"He's not MY president"

[LA RAM FAN]

MY president is the president who at least TRIES to get rid of the CIA,FBI,FED and all these other three letter evil alphabet organizations.

The last president who did try and served the people instead of them paid the price for it on nov 22nd 1963. Will Trump break that cycle and stand up to them? at first i was hopeful of it but after seeing this pic here how he is chummy with kissinger who makes hitler and stalin look like a saint,I dont see that happening.He even says he is long time pals with him. knowing all this,i dont see that happening. Traiter Trump.a picture speaks a thousand words.

I always said Obama was no different than Bush the fact they went around hugging each other.If Obama was really for the people,he would have given him the middle finger.same with trump.he would have given obomination the middle finger but instead he was chums with him.same ole,same ole.

 

[MisterBeale]

so we should change the process?? how?? not American?? !!???
not fair??
would you rather do it like Libya or Uganda does??

I would rather do it like self-responsible, cooperative human beings do it; not by creating a ruling class that claim fallacious "rights" the rest of us don't have, then back up that claim with violent coercion.

so don't have any government? can you be more detailed?

Yes, don't have any "government" (i.e. a class of people with rights others don't have). That does not mean don't have organization, cooperation, enterprise, etc. It merely means that all interactions should be voluntary, not coerced by threat of violence. Of course, all people have the right to defend themselves against outright aggressors, but self-defense is not the same thing as aggressive coercive violence. We can even hire a group of brave people to provide that defense on an ongoing basis, but their rights would be no different than our own. They're only role would be defense of the innocent, and if we think they're overstepping, we can stop paying them and hire someone else.

The question is, how? How do we transition from the planet's most successful government, that has now grown way to large and out of control, to shrink it, and eventually, make it negligible? It seems an impossible task. Even small government conservatives have failed miserably over the past half century.


This guy was courted by the Obama administration, the Libertarian Party, and the Green Party during that last election cycle, he rebuffed them all.

He didn't believe any of them were ready to really deal with the deep seated corruption and problems in the shadow government and deep state, nor were any of them willing to go far enough. He is a bit out there, OTH, why would all these powerful players court him? (Other than that he is an elite, so there, should anyone trust him?)

I like your ideas, though, after many years of being similarly idealistic, we need to also think pragmatically to get there.

This is, a pragmatic idea by a suspicious and eccentric character with "a possible" solution?

Intelligent folks know that a spiraling debt cycle can't last indefinitely, it will lead to cataclysmic bloodshed, chaos, and upheaval eventually.

 

[harmonica]

so don't have any government? can you be more detailed?

Yes, don't have any "government" (i.e. a class of people with rights others don't have). That does not mean don't have organization, cooperation, enterprise, etc. It merely means that all interactions should be voluntary, not coerced by threat of violence. Of course, all people have the right to defend themselves against outright aggressors, but self-defense is not the same thing as aggressive coercive violence. We can even hire a group of brave people to provide that defense on an ongoing basis, but their rights would be no different than our own. They're only role would be defense of the innocent, and if we think they're overstepping, we can stop paying them and hire someone else.

who chooses these people that are hired? and who chooses to fire/hire? that sounds like elections

It doesn't, however, sound like Presidential elections. In most places that elect a head of state it actually works that way but in two countries it doesn't. Those two would be the US and Pakistan.

so what if some think they are over stepping and some do not?? the idea is flawed

It has nothing to do with "over stepping", whatever that means. The post was about indirect elections, which we call the Electrical College. And yes, it's very flawed. And not just because the only other country that does it is Pakistan.

if we think they're overstepping, we can stop paying them and hire someone else.

what does this mean then?? he says

They're only role would be defense of the innocent, and if we think they're overstepping, we can stop paying them and hire someone else

who decides who gets hired and fired and what for???!!!!!
you have to have elections/government/etc

 

[Hossfly]

It goes hand in hand with "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain"...

If we all agree to draw straws to see who get tossed into the volcano, and you draw short, how do you have a right to complain? You agreed to draw straws in the first place.

Of course he's YOUR president, you voted to have a president in the first place, and knew the nature of the game going in - corrupt elections and all. The only people who DO have a right to complain are those who reject the system outright and don't vote at all.

We squabble over the sword of power, clamoring around it like naked animals around a trough. But where is the voice of that noble minority who says "bury the sword"? Nowhere to be found in the mass media - that's for sure - and where they are heard, they are chastised without fail for daring to question the cultural indoctrination.





Are we so narrow in our vision that we cannot see the divide-and-conquer nature of democracy? Over every issue imaginable we are made to choose a side and hurl stones across the fence. All the while the richest and most powerful people in the world laugh hysterically on route to the bank. We picket outside the Capital, while the criminals inside peek through the curtains and grin... "Look at them begging... they still believe in our power".

They love to see you picketing. They love to see you at line at the polls. Voting is a census to find out how many people are still buying into the con of politicians' right to rule. You think those with the wealth and power to guide events are going to allow nature to take its course? You think they're just going to sit back and let the people choose their leaders? They are like the parent who offers the stubborn child a false choice: "You're a big boy now, Timmy, you get to choose for yourself - would you like broccoli or peas with dinner?" The child thinks he's made a choice, but the parent wins either way. Timmy is getting stinky vegetables, whichever way he goes.

With big money marketing and control of the media, they present you only with choices that serve their ends. So choose away and feel like you've actually done something. When one party has taken theft and injustice as far as the people can stand, the swing voters usher in the opposing party, which continues the relay race as far as they can until they've worn out their welcome, and it switches again. The left/right march into outright tyranny, with the spirit of revolution being vented by the false "change" of a switch in parties.

You are a joke to them, and this post SHOULD make you mad - but not at the messenger. You've been conned, and no amount of working within the con will free you from getting shackled and fleeced. He IS your president - they all are - because you've bought into the sham hook, line, and sinker. And we'll never get anywhere until we snap out of our stupor and realize that it's not the person sitting on the throne that's the problem, it's the throne itself.

My President is Trump. Who is your president? Mine won.

My President is whoever comes up with a Cliff's Notes for the TL;DR OP.

Btw OP -- I don't remember ever "voting to have a President". That's about the line where I stopped.

And it may be worth noting that most Americans eligible to vote ---- didn't.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, don't have any "government" (i.e. a class of people with rights others don't have). That does not mean don't have organization, cooperation, enterprise, etc. It merely means that all interactions should be voluntary, not coerced by threat of violence. Of course, all people have the right to defend themselves against outright aggressors, but self-defense is not the same thing as aggressive coercive violence. We can even hire a group of brave people to provide that defense on an ongoing basis, but their rights would be no different than our own. They're only role would be defense of the innocent, and if we think they're overstepping, we can stop paying them and hire someone else.

who chooses these people that are hired? and who chooses to fire/hire? that sounds like elections

It doesn't, however, sound like Presidential elections. In most places that elect a head of state it actually works that way but in two countries it doesn't. Those two would be the US and Pakistan.

so what if some think they are over stepping and some do not?? the idea is flawed

It has nothing to do with "over stepping", whatever that means. The post was about indirect elections, which we call the Electrical College. And yes, it's very flawed. And not just because the only other country that does it is Pakistan.

if we think they're overstepping, we can stop paying them and hire someone else.

what does this mean then?? he says

They're only role would be defense of the innocent, and if we think they're overstepping, we can stop paying them and hire someone else

who decides who gets hired and fired and what for???!!!!!
you have to have elections/government/etc

That's not even my post.

 

[Votto]

OK well then I'm off the hook --- I'm Liberal, so I don't support the notion of a ruling class.

My that was easy.

You don't support the notion of government?

"Government" means "ruling class" now?
Dooooooooooooon't think so.

Does Congress claim rights that you and I don't have, such as laying and collecting taxes, and making laws which we must obey or be punished by violence?

Despite all the Civics Class justifications and philosophical work-arounds, that sounds quite like a ruling class to me.

Actually it sounds like legislative activities, whether they be excessive or not.
"Ruling class" would refer to people. Entrenched people. Entitled people. People who, say, get born into privilege and conclude from that that there must be upper and lower "classes" and they therefore belong to the former, and strive to keep it that way.

"Legislative activities" is a euphemism for "casting down dictates which the people must obey".

A ruling class is simply a class of people who claim the right to rule over others, regardless of how they got there or the cited origin of that fallacious "right". It does not necessarily imply any more than that.

Damn. Brian is really Hitler.

Who knew?

 

[healthmyths]

It goes hand in hand with "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain"...

If we all agree to draw straws to see who get tossed into the volcano, and you draw short, how do you have a right to complain? You agreed to draw straws in the first place.

Of course he's YOUR president, you voted to have a president in the first place, and knew the nature of the game going in - corrupt elections and all. The only people who DO have a right to complain are those who reject the system outright and don't vote at all.

We squabble over the sword of power, clamoring around it like naked animals around a trough. But where is the voice of that noble minority who says "bury the sword"? Nowhere to be found in the mass media - that's for sure - and where they are heard, they are chastised without fail for daring to question the cultural indoctrination.

Are we so narrow in our vision that we cannot see the divide-and-conquer nature of democracy? Over every issue imaginable we are made to choose a side and hurl stones across the fence. All the while the richest and most powerful people in the world laugh hysterically on route to the bank. We picket outside the Capital, while the criminals inside peek through the curtains and grin... "Look at them begging... they still believe in our power".

They love to see you picketing. They love to see you at line at the polls. Voting is a census to find out how many people are still buying into the con of politicians' right to rule. You think those with the wealth and power to guide events are going to allow nature to take its course? You think they're just going to sit back and let the people choose their leaders? They are like the parent who offers the stubborn child a false choice: "You're a big boy now, Timmy, you get to choose for yourself - would you like broccoli or peas with dinner?" The child thinks he's made a choice, but the parent wins either way. Timmy is getting stinky vegetables, whichever way he goes.

With big money marketing and control of the media, they present you only with choices that serve their ends. So choose away and feel like you've actually done something. When one party has taken theft and injustice as far as the people can stand, the swing voters usher in the opposing party, which continues the relay race as far as they can until they've worn out their welcome, and it switches again. The left/right march into outright tyranny, with the spirit of revolution being vented by the false "change" of a switch in parties.

You are a joke to them, and this post SHOULD make you mad - but not at the messenger. You've been conned, and no amount of working within the con will free you from getting shackled and fleeced. He IS your president - they all are - because you've bought into the sham hook, line, and sinker. And we'll never get anywhere until we snap out of our stupor and realize that it's not the person sitting on the throne that's the problem, it's the throne itself.

My President is Trump. Who is your president? Mine won.

My President is whoever comes up with a Cliff's Notes for the TL;DR OP.

Btw OP -- I don't remember ever "voting to have a President". That's about the line where I stopped.

And it may be worth noting that most Americans eligible to vote ---- didn't.

Define "MOST" because that will indicate IF I believe your unsubstantiated statement as I KNOW doing just a little research less then a minute in fact HOW MANY ACTUALLY
eligible people actually voted! So please enlighten us with your definition of "MOST"!

Actually I took a few seconds more and have the definition of "MOST"
Most’, on the other hand, is generally used to refer to something when it is ‘in the greatest degree" or "in the majority of instances.” Hence, it can be said, that ‘most’ should be used to refer to something only when it makes up more than half of its collective group, i.e. more than 50%.
Difference between Many and Most | Many vs Most

That being the case YOU ARE SO STUPIDLY WRONG!!! As almost ALL people like you are... you shoot your mouth off without making sure you are RIGHT! WELL YOU are wrong!
IN this case MOST i.e. more than 50%....!!!! DID VOTE Dummy!
Estimates show more than 58 percent of eligible voters went to the polls during the 2016 election, nearly breaking even with the turnout rate set during the last presidential election in 2012, even as the final tallies in states like California continue to be calculated, according to statistics collected by the U.S. ...Nov 20, 2016
What does voter turnout tell us about the 2016 election?
https://www.linkedin.com/in/glenmjonespmp/ Glen M. Jones

 

[Pogo]

MY president is the president who at least TRIES to get rid of the CIA,FBI,FED and all these other three letter evil alphabet organizations.

The last president who did try and served the people instead of them paid the price for it on nov 22nd 1963. Will Trump break that cycle and stand up to them? at first i was hopeful of it but after seeing this pic here how he is chummy with kissinger who makes hitler and stalin look like a saint,I dont see that happening.He even says he is long time pals with him. knowing all this,i dont see that happening. Traiter Trump.a picture speaks a thousand words.

I always said Obama was no different than Bush the fact they went around hugging each other.If Obama was really for the people,he would have given him the middle finger.same with trump.he would have given obomination the middle finger but instead he was chums with him.same ole,same ole.

Oh please. Trying to draw a comparison between Rump and JFK simply on the basis of "CIA" is like trying to compare Stephen Hawking with Mike Tyson on the basis that they both use the word "the".

JFK took up against CIA because it was a threat to America. Rump trolls it because it's a threat to Numero Uno. YUGE BIGLY difference.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

what about all the government agencies/rulings/etc we need for the economy/borders/immigration/visas/maritime/consulates/embassies/etc etc??
...we would need a group to take care of government business per examples I mentioned??
what threat of violence?

The threat of violence I refer to is law itself. The inevitable conclusion of the chain of resistance against law is violence, in all cases. It may start with a fine, but if you persistently resist every step in the chain, it ends in murder. That is the threat implied by law.

The organizational aspects of government can be done by voluntary participation. Those who build roads now can still build them. Those who pay for roads (us) can still pay for them. Government brings nothing to the table; it produces nothing, contributes no funding, does none of the work, delegates organization to others. All it brings is one outstretched hand with palm up, and the hand raised in a fist.

Laws that limit freedoms are largely only necessary because of problems born of law itself. Immigration, for instance... Why do people want laws limiting free movement? Because they fear that immigrants will take advantage of government programs, or work off-the-books for less than the minimum wage. Both problems are created by law in the first place. The war on drugs is another fine example of rampant crime resulting from law, and that crime being used to justify higher taxation, greater police presence, inroads into personal freedoms, and harassment and imprisonment of non-violent people.

Regardless of what functions you think government is required for, it does not justify the inequality and violence that government represents. I've heard it said that government commits theft and violence in the name of protecting us from those who would commit theft and violence. It's just not a moral solution, and it limits mankind's progress. With government as the go-to solution for every problem, we never have to think of new methods. It may be difficult to imagine now, but necessity births invention, and we won't really know what marvelous solutions may be devised until we actually brave the challenges of life as cooperative, self-responsible adults.

 

[harmonica]

Yes, don't have any "government" (i.e. a class of people with rights others don't have). That does not mean don't have organization, cooperation, enterprise, etc. It merely means that all interactions should be voluntary, not coerced by threat of violence. Of course, all people have the right to defend themselves against outright aggressors, but self-defense is not the same thing as aggressive coercive violence. We can even hire a group of brave people to provide that defense on an ongoing basis, but their rights would be no different than our own. They're only role would be defense of the innocent, and if we think they're overstepping, we can stop paying them and hire someone else.

what about all the government agencies/rulings/etc we need for the economy/borders/immigration/visas/maritime/consulates/embassies/etc etc??
...we would need a group to take care of government business per examples I mentioned??
what threat of violence?

The threat of violence I refer to is law itself. The inevitable conclusion of the chain of resistance against law is violence, in all cases. It may start with a fine, but if you persistently resist every step in the chain, it ends in murder. That is the threat implied by law.

The organizational aspects of government can be done by voluntary participation. Those who build roads now can still build them. Those who pay for roads (us) can still pay for them. Government brings nothing to the table; it produces nothing, contributes no funding, does none of the work, delegates organization to others. All it brings is one outstretched hand with palm up, and the hand raised in a fist.

Laws that limit freedoms are largely only necessary because of problems born of law itself. Immigration, for instance... Why do people want laws limiting free movement? Because they fear that immigrants will take advantage of government programs, or work off-the-books for less than the minimum wage. Both problems are created by law in the first place. The war on drugs is another fine example of rampant crime resulting from law, and that crime being used to justify higher taxation, greater police presence, inroads into personal freedoms, and harassment and imprisonment of non-violent people.

Regardless of what functions you think government is required for, it does not justify the inequality and violence that government represents. I've heard it said that government commits theft and violence in the name of protecting us from those who would commit theft and violence. It's just not a moral solution, and it limits mankind's progress. With government as the go-to solution for every problem, we never have to think of new methods. It may be difficult to imagine now, but necessity births invention, and we won't really know what marvelous solutions may be devised until we actually brave the challenges of life as cooperative, self-responsible adults.[/QUOTE]

The organizational aspects of government can be done by voluntary participation

what if some don't agree with how money is used/where the road goes/who will build it/etc etc??
and what about the hiring and firing deal?? what if I don't agree with you on who should be hired/fired?

 

[Hellbilly]

It goes hand in hand with "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain"...

“I don't vote. Two reasons. First of all it's meaningless; this country was bought and sold a long time ago. The shit they shovel around every 4 years *pfff* doesn't mean a fucking thing. Secondly, I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around – they say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain', but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with."
George Carlin

I totally agree with Mr. Carlin.



Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

 

[harmonica]

what about all the government agencies/rulings/etc we need for the economy/borders/immigration/visas/maritime/consulates/embassies/etc etc??
...we would need a group to take care of government business per examples I mentioned??
what threat of violence?

The threat of violence I refer to is law itself. The inevitable conclusion of the chain of resistance against law is violence, in all cases. It may start with a fine, but if you persistently resist every step in the chain, it ends in murder. That is the threat implied by law.

The organizational aspects of government can be done by voluntary participation. Those who build roads now can still build them. Those who pay for roads (us) can still pay for them. Government brings nothing to the table; it produces nothing, contributes no funding, does none of the work, delegates organization to others. All it brings is one outstretched hand with palm up, and the hand raised in a fist.

Laws that limit freedoms are largely only necessary because of problems born of law itself. Immigration, for instance... Why do people want laws limiting free movement? Because they fear that immigrants will take advantage of government programs, or work off-the-books for less than the minimum wage. Both problems are created by law in the first place. The war on drugs is another fine example of rampant crime resulting from law, and that crime being used to justify higher taxation, greater police presence, inroads into personal freedoms, and harassment and imprisonment of non-violent people.

Regardless of what functions you think government is required for, it does not justify the inequality and violence that government represents. I've heard it said that government commits theft and violence in the name of protecting us from those who would commit theft and violence. It's just not a moral solution, and it limits mankind's progress. With government as the go-to solution for every problem, we never have to think of new methods. It may be difficult to imagine now, but necessity births invention, and we won't really know what marvelous solutions may be devised until we actually brave the challenges of life as cooperative, self-responsible adults.

what about all the government agencies/rulings/etc we need for the economy/borders/immigration/visas/maritime/consulates/embassies/etc etc??
...we would need a group to take care of government business per examples I mentioned??
what threat of violence?

The threat of violence I refer to is law itself. The inevitable conclusion of the chain of resistance against law is violence, in all cases. It may start with a fine, but if you persistently resist every step in the chain, it ends in murder. That is the threat implied by law.

The organizational aspects of government can be done by voluntary participation. Those who build roads now can still build them. Those who pay for roads (us) can still pay for them. Government brings nothing to the table; it produces nothing, contributes no funding, does none of the work, delegates organization to others. All it brings is one outstretched hand with palm up, and the hand raised in a fist.

Laws that limit freedoms are largely only necessary because of problems born of law itself. Immigration, for instance... Why do people want laws limiting free movement? Because they fear that immigrants will take advantage of government programs, or work off-the-books for less than the minimum wage. Both problems are created by law in the first place. The war on drugs is another fine example of rampant crime resulting from law, and that crime being used to justify higher taxation, greater police presence, inroads into personal freedoms, and harassment and imprisonment of non-violent people.

Regardless of what functions you think government is required for, it does not justify the inequality and violence that government represents. I've heard it said that government commits theft and violence in the name of protecting us from those who would commit theft and violence. It's just not a moral solution, and it limits mankind's progress. With government as the go-to solution for every problem, we never have to think of new methods. It may be difficult to imagine now, but necessity births invention, and we won't really know what marvelous solutions may be devised until we actually brave the challenges of life as cooperative, self-responsible adults.

voluntary?? so big construction companies can volunteer to organize/build roads/etc--and set their own prices??!!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

He's not MY president



Why are we still having this childish discussion? People need to grow the fuck up.

 

[Pogo]

It goes hand in hand with "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain"...

If we all agree to draw straws to see who get tossed into the volcano, and you draw short, how do you have a right to complain? You agreed to draw straws in the first place.

Of course he's YOUR president, you voted to have a president in the first place, and knew the nature of the game going in - corrupt elections and all. The only people who DO have a right to complain are those who reject the system outright and don't vote at all.

We squabble over the sword of power, clamoring around it like naked animals around a trough. But where is the voice of that noble minority who says "bury the sword"? Nowhere to be found in the mass media - that's for sure - and where they are heard, they are chastised without fail for daring to question the cultural indoctrination.

Are we so narrow in our vision that we cannot see the divide-and-conquer nature of democracy? Over every issue imaginable we are made to choose a side and hurl stones across the fence. All the while the richest and most powerful people in the world laugh hysterically on route to the bank. We picket outside the Capital, while the criminals inside peek through the curtains and grin... "Look at them begging... they still believe in our power".

They love to see you picketing. They love to see you at line at the polls. Voting is a census to find out how many people are still buying into the con of politicians' right to rule. You think those with the wealth and power to guide events are going to allow nature to take its course? You think they're just going to sit back and let the people choose their leaders? They are like the parent who offers the stubborn child a false choice: "You're a big boy now, Timmy, you get to choose for yourself - would you like broccoli or peas with dinner?" The child thinks he's made a choice, but the parent wins either way. Timmy is getting stinky vegetables, whichever way he goes.

With big money marketing and control of the media, they present you only with choices that serve their ends. So choose away and feel like you've actually done something. When one party has taken theft and injustice as far as the people can stand, the swing voters usher in the opposing party, which continues the relay race as far as they can until they've worn out their welcome, and it switches again. The left/right march into outright tyranny, with the spirit of revolution being vented by the false "change" of a switch in parties.

You are a joke to them, and this post SHOULD make you mad - but not at the messenger. You've been conned, and no amount of working within the con will free you from getting shackled and fleeced. He IS your president - they all are - because you've bought into the sham hook, line, and sinker. And we'll never get anywhere until we snap out of our stupor and realize that it's not the person sitting on the throne that's the problem, it's the throne itself.

My President is Trump. Who is your president? Mine won.

My President is whoever comes up with a Cliff's Notes for the TL;DR OP.

Btw OP -- I don't remember ever "voting to have a President". That's about the line where I stopped.

And it may be worth noting that most Americans eligible to vote ---- didn't.

Define "MOST" because that will indicate IF I believe your unsubstantiated statement as I KNOW doing just a little research less then a minute in fact HOW MANY ACTUALLY
eligible people actually voted! So please enlighten us with your definition of "MOST"!

Sure.

The total POTUS election turnout was 55%. That level is abysmal in the world but typical for us. Meaning 45% of those registered to vote, looked at the options and decided, "what's the point, fuck it".

Then there are those who could have registered but didn't even bother to take that step, arguably for the same reasons. We hit the mark of 200 million registered voters in '16, leaving some 19 million eligible-but-unregistered.

There are certainly reasons for our abysmal turnout rate, mainly two, and those are (a) the entrenched Duopoly, and the Electoral College that ensures (a) stays in place.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I don't get why you keep wafting back to "what he does" when the definition is about "who he is".

A 'ruling class' is a ruling class, whether they rule well, rule badly, or fail to rule at all.

Because the word "ruling" implies action. The "what he does" is the qualifying aspect of "who he is" in this context. Be it well, badly, or otherwise, he RULES. If you want to say that emperor may sit on his arse and do nothing, that's fine with me as long as his throne is not paid for with money garnered by coercive taxation, but he is still a member of a ruling class if he maintains the RIGHT to rule.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

so we should change the process?? how?? not American?? !!???
not fair??
would you rather do it like Libya or Uganda does??

I would rather do it like self-responsible, cooperative human beings do it; not by creating a ruling class that claim fallacious "rights" the rest of us don't have, then back up that claim with violent coercion.

so don't have any government? can you be more detailed?

Yes, don't have any "government" (i.e. a class of people with rights others don't have). That does not mean don't have organization, cooperation, enterprise, etc. It merely means that all interactions should be voluntary, not coerced by threat of violence. Of course, all people have the right to defend themselves against outright aggressors, but self-defense is not the same thing as aggressive coercive violence. We can even hire a group of brave people to provide that defense on an ongoing basis, but their rights would be no different than our own. They're only role would be defense of the innocent, and if we think they're overstepping, we can stop paying them and hire someone else.

who chooses these people that are hired? and who chooses to fire/hire? that sounds like elections

The community can vote on such things if they so choose. The difference between that and what we have now is that the people voting actually HAVE the rights that they are delegating. I have the right to defend myself against muggers, and so I may delegate that right. I do not have the right to tax my neighbor's income, or put him in a cage for growing certain plants, so I cannot delegate those actions to another.

 

[Hossfly]

He's not MY president



Why are we still having this childish discussion? People need to grow the fuck up.

 

[my2¢]

I've considered them all as either "the" or "our" president, not "mine". There has been presidents of my college, my company, my country and I never considered any one of them as "mine". But then all of them were men and I never experienced that bromance sort of thing.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I would rather do it like self-responsible, cooperative human beings do it; not by creating a ruling class that claim fallacious "rights" the rest of us don't have, then back up that claim with violent coercion.

so don't have any government? can you be more detailed?

Yes, don't have any "government" (i.e. a class of people with rights others don't have). That does not mean don't have organization, cooperation, enterprise, etc. It merely means that all interactions should be voluntary, not coerced by threat of violence. Of course, all people have the right to defend themselves against outright aggressors, but self-defense is not the same thing as aggressive coercive violence. We can even hire a group of brave people to provide that defense on an ongoing basis, but their rights would be no different than our own. They're only role would be defense of the innocent, and if we think they're overstepping, we can stop paying them and hire someone else.

who chooses these people that are hired? and who chooses to fire/hire? that sounds like elections

It doesn't, however, sound like Presidential elections. In most places that elect a head of state it actually works that way but in two countries it doesn't. Those two would be the US and Pakistan.

so what if some think they are over stepping and some do not?? the idea is flawed

So they can vote, or flip a coin, or whatever they can agree upon. We can "what if" all day, and that's a worthy conversation to have once we have accepted responsibility for finding solutions to these problems. It's not a worthy objection to the premise that government is an invalid and immoral solution.

When abolitionists demanded that slavery be done away with on moral grounds, a common objection was "But who will pick the cotton? The economy will fail!" But this does not answer for the inherent wrong-doing of slavery. It was a problem that many could not fathom a solution to, but once they were confronted with the necessity for better solutions, they figured it out. You cannot justify rampant immorality by claiming you don't know what you'll do without it.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

He's not MY president



Why are we still having this childish discussion? People need to grow the fuck up.

I take it you said this stupid shit when Obama was president so my post hit you smack in the face huh...

It is a patently stupid thing to whine about. Presidents are elected to represent a nation mot any particular individuals.

This "not my president" bs is as stupid as all the dumb ass liberals who threaten to leave the country every election cycle.

Nothing more than a foot stomping tantrum.