When is revolution ok?

[iustitia]

First off I'd like to direct you to the Debt Clock-

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

We are at this moment just under 18 trillion dollars of national debt. I'm no mathmagician but I think it's fair to say that there is no possible way for our government, even under a perfectly balanced and constitution-based budget, to ever pay off the debt in my lifetime. In fact there's more US debt than there is actual money in the US, with less than 2 trillion dollars in circulation. This means that it is mathematically impossible for us to ever pay off our debt under this system.

Leaving economics for a moment, I'd like to direct you to what I believe should be the most relevant portion of the Declaration of Independence to current America-


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

I often read on here and hear at work about the death of our freedom, the government is screwing us, yadda yadda, but there are always two camps of people I come across. The first camp are blind voters that think they'll be heard by their party and representatives in another four years. The second group are the apathetic that while correct on voting being useless don't care enough to try to change the system because it's hopeless impossible to do. Maybe I'm painting a target on my back, but I never hear the middle option between proactive citizenry and apathetic skepticism. Not trusting the system and doing something that'll make it change. Today that's called terrorism, but it used to be called patriotism.

Franklin believed revolution should occur every 40 years, and Jefferson every 20. Averaged that's every 30 years.

So I ask, when is it ok - in a country founded on violent resistance - to overthrow the government when they've been stealing freedom and robbing generations not yet born for over a century?

And so I'm clear, I'm not advocating any actions that might endanger the public nor am I encouraging others here to get in trouble. This is just a straight up question.

[Animal Mother]

I hear you, man. I think we'd be justified now to take a cue from the Declaration. Do I think we will? Naw, just look at all the scared ass white people on this forum who piss their pants over rowdy Ferguson blacks.

They're breaking the LAW! Omigod! Those animals are rioting, they are rioting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why can't cops just shoot people? Why do they want cops to not be able to shoot people? Waaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dr. Who]

Based on amendments and posited law, never. But it's OK, because it's all funny money, therefore funny debt.

[Green Arrow]

I think a better question is, when is revolution NOT okay? I'm of the belief that it is always okay.

[Animal Mother]

Based on amendments and posited law, never. But it's OK, because it's all funny money, therefore funny debt.

Law has nothing to do with revolution. Note the "at the consent of the governed". When the consent is gone, laws are gone.

Besides, violence is the ultimate law.

[zelmo1234]

The answer is?

It is OK if you win! It is treason if you do not!

As for the be wetter's that Animal was talking about. Only about half of the people in the colonies thought that it was a good idea to break from the crown. This is always the case.

I think that this nation is actually heading for a revolution of sorts. but it will be different and it is tied to the national debt. Soon the government will go broke and nearly all of the taxes will be needed to service the debt.

So while we still will have a national government they will not have the power to enforce their current Tyrannical policies on the people, Nor will they be able to provide for the Government created Welfare state.

The will bring about a revolution of sorts as the power returns to the states and only some of those will be solvent and thriving, others will be broke as well.

So it will be more tribal than organized.

[Animal Mother]

The answer is?

It is OK if you win! It is treason if you do not!



This. You take your chance.

[The Xl]

The fact that we have a national debt on a fiat currency backed by nothing is reason enough for a revolution.

[Howey]

I think a better question is, when is revolution NOT okay? I'm of the belief that it is always okay.
I believe in revolution of the mind, or more specifically evolution.

But that was a good argument for a living constitution. Thanks Tom and Ben!

[Green Arrow]

I believe in revolution of the mind, or more specifically evolution.

But that was a good argument for a living constitution. Thanks Tom and Ben!

I'm guessing "Tom" and "Ben" refers to Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, yes?

[Bob]

First off I'd like to direct you to the Debt Clock-

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

We are at this moment just under 18 trillion dollars of national debt. I'm no mathmagician but I think it's fair to say that there is no possible way for our government, even under a perfectly balanced and constitution-based budget, to ever pay off the debt in my lifetime. In fact there's more US debt than there is actual money in the US, with less than 2 trillion dollars in circulation. This means that it is mathematically impossible for us to ever pay off our debt under this system.

Leaving economics for a moment, I'd like to direct you to what I believe should be the most relevant portion of the Declaration of Independence to current America-



I often read on here and hear at work about the death of our freedom, the government is screwing us, yadda yadda, but there are always two camps of people I come across. The first camp are blind voters that think they'll be heard by their party and representatives in another four years. The second group are the apathetic that while correct on voting being useless don't care enough to try to change the system because it's hopeless impossible to do. Maybe I'm painting a target on my back, but I never hear the middle option between proactive citizenry and apathetic skepticism. Not trusting the system and doing something that'll make it change. Today that's called terrorism, but it used to be called patriotism.

Franklin believed revolution should occur every 40 years, and Jefferson every 20. Averaged that's every 30 years.

So I ask, when is it ok - in a country founded on violent resistance - to overthrow the government when they've been stealing freedom and robbing generations not yet born for over a century?

And so I'm clear, I'm not advocating any actions that might endanger the public nor am I encouraging others here to get in trouble. This is just a straight up question.

This is one fine video on CSPAN talking of this.


http://www.c-span.org/video/?321916-1/discussion-cronyism-corruption-federal-government

[Bob]

I hear you, man. I think we'd be justified now to take a cue from the Declaration. Do I think we will? Naw, just look at all the scared ass white people on this forum who piss their pants over rowdy Ferguson blacks.

They're breaking the LAW! Omigod! Those animals are rioting, they are rioting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why can't cops just shoot people? Why do they want cops to not be able to shoot people? Waaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rowdy blacks?

Omy god. Is that all they are is rowdy?

Wake up man. They are not being shot by the cops in case you never noticed.

[Bob]

Based on amendments and posited law, never. But it's OK, because it's all funny money, therefore funny debt.

Government intends to fix it using inflation. Recall the Carter inflation period?

The men of this country are scared silly of the Feds. The Feds have a super well trained army and marines who will fight the citizens till hell freezes over. We have no Robert E Lees to lead us.

[Howey]

I'm guessing "Tom" and "Ben" refers to Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, yes?

Yup

[Peter1469]

Regarding the debt. We are defaulting slowly by devaluing the dollar. We should actively default on sectors of debt. We could repudiate the debt that we the Fed (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FDHBFRBN) ($2.8T) today and the rating agencies may not even react.

[donttread]

First off I'd like to direct you to the Debt Clock-

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

We are at this moment just under 18 trillion dollars of national debt. I'm no mathmagician but I think it's fair to say that there is no possible way for our government, even under a perfectly balanced and constitution-based budget, to ever pay off the debt in my lifetime. In fact there's more US debt than there is actual money in the US, with less than 2 trillion dollars in circulation. This means that it is mathematically impossible for us to ever pay off our debt under this system.

Leaving economics for a moment, I'd like to direct you to what I believe should be the most relevant portion of the Declaration of Independence to current America-



I often read on here and hear at work about the death of our freedom, the government is screwing us, yadda yadda, but there are always two camps of people I come across. The first camp are blind voters that think they'll be heard by their party and representatives in another four years. The second group are the apathetic that while correct on voting being useless don't care enough to try to change the system because it's hopeless impossible to do. Maybe I'm painting a target on my back, but I never hear the middle option between proactive citizenry and apathetic skepticism. Not trusting the system and doing something that'll make it change. Today that's called terrorism, but it used to be called patriotism.

Franklin believed revolution should occur every 40 years, and Jefferson every 20. Averaged that's every 30 years.

So I ask, when is it ok - in a country founded on violent resistance - to overthrow the government when they've been stealing freedom and robbing generations not yet born for over a century?

And so I'm clear, I'm not advocating any actions that might endanger the public nor am I encouraging others here to get in trouble. This is just a straight up question.

No one can actually say on open forum that the time is now. Having said that I still believe there is a chance for a non-violent social/political revolution if we can somehow bring all those discouraged voters together with 3rd parties and take the money out of political campaigns. I think we must pursue that chance as long as it reasonably exist

[Chris]

By moral right, as the OP points out, revolution is justified when the government fails to secure our rights. Revolution would be against posited law, including the Constitution, amendments, legislated, executed and adjudicated law. Caution must be taken however not to end up right back where we started or worse.

[Max Rockatansky]

....So I ask, when is it ok - in a country founded on violent resistance - to overthrow the government when they've been stealing freedom and robbing generations not yet born for over a century?...

Revolution is always okay. The success of the revolution depends on how well the public supports it.

The last national revolution we had in this country was in the 1960s. Like adding "-gate" to political scandals is overused in the common lexicon, same goes for the term "revolution". That aside, we not only had a revolution in the 1960s, but several groups have attempted it since. The Occupy Movement and Tea Party are attempts at inspiring revolution. Revolution doesn't have to be violent, but it does have to create change in order to be considered successful.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revolution

[Common Sense]

Who would lead this revolution?

How would it physically occur? You would need the military on your side.

I honestly don't see it happening any time soon. It would require a fundamental shift and or a mass tragedy or something monumental to happen first.

[Paperback Writer]

I believe in revolution of the mind, or more specifically evolution.

But that was a good argument for a living constitution. Thanks Tom and Ben!

Neither Thomas Jefferson nor Benjamin Franklin would have believed in a living constitution, but a continual revolution. They were great admirers of the European Enlightenment. What they did was create a system to change law and even change the Constitution but it's not done. No one in your country uses the amendment process. Instead, you use the "common law" system in a way it was not intended in order to recreate law and redefine government without the will of the people.

It always seems that I am pointing out to Americans their own process and history, which I find amusing and you ought to find shameful.

Is it just poor secondary schools or are your universities shit, too? I'll concede we're starting to lower our secondary standards, too. It will be a dismal future if this keeps up.

[Peter1469]

Neither Thomas Jefferson nor Benjamin Franklin would have believed in a living constitution, but a continual revolution. They were great admirers of the European Enlightenment. What they did was create a system to change law and even change the Constitution but it's not done. No one in your country uses the amendment process. Instead, you use the "common law" system in a way it was not intended in order to recreate law and redefine government without the will of the people.

It always seems that I am pointing out to Americans their own process and history, which I find amusing and you ought to find shameful.

Is it just poor secondary schools or are your universities shit, too? I'll concede we're starting to lower our secondary standards, too. It will be a dismal future if this keeps up.

Our K-12 public school system is broken. Or rather, it works to create mindless drones.

[donttread]

Who would lead this revolution?

How would it physically occur? You would need the military on your side.

I honestly don't see it happening any time soon. It would require a fundamental shift and or a mass tragedy or something monumental to happen first.

I think our boys and girls in uniform would have a tough time turning on their own and the military would likely split in two

[donttread]

Our K-12 public school system is broken. Or rather, it works to create mindless drones.

Which only works when the same strategy was successful with the previous generation

[ace's n 8's]

First off I'd like to direct you to the Debt Clock-

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

We are at this moment just under 18 trillion dollars of national debt. I'm no mathmagician but I think it's fair to say that there is no possible way for our government, even under a perfectly balanced and constitution-based budget, to ever pay off the debt in my lifetime. In fact there's more US debt than there is actual money in the US, with less than 2 trillion dollars in circulation. This means that it is mathematically impossible for us to ever pay off our debt under this system.

Leaving economics for a moment, I'd like to direct you to what I believe should be the most relevant portion of the Declaration of Independence to current America-



I often read on here and hear at work about the death of our freedom, the government is screwing us, yadda yadda, but there are always two camps of people I come across. The first camp are blind voters that think they'll be heard by their party and representatives in another four years. The second group are the apathetic that while correct on voting being useless don't care enough to try to change the system because it's hopeless impossible to do. Maybe I'm painting a target on my back, but I never hear the middle option between proactive citizenry and apathetic skepticism. Not trusting the system and doing something that'll make it change. Today that's called terrorism, but it used to be called patriotism.

Franklin believed revolution should occur every 40 years, and Jefferson every 20. Averaged that's every 30 years.

So I ask, when is it ok - in a country founded on violent resistance - to overthrow the government when they've been stealing freedom and robbing generations not yet born for over a century?

And so I'm clear, I'm not advocating any actions that might endanger the public nor am I encouraging others here to get in trouble. This is just a straight up question.Our debt is obscenely unjustified.

What are your suggestions on bringing down our National Debt?

[Captain Obvious]

Our debt is obscenely unjustified.

What are your suggestions on bringing down our National Debt?

I don't speak for iustitia but the only way to do it is by cutting spending.

Cutting taxes (or redistributing taxes fairly) and further cutting spending, especially wasteful spending (ie: GTFO of the war industry) to be precise.

Good luck with that too, btw.

[Max Rockatansky]

Our K-12 public school system is broken. Or rather, it works to create mindless drones.Broken only in the respect it caters to the lowest denominator as shown in the cartoon below. Regardless of the quality of teaching, smart people will learn to educate themselves. Libraries are still available and the Internet opens up the entire world. It used to be illegal to educate slaves, yet many slaves learned anyway. The old "where there is a will, there is a way".

http://clwproject1.weebly.com/uploads/1/4/5/7/14571204/1453055_orig.jpg

[ace's n 8's]

Neither Thomas Jefferson nor Benjamin Franklin would have believed in a living constitution, but a continual revolution. They were great admirers of the European Enlightenment. What they did was create a system to change law and even change the Constitution but it's not done. No one in your country uses the amendment process. Instead, you use the "common law" system in a way it was not intended in order to recreate law and redefine government without the will of the people.

It always seems that I am pointing out to Americans their own process and history, which I find amusing and you ought to find shameful.

Is it just poor secondary schools or are your universities $#@!, too? I'll concede we're starting to lower our secondary standards, too. It will be a dismal future if this keeps up.That's incorrct, Thomas Jefferson did in fact suggest abolishing the U.S. Constitution every generation, and starting off with a fresh Constitution, that is why we have the Amendment process.

[Max Rockatansky]

I think our boys and girls in uniform would have a tough time turning on their own and the military would likely split in two

Most, I suspect would never follow an unlawful order. Especially if that order included firing on protesting American citizens.

[ace's n 8's]

I don't speak for iustitia but the only way to do it is by cutting spending.

Cutting taxes (or redistributing taxes fairly) and further cutting spending, especially wasteful spending (ie: GTFO of the war industry) to be precise.

Good luck with that too, btw.I agree with cutting spending.

I also agree with cutting the taxes.

I will also take it a step further here, and suggest that we read and understand the U.S. Constitution as it was written , and how it was to be interpreted in the era that it was written in.

I would venture to guess, if we rid this nation of the entitlements, and return our federal government to Constitutional law,, we would NOT be in this position as a nation,and yes,, I know that is just crazy talk.

[Paperback Writer]

That's incorrct, Thomas Jefferson did in fact suggest abolishing the U.S. Constitution every generation, and starting off with a fresh Constitution, that is why we have the Amendment process.

Do read the post and learn what is meant by living Constitution. That is not the same as revolution, ie "abolishing the US Constitution every generation".

[Captain Obvious]

I agree with cutting spending.

I also agree with cutting the taxes.

I will also take it a step further here, and suggest that we read and understand the U.S. Constitution as it was written , and how it was to be interpreted in the era that it was written in.

I would venture to guess, if we rid this nation of the entitlements, and return our federal government to Constitutional law,, we would NOT be in this position as a nation,and yes,, I know that is just crazy talk.

I think democracy (or the republic to be specific) fails so the constitution isn't all that meaningful to me. More specifically I'd like to see it rewritten.

[ace's n 8's]

I think democracy (or the republic to be specific) fails so the constitution isn't all that meaningful to me. More specifically I'd like to see it rewritten.I disagree, the U.S. Constitution does not fail, it is the fucking politicians that we as a nation elect that have failed.

The U.S. Constitution was perfectly written, and it has needed to be adjusted as time goes on, and it has been, I dont blame the Constitution,, I blame those that the uninformed have cast a vote for.

[Captain Obvious]

For the record, I'm an opponent of "interpreting" documents like the constitution. "Intent" is meaningless, "intention" and expression are far more important.

[Captain Obvious]

I disagree, the U.S. Constitution does not fail, it is the fucking politicians that we as a nation elect that have failed.

The U.S. Constitution was perfectly written, and it has needed to be adjusted as time goes on, and it has been, I dont blame the Constitution,, I blame those that the uninformed have cast a vote for.

Read the post right below yours.

These concepts were designed by religious fanatics generations ago who were still shitting in pits and screwing slaves. Nothing is "perfect", that absolutist concept is highly flawed IMO.

The constitution has been bastardized any to be whatever the entity in power wants it to be or it's just disregarded. So how good is it really?

[ace's n 8's]

Read the post right below yours.

These concepts were designed by religious fanatics generations ago who were still $#@!ting in pits and screwing slaves. Nothing is "perfect", that absolutist concept is highly flawed IMO.

The constitution has been $#@!ized any to be whatever the entity in power wants it to be or it's just disregarded. So how good is it really?That's incorrect, the founding fathers were not religious, and they did not bring religion in the Constitution, that should have obvious to you in the FIRST AMENDMENT.

[Captain Obvious]

That's incorrect, the founding fathers were not religious, and they did not bring religion in the Constitution, that should have obvious to you in the FIRST AMENDMENT.

Amendment...

It's a common stance in the wingosphere to suggest that the US is a Christian nation so I guess many would disagree with you.

Our disagreement aside, there were other points I made, your silence in responding to them is interpreted to mean that you agree I guess.

[ace's n 8's]

Amendment...

It's a common stance in the wingosphere to suggest that the US is a Christian nation so I guess many would disagree with you.

Our disagreement aside, there were other points I made, your silence in responding to them is interpreted to mean that you agree I guess.I wouldn't go that far, I didn't see a need to reply to your interpretation of logic, and misinformed history lesson

[Captain Obvious]

I wouldn't go that far, I didn't see a need to reply to your interpretation of logic, and misinformed history lesson

You're one of those people who have 100% faith in history books?

Got it!

[ace's n 8's]

You're one of those people who have 100% faith in history books?

Got it!History books of today? HELL NO.

[donttread]

I disagree, the U.S. Constitution does not fail, it is the fucking politicians that we as a nation elect that have failed.

The U.S. Constitution was perfectly written, and it has needed to be adjusted as time goes on, and it has been, I dont blame the Constitution,, I blame those that the uninformed have cast a vote for.


We failed. Our main duty was eternal vigilance and the people failed.

[ace's n 8's]

We failed. Our main duty was eternal vigilance and the people failed.''Ma'am you have a republic, for as long as you can keep it''

Benjamin Franklin

[lynn]

When is revolution ok? Odd choice of words since the ones you are revolting against will never say it is okay to revolt.

[ace's n 8's]

When is revolution ok? Odd choice of words since the ones you are revolting against will never say it is okay to revolt.
My question is,, what do we want as an outcome, with this intended revolution?

What are the demands here?

What form of government will replace the best form of Government known to mankind?

[Codename Section]

Self government.

[ace's n 8's]

Self government.We have self government,WELL. . . .we did at one time, not so much anymore.

Too many believe that the Federal Government is the all knowing, top dog.

[Codename Section]

We have self government,WELL. . . .we did at one time, not so much anymore.

Too many believe that the Federal Government is the all knowing, top dog.

We don't have self-government, we have a republic where 600 people represent 320 million.

[Cthulhu]

Revolution is justified when those revolting are righteous, and are revolting against evil with righteous intent.

A rebel without a clue accomplishes nothing.

Otherwise you're just changing hats. South and Central America does that all the time.

Basically, when you're throwing off chains, or deposing evil tyrants, enabling freedom, defending your family, or securing your continued existence - go for it.

But if your fighting for greed? Well, you might succeed, but you'll never prosper.

[ace's n 8's]

We don't have self-government, we have a republic where 600 people represent 320 million.A republic is a form of government in which power resides in the people, ''self government'',, not affiliated with anarchy.

[Codename Section]

A republic is a form of government in which power resides in the people,

That's what they tell me. Just haven't seen it work out like that.

[ace's n 8's]

That's what they tell me. Just haven't seen it work out like that.That's what I said,, but you just had to disagree, now,, how does that taste.

[Codename Section]

That's what I said,, but you just had to disagree, now,, how does that taste.

I had no idea what you said because I don't understand the ",," and style of your posting.

[ace's n 8's]

I had no idea what you said because I don't understand the ",," and style of your posting.It's just words, 'dont play like that with me'. . . . YEAH,, I remember hearing something like that not too long ago.

[Chris]

My question is,, what do we want as an outcome, with this intended revolution?

What are the demands here?

What form of government will replace the best form of Government known to mankind?



If this is the best then it is pretty bad--if it weren't politics would not be important to discuss and argue.

People like the idea of government, not the reality.

[Chris]

We have self government,WELL. . . .we did at one time, not so much anymore.

Too many believe that the Federal Government is the all knowing, top dog.



Q.E.D. You sure went from singing romantic praises rather quick to singing the blues.

Again, people like the idea of government--they romanticize it--they don't like the reality.

[Chris]

We don't have self-government, we have a republic where 600 people represent 320 million.

And they've sold out to the highest bidders.

[PolWatch]

And they've sold out to the highest bidders.

the best government money can buy!

[Chris]

the best government money can buy!

Contrarianism!!

[PolWatch]

Contrarianism!!

since you are my computer rescue person, I'll let ya join my party....

[Codename Section]

It's just words, 'dont play like that with me'. . . . YEAH,, I remember hearing something like that not too long ago.

You should meet exotix. You write similar enough you'll understand this style of posting.

[ace's n 8's]

If this is the best then it is pretty bad--if it weren't politics would not be important to discuss and argue.

People like the idea of government, not the reality.The United States of America, without a doubt, has the best form of government, we just have bad politicians, dating back to around the Woodrow Wilson era.

That was the beginning of the end of the U.S. Constitution as it was intended.

[ace's n 8's]

You should meet @exotix (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=516). You write similar enough you'll understand this style of posting.
She'll not like me too much either.

BUT . . . who knows.

[Codename Section]

She'll not like me too much either.

BUT . . . who knows.

It's a he.

[Codename Section]

The United States of America, without a doubt, has the best form of government, we just have bad politicians, dating back to around the Woodrow Wilson era.

That was the beginning of the end of the U.S. Constitution as it was intended.

Alien and Sedition Acts.

[donttread]

How about a limited inheritance policy. No more Paris Hilton

[ace's n 8's]

How about a limited inheritance policy. No more Paris HiltonWhy limited? who gets the rest of the inheritance, the federal and state government?

Although, I do like where you are going with this. Paris and all.

[Peter1469]

How about a limited inheritance policy. No more Paris Hilton

How do you do that without giving the State the power over your money?

[donttread]

Why limited? who gets the rest of the inheritance, the federal and state government?

Directly applied to the deficit or perhaps spread out amongst more individulas

[ace's n 8's]

It's a he.
WHODATHUNKiT,,especially with that avatar.

[ace's n 8's]

Directly applied to the deficit or perhaps spread out amongst more individulas
NOPE,, that's socialism, and just more government spending.

[ace's n 8's]

Alien and Sedition Acts.NO,,,that was the beginning of the 'Progressive movement'

[donttread]

NOPE,, that's socialism, and just more government spending.

OK, tax inheritance per person over 500,000 at 95%

[ace's n 8's]

OK, tax inheritance per person over 500,000 at 95%WHY??.

Why in the world is the government eligible for such A REVENUE, is it because they have it, and the government doesn't?. . . .

Charities are far more deserving of that money, than any government.

Buffet is not going to provide any inheritance, along with a host of other millionaire/billionaire persona in the U.S.

[Paperback Writer]

Who's on your money? Buffet, Gates? No. It is the currency of the US Treasury Department, and whether that is an accurate descriptor for what it really is, that's what it says.

The billionaires that hold the bonds to your banks chose to recreate your system, use your government to strangle and manipulate world market competition to increase their wealth; the wealthy uses your government's military to protect their interests and in many cases further their interests, and uses the government to regulate competition out of business so that their chosen corporations float to the top.

Without governments there would not be a layer of fabulous wealth nor a dichotomous system wherein there are large corps and then small businesses waiting to be choked to death should they try to get ahead without stock sales, the bond of which to be held by the wealthiest of people.

I say, Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. They wanted that system. They got it. Now they should choke on it.

But that's just my opinion, take it or leave it.

[donttread]

WHY??.

Why in the world is the government eligible for such A REVENUE, is it because they have it, and the government doesn't?. . . .

Charities are far more deserving of that money, than any government.

Buffet is not going to provide any inheritance, along with a host of other millionaire/billionaire persona in the U.S.

A "host" . The point is that such a tax would encourage the distribution to more individuals. Most of your "host" of billionaries" are beneficiaries of a tilted table

[Peter1469]

OK, tax inheritance per person over 500,000 at 95%

So the government owns our bank accounts now?

[del]

revolution is okay when you win

[Paperback Writer]

So the government owns our bank accounts now?

As long as you use fiat currency, yes. Do you own gold coins? Silver coins? No. You utilise its currency, its process for administrating that currency, ergo it is no yours except in theory.

What happens if that currency is devalued by the government purposefully to gain leverage? You cannot own what you cannot control.

[Peter1469]

I do actually.


As long as you use fiat currency, yes. Do you own gold coins? Silver coins? No. You utilise its currency, its process for administrating that currency, ergo it is no yours except in theory.

What happens if that currency is devalued by the government purposefully to gain leverage? You cannot own what you cannot control.

But I own a lot more in the market and in liquid cash.

[Chris]

As long as you use fiat currency, yes. Do you own gold coins? Silver coins? No. You utilise its currency, its process for administrating that currency, ergo it is no yours except in theory.

What happens if that currency is devalued by the government purposefully to gain leverage? You cannot own what you cannot control.


Even when currency was real, in gold or silver or copper, whatever, kings debased and devalued coins by shaving, clipping, sweating them to gain wealth for wars. Fiat money merely makes it easier.

[Chris]

revolution is okay when you win

That merely replaces one state with another. Einsteinian insanity.

[Paperback Writer]

Even when currency was real, in gold or silver or copper, whatever, kings debased and devalued coins by shaving, clipping, sweating them to gain wealth for wars. Fiat money merely makes it easier.

Actually king's tried much harder to retain the value of currency than the banks did. The first Henry of England protected the wealth of the nation using the tally stick system. It's really the bastard bankers that you should dislike.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/35578-Why-did-Jesus-beat-the-money-changers-A-lesson-in-currency-and-control-by-PBW

[del]

That merely replaces one state with another. Einsteinian insanity.

i deal in reality, chris, not hungarian wet dreams.

[Chris]

i deal in reality, chris, not hungarian wet dreams.

You do? What's hungary then got to do with anything here?

[del]

your postings remind me of einstein, and not in a good way.

have a nice day.

[Chris]

Actually king's tried much harder to retain the value of currency than the banks did. The first Henry of England protected the wealth of the nation using the tally stick system. It's really the bastard bankers that you should dislike.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/35578-Why-did-Jesus-beat-the-money-changers-A-lesson-in-currency-and-control-by-PBW

In some cases, sure. In others not, Rothbard's Economic Thought Before Adam Smith is replete with examples plus Copernicus' treatise against it known as the Quantity Theory of Money (http://mises.org/library/copernicus-and-quantity-theory-money).

[Chris]

your postings remind me of einstein, and not in a good way.

have a nice day.

Einstein was German, del.

[Bo-4]

Not now, and particularly not one conducted by rag-tag Obama-hating TeaTrolls.

[Peter1469]

Not now, and particularly not one conducted by rag-tag Obama-hating TeaTrolls.

The Tea Party(ies) want less government. That is good.

[Bo-4]

The Tea Party(ies) want less government. That is good.

Translation:



We have ours, you get yours
Kill SS & Medicare as we know it
Let hungry people die in the streets
Outsource Outsource Outsource
End unions
Personhood
Don't get sick, but if you do? DIE
More tax cuts for Monty Burns and let the poor & middle class eat cake
Trash the agencies who look after food, drugs, & airline safety
Privatize ALL education and everything else (free markets baybee!)



Did i miss anything?

[Chris]

Translation:



We have ours, you get yours
Kill SS & Medicare as we know it
Let hungry people die in the streets
Outsource Outsource Outsource
End unions
Personhood
Don't get sick, but if you do? DIE
More tax cuts for Monty Burns and let the poor & middle class eat cake
Trash the agencies who look after food, drugs, & airline safety
Privatize ALL education and everything else (free markets baybee!)



Did i miss anything?


The local Tea Party I belong to is for less taxes, smaller government and more liberty. Those look like liberal caricatures of conservative goals.

[ace's n 8's]

Translation:



We have ours, you get yours
Kill SS & Medicare as we know it
Let hungry people die in the streets
Outsource Outsource Outsource
End unions
Personhood
Don't get sick, but if you do? DIE
More tax cuts for Monty Burns and let the poor & middle class eat cake
Trash the agencies who look after food, drugs, & airline safety
Privatize ALL education and everything else (free markets baybee!)



Did i miss anything?NOPE,, I think you pretty much covered ALL of the leftists talking points.

[ace's n 8's]

The local Tea Party I belong to is for less taxes, smaller government and more liberty. Those look like liberal caricatures of conservative goals.I belong to a local T E A party as well.

[Bo-4]

The local Tea Party I belong to is for less taxes, smaller government and more liberty. Those look like liberal caricatures of conservative goals.

Perhaps, but if you ask them about any of my points? They'd agree!

[ace's n 8's]

Perhaps, but if you ask them about any of my points? They'd agree!I am a tea party supporter, and I strongly disagree with ALL of your points.

[Chris]

Perhaps, but if you ask them about any of my points? They'd agree!

Actually, no, not the way you misrepresent them.

And Personhood, that's an old Progressive argument.

[Bo-4]

NOPE,, I think you pretty much covered ALL of the leftists talking points.

Get back to me with YOUR teabagging group's responses.

You can word it mildly differently if you choose.

[Chris]

Get back to me with YOUR teabagging group's responses.

You can word it mildly differently if you choose.


http://snag.gy/GYE8M.jpg

[Bo-4]

I am a tea party supporter, and I strongly disagree with ALL of your points.

The first step is ALWAYS admitting that you're a Bagger.

From there? Best wishes on your "strong" disagreement. ;-)

[Bo-4]

Actually, no, not the way you misrepresent them.

And Personhood, that's an old Progressive argument.

Personhood is a progressive argument?

Embellish please .. LoL!!

[Bo-4]

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/img/radicalmoderate/2011/08/07/Politics_TeaParty_Teabaggers-KochSuckers_DESIGN.png

[Chris]

Personhood is a progressive argument?

Embellish please .. LoL!!


Goes back to Progressive eugenics movement of the early 1900s to sterilize those some deemed misfits. Those arguments were then borrowed by the Nazis. And latter spring up as an argument for choice.

[Chris]

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/img/radicalmoderate/2011/08/07/Politics_TeaParty_Teabaggers-KochSuckers_DESIGN.png

$ short, day late.

[ace's n 8's]

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/img/radicalmoderate/2011/08/07/Politics_TeaParty_Teabaggers-KochSuckers_DESIGN.pngRight on time with the typical leftists classy responses.

Personhood= subject of the State. . . . progressive dialogue


Individualism = liberty, personal responsibility, aptly able to create for their own.

[Dr. Who]

Actually king's tried much harder to retain the value of currency than the banks did. The first Henry of England protected the wealth of the nation using the tally stick system. It's really the bastard bankers that you should dislike.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/35578-Why-did-Jesus-beat-the-money-changers-A-lesson-in-currency-and-control-by-PBW
We should do like Iceland and nationalize all the banks. They are the axis of evil for the economic woes in the world. It would also pull the rug out from under the global nationals, who would no longer have control over the global banking system and therefore undue influence over sovereign nations.

[Chris]

Yea, monopoly is evil. Let's institutionalize it.

[Peter1469]

Everything.

Start with this: US Constitution, Article 1, sec. 8.


Translation:



We have ours, you get yours
Kill SS & Medicare as we know it
Let hungry people die in the streets
Outsource Outsource Outsource
End unions
Personhood
Don't get sick, but if you do? DIE
More tax cuts for Monty Burns and let the poor & middle class eat cake
Trash the agencies who look after food, drugs, & airline safety
Privatize ALL education and everything else (free markets baybee!)



Did i miss anything?

[ace's n 8's]

Everything.

Start with this: US Constitution, Article 1, sec. 8. US Constitution!?!?!?!. . . . you just lost him on that concept

[Bo-4]

Goes back to Progressive eugenics movement of the early 1900s to sterilize those some deemed misfits. Those arguments were then borrowed by the Nazis. And latter spring up as an argument for choice.

Ya Ya Bla Bla.. HEY ... let's continue to pretend that lefties are Nazis & righties are fucking angels.

[Bo-4]

Right on time with the typical leftists classy responses.

Personhood= subject of the State. . . . progressive dialogue

Individualism = liberty, personal responsibility, aptly able to create for their own.

Hmmmm.. Chris & ace -- do you REALLY thing that the Fabulously Dirty Koch Bros didn't start the TP movement?

If so? ---> Ha!!! :D

[hanger4]

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/img/radicalmoderate/2011/08/07/Politics_TeaParty_Teabaggers-KochSuckers_DESIGN.png

Hey cool then we can call you

Blumburgers or how about SteyerHoes ??

[Common]

Revolution is Ok when its for something I like :)

[hanger4]

BTW Bo-4 did you know that Tom Steyer

personally donated more money to the Dems

this election cycle than the top 18 Repub donors ??

I'm a bettin you turn a blind eye to BIG money

Dem donors and hypocrite over Repub donors.

[ace's n 8's]

Hmmmm.. @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) & ace -- do you REALLY thing that the Fabulously Dirty Koch Bros didn't start the TP movement?

If so? ---> Ha!!! :DI factually know who started the T.E.A. Party movement, it was not a business man.

[iustitia]

Translation:



We have ours, you get yours
Kill SS & Medicare as we know it
Let hungry people die in the streets
Outsource Outsource Outsource
End unions
Personhood
Don't get sick, but if you do? DIE
More tax cuts for Monty Burns and let the poor & middle class eat cake
Trash the agencies who look after food, drugs, & airline safety
Privatize ALL education and everything else (free markets baybee!)



Did i miss anything?

How about the Constitution? Your strawman argument can be avoided by merely inquiry "What does the Constitution say about it?


Perhaps, but if you ask them about any of my points? They'd agree!

Hmm...


Actually, no, not the way you misrepresent them. ... The local Tea Party I belong to is for less taxes, smaller government and more liberty. Those look like liberal caricatures of conservative goals.


I belong to a local T E A party as well. ... I am a tea party supporter, and I strongly disagree with ALL of your points.

Seems like they disagree.


http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/img/radicalmoderate/2011/08/07/Politics_TeaParty_Teabaggers-KochSuckers_DESIGN.png

Hmmmm.. @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) & ace -- do you REALLY thing that the Fabulously Dirty Koch Bros didn't start the TP movement?

If so? ---> Ha!!! :D

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php

The leftist obsession with the Koch brothers is bizarre and disingenuous considering the amount of money and moneychangers funding their causes and campaigns. Such hypocrisy.


Ya Ya Bla Bla.. HEY ... let's continue to pretend that lefties are Nazis & righties are fucking angels.

Maybe this is guilt by association but I recall the "left" of the past decade routinely comparing Bush to Hitler. In fact accusing the "right" of fascism was just as routine throughout the late Cold War by your side.

To be fair to @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128), though, American "lefties" have more in common with Nazis than the American "right" do. Centrally planned economies, hatred of constitutional government, welfare statism, corporatism, moral relativism, eugenics and willful destruction of other humans. In reality, the modern American progressive has far more in common with Nazis than they'll ever be capable of admitting to.

[iustitia]

Also, isn't teabagging primarily a gay thing? Does that make progressives homophobic bigoted hatemongers or is it ok to use that language because they run the plantation?

[Dr. Who]

Yea, monopoly is evil. Let's institutionalize it.
Better we control our own banks than have a handful of mercantilist families around the world controlling and manipulating everything.

[ace's n 8's]

How about the Constitution? Your strawman argument can be avoided by merely inquiry "What does the Constitution say about it?



Hmm...







https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php

The leftist obsession with the Koch brothers is bizarre and disingenuous considering the amount of money and moneychangers funding their causes and campaigns. Such hypocrisy.



Maybe this is guilt by association but I recall the "left" of the past decade routinely comparing Bush to Hitler. In fact accusing the "right" of fascism was just as routine throughout the late Cold War by your side.

To be fair to @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128), though, American "lefties" have more in common with Nazis than the American "right" do. Centrally planned economies, hatred of constitutional government, welfare statism, corporatism, moral relativism, eugenics and willful destruction of other humans. In reality, the modern American progressive has far more in common with Nazis than they'll ever be capable of admitting to.It's the typical strategy of the leftists, they read a play book one time, and they stick to it ,play by play.

The leftists are hypocrites, with double standards.,I have come to accept them for who they are.

[Chris]

Hmmmm.. Chris & ace -- do you REALLY thing that the Fabulously Dirty Koch Bros didn't start the TP movement?

If so? ---> Ha!!! :D

Yes, "I thing" so.

At one point I recall they donated some millions. That was distributed down to local, voting district level Tea Parties, it didn't amount to much and had no strings attached.

But I have to admit "Ha!!!" is a powerful argument.

[Chris]

How about the Constitution? Your strawman argument can be avoided by merely inquiry "What does the Constitution say about it?



Hmm...





Seems like they disagree.



https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php

The leftist obsession with the Koch brothers is bizarre and disingenuous considering the amount of money and moneychangers funding their causes and campaigns. Such hypocrisy.



Maybe this is guilt by association but I recall the "left" of the past decade routinely comparing Bush to Hitler. In fact accusing the "right" of fascism was just as routine throughout the late Cold War by your side.

To be fair to @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128), though, American "lefties" have more in common with Nazis than the American "right" do. Centrally planned economies, hatred of constitutional government, welfare statism, corporatism, moral relativism, eugenics and willful destruction of other humans. In reality, the modern American progressive has far more in common with Nazis than they'll ever be capable of admitting to.



Hayek's The Road to Serfdom documents the rise of national socialism. Progressives like Roosevelt greatly admired the central planning of Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin.

[Chris]

Better we control our own banks than have a handful of mercantilist families around the world controlling and manipulating everything.

Right, we should trust lying corrupt politicians who consider us too ignorant to be transparent in their lawmaking.

Madison, Federalist 51: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."


And this is in the thread when is revolution OK? When it doesn't result in insane repetition of the same mistakes. Monopoly is evil so let's monopolize! Government is corrupt, so let's increase its power! "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength!"

Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, Chapter 11, "The End of Truth:"


The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those which they, or at least the best among them, have always held, but which were not properly understood or recognized before. The people are made to transfer their allegiance from the old gods to the new under the pretense that the new gods really are what their sound instinct had always told them but what before they had only dimly seen. And the most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning. Few traits of totalitarian regimes are at the same time so confusing to the superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual climate as the complete perversion of language, the change of meaning of the words by which the ideals of the new regimes are expressed.… If one has not oneself experienced this process, it is difficult to appreciate the magnitude of this change of the meaning of words, the confusion it causes, and the barriers to any rational discussion which it creates. It has to be seen to be understood how, if one of two brothers embraces the new faith, after a short while he appears to speak a different language which makes any real communication between them impossible. And the confusion becomes worse because this change of meaning of words describing political ideals is not a single event but a continuous process, a technique employed consciously or unconsciously to direct the people. Gradually, as this process continues, the whole language becomes despoiled, and words become empty shells deprived of any definite meaning, as capable of denoting one thing as its opposite and used solely for the emotional associations which still adhere to them.

[Alyosha]

Bo-4

perhaps you should ask GLAAD, the NoH8TE org, and others to return the money donated by the Koch's and the attorney that took the case all the way up for a win, since he was paid for by David Koch, primarily.

How about the ACLU? Maybe they should give the Koch money back that he donated.

Perhaps, the money he donated towards land preserves in South America, Kenya, and Tanzania should be given back?

Or the 12,000 black scholarships to universities (in full) that came out of the million's he donated, should they be given back?

Why don't you tell me specifically what you don't like that they've done?

Specifically.

[ace's n 8's]

@Bo-4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1297)

perhaps you should ask GLAAD, the NoH8TE org, and others to return the money donated by the Koch's and the attorney that took the case all the way up for a win, since he was paid for by David Koch, primarily.

How about the ACLU? Maybe they should give the Koch money back that he donated.

Perhaps, the money he donated towards land preserves in South America, Kenya, and Tanzania should be given back?

Or the 12,000 black scholarships to universities (in full) that came out of the million's he donated, should they be given back?

Why don't you tell me specifically what you don't like that they've done?

Specifically.I'll speak for bo 4,

The Koch Bros, support and endorse conservative ideas

We dont need a crystal ball to figure that out.

[Dr. Who]

Right, we should trust lying corrupt politicians who consider us too ignorant to be transparent in their lawmaking.

Madison, Federalist 51: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."


And this is in the thread when is revolution OK? When it doesn't result in insane repetition of the same mistakes. Monopoly is evil so let's monopolize! Government is corrupt, so let's increase its power! "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength!"

Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, Chapter 11, "The End of Truth:"
So better we just leave all the banks in the hands of the biggest nogoodniks on the planet. How is that better? I understand your dislike of government and statism, but much of what you dislike has been created by the aforementioned nogoodniks to begin with in order to control and manipulate sovereign nations. You will never succeed in eliminating their grand control without eliminating their means of control. It's working for Iceland.

[ace's n 8's]

So better we just leave all the banks in the hands of the biggest nogoodniks on the planet. How is that better? I understand your dislike of government and statism, but much of what you dislike has been created by the aforementioned nogoodniks to begin with in order to control and manipulate sovereign nations. You will never succeed in eliminating their grand control without eliminating their means of control. It's working for Iceland.Iceland's monetary system is pretty young, relatively speaking, and isolated.

Where as the majority, if not all of the world is based off of the U.S. Dollar, to suggest any changes at this stage of the game will upset the apple cart.

The U.S. Federal government can not be trusted with anything, they can not regulate, they cant lagislate without a personal political agenda driving them.

I personally believe it is best for the entire global economy, to keep the status quo.

[Peter1469]

Iceland's monetary system is pretty young, relatively speaking, and isolated.

Where as the majority, if not all of the world is based off of the U.S. Dollar, to suggest any changes at this stage of the game will upset the apple cart.

The U.S. Federal government can not be trusted with anything, they can not regulate, they cant lagislate without a personal political agenda driving them.

I personally believe it is best for the entire global economy, to keep the status quo.

The status quo is in a slow collapse.

Iceland is our model.

[ace's n 8's]

The status quo is in a slow collapse.

Iceland is our model.Can you guarantee the U.S. and the World that there wont be a major disruption during the transition phases?

Can you guarantee the U.S. and the World, that Iceland does in fat have the perfect monetary model?

[Dr. Who]

Can you guarantee the U.S. and the World that there wont be a major disruption during the transition phases?

Can you guarantee the U.S. and the World, that Iceland does in fat have the perfect monetary model?
Well they certainly told their creditors where to go. I don't see anyone challenging them.

[ace's n 8's]

Well they certainly told their creditors where to go. I don't see anyone challenging them.Was that an answer to my question?

[Peter1469]

Can you guarantee the U.S. and the World that there wont be a major disruption during the transition phases?

Nope. There will be a major disruption. ~$!8T in debt doesn't go away quietly! :smiley:


Can you guarantee the U.S. and the World, that Iceland does in fat have the perfect monetary model?

No. But I like how they told the government, banks and the bank's creditors to go fuck themselves. :smiley: The people didn't caused these problems. But the people can solve them- repudiate the debt. Force those that caused it to eat it.

[Alyosha]

So better we just leave all the banks in the hands of the biggest nogoodniks on the planet. How is that better? I understand your dislike of government and statism, but much of what you dislike has been created by the aforementioned nogoodniks to begin with in order to control and manipulate sovereign nations. You will never succeed in eliminating their grand control without eliminating their means of control. It's working for Iceland.

The banks control the government, not the government the banks. Chris knows this, too. I think, he can correct me, that he believes that if governments go away (I can't wait that long) the banks will get smaller.

It's chicken egg at this point and they feed off each other. They both have to go and I think the banks are the easier of the two to get rid of, break up, etc.

I say take the low hanging fruit.

[Dr. Who]

Was that an answer to my question?
OK, there will be disruption. There will be worse disruption if they remain in charge. I prefer to rip off the bandaid quickly than endure eons of pain.

[ace's n 8's]

Nope. There will be a major disruption. ~$!8T in debt doesn't go away quietly! :smiley:



No. But I like how they told the government, banks and the bank's creditors to go $#@! themselves. :smiley: The people didn't caused these problems. But the people can solve them- repudiate the debt. Force those that caused it to eat it.Prior to the Obama horseshit, The U.S. had A-1 credit, get Obama out of office, I suspect Congress can get the debt sustained, I am seeing that movement,, now,, the politicians needs to do it.

There are much better minds than ours that can propose a sustainable monetary policy.

The Fed is not sustainable any longer, is there something better, I dont know, Iceland's policy could work for the ''WORLD'' economy, to transition into that will be very disruptive at this time, we need to get our debt under control first, before we go shopping for anther unvetted system.

[Ivan88]

In revolutions there seem to be 2 sides. There is a third side. Can you discern it?
Left Wing
9691

Right Wing
9692

[Peter1469]

Prior to the Obama horseshit, The U.S. had A-1 credit, get Obama out of office, I suspect Congress can get the debt sustained, I am seeing that movement,, now,, the politicians needs to do it.

There are much better minds than ours that can propose a sustainable monetary policy.

The Fed is not sustainable any longer, is there something better, I dont know, Iceland's policy could work for the ''WORLD'' economy, to transition into that will be very disruptive at this time, we need to get our debt under control first, before we go shopping for anther unvetted system.

Well we could jail the current politicians and bankers and figure out the rest as we go along. :smiley:

[Animal Mother]

Prior to the Obama horseshit, The U.S. had A-1 credit, get Obama out of office, I suspect Congress can get the debt sustained, I am seeing that movement,, now,, the politicians needs to do it.

There are much better minds than ours that can propose a sustainable monetary policy.

The Fed is not sustainable any longer, is there something better, I dont know, Iceland's policy could work for the ''WORLD'' economy, to transition into that will be very disruptive at this time, we need to get our debt under control first, before we go shopping for anther unvetted system.

The same group of people who decide the credit ratings and how that is scored are the same group of people who also run the bonds. Look at the names. Look at their resumes.

The whole fucking thing is one big scam.

[ace's n 8's]

The same group of people who decide the credit ratings and how that is scored are the same group of people who also run the bonds. Look at the names. Look at their resumes.

The whole $#@!ing thing is one big scam.I wont disagree with a word that you have stated here. . . I WONT. . . but, this is the system that we have, this system has been in place for over a century, why do we have this system?, because the masses were bamboozeled, and the masses are still being bamboozeled, because they dont want to know the truth.

They want to watch their ''reality'' T.V. programs, they want their back yard BBQ's, they want their 'soccer moms', they want their newest phones, their newest fashions, and most of all, they want what the Hollywood elitist's have.

They dont want to think about anything other than Utopia.

I'll take this a step further and soundly claim that most, dont understand finances, the economy, or that we have a massive, unsustainable debt.

What this country is starving for is, wait for it. . . . . . .


ACCOUNTABILITY

This country seriously lacks accountability.

[Max Rockatansky]

In revolutions there seem to be 2 sides. There is a third side. Can you discern it?
Left Wing
9691

Right Wing
9692

An ancient symbol of both man and woman (blade and chalice), but also air, earth, fire and water.

http://oi57.tinypic.com/24zx7k6.jpg

[truth&justice]

Revolution? Only when Govt loses it's Legitimacy; as determined by the Highest Court; or, when conditions become so intolerable; that it is necessary for Survival!

[truth&justice]

Anyone believe that Roosevelt's Statement above; has any relevancy today? Both Grievances exist today - - don't U thnk?

[Chris]

So better we just leave all the banks in the hands of the biggest nogoodniks on the planet. How is that better? I understand your dislike of government and statism, but much of what you dislike has been created by the aforementioned nogoodniks to begin with in order to control and manipulate sovereign nations. You will never succeed in eliminating their grand control without eliminating their means of control. It's working for Iceland.


Sometimes I truly think some of you, who are extremely intelligent, just can't think outside the box of what you've been taught. That box for many of you is that someone must be in control. You argue that this group, say bankers, in control is a monopoly and that's bad. Then, unable to think outside the box of control, you contradictorily argue for that group, say government, to monopolize control. If the two groups are in collusion, and they certainly are, one wanting more wealth and the other more power, then the two groups are one and the same.

But we have discussions that go like this:

Box: Bankers in control, bad.
Me: Agree, they shouldn't be put in control.
Box: Right, we need government in control.
Me: Government in control, bad. Since they're the ones who put bankers in control.
Box: So you think bankers should be in control.
Me: :BangHead: Didn't I just agree with you that bankers in control is bad?

The problem is letting any one or group have that much wealth or power because the wealthy will support the powerful and the powerful the wealthy in order to attain even more wealth and power.

[Bo-4]

@Bo-4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1297)

perhaps you should ask GLAAD, the NoH8TE org, and others to return the money donated by the Koch's and the attorney that took the case all the way up for a win, since he was paid for by David Koch, primarily.

How about the ACLU? Maybe they should give the Koch money back that he donated.

Perhaps, the money he donated towards land preserves in South America, Kenya, and Tanzania should be given back?

Or the 12,000 black scholarships to universities (in full) that came out of the million's he donated, should they be given back?

Why don't you tell me specifically what you don't like that they've done?

Specifically.
Alyosha - There is no short answer here, so i'll need a bit more time. Gotta get to breakfast so give me about an hour. ;-)

[Bo-4]

BTW @Bo-4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1297) did you know that Tom Steyer

personally donated more money to the Dems

this election cycle than the top 18 Repub donors ??

I'm a bettin you turn a blind eye to BIG money

Dem donors and hypocrite over Repub donors.

You probably heard that from Rush or Fox and i don't believe it, so link me to a reputable source for this nugget.

[ace's n 8's]

You probably heard that from Rush or Fox and i don't believe it, so link me to a reputable source for this nugget.Rush and Fox, must have got that talking point from the site below;


http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs_overall.php

[Chris]

The banks control the government, not the government the banks. Chris knows this, too. I think, he can correct me, that he believes that if governments go away (I can't wait that long) the banks will get smaller.

It's chicken egg at this point and they feed off each other. They both have to go and I think the banks are the easier of the two to get rid of, break up, etc.

I say take the low hanging fruit.


If it's chicken and egg then they're both in control, not one over the other. Politicians need more power, iow, need the funding to get elected, for this they depend on bankers. Bankers need more wealth, iow, need political favors, and for this they depend on politicians. --Bankers here should really be the wealthy.

They together are social parasites, draining the wealth and power of society--us--and shifting it to the few.


Now I think most of us here agree on what the problem is. Where we disagree is on solution. You want to control it, you want to go after the bankers. But what do you accomplish through control? You increase the power of politicians, of government. You make the problem worse. And so you prosecute and punish all the bankers with your bigger government, more bankers will come along, for that same government created this system and, by making it more powerful, you've made it an even bigger target for political favors.

That is why I argue the solution is reducing if not removing the power of government. Without the colluding support of government the bankers could no longer depend on political favors to attain more wealth or for that matter maintain what they have attained by political means.

Question is can you (generic) think outside the box of control?

[Paperback Writer]

The Koch Brothers are certainly no worse than Soros, an evil man who has literally destroyed duly elected governments with his influence over currencies, and yet he's exclusively left off the plate of evil rich people.

When I hear the same level of vitriol directed at the Rothschilds, George Soros, or Henry Kissinger's of the world I'll believe these blokes understand what they're talking about until thenit's just more Harry Reid rubbish.

[Paperback Writer]

That is why I argue the solution is reducing if not removing the power of government. Without the colluding support of government the bankers could no longer depend on political favors to attain more wealth or for that matter maintain what they have attained by political means.


The bankers rose without assistance of the government by lending out more than they had, which is dishonest. True, most people won't withdraw at the same time, but what would happen if they did?

This legacy of lending was fought by governments, perhaps in order to maintain their control over the currency, but the fact is that they were able take over control of this service because of guild collusion and the creation of their own monopoly. The goldsmiths had enough money to purchase their own security forces, and in Italy those private agents were brutal thugs.

So I'm not certain how you can make the argument that it is only government which allowed their rise when looking back at history.

[Peter1469]

This idea that only government can oppress is a bit odd.


The bankers rose without assistance of the government by lending out more than they had, which is dishonest. True, most people won't withdraw at the same time, but what would happen if they did?

This legacy of lending was fought by governments, perhaps in order to maintain their control over the currency, but the fact is that they were able take over control of this service because of guild collusion and the creation of their own monopoly. The goldsmiths had enough money to purchase their own security forces, and in Italy those private agents were brutal thugs.

So I'm not certain how you can make the argument that it is only government which allowed their rise when looking back at history.

[Paperback Writer]

This idea that only government can oppress is a bit odd.

Governments became governments because private individuals colluded and consolidated power. They weren't plopped here by supernatural beings.

[Chris]

The bankers rose without assistance of the government by lending out more than they had, which is dishonest. True, most people won't withdraw at the same time, but what would happen if they did?

This legacy of lending was fought by governments, perhaps in order to maintain their control over the currency, but the fact is that they were able take over control of this service because of guild collusion and the creation of their own monopoly. The goldsmiths had enough money to purchase their own security forces, and in Italy those private agents were brutal thugs.

So I'm not certain how you can make the argument that it is only government which allowed their rise when looking back at history.


Without the support and protection of government, they would have failed.

[Chris]

This idea that only government can oppress is a bit odd.

But it makes for a great straw man, doesn't it.

[Chris]

Governments became governments because private individuals colluded and consolidated power. They weren't plopped here by supernatural beings.

Yes, by force. And now you all can't imagine living without it. You support and sanction force as a means of attaining what you want, even as it collapses around you.

Let's not forget that many societies resisted development of the state and still do.

[Peter1469]

Again denying the real world and opting for theory.... :shocked:

[Chris]

Again denying the real world and opting for theory.... :shocked:

Again, making things up, tossing out worn out memes. Good for you, peter.

[Peter1469]

Frustrated again? Try P.

[Bo-4]

@Bo-4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1297)

perhaps you should ask GLAAD, the NoH8TE org, and others to return the money donated by the Koch's and the attorney that took the case all the way up for a win, since he was paid for by David Koch, primarily.

How about the ACLU? Maybe they should give the Koch money back that he donated.

Perhaps, the money he donated towards land preserves in South America, Kenya, and Tanzania should be given back?

Or the 12,000 black scholarships to universities (in full) that came out of the million's he donated, should they be given back?

Why don't you tell me specifically what you don't like that they've done?

Specifically.
Alyosha

For starters, they single-handedly created the teabagger movement which has been responsible for total gridlock and of course they orchestrated the gub-ment shutdown that cost our country 24 billion along with our reputation.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/10/07/bernie-sanders-terrifies-koch-brothers-outting-role-government-shutdown.html

They'd like to kill all unions, eliminate even the current $7 minimum wage along with important oversight agencies like the EPA which underscores just how much they'd love to be given the freedom to pollute to their heart's content.



In Michigan it’s the dumping of unsightly and potentially toxic mounds of petroleum coke along the Detroit riverfront (http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2013/08/27/pet-coke-piles-along-detriot-river-cleared-away/).



“At two campaign stops last week, [Dem Senate candidate Gary] Peters touted his work to bar an industrial facility from storing large mounds of so-called petroleum coke — a coal-like substance that’s a byproduct of Canadian tar sands oil — near the Detroit River,” Politico reported (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=78CEE992-9000-460D-885A-ACD1F4C730EA) in February. “The facility, Peters pointed out, was owned by a subsidiary of Koch Industries — the same Kochs going after him on the airwaves.”



In Alaska, a Koch subsidiary closed a refinery, which cost 90 people their jobs, and then tried to pass the costs (http://www.newsminer.com/news/local_news/parnell-to-flint-hills-refinery-can-t-duck-responsibility-for/article_56cde398-a322-11e3-b5d6-001a4bcf6878.html) of cleaning up groundwater contaminated by that refinery along to the state.


http://www.salon.com/2014/03/20/the_lefts_perfect_villain_why_democrats_are_really _going_after_koch_brothers/


So you can go on and believe that the Koch's ever did anything charitable out of the goodness of their hearts. Like Monty Burns, it is pure PR and tax advantages that drive their dark souls. Feel free also to believe that they are "self-made billionaires". Daddy Fred the Nazi and John Birch co-founder left his spoiled little boys with that empire. Sure, they grew it, but a monkey on a rock could have done the same.

Hope that works for starters. ;)

[Paperback Writer]

Yes, by force.

Correct, private citizens took control by force. I'll repeat, private citizens took control by force. That means that there was a time without government when private citizens of wealth hired thugs to take control of a population by force.

Thus, the wealthy have always had the ability to control the masses because they can purchase "force".



And now you all can't imagine living without it.

I certainly can. The problem is that there are billions around me who can't, so the best I can do is use the system as it exists to my benefit as best I can.




You support and sanction force as a means of attaining what you want, even as it collapses around you.


It's collapsing around me? Do tell. Show me the country that collapsed and has no government and don't say Somalia or Somaliland as government is not springing up in both.



Let's not forget that many societies resisted development of the state and still do.

Where and what happened to them? Show me the free patch of land that came through this resistance. I'll move there and put up a flag.

[ace's n 8's]

@Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863)

For starters, they single-handedly created the teabagger movement which has been responsible for total gridlock and of course they orchestrated the gub-ment shutdown that cost our country 24 billion along with our reputation.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/10/07/bernie-sanders-terrifies-koch-brothers-outting-role-government-shutdown.html

They'd like to kill all unions, eliminate even the current $7 minimum wage along with important oversight agencies like the EPA which underscores just how much they'd love to be given the freedom to pollute to their heart's content.





So you can go on and believe that the Koch's ever did anything charitable out of the goodness of their hearts. Like Monty Burns, it is pure PR and tax advantages that drive their dark souls. Feel free also to believe that they are "self-made billionaires". Daddy Fred the Nazi and John Birch co-founder left his spoiled little boys with that empire. Sure, they grew it, but a monkey on a rock could have done the same.

Hope that works for starters. ;)Were you not loved as a child ?, open your soul to the light.

[Paperback Writer]

@Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863)

For starters, they single-handedly created the teabagger movement which has been responsible for total gridlock and of course they orchestrated the gub-ment shutdown that cost our country 24 billion along with our reputation.

This is already partisan clap-trap. Do be honest, no one shut down the government. Did the FBI not show up for work? Did the CIA stop harassing third world countries? Did the IRS fall apart?

None of that happened, it's just a trope.

So, we can discount your first bit already.

Moving on...


They'd like to kill all unions, eliminate even the current $7 minimum wage along with important oversight agencies like the EPA which underscores just how much they'd love to be given the freedom to pollute to their heart's content.


Proof is required. Thanks.




http://www.salon.com/2014/03/20/the_lefts_perfect_villain_why_democrats_are_really _going_after_koch_brothers/


Two comments:

Monsanto, supported and awarded a largesse by Obama and Democrats in Congress has done more single-handedly to ruin environments but where is the outrage there?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0101-02.htm

Now back to the Koch's dumping...the mayor of Detroit signed off until residents complained. What party was he? I believe that's the Democrats. Now, what is Petcoke again? It is the derivative/waste of energy manufacturing.

You have only a few choices at the moment for cheap, non-intermittent energy, Bo. Nuclear, which the liberals don't want. Coal, which the liberals don't want. Methane, which the liberals seem to refuse backing. Wind, which the liberals want ONLY if it's not in their backyard.

All of the above, sans wind create waste and that waste unfortunately must go somewhere. Some town will be effected. Your solution is what? Return to the stone ages? Cos solar isn't the answer unless you wish to tell everyone to ration energy and go to bed at 7 pm.

[Chris]

Correct, private citizens took control by force. I'll repeat, private citizens took control by force. That means that there was a time without government when private citizens of wealth hired thugs to take control of a population by force.

Thus, the wealthy have always had the ability to control the masses because they can purchase "force".



I certainly can. The problem is that there are billions around me who can't, so the best I can do is use the system as it exists to my benefit as best I can.



It's collapsing around me? Do tell. Show me the country that collapsed and has no government and don't say Somalia or Somaliland as government is not springing up in both.



Where and what happened to them? Show me the free patch of land that came through this resistance. I'll move there and put up a flag.


Given that government can be defined as a monopoly on such force, what you're describing is the beginnings of the state, a beginning that was morally wrong and corrupt.

No, they were, the state, were the thugs. Hiring thugs is too costly unless you already control the people and can take their wealth to fund your military.



so the best I can do is use the system as it exists to my benefit as best I can

Which supports, sanctions and makes it ever more powerful.


It's collapsing around me?

Do you consider the current British government stable? I certainly don't consider the US government stable. It's on the verge of economic collapse in it's misbegotten attempts to centrally plan the economy.


Where and what happened to them?

Most primitive tribes. Many still exist. See Pierre Clastres' Society against the state, James C Scott's The art of not being governed.


These arguments from personal incredulity of yours are fallacious, you know.

[Peter1469]

You have the Tea Party(ies) wrong. And also gridlock. It is great when it blocks insane plans to grow government.


@Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863)

For starters, they single-handedly created the teabagger movement which has been responsible for total gridlock and of course they orchestrated the gub-ment shutdown that cost our country 24 billion along with our reputation.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/10/07/bernie-sanders-terrifies-koch-brothers-outting-role-government-shutdown.html

They'd like to kill all unions, eliminate even the current $7 minimum wage along with important oversight agencies like the EPA which underscores just how much they'd love to be given the freedom to pollute to their heart's content.





So you can go on and believe that the Koch's ever did anything charitable out of the goodness of their hearts. Like Monty Burns, it is pure PR and tax advantages that drive their dark souls. Feel free also to believe that they are "self-made billionaires". Daddy Fred the Nazi and John Birch co-founder left his spoiled little boys with that empire. Sure, they grew it, but a monkey on a rock could have done the same.

Hope that works for starters. ;)

[Paperback Writer]

Given that government can be defined as a monopoly on such force, what you're describing is the beginnings of the state, a beginning that was morally wrong and corrupt.

Created by the wealthy, yes. Do you believe that if you remove governments and leave them their vast wealth that they won't do the same?


Do you consider the current British government stable? I certainly don't consider the US government stable. It's on the verge of economic collapse in it's misbegotten attempts to centrally plan the economy.

Bollocks. Five years ago multiple libertarians and other anti-fiat currency types predicted the collapse. It simply won't happen because no one will allow it. The wealth is all "on paper" and that paper can be revised to whatever they want. The illusion that it exists is powerful enough to keep it going. People believe what they are told.

Illusion is as powerful as truth.





Most primitive tribes. Many still exist.

No, many don't. Thank the corporations for that. They bought out the land beneath them for timber.





These arguments from personal incredulity of yours are fallacious, you know.

I've pointed out history and that's personal incredulity? If it is, I plead guilty. Also, chris, I've been far more respectful of you due to your being well-liked by mates of mine than I've been to anyone else on this forum. You have not provided me with the same level of respect. The condescending attitude and chiding will very soon reach its limits with me, so do refrain from pointing out which logical fallacies you feel I'm using and I'll continue to be respectful and eschew insults upon your person that I sometimes must bite my own hand to prevent from typing.

[Chris]

Created by the wealthy, yes. Do you believe that if you remove governments and leave them their vast wealth that they won't do the same?



[/COLOR]Bollocks. Five years ago multiple libertarians and other anti-fiat currency types predicted the collapse. It simply won't happen because no one will allow it. The wealth is all "on paper" and that paper can be revised to whatever they want. The illusion that it exists is powerful enough to keep it going. People believe what they are told.

Illusion is as powerful as truth.



No, many don't. Thank the corporations for that. They bought out the land beneath them for timber.



I've pointed out history and that's personal incredulity? If it is, I plead guilty. Also, chris, I've been far more respectful of you due to your being well-liked by mates of mine than I've been to anyone else on this forum. You have not provided me with the same level of respect. The condescending attitude and chiding will very soon reach its limits with me, so do refrain from pointing out which logical fallacies you feel I'm using and I'll continue to be respectful and eschew insults upon your person that I sometimes must bite my own hand to prevent from typing.



You seem to think the state came into existence like spontaneous combustion, poof, there it was. It was gradual. But without the state the wealthy have no power. Buying thugs is too expensive, it gains you nothing, destroying the very people you depend on. Monarchs understood this. Today's collusion of wealth and power does not.

Peter predicts collapse, argue with him.

Many primitive tribal groups still remain ungoverned. I've provided sources of a wealth of historical and current facts on it. You've offered "no."



Pointing out your logical fallacies, paper, is not a personal attack. There's been no condescension, no chiding. I'm the one pointing to history, giving you sources, and you're responding incredulously "no." The history you've alluded to of how force was used to create the state I've agreed with. It was certainly that way, might was right, and I think we can agree was immoral. In the end right makes might.


As an after thought, what's odd here is I think most agree it takes the collusion of wealth and power to arrive at the state. Yet you seem to be trying to represent me as saying it only takes government, while you say it takes only wealth. No, it takes both, the problem, as I said first thing and second thing this morning is both. Where we differ is in solutions.

[Paperback Writer]

You seem to think the state came into existence like spontaneous combustion, poof, there it was.

So the lad who critiques me for allegedly telling him what he thinks and believes now does the same to me. Which fallacy is that?

No, I don't believe it came into existence like a poof. That's rather my point. That some men acquired wealth through deceptive means and used that wealth to enslave others through use of force. Government didn't come first, the ability to "pay" others or reward others came first and with it the ability to create an army of offence, not defence.

The state didn't appear with a poof, as you've said. Hence wealth came first. Therefore, to destroy governments without destroying the ability to amass the type of wealth many of these families have, estimated not in billions but trillions, is to provide the groundwork for the re-installation of states.



It was gradual. But without the state the wealthy have no power. Buying thugs is too expensive, it gains you nothing, destroying the very people you depend on.

And yet they did it. Over and over again. The de' Medici family was not born into royalty, nor the families of the Russian mafia. This argument that the thuggery destroys the people you depend on is outright wrong. History--no even currently, we have cartels that use such tactics with superb results. The mafia has been in existence in some form since ancient times and used brutality with great success. Drug cartels operating today are wealthy, brutal, and distributed a substance that kills many of their clients, but they continue because of the prices they are allowed to charge.

Even governments by that logic wouldn't have continued to exist after the first genocide, and yet the thuggery goes on.



Monarchs understood this. Today's collusion of wealth and power does not.


All of patrician society was a collusion of wealth and power. This has gone on for centuries and those patrician families, by the way are the direct forefather of some of the richest people in Italy today.



Peter predicts collapse, argue with him.


I'll argue with you both, since you're both of the impression that these lads are idiots that haven't through through what they'd do when their charade fails.



Many primitive tribal groups still remain ungoverned. I've provided sources of a wealth of historical and current facts on it. You've offered "no."


They are not ungoverned, Chris. If they were this woman could not have been forced out of the village she and others lived in their whole lives.

https://armstrongsenglish-moderngenocide.wikispaces.com/file/view/Tibet_blog_3.jpg/76103995/384x257/Tibet_blog_3.jpg

Forced out so that this could go through

http://warriorpublications.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/peru-oil-spill-barrels.jpeg?w=604



Pointing out your logical fallacies, paper, is not a personal attack.

Didn't say it was. Read for comprehension. I said it was annoying and unnecessary. For one, you don't use them correctly, for two it was the last in the post meaning it was a chide. Unnecessary.

[Paperback Writer]

iustitia and Chris

we've run off with his thread. That is utterly rude of us. Chris, if you wish to continue your arguments in favour of ridding us of the state versus the corporations first then do so in another thread and I'll join.

I've done to this thread what Bob did to mine and I did not appreciate it one bit.

My apologies.

[Dr. Who]

Sometimes I truly think some of you, who are extremely intelligent, just can't think outside the box of what you've been taught. That box for many of you is that someone must be in control. You argue that this group, say bankers, in control is a monopoly and that's bad. Then, unable to think outside the box of control, you contradictorily argue for that group, say government, to monopolize control. If the two groups are in collusion, and they certainly are, one wanting more wealth and the other more power, then the two groups are one and the same.

But we have discussions that go like this:

Box: Bankers in control, bad.
Me: Agree, they shouldn't be put in control.
Box: Right, we need government in control.
Me: Government in control, bad. Since they're the ones who put bankers in control.
Box: So you think bankers should be in control.
Me: :BangHead: Didn't I just agree with you that bankers in control is bad?

The problem is letting any one or group have that much wealth or power because the wealthy will support the powerful and the powerful the wealthy in order to attain even more wealth and power.
Change has to begin somewhere. Not that government is a perfect solution, but I don't think that there is really any perfect solution. I do know however, that so long as the bankers of the world are directing governments, the middle class will continue to disappear and we will ultimately be left with a world where there are just the few very wealthy with the balance of the population eking out a marginal existence.

Nationalizing the banks can't be the only change, the rules for campaign contributions will also have to change to remove the inherent conflict of interest such that the politicians are not beholding to special interests to finance their election. With these two changes there is a chance of wresting sovereign control back into the hands of the people. Needless to say, something would also have to happen with the Fed. At that point all legislation intended to benefit special interests should be repealed and normalcy allowed to return to trade. The other benefit of nationalizing the banking system is that the excess profits would return to the system to benefit the people, rather than to line the pockets of the already incredibly wealthy.

[ace's n 8's]

Some may have some distorted views regarding the foodchain between politicians and bankers.

[Chris]

So the lad who critiques me for allegedly telling him what he thinks and believes now does the same to me. Which fallacy is that?

No, I don't believe it came into existence like a poof. That's rather my point. That some men acquired wealth through deceptive means and used that wealth to enslave others through use of force. Government didn't come first, the ability to "pay" others or reward others came first and with it the ability to create an army of offence, not defence.

The state didn't appear with a poof, as you've said. Hence wealth came first. Therefore, to destroy governments without destroying the ability to amass the type of wealth many of these families have, estimated not in billions but trillions, is to provide the groundwork for the re-installation of states.



And yet they did it. Over and over again. The de' Medici family was not born into royalty, nor the families of the Russian mafia. This argument that the thuggery destroys the people you depend on is outright wrong. History--no even currently, we have cartels that use such tactics with superb results. The mafia has been in existence in some form since ancient times and used brutality with great success. Drug cartels operating today are wealthy, brutal, and distributed a substance that kills many of their clients, but they continue because of the prices they are allowed to charge.

Even governments by that logic wouldn't have continued to exist after the first genocide, and yet the thuggery goes on.



All of patrician society was a collusion of wealth and power. This has gone on for centuries and those patrician families, by the way are the direct forefather of some of the richest people in Italy today.



I'll argue with you both, since you're both of the impression that these lads are idiots that haven't through through what they'd do when their charade fails.



They are not ungoverned, Chris. If they were this woman could not have been forced out of the village she and others lived in their whole lives.

https://armstrongsenglish-moderngenocide.wikispaces.com/file/view/Tibet_blog_3.jpg/76103995/384x257/Tibet_blog_3.jpg

Forced out so that this could go through

http://warriorpublications.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/peru-oil-spill-barrels.jpeg?w=604



Didn't say it was. Read for comprehension. I said it was annoying and unnecessary. For one, you don't use them correctly, for two it was the last in the post meaning it was a chide. Unnecessary.



Where'd I tell you what you think without reference to what you say you think? I said, based on what you've said, you seem to think. If you don't then, as you have, clarify.


(A) That some men acquired wealth through deceptive means and (B) used that wealth to enslave others through use of force.

First you've said all that. But once again, you point to the immoral beginnings of the state, (A) and (B). You still haven't connected (A) and (B) though. Wealth and power are two different things. Wealth can be used to purchase power, we see that all the time, but wealth is not power. So how in your story did wealth become power? If "Hence wealth came first" how did it result thence in power?

I agree, btw, wealth did come before power, before the state. Anthropologically we know early primitive man engage in division of labor, specialization and trade. This is still true of stateless tribes today.


And yet they did it. Over and over again.

Indeed, wealth tends to accumulate. Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain argument explains that. But it does not account for wealth becoming power.


This argument that the thuggery destroys the people you depend on is outright wrong.

That was your argument that I borrowed.


The mafia has been in existence in some form since ancient times and used brutality with great success.

Indeed, another good example of how power (thuggery) achieve wealth. The state is no different. Lysander Spooner put it thus: "If taxation without consent is not robbery, then any band of robbers have only to declare themselves a government, and all their robberies are legalized."

So we agree, on the connection between power and wealth. Power requires wealth.

But wealth is power, I'm not hearing that.


...collusion of wealth and power....

We've agreed on this collusion for pages now.


They are not ungoverned....

Of course they're governed, society cannot exist without governance, it's norms, mores, institutions, traditions. Primitive tribes had/have governance, without government, rules without rulers, without states.

Who is forcing that woman out but the force of the state? Working in collusion with the rich. But agreed on that collusion for pages.



Pointing out your logical fallacies, paper, is not a personal attack.

Didn't say it was.

Exactly what you said:


...You have not provided me with the same level of respect. The condescending attitude and chiding will very soon reach its limits with me, so do refrain from pointing out which logical fallacies you feel I'm using...

Not sure why pointing out fallacies is what people point to as wrong.

Wasn't your "So the lad who critiques me for allegedly telling him what he thinks and believes now does the same to me. Which fallacy is that?" doing the same? It doesn't bother me in the least that you correct and clarify my understanding of what you say, that's most of what discussion is about.

Wasn't your yesterday pointing out I'm not clear the same? It doesn't bother me in the least that you said that, no one is completely clear, clarification, understanding is the purpose of discussion.

I apologize for pointing out fallacies but I would hope you'd take it in the spirit intended, an effort to further communication being hampered by fallacies, misunderstandings, etc.

[Chris]

iustitia and Chris

we've run off with his thread. That is utterly rude of us. Chris, if you wish to continue your arguments in favour of ridding us of the state versus the corporations first then do so in another thread and I'll join.

I've done to this thread what Bob did to mine and I did not appreciate it one bit.

My apologies.


Isn't ridding us of the state--the wealthy and the powerful, their collusion--a purpose of revolution?

My apologies as well, iustitia, if it isn't.

[Chris]

Change has to begin somewhere. Not that government is a perfect solution, but I don't think that there is really any perfect solution. I do know however, that so long as the bankers of the world are directing governments, the middle class will continue to disappear and we will ultimately be left with a world where there are just the few very wealthy with the balance of the population eking out a marginal existence.

Nationalizing the banks can't be the only change, the rules for campaign contributions will also have to change to remove the inherent conflict of interest such that the politicians are not beholding to special interests to finance their election. With these two changes there is a chance of wresting sovereign control back into the hands of the people. Needless to say, something would also have to happen with the Fed. At that point all legislation intended to benefit special interests should be repealed and normalcy allowed to return to trade. The other benefit of nationalizing the banking system is that the excess profits would return to the system to benefit the people, rather than to line the pockets of the already incredibly wealthy.


Sans government who would the bankers direct? But all your solutions increase the power of government, the power the wealthy rent seek for political favors. Such solutions preclude any revolution. They go to monopolize wealth in the hands of those who already have a monopoly on power.

[Dr. Who]

Sans government who would the bankers direct? But all your solutions increase the power of government, the power the wealthy rent seek for political favors. Such solutions preclude any revolution. They go to monopolize wealth in the hands of those who already have a monopoly on power.
I don't believe that humanity is ready for society without government, unless you want to globally return to a tribal way of life on this planet. Even if you do, there are too many people for it to work. Government would begin to form spontaneously, as people set up leadership. People would either opt for monarchical governments or representative ones. Small communities would merge or create alliances with other small communities until they formed nation states. It's part of the social nature of our species.

[Alyosha]

Sans government who would the bankers direct?

Private security firms. They're already doing this in countries where the government armies are limited. Ask Code about some of the contract offers he receives.

[Peter1469]

I don't believe that humanity is ready for society without government, unless you want to globally return to a tribal way of life on this planet. Even if you do, there are too many people for it to work. Government would begin to form spontaneously, as people set up leadership. People would either opt for monarchical governments or representative ones. Small communities would merge or create alliances with other small communities until they formed nation states. It's part of the social nature of our species.

We have governments, because humans form governments.

[Alyosha]

I don't have a problem with "government". I have a problem with states. All humans will organically come together and make decisions.

[Redrose]

Revolution. If the entire nation wanted the same end, it would succeed, but if it was a revolution of half the country vs the other half, you get a civil war.

Right now we have a country with about half getting some form of government subsidy, with the other half footing the bill. The bill for those entitlements is running up the national debt. Those happy with the status quo will never move to change anything. To me that spells civil war.

[Chris]

Private security firms. They're already doing this in countries where the government armies are limited. Ask Code about some of the contract offers he receives.

Sans the state, private security firms would be subject to free market competition. There's a lot of literature on how this would work, Robert P Murphy's Chaos Theory (http://mises.org/library/chaos-theory) being the first I came across years ago.

[Chris]

I don't have a problem with "government". I have a problem with states. All humans will organically come together and make decisions.

You and I use "government" differently. I would use "governance" for rules without rulers. But I know what you mean.

[Chris]

I don't believe that humanity is ready for society without government, unless you want to globally return to a tribal way of life on this planet. Even if you do, there are too many people for it to work. Government would begin to form spontaneously, as people set up leadership. People would either opt for monarchical governments or representative ones. Small communities would merge or create alliances with other small communities until they formed nation states. It's part of the social nature of our species.

I'll only note I said governance without government, rules without rulers. That's certainly part of our social nature which we did not create but which evolved undesigned. That's a major difference from what we have designed and think we can use to redesign and manage and control society.

[Mister D]

I don't have a problem with "government". I have a problem with states. All humans will organically come together and make decisions.

I don't have any problem with the state per se.

[Chris]

I don't have any problem with the state per se.

Take the state, please!

http://i.snag.gy/YhslI.jpg

[Dr. Who]

I'll only note I said governance without government, rules without rulers. That's certainly part of our social nature which we did not create but which evolved undesigned. That's a major difference from what we have designed and think we can use to redesign and manage and control society.
I fear that the need to manage or even control society is a by-product of population density. The evolution of the state began when people stopped their nomadic ways, began farming and generally began building self-sufficient communities that required infrastructure to function optimally. These mutualistic societies nevertheless developed monarchies, since without a means to enforce or coerce the co-operation necessary to benefit the whole, some would simply take advantage of the efforts of others without contribution or even undermine the community as a whole. Certainly out of this dynamic, the concept of rule by divine right and other such nonsense developed to the benefit of the leaders and their wealthy families seeking to retain undeserved privilege. Nevertheless, I believe population density was the impetus behind the development of the state as an instrument of government to keep disparate interests from actively destroying the growing community.

While I believe that anarchy in all of it's varied forms can work, it can only work on a limited scale and only while all members of the community share the same political beliefs. I don't think that given the current size of the US population, that it is workable. There simply isn't any way to convert the entire population to the same economic/political philosophy nor is there any way to keep a collection of politically disparate communities from ultimately coming into conflict. The state would naturally evolve out of compromise, as the ultimate peacemaker.

[Chris]

I fear that the need to manage or even control society is a by-product of population density. The evolution of the state began when people stopped their nomadic ways, began farming and generally began building self-sufficient communities that required infrastructure to function optimally. These mutualistic societies nevertheless developed monarchies, since without a means to enforce or coerce the co-operation necessary to benefit the whole, some would simply take advantage of the efforts of others without contribution or even undermine the community as a whole. Certainly out of this dynamic, the concept of rule by divine right and other such nonsense developed to the benefit of the leaders and their wealthy families seeking to retain undeserved privilege. Nevertheless, I believe population density was the impetus behind the development of the state as an instrument of government to keep disparate interests from actively destroying the growing community.

While I believe that anarchy in all of it's varied forms can work, it can only work on a limited scale and only while all members of the community share the same political beliefs. I don't think that given the current size of the US population, that it is workable. There simply isn't any way to convert the entire population to the same economic/political philosophy nor is there any way to keep a collection of politically disparate communities from ultimately coming into conflict. The state would naturally evolve out of compromise, as the ultimate peacemaker.


Could population density, overpopulation, be a product of the attempt to redesign and re-engineer society by the state?

There are many societies that did and still do resist the state yet are not nomadic, farm and are self-sufficient. I prefer Paperback's story of the state arising from immoral force, which is where you end up, "enforce or coerce," when you speak of monarchies.

The anarchy I advocate does not require a shared vision, philosophy, theory. And it only advocates removal of the state, not any of the remaining social order.

[Dr. Who]

Could population density, overpopulation, be a product of the attempt to redesign and re-engineer society by the state?
Population density is a result of people having children and moving to those areas that are most likely to provide them with the means to earn a living, Whether that be a city with potential jobs or land with agricultural potential or an area rich in minerals for mining.


There are many societies that did and still do resist the state yet are not nomadic, farm and are self-sufficient. I prefer Paperback's story of the state arising from immoral force, which is where you end up, "enforce or coerce," when you speak of monarchies.


I doubt that there are many today apart from Somalia, minute segments of Africa and in the jungles of S. America.


The anarchy I advocate does not require a shared vision, philosophy, theory. And it only advocates removal of the state, not any of the remaining social order.

If you remove the state, what do you do with all the statists? If you have an anarchistic system, which one do you choose? Even on this board there are several anarchistic visions. Would you be satisfied with GA's version or Kilgram's version or even Aly's version? What about those who believe that they should just be able to take what they want, and will employ any amount of force to do so? These are all different elements of the human economic/political belief system . How do you reconcile all of these disparate views and what happens when they come into conflict over something as significant as access to fresh water? You allow for governance, but what is your method of enforcement? A is a large industrial statist community of 2,000,000 upstream of B, and B is a small community of 100,000 anarchists living near the coast. There are no other communities between B and the ocean. A is polluting B's water by dumping toxic waste downstream of their population. What is B going to do about it? Do you think that all of B's private security firms can take on the resources of A, who have an army funded by taxpayers? Furthermore, even though it is agreed that polluting the waterways is wrong, if government has no method of enforcing laws, how can it help B?

[Peter1469]

Population density is a result of people having children and moving to those areas that are most likely to provide them with the means to earn a living, Whether that be a city with potential jobs or land with agricultural potential or an area rich in minerals for mining.



I doubt that there are many today apart from Somalia, minute segments of Africa and in the jungles of S. America.



If you remove the state, what do you do with all the statists? If you have an anarchistic system, which one do you choose? Even on this board there are several anarchistic visions. Would you be satisfied with GA's version or Kilgram's version or even Aly's version? What about those who believe that they should just be able to take what they want, and will employ any amount of force to do so? These are all different elements of the human economic/political belief system . How do you reconcile all of these disparate views and what happens when they come into conflict over something as significant as access to fresh water? You allow for governance, but what is your method of enforcement? A is a large industrial statist community of 2,000,000 upstream of B, and B is a small community of 100,000 anarchists living near the coast. There are no other communities between B and the ocean. A is polluting B's water by dumping toxic waste downstream of their population. What is B going to do about it? Do you think that all of B's private security firms can take on the resources of A, who have an army funded by taxpayers? Furthermore, even though it is agreed that polluting the waterways is wrong, if government has no method of enforcing laws, how can it help B?

He would have to go on a killing spree that would surpass Lenin and Mao to get his stateless society.

[Dr. Who]

He would have to go on a killing spree that would surpass Lenin and Mao to get his stateless society.
I just seems to me that it can only work with small populations that are sufficiently separated that they can't come into conflict.

[Peter1469]

I just seems to me that it can only work with small populations that are sufficiently separated that they can't come into conflict.

Exactly.

[Chris]

Population density is a result of people having children and moving to those areas that are most likely to provide them with the means to earn a living, Whether that be a city with potential jobs or land with agricultural potential or an area rich in minerals for mining.



I doubt that there are many today apart from Somalia, minute segments of Africa and in the jungles of S. America.



If you remove the state, what do you do with all the statists? If you have an anarchistic system, which one do you choose? Even on this board there are several anarchistic visions. Would you be satisfied with GA's version or Kilgram's version or even Aly's version? What about those who believe that they should just be able to take what they want, and will employ any amount of force to do so? These are all different elements of the human economic/political belief system . How do you reconcile all of these disparate views and what happens when they come into conflict over something as significant as access to fresh water? You allow for governance, but what is your method of enforcement? A is a large industrial statist community of 2,000,000 upstream of B, and B is a small community of 100,000 anarchists living near the coast. There are no other communities between B and the ocean. A is polluting B's water by dumping toxic waste downstream of their population. What is B going to do about it? Do you think that all of B's private security firms can take on the resources of A, who have an army funded by taxpayers? Furthermore, even though it is agreed that polluting the waterways is wrong, if government has no method of enforcing laws, how can it help B?


If that's so then the state is not the product but produced of population density.

So is technology.

On stateless societies, see Clastres, Society Against the State, Scott, The Art of Not Being Governed, there's a whole catalog of such studies in anthropology I'm just beginning to discover.

The statists can form their own communities. We had this discussion long ago when jillian insisted she was against anarchy because she preferred statism (in so many words). Fine, find like-minded people and form such a community. GA's socialism, Kilgram's communism, same thing, form communities of like-minded people. Run it to prosperity or run it to the ground in whatever way you want to design and prescribe it. But you would still have those communities engaging in division of labor, specialization and trade--none could be entirely self-sufficient, well, Alyosha has pointed to a few self-sufficients, fine. Impossible? We see socialist firms like Valve and communist towns like Marinaleda, Spain, but they divide labor, specialize and trade with the rest of the world.

We've also discussed private security and private defense and private arbitration in a system of contracts many times. Elsewhere I suggested Robert P Murphy's Chaos Theory. Or of Hoppe's work on anarcho-capitalism. I'd be glad to go into it. But I think you refer to fears that in reality exist in the system we have now.

[Chris]

I just seems to me that it can only work with small populations that are sufficiently separated that they can't come into conflict.

It's difficult to think outside the statist box.

[Peter1469]

Everything is statist, right? We don't have any stateless societies...:shocked:

[Dr. Who]

If that's so then the state is not the product but produced of population density.

So is technology.

On stateless societies, see Clastres, Society Against the State, Scott, The Art of Not Being Governed, there's a whole catalog of such studies in anthropology I'm just beginning to discover.

The statists can form their own communities. We had this discussion long ago when jillian insisted she was against anarchy because she preferred statism (in so many words). Fine, find like-minded people and form such a community. GA's socialism, Kilgram's communism, same thing, form communities of like-minded people. Run it to prosperity or run it to the ground in whatever way you want to design and prescribe it. But you would still have those communities engaging in division of labor, specialization and trade--none could be entirely self-sufficient, well, Alyosha has pointed to a few self-sufficients, fine. Impossible? We see socialist firms like Valve and communist towns like Marinaleda, Spain, but they divide labor, specialize and trade with the rest of the world.

We've also discussed private security and private defense and private arbitration in a system of contracts many times. Elsewhere I suggested Robert P Murphy's Chaos Theory. Or of Hoppe's work on anarcho-capitalism. I'd be glad to go into it. But I think you refer to fears that in reality exist in the system we have now.
You do realize that there has to be a mechanism to enforce contracts and that would depend on actual agreement between all parties. If you don't get agreement, then you get conflict. You ignored my question about communities A and B and how B will get justice in such a scenario where A hasn't agreed to any contractual arrangement with B, because they are statists. That's why I allege that everyone would have to be on board with the same political philosophy, because if not, the big fish will just eat the little fish if they are swimming in the same pond. Otherwise they must be in really separate ponds so that their activities cannot possibly infringe on each other.

[Chris]

You do realize that there has to be a mechanism to enforce contracts and that would depend on actual agreement between all parties. If you don't get agreement, then you get conflict. You ignored my question about communities A and B and how B will get justice in such a scenario where A hasn't agreed to any contractual arrangement with B, because they are statists. That's why I allege that everyone would have to be on board with the same political philosophy, because if not, the big fish will just eat the little fish if they are swimming in the same pond. Otherwise they must be in really separate ponds so that their activities cannot possibly infringe on each other.

Yes, I understand that.

Then B would not contract with A.

Big fish exist because competition is quashed by the state.

I can't in the brief space of a post or two explain how it might work, but I will say that rather than depend on arbitrary force in which the state picks winners and losers it would depend more on self-interest, reputation, morality, non-aggression, golden rule, or silver. Can we depend on those qualities and attributes? Only if we're free.

[Dr. Who]

It's difficult to think outside the statist box.
I allow for the stateless society, I simply don't allow for its existence on a large scale nor when there are too many competing interests that refuse to comply with or even make contractual arrangements. Out of 300M plus people in America, how many do you really believe eschew the state? If you're lucky, half and I think that is really optimistic. TBH most would tell you that a State is just a member of the Union. For them government and state is synonymous and anything other than the current form of government is unimaginable or perhaps Communist.:shocked:

[Chris]

I allow for the stateless society, I simply don't allow for its existence on a large scale nor when there are too many competing interests that refuse to comply with or even make contractual arrangements. Out of 300M plus people in America, how many do you really believe eschew the state? If you're lucky, half and I think that is really optimistic. TBH most would tell you that a State is just a member of the Union. For them government and state is synonymous and anything other than the current form of government is unimaginable or perhaps Communist.:shocked:

What state controls the world now? None. There are nation states, each with their own form of government and culture and all that, but no governing body designing or engineering or managing or controlling how that works. Yet, it does. Hard to believe, isn't it?

How many Americans would eschew the state? That where education comes in. To get past the naysayers and incredulity and taunts from the peanut gallery.

Let's say it never happens, still, if anarchists budge the world just a bit toward liberty, we will have accomplished more than all worshippers of statism ever will.

[Max Rockatansky]

Everything is statist, right? We don't have any stateless societies...:shocked:

Agreed, but it's fun to watch the jobless, pot-smoking crowd talk about how cool it would be to live in an anarchy. So far, none have taken me up on free tickets to Somalia.

[Green Arrow]

Agreed, but it's fun to watch the jobless, pot-smoking crowd talk about how cool it would be to live in an anarchy. So far, none have taken me up on free tickets to Somalia.

Somalia is not an anarchy, and you're a bigot.

[Chris]

Agreed, but it's fun to watch the jobless, pot-smoking crowd talk about how cool it would be to live in an anarchy. So far, none have taken me up on free tickets to Somalia.

Somaliland is the anarchy. Somalia is stateful, and what a mess it is!

[Green Arrow]

Somaliland is the anarchy. Somalia is stateful, and what a mess it is!

Somaliland isn't an anarchy, either. They are a presidential constitutional republic, not too different from us.

[Max Rockatansky]

Somaliland isn't an anarchy, either. They are a presidential constitutional republic, not too different from us.

In name only. They don't function as a Constitutional Republic any better than an anarchy functions as a society.

[Dr. Who]

Let's say it never happens, still, if anarchists budge the world just a bit toward liberty, we will have accomplished more than all worshippers of statism ever will.
Thank you. Now we're getting somewhere. So in order to achieve that little bit more liberty, how can we all accomplish that? I suggest that all nations nationalize the banks and in the case of America, also the Fed. It's a starting point. At the very least every nation will be a lot wealthier. Having killed the primary means of elite control over the entire planet, there is an avenue for change. It may not be the complete elimination of the state in short order, but it will open the door to revamping what isn't working.

[Green Arrow]

In name only. They don't function as a Constitutional Republic any better than an anarchy functions as a society.

They have a constitution, parliament, judiciary, and President, and the branches share power. Sounds like they function as a republic to me.

[Peter1469]

Thank you. Now we're getting somewhere. So in order to achieve that little bit more liberty, how can we all accomplish that? I suggest that all nations nationalize the banks and in the case of America, also the Fed. It's a starting point. At the very least every nation will be a lot wealthier. Having killed the primary means of elite control over the entire planet, there is an avenue for change. It may not be the complete elimination of the state in short order, but it will open the door to revamping what isn't working.

It would be much easier for people to just pay attention and hold their current government responsible.

[Dr. Who]

It would be much easier for people to just pay attention and hold their current government responsible.
Unfortunately they're too busy watching Honey Boo Boo to look up and smell the roses.

[Peter1469]

Unfortunately they're too busy watching Honey Boo Boo to look up and smell the roses.

I agree. And that is what makes a stateless society today much less real. It is a fantasy.

[Dr. Who]

I agree. And that is what makes a stateless society today much less real. It is a fantasy.
I think that there is hope with the younger generation.

[Chris]

Somaliland isn't an anarchy, either. They are a presidential constitutional republic, not too different from us.

I guess things have changed, for the worse.

[Chris]

Thank you. Now we're getting somewhere. So in order to achieve that little bit more liberty, how can we all accomplish that? I suggest that all nations nationalize the banks and in the case of America, also the Fed. It's a starting point. At the very least every nation will be a lot wealthier. Having killed the primary means of elite control over the entire planet, there is an avenue for change. It may not be the complete elimination of the state in short order, but it will open the door to revamping what isn't working.

Consider the following formula: Power + Liberty = 1. As power increases, liberty decreases, and vice versa. This is basically from an economist, Walter Williams.

[Chris]

He would have to go on a killing spree that would surpass Lenin and Mao to get his stateless society.


The irony there, and it's typical, is you criticize anarchy for what states have done.

[Peter1469]

The irony there, and it's typical, is you criticize anarchy for what states have done.

No. I assumed that you wanted to bring your theory into practice.

If not, then nobody dies and no state ends. You are still in the real world.

I will let you know when the state collapses and your theory comes into effect.

[Animal Mother]

He would have to go on a killing spree that would surpass Lenin and Mao to get his stateless society.

No, not today. Most people are scared shitless. Nothing I've seen in the past decade indicates that Americans have any guts. They should have burnt down the Capital building over the Patriot Act. They didn't they just complained on social media and voted the opposite party.

It wouldn't take much to subdue America. A few Islamists could cripple us and usher in a stateless society as people are hiding in their houses and wondering why they can't get the Internet and smart phones to work.

[Animal Mother]

I guess things have changed, for the worse.

It was the only way to get loans so they didn't starve to death. They had nothing to trade, their coastal waters were fucked by western European ships, it was create debt or starve because that's how global banking and currency works.

[Green Arrow]

I guess things have changed, for the worse.

I don't know if it is worse or better. I don't live there. Not my call.

[Max Rockatansky]

It would be much easier for people to just pay attention and hold their current government responsible.Agreed.

While the results aren't perfect, it's a more workable system than anarchy as shown by history and results.

[Max Rockatansky]

No, not today. Most people are scared $#@!less. Nothing I've seen in the past decade indicates that Americans have any guts. They should have burnt down the Capital building over the Patriot Act. They didn't they just complained on social media and voted the opposite party.

It wouldn't take much to subdue America. A few Islamists could cripple us and usher in a stateless society as people are hiding in their houses and wondering why they can't get the Internet and smart phones to work.

Agreed most Americans are gutless, but disagreed a few Islamic Jihadists could take over the country.

Americans are gutless in that they will give up essential liberties for the illusion of security to their government, but that deal only works as long as their personal lives aren't disturbed.

If a foreign force came into power and started dictating changes to their personal lives, enough Americans would revolt to stop a foreign takeover. Well, at least in Texas. I'm not so sure about New York and California.

[Chris]

No. I assumed that you wanted to bring your theory into practice.

If not, then nobody dies and no state ends. You are still in the real world.

I will let you know when the state collapses and your theory comes into effect.


No, Peter, you did exactly what I said, you wanted to criticize anarchy and used statist examples to do it. I like how you now try to cover it up with those old worn out memes about reality and theory.

[Chris]

No, not today. Most people are scared shitless. Nothing I've seen in the past decade indicates that Americans have any guts. They should have burnt down the Capital building over the Patriot Act. They didn't they just complained on social media and voted the opposite party.

It wouldn't take much to subdue America. A few Islamists could cripple us and usher in a stateless society as people are hiding in their houses and wondering why they can't get the Internet and smart phones to work.


Curious, Animal, what would you say Americans are afraid of?

[Chris]

Agreed.

While the results aren't perfect, it's a more workable system than anarchy as shown by history and results.


Sometimes I think I agree with this, after all, mankind started in an anarchist state and relatively recently some societies, not all by any means, developed the state. I guess that can be seen as a failure, right?

[lynn]

It would be much easier for people to just pay attention and hold their current government responsible.


How is that possible Peter, in order for the general public to be heard they would have to pool their money and hire lobbyist to be their voice. The public doesn't have any extra funds in this poor economy. Today's politicians are slaves to their fund donors, period.

[Chris]

How is that possible Peter, in order for the general public to be heard they would have to pool their money and hire lobbyist to be their voice. The public doesn't have any extra funds in this poor economy. Today's politicians are slaves to their fund donors, period.


Some, perhaps many, tend to romanticize the state. There's a survey around here somewhere reporting how people like the idea of government just not the reality.

[Max Rockatansky]

Some, perhaps many, tend to romanticize the state. There's a survey around here somewhere reporting how people like the idea of government just not the reality.

Internet polls are fun, but lack scientific validity. One reason they lack validity is that it isn't a random poll. Another reason is most of the polls are poorly constructed.

Example; if I asked "Would you rather be shot dead or live under our present adminisistration?" it would be wrong of me to use the results of such a poll as being a valid representation of desires. A review of more scientific and, therefore, more valid polls show the true answer is neither of those choices. For me or anyone else to say otherwise would be a lie.

[Cigar]

Log-Off and Bring-It ... Report Tomorrow.

[Chris]

Internet polls are fun, but lack scientific validity. One reason they lack validity is that it isn't a random poll. Another reason is most of the polls are poorly constructed.

Example; if I asked "Would you rather be shot dead or live under our present adminisistration?" it would be wrong of me to use the results of such a poll as being a valid representation of desires. A review of more scientific and, therefore, more valid polls show the true answer is neither of those choices. For me or anyone else to say otherwise would be a lie.


Yes, I understand how polls and surveys and such can be manipulated. I think everyone does.

It was a Gallup survey, repeated over the years: Americans Like the Idea of Government Much Better Than the Reality (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/16818-Americans-Like-the-Idea-of-Government-Much-Better-Than-the-Reality?highlight=people+idea+government%2C+realit y).

You don't address the point though, which I believe true, people like the idea of government, not the reality. I think people romanticize it, knowing it doesn't work well, they still hope it will, they want certainty, assurance, protection, even though it never does.

[Max Rockatansky]

How is that possible Peter, in order for the general public to be heard they would have to pool their money and hire lobbyist to be their voice. The public doesn't have any extra funds in this poor economy. Today's politicians are slaves to their fund donors, period.

Their voice is heard at the voting booth, of which only ~37% bothered to show up earlier this month.

http://oi62.tinypic.com/1z50zgh.jpg

http://oi62.tinypic.com/33486pu.jpg

[Chris]

Not voting doesn't mean being apathetic. Not voting is simply not supporting or sanctioning the state.

[Max Rockatansky]

Not voting doesn't mean being apathetic. Not voting is simply not supporting or sanctioning the state.
Disagreed. It's effectively a surrender to those elected to office. Too many young people think their vote doesn't matter, but does as several elections have shown. More importantly, IMO, is that if people don't show up for national elections, then they also don't show up for local elections. Local elections have an immediate and concrete effect on the lives of voters (and non-voters). Over time, those local elections impact State and then national elections.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/10/economist-explains-20
Mid-term elections can change the way America is governed.


http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/55970940.jpg

[Chris]

Disagreed. It's effectively a surrender to those elected to office. Too many young people think their vote doesn't matter, but does as several elections have shown. More importantly, IMO, is that if people don't show up for national elections, then they also don't show up for local elections. Local elections have an immediate and concrete effect on the lives of voters (and non-voters). Over time, those local elections impact State and then national elections.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/10/economist-explains-20
Mid-term elections can change the way America is governed.


http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/55970940.jpg



I understand that's your opinion, max, you disagree, and I disagree with you. Your vote doesn't matter, it's not going to decide anything. My not voting doesn't forfeit my freedom of speech. I do like your memes though.

[Max Rockatansky]

I understand that's your opinion, max, you disagree, and I disagree with you. Your vote doesn't matter, it's not going to decide anything. My not voting doesn't forfeit my freedom of speech. I do like your memes though.

Your non-vote makes my single vote count twice. If you and I voted in the same election, each for a different candidate, then our two votes nullify each other. A third vote would be the deciding factor. If you don't vote, and I do vote, then my vote counts as +1 to your 0.

[Chris]

Your non-vote makes my single vote count twice. If you and I voted in the same election, each for a different candidate, then our two votes nullify each other. A third vote would be the deciding factor. If you don't vote, and I do vote, then my vote counts as +1 to your 0.


Do some math, max: 1 = 1, identity, not 1 = 2.

I'm trying to think where two people would vote. Only example I can think of is the free market in which you and I elect to trade each what's valued less for what's valued more. That works.

[Max Rockatansky]

Do some math, max: 1 = 1, identity, not 1 = 2.

I'm trying to think where two people would vote. Only example I can think of is the free market in which you and I elect to trade each what's valued less for what's valued more. That works.Play all the games you like, Chris, but the point stands. Don't want to vote? Then don't. In fact, I encourage you to encourage all of your friends to cease voting all together. Let others decide what type of government is best for you.

[Cigar]

Not voting doesn't mean being apathetic. Not voting is simply not supporting or sanctioning the state.

Doing NOTHING Changes NOTHING

Relentless Pressure causes Change

[Chris]

Doing NOTHING Changes NOTHING

Relentless Pressure causes Change


Except I didn't say do nothing, I said don't vote.

At the local level, I can agree with max, the more local, decentralized, the better. But at the national level it's a sham. Voting doesn't change the system, you ought to know that by your support of Obama, who, with all the hope and change hoopla, has changed nothing.

[Chris]

Play all the games you like, Chris, but the point stands. Don't want to vote? Then don't. In fact, I encourage you to encourage all of your friends to cease voting all together. Let others decide what type of government is best for you.

Play all the games you like, max, the point doesn't stand. It's still just your opinion vs mine and we disagree. Except, as I just said, and tried to explain to you, at the most local level. We already have a government deciding what's best for us. How's that working out. Not too well if you're here vocalizing political opinions.

[nic34]

Voting your in "ideology" begins at the local level.

If you can't even get elected dog catcher, then..... well....

[Chris]

Voting your in "ideology" begins at the local level.

If you can't even get elected dog catcher, then..... well....

So presidents are no different than dog catchers. Got it. We haven't had a good dog catcher in a long time. Call cops to come pick up a stray dog near bit me. The cops cames, even though I had pics on cell phone, no, nothing we can do, call this number for the dog catcher, they'll be out in about a week. Actually, that does sound like the federal government.

[Max Rockatansky]

Voting your in "ideology" begins at the local level.

If you can't even get elected dog catcher, then..... well....

....you must be the 2% who are on the fringe.....aka anarchists.

[Chris]

....you must be the 2% who are on the fringe.....aka anarchists.

Actually, max, I think he was siding with you.

[nic34]

Putting partisan voting aside, voters prefer a wide range of progressive issues, like minimum wage that won in 4 red states, pot legalization in 2 plus DC, businesses to provide paid sick days to workers, pro reproductive rights and anti personhood bills. In Illinois voters brought in a republican governor, but also supported a "Right to Vote" amendment, an amendment cementing a tax on millionaires to sustain education funding, a minimum wage increase and an amendment requiring that insurance plans cover contraception.

If American voters want to see the minimum wage raised, they sure have a funny way of showing it.
Binding ballot initiatives that would raise the minimum wage passed by wide margins in four red states (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/04/minimum-wage-raise-passes_n_6095458.html?1415153830) on Tuesday night. And yet the Democratic candidates who've been championing a minimum wage hike all year long got trounced in elections from coast to coast. The Republican Party, which has steadfastly opposed raising the federal minimum wage, took control of the Senate and picked up even more seats in the House.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/05/democrats-midterm-election-_n_6108722.html

[Max Rockatansky]

Actually, max, I think he was siding with you.

I know. That's why I both thanked him and added on to his statement.

[nic34]

....you must be the 2% who are on the fringe.....aka anarchists.

No, I'm actually the 60% majority in this country that are to the left of center on issues, that can't get a progressive (like Bernie) elected to save our lives....

[Max Rockatansky]

Putting partisan voting aside, voters prefer a wide range of progressive issues, like minimum wage that won in 4 red states, pot legalization in 2 plus DC, businesses to provide paid sick days to workers, pro reproductive rights and anti personhood bills. In Illinois voters brought in a republican governor, but also supported a "Right to Vote" amendment, an amendment cementing a tax on millionaires to sustain education funding, a minimum wage increase and an amendment requiring that insurance plans cover contraception.

If American voters want to see the minimum wage raised, they sure have a funny way of showing it.
Binding ballot initiatives that would raise the minimum wage passed by wide margins in four red states (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/04/minimum-wage-raise-passes_n_6095458.html?1415153830) on Tuesday night. And yet the Democratic candidates who've been championing a minimum wage hike all year long got trounced in elections from coast to coast. The Republican Party, which has steadfastly opposed raising the federal minimum wage, took control of the Senate and picked up even more seats in the House.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/05/democrats-midterm-election-_n_6108722.html


The end results are what count. True, minimum wage passed in 4 out of 50 states, but the Democrats took a beating elsewhere and on other issues.

Political forums have a higher-than-average number of political ideologues and extremists. Aren't hard right? You must be a Lefty. Aren't hard left? You must be a Righty. Or so the extremists accuse. The fact remains that most people are somewhere in the middle and, depending on the issue, may lean left or right. I lean left on social issues of individual responsibility; want to get married, have an abortion, smoke pot? I don't care. Want to tell me what to do on issues that affect me and me alone? I do care. Want to start a banana war so help the profits of a fruit company? I don't and care enough to voice my opinion on the matter. OTOH, if pirates or rogue nations are attacking our shipping, I'd like to see our government do something about it even if it means invasion of a foreign country.
I'd also like to see our government exert fiscal responsibility. Does this make me Left or Right?

[nic34]

The end results are what count. True, minimum wage passed in 4 out of 50 states, but the Democrats took a beating elsewhere and on other issues.

Political forums have a higher-than-average number of political ideologues and extremists. Aren't hard right? You must be a Lefty. Aren't hard left? You must be a Righty. Or so the extremists accuse. The fact remains that most people are somewhere in the middle and, depending on the issue, may lean left or right. I lean left on social issues of individual responsibility; want to get married, have an abortion, smoke pot? I don't care. Want to tell me what to do on issues that affect me and me alone? I do care. Want to start a banana war so help the profits of a fruit company? I don't and care enough to voice my opinion on the matter. OTOH, if pirates or rogue nations are attacking our shipping, I'd like to see our government do something about it even if it means invasion of a foreign country.
I'd also like to see our government exert fiscal responsibility. Does this make me Left or Right?

Eh, you're in the middle alright. Good a place as any.

[Max Rockatansky]

No, I'm actually the 60% majority in this country that are to the left of center on issues, that can't get a progressive (like Bernie) elected to save our lives....

Sorry for the clumsy way in which I posted my response. My intention was to add to yours. It should have read like this:

Voting your in "ideology" begins at the local level.

If you can't even get elected dog catcher, then..... well........you must be the 2% who are on the fringe.....aka anarchists.

[Green Arrow]

No, I'm actually the 60% majority in this country that are to the left of center on issues, that can't get a progressive (like Bernie) elected to save our lives....

That's because too many of us are willing to settle for an Obama or a Clinton. Stop that.

[ace's n 8's]

No, I'm actually the 60% majority in this country that are to the left of center on issues, that can't get a progressive (like Bernie) elected to save our lives....The 60% majority is left of center in THIS country?. . . . That's laughable.

We have seen what this country thinks about the left of center.

[Chris]

I guess the revolution happened without me for we now suddenly have no Constitution and majoritarian democracy. This will be fun, like a roller coaster ride, as the whims of the crowd blow this way and that, up here, down there.

[nic34]

That's because too many of us are willing to settle for an Obama or a Clinton. Stop that.

I plan to.....

[nic34]

The 60% majority is left of center in THIS country?. . . . That's laughable.

We have seen what this country thinks about the left of center.

Ask people where they are on the issues without mentioning parties.

[ace's n 8's]

Ask people where they are on the issues without mentioning parties.
Now you're not playing fair.

30% have no clue we have a national debt, the other 30% have no idea who Joe Biden is.

[Chris]

As max pointed out earlier, on any poll what matters is how you ask the questions. Phrase it right and people will agree.

[ace's n 8's]

As max pointed out earlier, on any poll what matters is how you ask the questions. Phrase it right and people will agree.Questions are derived from a predetermined outcome.

[Chris]

Questions are derived from a predetermined outcome.

It's like computers, garbage in, garbage out. Or economics, Keynes was good at that, his idea of multiplier effect, his students programmed a computer model such that if you put garbage in you got more garbage out.

[ace's n 8's]

It's like computers, garbage in, garbage out. Or economics, Keynes was good at that, his idea of multiplier effect, his students programmed a computer model such that if you put garbage in you got more garbage out.You need to hand it to Keynes, he taught his students well.:laugh: