Murder of the Mind

[st1_Emrys]

It matters not what you believe if what you believe is not true. That is the difference. I won't go into defending right now. Twill happen later

[Kirke]

So the best you can offer is vague overall historical evidence? You weren't there; I wasn't there. You cannot possibly prove that men recorded things accurately.

Historical evidence isn't enough. I need real evidence. I need tangible meaning, Mouse. There is vast historical evidence for Buddhism. Mormonism can be defeated by genetical research, granted.

Convince me why God is better than the Buddha or why the Bible is more true than his words, with objective reasoning. It's not much to ask, if, as you say, the Bible is a perfect truth, then shouldn't there be perfect premises and a perfect conclusion (a perfect argument) for this?

[Middle Earth Mouse]

yes James, I believe that there is, I also believe that you are the perfect person to put it together. You know far more of the Bible than I, and likely more of buddism than my limited knowlege. this is not just trying to evade the question, I just haven't goten there. "...one thing at a time...", a popular phrase for some movie charactors, and one that I am using for my on-going proof that christianity is the only religeion that has proof for it's credibility. Mormonism and atheism were the easiest so I started with them, and I'm still not through. if you can wait about 3 more years...maby 5-6...I should have an answer.

<edit: that's the problem with the speed reply, I never re-read my posts when I use it and therefore leave stuff out, such as the folowing: ~Therfore James, if you already have an answer, cut that time in half. if you don't, then you will be able to get one far sooner than I for you are already fairly mature in your fait. I on the otherhand, am merely keeping pace with my natural maturing: I am far more mature than most people my age(and some who are far older........) due to bible quizzing, however, I am still growing and far from finished. good luck James!~ sorry that got a little longer than It was intended to be...>

[Kirke]

It's also foundation, my friend, as well as how tall your tower is. Build the mightiest semi-pelagian tower you can, and this will be yet taller:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus

[Middle Earth Mouse]

soooooooooo.......................what did what you just said have to do with anything?

[Kirke]

Anyone who believes the doctrine Paul taught can give you a logical, reasonable answer to those questions.

Anyone who doesn't (Pelagian views spite Paul) cannot render a logical answer conistent to their own belief.

[st1_Emrys]

abtisignominia said:

So the best you can offer is vague overall historical evidence? You weren't there; I wasn't there. You cannot possibly prove that men recorded things accurately.

Historical evidence isn't enough. I need real evidence. I need tangible meaning, Mouse. There is vast historical evidence for Buddhism. Mormonism can be defeated by genetical research, granted.

Convince me why God is better than the Buddha or why the Bible is more true than his words, with objective reasoning. It's not much to ask, if, as you say, the Bible is a perfect truth, then shouldn't there be perfect premises and a perfect conclusion (a perfect argument) for this?

Two major evidences. First the Old Testament. We have many manuscripts of the Old Testament. Not the originals, not even as many manuscripts as we have of the New Testament. However we have manuscripts that have large distances of time between the first manuscript (for example, the dead sea scrolls) and later manuscripts (about a 1,000 yr. difference). We know that these copies were meticulously copied by Hebrew scribes. But how do we know how accurately? Because between the older manuscripts and the more recent ones there is no significant difference! Not even hardly mentionable differences! Letters! By this we can vouch for the accuracy of these documents, which makes us realize that WE HAVE WHAT WAS WRITTEN DOWN.

For the New Testament, we do not have such great distances of time. But we have over 24,000 manuscripts of the New Testament. And again, between these there is no significant differences. And because of the immense number a manuscripts it is easy to determine which manuscript is in error (if there is a conflict). Again, WE HAVE WHAT WAS WRITTEN DOWN.

No other religion can come close to the support there is for the Bible.

And James, stop playing the devil's advocate, you're merely moving us farther and farther off topic.

Also, Pelagian views hardly exist anymore. Rather irrelevent. Maybe in the Unitarian Church (deists), but still, hardly anyone believes in deism. The current reigning worldview in the west is naturalism.

As for your Epicurus quote, read The Case For Faith, by Lee Strobel. Particularly the first chapter.

[Middle Earth Mouse]

again, as I stated James, you are far more mature in your faith than I am, and while I dissagree with you on certain points, I can only hope that by the time I am your age, I will be as well versed as you in the Bible.


<edit: I really have to stop using that "quick reply" thing.....>

[Kirke]

Thank you, Mouse.

Please respect the ideas my words symbolize if they are from the Bible.

[heyyou]

A process analysis essay for class, which I thought some might enjoy:


"Murder of the Mind; One Standard at a Time"


The latest magazine covers, the newest trends and the juiciest gossip; the latest crisis of Society. Standards are set by the Masters of manipulation and
consumerism, impressing chosen values and greedy morals upon young minds. Many of the standards are unnescessary and impact the independence and creativity of the developing soul. Imagery of utopian lives infests dreams and futures. Standards set by the media are often more a limiting factor than an opportunity. Drawing from this concept, the inference can be made that such influences are made in an attempt to murder the modern human mind and moral. Over the cadaver of the mind functions a zombie idealist, a torpid product perfectly conformed by the death of soul.


First, the victims. Any person of any age and a fair amount of vulnerability is an easy target. Those lacking confidence and searching everywhere but their soul for
fullfillment and idealogies are particularily good subjects, as well as plentiful. Insecurity is key. The more a person's mind and soul is an empty void, the more space there is to fill with the lies and superficiality that crushes a being and kills the poor gullible mind. For generations, classes of society -the media, for instance- have withdrawn such moral and tradition as to ease early victims into a system of striving for the standards set by that particular class of society. Slowly, passed from generation to generation, the void of a developing mind and soul trying to find it's place in the world has expanded to an extreme neediness. This neediness has not always been so profound, and, having evolved, is truly more a void of want than of need. Nescessity does not expand as greed does, not without massive amounts of pressure. Therefore, the masters of soul extermination that came before this day and age have set up a moderately stable system of control and victims-to-be for the upcoming murderers in-training.


Appealing to the masses of empty beings means offering fullfillment, often requiring exaggeration. Keep in mind, this does not mean to lie, rather, to proclaim the defiance of reality and possibilty as truth. Basing future opportunities and other important factors of attaining desires on poor, ineffective standards gives reason to further expand the void and add stress. Stress often equates to vulnerability, should more of this be desired by the murderer from the victim. The predator must know the prey's weaknesses to know the best method of capturing it. One such example of knowing the best trap for the prey in this era is the targeting of personal image. This form of homicide is committed by many sources of the media, such as "CosmoGirl," or "Seventeen Magazine." The attacks are effective because many people are so consumed in trying to appeal to others and themselves that the media and idealistic authors can target the image obessed creature and control their ways. The instability of a person's self concept is the key to selecting the trap. This could be viewed as the proverbial bait and cage to keep the prey in. Tell the victim how they should be, and make the "should" something they want. Sometimes flattery can further a murderer's slow yet steady progress, such as conveying to the victim that he or she deserves this ideal, and that the murderer can help them to reach it. Never mind whether or not the picture or style is attainable. The idea will rope them in, and from there, the murderer works his way into the mind of the victim and begins taking control of and influencing the void of the victim's mind.


Allies in the homicidal plot are the next major step after creating strongholds of powerful influence in the victim's void. Urging trend-setters and creators of standard idealism to join forces with the central leader of the vicious plot is most beneficial. The predator(s) here begin to build worlds in the victim's mind, filling the void with a desire for perfection. Perfection, in essence, created by this same predator, a perfection which is most certainly unreachable. The world built inside these poor lost souls is utopian, and very droll. Everything the same, equal, no advantages, no chance or competition. Fair, exactly as it should be. And this world is strived for by the victim. For example, a gadget made more efficient. The target group: Young teens. The majority have some form of a radio or walkman, but the iPod? The iPod is cooler than the average walkman, it's more advanced, as well as a model of the futuristic, technological society many people wish to attain. It's what people should have. It's what good teens deserve. The media and the trend-setters team up. Together, they are quite convincing that iPods help make the lives of each customer nearer to the lives they desire, or perhaps that the media tells them they desire. So the teens upgrade. They buy into the slogans and advertisements, striving to be most advanced, to have that aspect of their lives perfect; just as it should be. As for the media, the trend-setters? They have more customers, and a stronger influence over these developing souls. iPods are minor, they are not terribly important or at all vital to a person's way of living. However, alot of what is sold modern day through the media and other great mass murderers isn't as tangible, and goes straight to the soul, working its way into the tangible aspects of a life; from the inside out. Eventually it consumes the soul that was once free and opinionated without the effect of striving to live a lie.


As moral and selflessness is drained from the victim by greed and self-oriented desire, the mind and free spirit gradually fade. It is as though the murder is committed in such a way that the predator holds the knife, and behind himself spreads sketches of perfection and the desired, and gaily calls to his prey, promising that poor empty soul that the lies he drew up and set behind him are actually attainable. Soon the little needy, greedy mind has run into the knife a few times trying to get past the smooth-voiced murderer, whom the victim refuses to believe would hurt another in such a gruesome way. Then the sad broken being falls and slowly bleeds to death. Murdered. Drained of mind and soul. The victim becomes a zombie, all the rest of his days spent trapped in consumerism and striving for false perfection, endlessly believing he is right. Eternally spineless and empty. Here one has the crime and the effect; the murder and the product.

[steel_lily]

Amen!

[Kirke]

Does anyone make these victims read magazines, watch TV, listen to slogans, or succumb to encouragement to do wrong?




Is it right to take responsibility for your own actions? or blame somebody else?

Just so I'm clear: I agree with you that it's absolutely wrong to tempt others to sin.


Let's say you tell Beefmonger to call 911 to save his friend from committing suicide, and he does. Who gets credit for encouraging him to do the right thing? Who gets credit for actually calling 911 and doing the right thing?

Likewise, if a girl reads a magazine that contains direct temptations to sin, who gets the blame for printing the magazine? Who gets the blame for the sin committed?

[heyyou]

Alright, I'm going to copy paste my answer to a very similiar question asked elsewhere in this post.

"Good point, I didn't address this in the essay.

The victim has the power, the choice, in the crime my essay described, not to be drawn in, not to "run into the knife," as I stated, the easiest victims are those with "emtpy voids." These are the kids who have eating disorders, are compulsive about items and such, which often causes many problems, these are the druggies, the sex addicts, or even the kids who are too young but do it anyway. These (and so many others, as sterotyping is ineffective) are the people who need to fill something inside them, and pick negative things to fill the void with. Because negativity is also easier.

But we have the resources now, as we grow up, and even as adults, everyone is always telling us what's wrong. All people have a void, many fill it with God. But that's hard. Because his ways aren't easy, aren't always the ones we like best. What he says to do and what we want to do is often very different. Those who fill the void with negative forces are the often weaker than those who chose tougher forces, which are often more righteousness. Those filling themselves with negativity often just make more trouble for themself.

The media preys on this. Because if you give them easy ways, show them that something taboo is attainable, and "cool" in some way or another, why shouldn't they believe you?

I look at it this way, though it is more complex than this, God sits in one direction, holding the bible, asking people to have faith in the unseen, to abide by righteousness, though it is hard. Forces like the media sit on the other side, with easy to read magazines, radio stations, TV, and tell people what is easier, what is right. (Whether or not it actually is) they tell people what they want to hear. And the human race is in between the two, with a choice. Obey by what you know to be right, or obey by what you want to be right.

And please, elaminate the word "choice" if it better suits you, if you would better see an illustration where God is picking who "chooses" him, and who "chooses" the media. We don't have to agree on that point, I hope you see what I mean though.

But for humans to have that choice, there must be a force offering guidance to life and how it all should be other than God. That force has been many changing things for ages, and in every case, it was the victim's choice. To me, that force is now basically the media. Because I can see how much trouble it causes, as do many. And the influence it has is that great. But when it all comes down to it, it is ultimately the victims choice whether they should "run into the knife" to attain what they are told is right, or whether they look for other passions, other ways, I hope to the way of the Lord. Something I find very sad, is how many people, kids and teens, that I know, that have been right there at that knife, and had never been told there was another way. That there was God. Because the media makes itself known everywhere, you can't not see it. God is everywhere, makes himself known everywhere, but there are ways for some people to shut him out of other people's lives. And I hate that.

I have previously phrased it all blaming the media. and I still don't know quite how to explain that though it not ultimately the media's fault, if it wasn't there, they wouldn't have the choice to turn to it. But, as I said, something else would then come along opposing righteousness and influence people. It is merely something I do, exposing "the murder of the Mind" to people I know, hoping it will make them realize they are allowing themselves to be made victims. And I honestly do know a few people who have read or heard me rant on this, and that night clicked off the television, ignored the stacks of magazines and ads, and picked up a book, or gone out and done something worthwhile instead. Maybe someday one of the people that hears me will pick up a bible instead. I've talked people out of eating disorders before. They were already skinny, but they had to do what the magazines told them too. Be the skinniest. And I reminded them that all they'd be tampering with the image God gave them. That it would hurt. And they stopped.

So, I can't quite say I blame the media, but in a way, I do. Perhaps you understand. I hope so. If you do, maybe you'll have a better word or phrase for the role the media and such plays?

From here, anything I say will be my belief, which I can be sure many here will argue with. I'm posting it anyway. God's perfect design: imperfection. He created everything, everything of course, would include the media, and each person, including the victims. But I believe in free will. I believe that he does not chose for us whether we will be a "victim" or fill our voids with him. I don't believe that he choses for us that we sin. but he I do believe he allowed evil to grow and tempt us, so that faith would not be automatic. I see no beauty and love in our having to have faith. In it being chosen for us. I don't believe that's how it works.

Anyway, that paragraph can be disregarded if it is disagreed with, and if not disregarded, than take it up on another thread, that's not what this one is about.

Betting based on this rant you know my answers about the previous post's examples.

I think I'll stop now...though there's probably more...

[steel_lily]

To define the role and guilt of the media:

They hold the knife.

I was once sent to the principal's office for "punching" a kid in the chest. I didn't actually punch him...he was running by and I stuck my hand out and let him run into it. I was, nonetheless, guilty.

If a man walks down the street with an incredibly sharp knife in his hand, pointing outward toward those around him, and heads into the busy section of town...is he not guilty?

Yes, those who walk around him choose to bump into him. But why was he carrying the knife in the first place? Did he honestly not realize the danger?

The same goes for the media's not-so-proverbial knife. They stand there with the blade out to people, knowing full well that the masses will come to them searching for answers. Instead of true answers, they offer bait. Easy, fast solutions with picture-book instructions. Bait. They literally poison the blade with perfume. Come to me... And the average livestock-trained human cannot but obey.

It even begins in our schooling. For eight hours a day, what do they train us to be? Sheep. Bell rings, rise from seat, dash to door then locker then next class. New bell rings, be in seat and OBEY. Above all, OBEY. Automatically, if possible. Cud-chewing, automatonic, bovine-related quadrupeds. They train us up in the way we should go?

They train us up in the way of the knife.

Yes, the media holds guilt.
No, they do not bear it all.
Yes, there is a choice involved.
But yes, the dice are weighted and they are weighted against you.

To hold the knife is to bear the responsibility for society-assisted suicide. Suicide of the mind, the soul, or the body. I've seen enough.

[Kirke]

Yeah...uh...I think the most the media really wants is your money. They aren't out to hurt anyone for the sake of harming others; they simply want money (and maybe power, or to help someone into power because they'll get more money).

Your analogy seems to fall through here; the man with the knife shows by his actions that he wants to hurt others. I think a drug dealer would be more accurate; he wants money for something not worth having, but nobody forces people to pay him.

[heyyou]

I like that analogy, it makes sense. Because doing those drugs enough is eventually what will kill you. Though the dealer probably wasn't aiming for that. Just for the money. And recognition. I still like the murder analogy alot though.

[steel_lily]

The man with the knife just wanted money....he was presenting a threat in an effort to scare people in giving him money. Like guys who run into stores with firearms. They usually aren't looking to hurt people, just take their money.

[Kirke]

Except the media isn't threatening anyone by either action or word to take their money. That is completely illegal in every form. The media threatens no consequence if you fail to give them money, in fact, everything they do to get your money is based on what your words and actions tell them you want.

Their entire standard of success is how happy their viewers/customers/sources of revenue are with what they do!

So, again, your analogy is weak on that point. The media is threatening nobody for money (that I am aware of; if they are, let the law know and the problem will cease immediately), instead, they are built and based on the principle of PLEASING people and giving them what they WANT and ASK FOR in return for money.

[steel_lily]

And yet they are threatening. That is the single biggest threat you culd pose. Corrupt people and suck out their souls by giving them what they want. By telling them what they want to hear. That is how the devil works, that is how any serious evil in this world works. By telling us exactly what would please us.

[Kirke]

No force in the matter. To intent to harm. Simply a benign intent to desire money.

Such it is at my job; people come in, ask for help finding something, I ask them what they intend to do, that is, what their already-existent desire is, and inform them we may have 1-10 other products that will assist them in their purpose.

Now, I work at a home improvement store. We don't sell too many awfully evil things. But the same principle applies. If people don't want it; they can't sell it. So I think your problem is more with the consumers, who are not victims, but criminals.

The media and the retailers are controlled by individuals and these individuals have a mind-boggling respect for every individual to watch their network (to sell advertising) or to purchase their product. So the best way for you to achieve your goal is to enrich the minds of the criminals and preach to them the law that they might be convicted of their crime, and do better.

By the essence of economic flow, the individuals in charge of businesses and the media will reflect this change or die from lack of funding.

[st1_Emrys]

not if there is a monopoly...

[Kirke]

Which is a thing controlled by the individuals, Nate. That's why unions were and are so stupid. If the majority is content with their employment, then the employment is acceptable to the majority, if you're in the minority, go elsewhere.

If it's not acceptable to the majority, you won't need a union because the employer will have no workers and if they refuse to change they'll be eliminated by sheer lack of profit.

Consider our market today. Microsoft has had and still has a massive edge on the gaming market; computer market; small technology market, and corporate software markets.

The government had beef about them being a "monopoly". Oh, God forbid that a company actually make products that everyone wants so everyone buys them! Oh dear, oh dear, whatever shall we do?

No, the consumer rules. If Microsoft were charging too much, or taking over too much of the market, and people decided that was so, there is no law and no force that holds a gun to their head and says "Buy Microsoft products".

The only way a monopoly can exist in this economic system is if someone comes out with a service or product so stinking useful (or popular) that close to everyone buys it over every other type of that sort of thing. It's a free market. That means it should be free to corner an entire macromarket to yourself, if it's by providing superior products and superior services. That keeps standards high, and in the long run, prices low. It also makes the government unneeded, which is incredibly important to economic survival.

Smaller government. Bigger people.

[Alameth of the Iron Fist]

I believe the original point was that the media is itself a weapon, as are the messages communicated--the weapons it weilds. It's brainwashing, however willing the participants may be. What media outlet is free of bias? Not one. What media outlet doesn't have major contributers who only give their money so the recipients will say what they want them to say? Anyone at all familiar with Citizen Kane? Good movie. Exposes media bias and agendas all over the place. One of the major messages in the film is that media can't be trusted. Because it's run and funded by individuals with individual agendas.

End of rant.

[Kirke]

Yes, but, seriously, who isn't aware of this with five seconds of thought?

Do people really think that they don't want you to believe what they're saying or that they're perfect and unbiased and holy and infallible? I've never in my life heard anyone say that. I've not even heard anyone treat it that way. It's almost always "I heard it in the news; what really happened I am not sure. You know how the news is."

So I guess I'm still saying: The media exists to make money from people by giving them a service they want so badly they'll pay for it. The way you can verify how much of a reason that is is by asking yourself: Would it exist if nobody paid money for it?

The main thing I disagree with is at all insinuating that the media is to blame for poor choices on the part of the individual, and that we should try to change the media. The media will not change, and I repeat: will NOT change as long as it is getting enough money from people wanting to pay for it the way it is. You need to deal with the consumers, the individuals, not the media. The media will induce no change of choice in the people. The change of choice in the people will induce change in the media, almost overnight. (Do ya'll realize how fast they can tell if nobody likes what they're showing???)

[steel_lily]

Interesting economic view.

But one must look back to the original days of monopolies and worker's unions. If they've got you over a barrel, they've got you over a barrel. Say there's only one company that sells sewage systems. There is a legal procedure for the disposal of sewage, and you live in an urban or suburban area. You don't know how to install a sewage system yourself, and you wouldn't have time if you did. Carting your sewage to out of town is not feasible, and simply using a neighbor's facilities is unreasonable. But the prices for these sewage systems are rediculous, and you don't want to support the company, which is said to be corrupt. You're stuck.

Not that this is terribly realistic, but we were dealing in the theoreticals and ideologies anyway. And media is not a necessity.

Nonetheless, it bombards us. It is not as if people have to actually try to acquire a media source. They're everywhere. Some of them are free. Most are relatively cheap. Yes, people want the media...but the media wants them, too.

It also poses a moral question. To what degree are you willing to give people what they want? There is no reason to go about giving everyone everything they want...anarchy would reign. Even if they did have to pay for it.

[st1_Emrys]

I agree, Steel, but the major source of the monopoly is what James actually described. Popularity.

"The only way a monopoly can exist in this economic system is if someone comes out with a service or product so stinking useful (or popular) that close to everyone buys it over every other type of that sort of thing. "

Thats the definition of TV James. Our world is addicted. And the media has a definate left wing bias. The only exceptions are radio talk hosts such as Rush Limbaugh. But TV is ridiculously popular, and people are idiots. They don't even recognize the bias. I guess what I'm saying, is that according to the Bush election, people favor the right wing, moral stances. But the media's monopoly is tolerated because people are addicted to their favorite shows. Personally I find it ridiculous (I watch 30 minutes of TV per week tops).

Just don't overlook the media as a monopoly, because it is one. And don't say its because of the consumer's beliefs. The reality is that the consumer can't get enough of LOST. They couldn't bear to miss the next episode of "Prison Break." And what about our soaps? Wouldn't you die without "The Young and the Restless"?

[heyyou]

Yessir! (Emrys is the sir.)

I have previously targeted consumerism issues in my rants more than anything. But I am in so much agreement with Emrys.

(oh, and somehwere on this board, someone said something about people saying their "source was the TV, and thus not too reliable." ...I can name 5 people off the top of my head referencing TV shows, of the genre "drama, MTV, Teen-nick, or reality shows/sitcoms" as truth. I have, within the last 21 days, had to explain to more than one person that not everything said on television is true, and that lives of tv and movie characters are not actually life-like, or exactly as life should be.)

Like Emrys, I watch less than 30 minutes of television per week. actually per month really. Well, I dunno, do movies actually count? see...I don't watch television programs, ever. Everyone in my house does, by 8pm, all 6 people living with me are braindead in front of it. Usually for 2-4 hours. Plus in the morning before school, my little sisters watch it. I'm never around after school, but I am positive it is on for hours then. Weekends? I get yelled at if I am cleaning and notice no one is there, and click it off. It is on 20 hours a day typically on weekends. I never watch it. I do however, occasionally, if I have been begged to, or have previously promised a beggar I would, sit down and watch a movie. Unless I hold an intelligent or mocking conversation during the movie, or laugh and gasp schizophreniacally at the monologue in my head, I absolutely cannot sit through aymore than 15 minutes of a movie. So, yes, Emrys, I'd die without my Soaps!

Sadly enough though, I think my family, and many of friends and peers, might.

Good examples of shows I watched years ago at my sisters' requests; Lizzie Maguire, That's so Raven, Yes Dear, Girlfriends, George Lopez, My Wife and Kids, Proud Family, According to Jim. Every one of those shows, is composed of better-than-life characters with simple, easily, logically handled problems, making a drama of it all. Big steps. Extremes. Pick up lines. so...idealistic. as though wearing the wrong shade of red for school picture day could amount to Armeggedon.

The saddest part? The number of younger folks I know that idealize these characters, this life. The ones, (of all ages, not just youth) that believe the protrait they see on the screen is what their lives myust become, must be fashioned after.

Random question, how many times on anyone of the shows I've listed, or on any shows of that nature, the '"popular" programs, have you seen anyone discuss God? Have you seen any of them pray? Have you seen the pull out a bible?

I was just listening to "The Battle hymn of the Republic" and "God Bless America." What happened to that? What happened to striving for righteousness? To being a unified, christian, nation?

Wow...Sorry, I can't stay on any longer...perhaps I will finish this rant later, otherwise, please, ignore or build off of!

[Kirke]

"But one must look back to the original days of monopolies and worker's unions. If they've got you over a barrel, they've got you over a barrel. Say there's only one company that sells sewage systems. There is a legal procedure for the disposal of sewage, and you live in an urban or suburban area. You don't know how to install a sewage system yourself, and you wouldn't have time if you did. Carting your sewage to out of town is not feasible, and simply using a neighbor's facilities is unreasonable. But the prices for these sewage systems are rediculous, and you don't want to support the company, which is said to be corrupt. You're stuck."

You say "You're stuck" when this is in no American case true. There's never been a law against moving or not moving into an area.

I modify a premise of your argument: "There is a legal procedure for the disposal of sewage, and you live in an urban or suburban area."

Move out. Or don't move into the area.

The laws of free commerce dictate that a company like the one you described would cause the following repercussions at a minimum:
1. The area would be economically devastated to non-existent from lack of population.
2. Before that happened, the people would elect officials on one basis, the basis of changing the laws and making the market of sewage treatment such that the company either had to do better or suffer competition.

[st1_Emrys]

Nationwide monopoly. Then what?

[Kirke]

Any examples of a nationwide sewer monopoly in your knowledge of American history?