessons begin, my frens.

 

[BlackDragon]

disillusioned

i know! sorry about that. there is a time limit on being able to post a poll and I was rushing.

And I agree with planck. Real change only happens outside the political arena. The political system, and the decisions made there in, reflect the way things are in the real world.

 

[KFunk]

Cynic.

And proud .

Fuck the politicial system, you can have change outside of it.

Agorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is where your lessons begin, my frens.

I can't help but doubt that the private defense forces mentioned early in that article will actually protect liberty. I'm sure that they would protect the liberty of the wealthy that can afford them, but I am less hopeful for the poor or defenseless. To me it sounds somewhat like a return to a Hobbesian state of nature.

Here I am inclined to follow Habermas and the republican branch of liberalism in suggesting that their is a codependence between private autonomy (of the sort libertarians endorse) and public autonomy (which in Habermas' vocabulary might be termed popular sovereignty through the public use of reason). Habermas would argue that individuals/citizens only have rights insofar as they grant such rights to one another through consent, that is, through the intersubjective, public use of reason. In other words, autonomy is only properly realised in the public sphere and political institutions of a state. No doubt, a state apparatus will of course place limitations on the anarchic, animal freedoms which we naturally possess (i.e. you are 'able' to cross into the home of another to kill them and comandeer their wealth), but it is through such mutual limitation that freedom is ultimately realised.

 

[BlackDragon]

Oh wow, I didn't follow Planck's link and have to talk about that.

It is ridiculous to think that increasing our formal liberties endlessly (by having less laws) will increase our ability to determine our own lives. There are many more ways that our lives can be restricted than just that of legislation. Although I certainly agree in a minimalist state, decreasing the existence of the state too far will restrict our liberties in a way isn't formalised. The ability of a majority or of groups of people to penetrate and control the lives of others is massive. This need not be through force, but can be through through public opinion and the causing of great offense. Its not that in a state of anarchy there will be no rules on what you do, its just that there would be no body to enforce them and that they will be fluid. In an anarchic state people will not have autonomy and will be subject to the power relations and control of people who have not been legitimately given that power. It is the role of the state to stop this. The best level of government inteference is that which allows one to determine one's own personal sphere without limitation. In this way, although nanny states that impose morality on others are wrong; a minimalist state is so much more effective in promoting liberty then anarchy.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Not at all.

Politics will always lead to corruption and abuse. It is human nature. Power corrupts.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

And proud .
I can't help but doubt that the private defense forces mentioned early in that article will actually protect liberty. I'm sure that they would protect the liberty of the wealthy that can afford them, but I am less hopeful for the poor or defenseless. To me it sounds somewhat like a return to a Hobbesian state of nature.

Hobbesian state of nature is not nonsense.

Even chimpanzees organize them selves with basic rules and norms. They don't just wantonly kill each other. Humans are the same, in most cases the natural incentive is for humans to co-operate rather than to fight.

Life was "short, brutish and nasty" in ancient pre-government times because of a lack of basic technology . It's a huge call which Hobbes and his proponents never bother to substantiate that such times were more violent (in terms of humans intentionally hurting each other) than modern times.

Look at the millions slaughtered by governments from Nazi Germany to Mao's China, the hundreds of millions killed in wars this century alone, many of whom were slaughtered by modern liberal democracies like our own. Look at the people in the middle east being murdered by a coalition of self righteous democratic states right now. Not to mention the threat of total destruction of the planet by nation states armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons.

If we are in a state of nature, we will perpetually be in one unless a world government that controls the entire planet is formed. I'd rather live in a state of nature where conflicts are between individuals and small groups than nation states with oversized standing armies, invasive surveillance equipment, unaccountable secret organizations and nuclear weapons.

 

[BlackDragon]

Look at the millions slaughtered by governments from Nazi Germany to Mao's China, the hundreds of millions killed in wars this century alone, many of whom were slaughtered by modern liberal democracies like our own. Look at the people in the middle east being murdered by a coalition of self righteous democratic states right now. Not to mention the threat of total destruction of the planet by nation states armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons.

This has less to do with the effectiveness of our political systems and more to do with the attitudes of people in general. Its a human thing.

I'd rather live in a state of nature where conflicts are between individuals and small groups than nation states with oversized standing armies, invasive surveillance equipment, unaccountable secret organizations and nuclear weapons.

I agree that giving people authority means that their very human and bias opinions become systematised to a certain extent, but I think it is important to have at least some state apparatus. I mean, you have lived in a safe environment your entire life and yet you say you'd be happy to accept the realities that come with a state of nature? You would not be able to cope. I agree that the evils of government are bad but having no state would only improve peoples' ability to coerce others. People holding power over others is a human thing and not a result of the political system. Its just that the political system is a human product and subject to the nature of people as well. But an equal structure for liberty is far better than what a state of nature offers.


And anyway..we're meant to be talking about the effectiveness of politics. Not whether there should be a state.

 

[KFunk]

Hobbesian state of nature is not nonsense.

Even chimpanzees organize them selves with basic rules and norms. They don't just wantonly kill each other. Humans are the same, in most cases the natural incentive is for humans to co-operate rather than to fight.

Life was "short, brutish and nasty" in ancient pre-government times because of a lack of basic technology . It's a huge call which Hobbes and his proponents never bother to substantiate that such times were more violent (in terms of humans intentionally hurting each other) than modern times.

Look at the millions slaughtered by governments from Nazi Germany to Mao's China, the hundreds of millions killed in wars this century alone, many of whom were slaughtered by modern liberal democracies like our own. Look at the people in the middle east being murdered by a coalition of self righteous democratic states right now. Not to mention the threat of total destruction of the planet by nation states armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons.

If we are in a state of nature, we will perpetually be in one unless a world government that controls the entire planet is formed. I'd rather live in a state of nature where conflicts are between individuals and small groups than nation states with oversized standing armies, invasive surveillance equipment, unaccountable secret organizations and nuclear weapons.

Chimpanzees do wantonly kill each other. Many animals, chimpanzees included, kill one another for some combination of territory, resources, sex and security. In evolutionary terms our tendency is to cooperate with family and those in close proximity, not humankind in general, which is perhaps why there is such a strong tendency towards nationalism and gang mentalities (tendencies which one would hope might be overcome through an appropriate liebral ethic of toleration or a more religious kind of universal love/compassion). The kind of instability I have in mind can be found in territories dominated by anarchy and warlords such as Somalia, Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo and Afghanistan.

Nazi Germany and Maoist China provide important lessons for statebuilding but act as very poor arguments against statehood as such. Surely, given your approach to issues like pedophilia and prostitution you can't wield an argument of the form "some cases of X are bad, therefore all cases of X are bad" which utilises a false generalisation. Rather than selecting a totalitarian or imperialistic state I would be inclined to take a socialist, scandanavian state as a modern examplar of what can be achieved (even Australia isn't too bad). If we are to be realistic in our approach then we must also appreciate that faults will always exist.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Chimpanzees do wantonly kill each other. Many animals, chimpanzees included, kill one another for some combination of territory, resources, sex and security.

Well it would be interesting to see if the rate they kill each other at is actually higher than humans.

In evolutionary terms our tendency is to cooperate with family and those in close proximity, not humankind in general, which is perhaps why there is such a strong tendency towards nationalism and gang mentalities (tendencies which one would hope might be overcome through an appropriate liebral ethic of toleration or a more religious kind of universal love/compassion).

Again, a very questionable assertion. Violence is dangerous, expensive and damaging to one's reputation, so even in arms length transactions with strangers it generally pays to be cooperative.

The kind of instability I have in mind can be found in territories dominated by anarchy and warlords such as Somalia, Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo and Afghanistan.

All of those places have been fucked over in recent history by governments with standing armies, particularly Afghanistan.

Nazi Germany and Maoist China provide important lessons for statebuilding but act as very poor arguments against statehood as such. Surely, given your approach to issues like pedophilia and prostitution you can't wield an argument of the form "some cases of X are bad, therefore all cases of X are bad" which utilises a false generalisation.

Well then allow me to use a different example, the United States of America. A country which is widely considered a functional democracy with a constitution providing for limited government and separation of powers. Yet this nation has created an enormous military empire which has murdered millions.

Rather than selecting a totalitarian or imperialistic state I would be inclined to take a socialist, scandanavian state as a modern examplar of what can be achieved (even Australia isn't too bad). If we are to be realistic in our approach then we must also appreciate that faults will always exist.

The Scandanavian states are hardly socialist, they are largely free market economies based on private property right. Although they have high tax rates for the "rich," I would question how much tax wealthy people in those countries actually pay.

They also have the advantage of being well endowed with natural resources and having small ethnically homogeneous populations. You can't just say that because they have a certain political system and they are prosperous that system is the key to prosperity.

In any case the Scandanavian states, like every other state is vulnerable to take over and decent into totalitarianism, just like in Weimar Germany. This is a flaw in all states because the power structure that is necessary for the existence of the state (i.e. standing armies, police forces, monopoly over the use of force) is extremely vulnerable to catasprophic abuse. In anarcho-capitalism there is no such power structure already in place, you could argue that it may form, but this formation process is an extra step that needs to occur before tyranny can be implemented.

 

[KFunk]

Well it would be interesting to see if the rate they kill each other at is actually higher than humans.

Chimps don't have guns, to start.

Again, a very questionable assertion. Violence is dangerous, expensive and damaging to one's reputation, so even in arms length transactions with strangers it generally pays to be cooperative.

This is simply what I have garnered from research into this area. If you disagree, that is fine, but I would be interested to see whether you can provide more than intuition.

All of those places have been fucked over in recent history by governments with standing armies, particularly Afghanistan.

Sure, but they still leave me doubting the inherent stability of anarchy. In any case, such standing armies could hypothetically be replaced by private armies representing the interests of powerful families/corporations (e.g. which could engage in the acquisition of resrouces). If certain supporting institutions are required to make anarchy work, even if this means excluding certain forms of interference, then we already heading in the direction of government.

Well then allow me to use a different example, the United States of America. A country which is widely considered a functional democracy with a constitution providing for limited government and separation of powers. Yet this nation has created an enormous military empire which has murdered millions.

But how does this present an argument against statehood in general?

The Scandanavian states are hardly socialist, they are largely free market economies based on private property right. Although they have high tax rates for the "rich," I would question how much tax wealthy people in those countries actually pay.

They also have the advantage of being well endowed with natural resources and having small ethnically homogeneous populations. You can't just say that because they have a certain political system and they are prosperous that system is the key to prosperity.

In any case the Scandanavian states, like every other state is vulnerable to take over and decent into totalitarianism, just like in Weimar Germany. This is a flaw in all states because the power structure that is necessary for the existence of the state (i.e. standing armies, police forces, monopoly over the use of force) is extremely vulnerable to catasprophic abuse. In anarcho-capitalism there is no such power structure already in place, you could argue that it may form, but this formation process is an extra step that needs to occur before tyranny can be implemented.

The label 'socialist' was a rhetorical exageration, for the purpose of distinction, and should be taken as shorthand for some variation on social democracy or democratic socialism. Certainly such states benefit from natural resources and the like, but note that political frameworks can be drawn up relative to place and time, such that their model of functioning government may not be appropriate to states which are not similarly blessed. In any case, to find points of stability at all is damaging to the argument of the anarcho-capitalist.

I think that the issue of power which is open to abuse is the most interesting and feasible of the arguments that you present. In particular technologies like the nuclear bomb change the way the political game is played in a big way. However, if we were suddenly to descend into libertopia such weapons would still exist and would potentially be accessible to powerful groups (for example, companies capable of hiring mercenaries) unless individuals, en masse, made a point of preventing access to them. However, once you have a large group hiring a standing defence force to guard their turf from another interest group which (1) has an interest in that very turf and (2) poses a real physical threat, I wonder how far we have really moved from the problem of state power. In any case, my gripe here isn't over what would actually happen to nuclear weapons, but over the supposed stability of anarcho-capitalist society. Certainly I see little reason to reject minimal forms of government.

I agree that the descent into totalitarianism is a very real issue, but I similarly feel that anarchy likewise is highly unpalatable. My hope, which I am not well-versed enough to argue for as realistic, along with thinkers like Hannah Arendt would be that through the study of various regimes we can come to understand the conditions of peaceful stability and of totalitarian descent in order to safeguard ourselves. If this holy grail of political philosophy (or Kantian universal history) cannot be achieved then we are probably best left to the boom n' bust whim of evolutionary movement until we either blow ourselves up or alight upon some local peak of evolutionary fitness.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Chimps don't have guns, to start.

Humans were slaughtering each other long before guns were invented. Anyway, I don't think the chimps example is helping the discussion much here.

This is simply what I have garnered from research into this area. If you disagree, that is fine, but I would be interested to see whether you can provide more than intuition.

I would be interested to see whether you can provide more than intuition and a vague assertion the you have done research. Quotes and sources please, or stfu about your research.

Sure, but they still leave me doubting the inherent stability of anarchy. In any case, such standing armies could hypothetically be replaced by private armies representing the interests of powerful families/corporations (e.g. which could engage in the acquisition of resrouces). If certain supporting institutions are required to make anarchy work, even if this means excluding certain forms of interference, then we already heading in the direction of government.

Well saying that we are heading towards government in anarchy is hardly an argument against anarchy given that you support government. Anarchy is still further from government, and therefore better in my view.

But how does this present an argument against statehood in general?

If even a democratic nation state with all the checks and balances advocates of statism are so fond of can do such cruel things on a mass scale, this would suggest that there is something wrong with the idea of nation states. The United States is not an exception of course, countries like Australia and Great Britain have also participated in their cruel, unnecessary, falsely justified, self serving wars.

The label 'socialist' was a rhetorical exageration, for the purpose of distinction, and should be taken as shorthand for some variation on social democracy or democratic socialism.

Ok, fair enough.

Certainly such states benefit from natural resources and the like, but note that political frameworks can be drawn up relative to place and time, such that their model of functioning government may not be appropriate to states which are not similarly blessed. In any case, to find points of stability at all is damaging to the argument of the anarcho-capitalist.

Finding examples of stability is not damaging to the argument for anarcho-capitalism, unless you misinterpret it.

I am not saying that all nation states will inevitably become evil and totalitarian, I am saying that there is a significant risk that they will tend towards this, or do other terrible things outside their borders (like the USA).

Unfortunately, as the USA proves, no matter how well set up a democratic nation state may be, we cannot predict which ones will descend into these destructive patterns.

I think that the issue of power which is open to abuse is the most interesting and feasible of the arguments that you present. In particular technologies like the nuclear bomb change the way the political game is played in a big way. However, if we were suddenly to descend into libertopia such weapons would still exist and would potentially be accessible to powerful groups (for example, companies capable of hiring mercenaries) unless individuals, en masse, made a point of preventing access to them. However, once you have a large group hiring a standing defence force to guard their turf from another interest group which (1) has an interest in that very turf and (2) poses a real physical threat, I wonder how far we have really moved from the problem of state power.

Granted large security firms could quite conceivably tend towards state like power (l've dealt with this above).

I agree that the descent into totalitarianism is a very real issue, but I similarly feel that anarchy likewise is highly unpalatable.

That's an honest assessment, I'm sure most people feel the same way; the prospect of heroin vending machines and murder park probably does seem quite unpalatable.

My reasoning is based on the principal that violence and coercion is always wrong. I stand by that, even when it results in things I don't like to see. Although it is tempting to force others to do things we are sure are right and good, the flip side is too disturbing; when people we are sure are moronic and wrong force us to do what they believe is right against our will.

My hope, which I am not well-versed enough to argue for as realistic, along with thinkers like Hannah Arendt would be that through the study of various regimes we can come to understand the conditions of peaceful stability and of totalitarian descent in order to safeguard ourselves. If this holy grail of political philosophy (or Kantian universal history) cannot be achieved then we are probably best left to the boom n' bust whim of evolutionary movement until we either blow ourselves up or alight upon some local peak of social fitness.

Sounds lovely, but as I touched on earlier, I don't think we can formulate the perfect (or close to perfect) system that "gets the balance right."

There are too many variables we can't control for. What seems like a good system and constitution at the time may become disastrous under different circumstances that simply could not have been anticipated.

Furthermore, I think humans have a tendency to act irrationally in times of fear and scarcity. It is in these circumstances we often see laws, constitutions and political norms flagrantly disregarded as people happily part with their liberties for a false sense of security.

In essence, a government is a monopoly over the use of force. Constitutions, courts, rules, checks and balances are all great, but they are just symbols and pieces of paper. When the shit hits the fan, whoever has the guns makes the rules and it really doesn't matter what those pieces of paper say.

 

[KFunk]

I would be interested to see whether you can provide more than intuition and a vague assertion the you have done research. Quotes and sources please, or stfu about your research.

Gosh, this is a fairly large undertaking in itself, but fine.

For a straightfoward review of the nepotistic streak in morality see pp. 45 - 50 of Richard Joyce's The Evolution of Morality.

The paper Sympathy and Callousness provides an interesting look at our tendency to provide less moral regard to anonymous, statistical victims with whom we do not associate. In other words, we have a tendency to give greater moral consideration to those within our community with whom we have a personal/emotional connection to the detriment of those anonymous/statistical persons outside our community.

There is a fantastic three volume series on moral psychology by MIT press, the fisrt of which deals with the evolution of morality. References to research on kin-directed altruism can be found on p. 175, most notably to the work of W. D. Hamilton who has published on the evolutionary tendency towards kin-directed altruism (i.e. the tendency for altruism to be directed specifically towards kinship groups) as well as selfish/spiteful behavior.

For a classic in the field see Axelrod's The Evolution of Cooperation (in particular the conclusions in Ch. 9 'The robustness of reciprocity) which uses computation of payoffs in multiple iterations of the Prisoner's Dillemma game in order to show that the most successful strategy tends to be TIT FOR TAT, which initially engages in cooperation but then engages in retribution if ill-treated. TIT FOR TAT therefore models such moral principles as reciprocity, the golden rule or 'an eye for an eye' (interestingly, then, in anthropological studies reciprocity, along with the valuing of family, appears to be one of the few cultural 'moral constants'). Of particular relevance to you is Axelrod's suggestion (p. 174) that "reciprocity can be self policing", i.e.

One of the most interesting researchers, imo, in the domain of moral reasoning is Joshua Greene at Harvard (<-- see his website, as many of his papers are accessible). His primary concern is that our moral apparatus, which he contends has developed through evolutionary processes, is ill suited to certain parts of modern life. His research program, then, is to show why and eventually to suggest ways of dealing with the issue. His PhD thesis contains an argument that humans have a natural tendency towards moral realism/absolutism which carries with it a certain stubbornness and tendency towards intolerance of difference (i.e. other cultural groups). Of interest is his theory of the dual-process model of morality which finds humans to be cool and more 'utilitarian' when reasoning theoretically, but tend to become absolutist/deontological once emotion enters the picture (e.g. when making decisions with a bearing upon loved ones). In some respects this dovetails well with the above paper on 'sympathy and callousness'. Greene also has an upcoming paper on 'The duty to support nationalistic policies' which will presumably examine the human tendency towards in-group morality and why this is problematic.

Also relevant is the tendency for immoral psychopaths to emmerge in a given population. On this topic you might look to the prolific researcher Robert Hare. Of relevance here is (1) the prevalence of psychopathy (~0.5 - 1% depending on the study and population), (2) the tendency of psychopaths to engage in behavior which harms others and (3) the problem of dealing with such individuals who do not work within a moral framework. Also of interest: the high proportion of psychopaths in business, politics, law, etc --> this is an issue for both anarchists and non-anarchists since immoral people have a statistical tendency to rise to positions of power. As far as regulating the behavior of such individuals the anarchist has to have blind faith in the efficacy of innate morality and inherited social tendencies, while the non-anarchist has to believe that we can know enough about the incredible complexity of human society/behavior to engage in regulation through institutional means.

As to the rest of your post, most of it comes down to agreeing to disagree. Let me know if there is a specific point or core argument that you would like me to respond to.

 

[KFunk]

Oops, I forgot to finish what I was writing on Axelrod.

As above, he makes the statement that reciprocity has the potential to be spontaneous, i.e. allowing morality to be 'self-policing'. However, the problem is that this spontaneity is not universal and instead depends on such factors as the payoff structure of the prisoner's dilemma and the distribution of different prisoner's dilemma strategies in the population. In particular, the payoff related to a strategy of cooperation tends to decrease when playing with individuals with whom one will have little repeated contact - a situation which is incredibly common even within the context of a large city. Stability dominates in the small communities to which humans are historically accustomed, but is not so assured at modern population levels. Furthermore, the behavior of groups need not be regulated in the same way as that of individuals. The perception of right and wrong, by a group and as committed by a group, makes it difficult to extend Axelrod's results, in good faith, to the behavioral dynamics of group-group interactions.

 

[philphie]

Chimps don't have guns, to start.



This is simply what I have garnered from research into this area. If you disagree, that is fine, but I would be interested to see whether you can provide more than intuition.



Sure, but they still leave me doubting the inherent stability of anarchy. In any case, such standing armies could hypothetically be replaced by private armies representing the interests of powerful families/corporations (e.g. which could engage in the acquisition of resrouces). If certain supporting institutions are required to make anarchy work, even if this means excluding certain forms of interference, then we already heading in the direction of government.



But how does this present an argument against statehood in general?



The label 'socialist' was a rhetorical exageration, for the purpose of distinction, and should be taken as shorthand for some variation on social democracy or democratic socialism. Certainly such states benefit from natural resources and the like, but note that political frameworks can be drawn up relative to place and time, such that their model of functioning government may not be appropriate to states which are not similarly blessed. In any case, to find points of stability at all is damaging to the argument of the anarcho-capitalist.

I think that the issue of power which is open to abuse is the most interesting and feasible of the arguments that you present. In particular technologies like the nuclear bomb change the way the political game is played in a big way. However, if we were suddenly to descend into libertopia such weapons would still exist and would potentially be accessible to powerful groups (for example, companies capable of hiring mercenaries) unless individuals, en masse, made a point of preventing access to them. However, once you have a large group hiring a standing defence force to guard their turf from another interest group which (1) has an interest in that very turf and (2) poses a real physical threat, I wonder how far we have really moved from the problem of state power. In any case, my gripe here isn't over what would actually happen to nuclear weapons, but over the supposed stability of anarcho-capitalist society. Certainly I see little reason to reject minimal forms of government.

I agree that the descent into totalitarianism is a very real issue, but I similarly feel that anarchy likewise is highly unpalatable. My hope, which I am not well-versed enough to argue for as realistic, along with thinkers like Hannah Arendt would be that through the study of various regimes we can come to understand the conditions of peaceful stability and of totalitarian descent in order to safeguard ourselves. If this holy grail of political philosophy (or Kantian universal history) cannot be achieved then we are probably best left to the boom n' bust whim of evolutionary movement until we either blow ourselves up or alight upon some local peak of evolutionary fitness.

fool, have you not seen planet of the apes!!! we lose!!!!