Time for change, time for third party voting...

[frigidweirdo]

How many people will think like this? I think if they all got the cojones to vote third party, there might actually be some real positive change in the US for once.

What do you think a 3rd party could accomplish without other party members in Congress? That person would still have to work through democrats and republicans, would they not?

Voting 3rd party amounts to a protest vote, not much more .. and I'm a Green.

The whole point is to change the way people vote in order to have third parties in Congress to actually be able to do something. In many countries third parties actually do stuff because they ware in parliament.

I don't disagree with the intent .. but the reality is that we don't live in a country that has many relevant parties.

The intent is why I vote Green .. when I have the luxury to do so. This moment in time does not allow me such luxury.

The reality is that voting 3rd party amounts to a protest vote .. which may be good for the conscience, but does nothing to solve problems today.

The reality is that voting 3rd party amounts to a protest vote .. which may be good for the conscience, but does nothing to solve problems today.

This may be true for you but it is not true for everyone. Some people's understandings of the problems leads them to conclude that the candidates that represent the duopoly are part of the problems we face today.

And what issues will change? Seriously. What problems could such a person solve?

What could a 3rd party candidate do to affect change when that person must work through the same democrats and republicans that you abhor?

The answer is really simple. Go look at the German system.

In Germany they've not had a single party in power, I believe, since the NSDAP of Hitler.

In that time they've had coalitions of CDU/CSU and FPD, SPD and die Gruene, CDU/CSU and SPD.

What it means is that issues of smaller parties get taken into account much more, because deals have to be done. The main parties can't just do whatever the hell they like. It also offers much more accountability as these parties would just pull out of govt if they didn't like what was happening, and with more voices and more opinions on show, parties are far more likely to suffer attacks for their policies.

In the US attacks just seem to be part of the game, rather than decent politics.

Germany's politics is far more ordinary citizen friendly, they don't go rushing into stupid wars like Vietnam or Iraq, however they do their duty as NATO and UN members in places like Kosovo.

I really suggest you go look at the German system to see what could be.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I think we DO need a 3rd Party, but a true 3rd Party.

I'd settle for a second party.

 

[Onyx]

No, government isn't a necessity, however it will always be there. No matter what you have, some group or other will take control of a situation and impose themselves on it.

Sorry, I cannot get behind that defeated and complacent attitude.

If anyone should take control and have power, it should be the people. The only way that works is through rejecting rulers of all sizes and colors.

This could be a giant conglomerate acting in their own interests

All governments.

Maybe with the exception of some ideological monarchs and dictators with absolute power, but we are all aware of the inherent problem with authoritarianism.

a govt acting for those people, or a government that is acting for the people.

A government always ends up performing the former function, without exceptions.

Also going back to what I said, I do not inherently impose governments. I oppose states, which by nature do not represent the interests of the collective people.

My view on welfare has been that people should have to work in order to get it.

I disagree.

Welfare is gained through forced non-consensual taxation, which is backed by threats and intimidation.

If you want to organize charitable public services, then they need to organized through voluntary means only. It is the only honest means to an honest end.

Having third parties might not be a solution, but government would work better and the solutions to many of the problems the US is suffering might actually get resolved, rather than the partisan crap that is currently happening where neither side does anything unless they think they're going to look good doing it.

Okay, but let's go back to how governments actually work.

They appropriate resources, control the population, or perform both functions. This is just a fact. They have the capability to do nothing outside that realm.

I am fine with a group of people voluntarily deciding to collectively appropriate their resources through any kind of institution, but I will never be okay with population control.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, government isn't a necessity, however it will always be there. No matter what you have, some group or other will take control of a situation and impose themselves on it.

Sorry, I cannot get behind that defeated and complacent attitude.

If anyone should take control and have power, it should be the people. The only way that works is through rejecting rulers of all sizes and colors.

This could be a giant conglomerate acting in their own interests

All governments.

Maybe with the exception of some ideological monarchs and dictators with absolute power, but we are all aware of the inherent problem with authoritarianism.

a govt acting for those people, or a government that is acting for the people.

A government always ends up performing the former function, without exceptions.

Also going back to what I said, I do not inherently impose governments. I oppose states, which by nature do not represent the interests of the collective people.

My view on welfare has been that people should have to work in order to get it.

I disagree.

Welfare is gained through forced non-consensual taxation, which is backed by threats and intimidation.

If you want to organize charitable public services, then they need to organized through voluntary means only. It is the only honest means to an honest end.

Having third parties might not be a solution, but government would work better and the solutions to many of the problems the US is suffering might actually get resolved, rather than the partisan crap that is currently happening where neither side does anything unless they think they're going to look good doing it.

Okay, but let's go back to how governments actually work.

They appropriate resources, control the population, or perform both functions. This is just a fact. They have the capability to do nothing outside that realm.

I am fine with a group of people voluntarily deciding to collectively appropriate their resources through any kind of institution, but I will never be okay with population control.

So you're advocating Communism then? Not the Communism of the USSR, China, Cuba etc, but actual, real Communism?

The main problem I have with Communism is that it goes against human nature. Humans are inherently selfish.

I disagree with you that a government always works to benefit companies. A look at countries in Scandinavia or Germanic countries and you see far more people orientated government.

 

[frigidweirdo]

My view on welfare has been that people should have to work in order to get it.

I disagree.

Welfare is gained through forced non-consensual taxation, which is backed by threats and intimidation.

If you want to organize charitable public services, then they need to organized through voluntary means only. It is the only honest means to an honest end.

Having third parties might not be a solution, but government would work better and the solutions to many of the problems the US is suffering might actually get resolved, rather than the partisan crap that is currently happening where neither side does anything unless they think they're going to look good doing it.

Okay, but let's go back to how governments actually work.

They appropriate resources, control the population, or perform both functions. This is just a fact. They have the capability to do nothing outside that realm.

I am fine with a group of people voluntarily deciding to collectively appropriate their resources through any kind of institution, but I will never be okay with population control.

"non-consensual taxation"? Who doesn't consent? You can go live in some other country if you don't like it.

The problem is that when you don't have certain forms of welfare, things go wrong. People pay into the pot and when or if they need it they get some of it back.

There's no difference between a pension that you might have and welfare.

Populations have always been controlled. Even with small hunter/gatherer groups, there would always be leaders. Without leadership you have anarchy, and with anarchy the strong will destroy the weak and take over and try and get rid of the anarchy that led them there in the first place.

You simply need leadership because of humans' selfish nature.

But you're basically advocating Communism and I don't see how that could possibly work, again, based on the selfishness of humans.

 

[Tehon]

How many people will think like this? I think if they all got the cojones to vote third party, there might actually be some real positive change in the US for once.

What do you think a 3rd party could accomplish without other party members in Congress? That person would still have to work through democrats and republicans, would they not?

Voting 3rd party amounts to a protest vote, not much more .. and I'm a Green.

The whole point is to change the way people vote in order to have third parties in Congress to actually be able to do something. In many countries third parties actually do stuff because they ware in parliament.

I don't disagree with the intent .. but the reality is that we don't live in a country that has many relevant parties.

The intent is why I vote Green .. when I have the luxury to do so. This moment in time does not allow me such luxury.

The reality is that voting 3rd party amounts to a protest vote .. which may be good for the conscience, but does nothing to solve problems today.

The reality is that voting 3rd party amounts to a protest vote .. which may be good for the conscience, but does nothing to solve problems today.

This may be true for you but it is not true for everyone. Some people's understandings of the problems leads them to conclude that the candidates that represent the duopoly are part of the problems we face today.

And what issues will change? Seriously. What problems could such a person solve?

What could a 3rd party candidate do to affect change when that person must work through the same democrats and republicans that you abhor?

Commander in chief of the military, chief executive in charge of appointing a cabinet and veto power, win, win. Keeping Hillary and Trump out of office just in itself would solve a huge problem. Anything else is a bonus.

We can have third parties, we just have to demand them. The only thing that needs changed is people's mindsets.

 

[Onyx]

So you're advocating Communism then? Not the Communism of the USSR, China, Cuba etc, but actual, real Communism?

No.

I believe in the power of the free market, the existence of capital, and do not inherently oppose socio-economic class structure.

The main problem I have with Communism is that it goes against human nature. Humans are inherently selfish.

I agree.

Marx believed an authoritarian socialist government could condition a perfect utopian society. It cannot.

Going against natural law is not only dishonest, but it also produces chaos. Like we have now under the statist structure.

I disagree with you that a government always works to benefit companies. A look at countries in Scandinavia or Germanic countries and you see far more people orientated government.

Only when it is pre-approved and mandated by corporations.

Money and power are the real motivators behind politics.

The ruling German social-democrats are the worst, which is why I find it odd that you keep idolizing German politics. Arguably, Germany is closer to implosion than the US.

 

[Onyx]

"non-consensual taxation"? Who doesn't consent? You can go live in some other country if you don't like it.

I could, but this is my homeland. I am not going to let politics desecrate my country without a fight.

It isn't like it is any bit different anywhere else either.

There's no difference between a pension that you might have and welfare.

Except pensions are a truly voluntary contract between employers and employees. At least when government socialists do not get involved.

Without leadership you have anarchy, and with anarchy the strong will destroy the weak and take over and try and get rid of the anarchy that led them there in the first place.

Do you know the difference between leadership and rulership?

Like I said earlier. Kill thugs and leave people to their own devices. It isn't hard.

But you're basically advocating Communism and I don't see how that could possibly work, again, based on the selfishness of humans.

I understand why you thought my position was communistic, but statelessness is not mutually exclusive with Marxism. It was never treated as such by intellectuals either.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

What do you think a 3rd party could accomplish without other party members in Congress? That person would still have to work through democrats and republicans, would they not?

Voting 3rd party amounts to a protest vote, not much more .. and I'm a Green.

The whole point is to change the way people vote in order to have third parties in Congress to actually be able to do something. In many countries third parties actually do stuff because they ware in parliament.

I don't disagree with the intent .. but the reality is that we don't live in a country that has many relevant parties.

The intent is why I vote Green .. when I have the luxury to do so. This moment in time does not allow me such luxury.

The reality is that voting 3rd party amounts to a protest vote .. which may be good for the conscience, but does nothing to solve problems today.

The reality is that voting 3rd party amounts to a protest vote .. which may be good for the conscience, but does nothing to solve problems today.

This may be true for you but it is not true for everyone. Some people's understandings of the problems leads them to conclude that the candidates that represent the duopoly are part of the problems we face today.

And what issues will change? Seriously. What problems could such a person solve?

What could a 3rd party candidate do to affect change when that person must work through the same democrats and republicans that you abhor?

The answer is really simple. Go look at the German system.

In Germany they've not had a single party in power, I believe, since the NSDAP of Hitler.

In that time they've had coalitions of CDU/CSU and FPD, SPD and die Gruene, CDU/CSU and SPD.

What it means is that issues of smaller parties get taken into account much more, because deals have to be done. The main parties can't just do whatever the hell they like. It also offers much more accountability as these parties would just pull out of govt if they didn't like what was happening, and with more voices and more opinions on show, parties are far more likely to suffer attacks for their policies.

In the US attacks just seem to be part of the game, rather than decent politics.

Germany's politics is far more ordinary citizen friendly, they don't go rushing into stupid wars like Vietnam or Iraq, however they do their duty as NATO and UN members in places like Kosovo.

I really suggest you go look at the German system to see what could be.

This isn't Germany. In Germany the Green Party is a real party. Here in the US it's a club for disaffected democrats.

The dynamics of the American system doesn't allow for 3rd parties, and the American people are media-driven sheeple. In America, war is just business.

There are real issues that need solutions now .. and 3rd parties can't solve any of them.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

What do you think a 3rd party could accomplish without other party members in Congress? That person would still have to work through democrats and republicans, would they not?

Voting 3rd party amounts to a protest vote, not much more .. and I'm a Green.

The whole point is to change the way people vote in order to have third parties in Congress to actually be able to do something. In many countries third parties actually do stuff because they ware in parliament.

I don't disagree with the intent .. but the reality is that we don't live in a country that has many relevant parties.

The intent is why I vote Green .. when I have the luxury to do so. This moment in time does not allow me such luxury.

The reality is that voting 3rd party amounts to a protest vote .. which may be good for the conscience, but does nothing to solve problems today.

The reality is that voting 3rd party amounts to a protest vote .. which may be good for the conscience, but does nothing to solve problems today.

This may be true for you but it is not true for everyone. Some people's understandings of the problems leads them to conclude that the candidates that represent the duopoly are part of the problems we face today.

And what issues will change? Seriously. What problems could such a person solve?

What could a 3rd party candidate do to affect change when that person must work through the same democrats and republicans that you abhor?

Commander in chief of the military, chief executive in charge of appointing a cabinet and veto power, win, win. Keeping Hillary and Trump out of office just in itself would solve a huge problem. Anything else is a bonus.

We can have third parties, we just have to demand them. The only thing that needs changed is people's mindsets.

Sitting in the big chair doesn't solve problems .. especially when you're sitting there all by yourself. You still have to deal with democrats and republicans .. neither of whom will willingly turn over power to a 3rd party.

In order to get anything passed that person will still have to make deals with the opposition .. which will be coming from both sides.

It's a pipedream .. completely unrealistic.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So you're advocating Communism then? Not the Communism of the USSR, China, Cuba etc, but actual, real Communism?

No.

I believe in the power of the free market, the existence of capital, and do not inherently oppose socio-economic class structure.

The main problem I have with Communism is that it goes against human nature. Humans are inherently selfish.

I agree.

Marx believed an authoritarian socialist government could condition a perfect utopian society. It cannot.

Going against natural law is not only dishonest, but it also produces chaos. Like we have now under the statist structure.

I disagree with you that a government always works to benefit companies. A look at countries in Scandinavia or Germanic countries and you see far more people orientated government.

Only when it is pre-approved and mandated by corporations.

Money and power are the real motivators behind politics.

The ruling German social-democrats are the worst, which is why I find it odd that you keep idolizing German politics. Arguably, Germany is closer to implosion than the US.

That doesn't mean you aren't advocating Communism. It just means you aren't advocating the sort of Communism seen around the world in the last 100 years.

Big difference.

'a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state."

Communism, from Wikipedia.

You want there to be no government, for people to be in control. No government means no government issued money, which means people barter for goods. It also means people can't own land as there's no one to give this authority because there isn't any government. This means the land is just there, not owned, but someone might take it for themselves and use it as they wish.

In proper Communism there's no government which mean there's no one to tell you what to do. Which means you can grow what you like (none of this 5 year plan crap) and do whatever it is you wish.

Within Communism there would be a free market, however the people would be honest enough to charge a decent price for it.

However you want capital, but oppose the government that would set it up. I'm not sure how you can have a system so contradictory.

You say the statist system now is chaos, but how would you not have chaos? I don't understand.

Money and power are the main power behind most things. People who rise up and take the stressful jobs must want something in return, or what's the point? But those people exist and always will exist and will always try and control people.

You have two choices, set up a government system where they can be controlled, or let them loose like wild dogs.

So, government is essential.

 

[frigidweirdo]

"non-consensual taxation"? Who doesn't consent? You can go live in some other country if you don't like it.

I could, but this is my homeland. I am not going to let politics desecrate my country without a fight.

It isn't like it is any bit different anywhere else either.

There's no difference between a pension that you might have and welfare.

Except pensions are a truly voluntary contract between employers and employees. At least when government socialists do not get involved.

Without leadership you have anarchy, and with anarchy the strong will destroy the weak and take over and try and get rid of the anarchy that led them there in the first place.

Do you know the difference between leadership and rulership?

Like I said earlier. Kill thugs and leave people to their own devices. It isn't hard.

But you're basically advocating Communism and I don't see how that could possibly work, again, based on the selfishness of humans.

I understand why you thought my position was communistic, but statelessness is not mutually exclusive with Marxism. It was never treated as such by intellectuals either.

Well then, if you want to stay in your country you're consenting to what is happening. You vote, I assume, which means you consent regardless of whether you vote for the winners or not.

Pensions are truly voluntary, so too are taxes, you just don't see it like that. You don't have to work to pay into the system. You could have your piece of land somewhere and barter for goods, it's your choice. If you use the government's currency then you're consenting, if you make a legal contract with this currency, you're consenting.

It's possible not to pay taxes. Not easy, and you'd be subsistence farming, but hey.

Leadership and rulership, a difference? Sure, one leads by their inherent power, the other is there because they're there. However people in the US get elected.

You think it isn't hard. Maybe you should go look at 1990s Russia and see what isn't hard.

I'm not necessarily talking about Marxism with your position. I'm talking Communism. Sure, Marx had a big hand in defining this, however I'm really just talking plain Communism, where people work for the common good, where nothing is owned, sort of like the Native American tribes before their genocide.

 

[Katzndogz]

Are you still peddling the doper?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The whole point is to change the way people vote in order to have third parties in Congress to actually be able to do something. In many countries third parties actually do stuff because they ware in parliament.

I don't disagree with the intent .. but the reality is that we don't live in a country that has many relevant parties.

The intent is why I vote Green .. when I have the luxury to do so. This moment in time does not allow me such luxury.

The reality is that voting 3rd party amounts to a protest vote .. which may be good for the conscience, but does nothing to solve problems today.

The reality is that voting 3rd party amounts to a protest vote .. which may be good for the conscience, but does nothing to solve problems today.

This may be true for you but it is not true for everyone. Some people's understandings of the problems leads them to conclude that the candidates that represent the duopoly are part of the problems we face today.

And what issues will change? Seriously. What problems could such a person solve?

What could a 3rd party candidate do to affect change when that person must work through the same democrats and republicans that you abhor?

The answer is really simple. Go look at the German system.

In Germany they've not had a single party in power, I believe, since the NSDAP of Hitler.

In that time they've had coalitions of CDU/CSU and FPD, SPD and die Gruene, CDU/CSU and SPD.

What it means is that issues of smaller parties get taken into account much more, because deals have to be done. The main parties can't just do whatever the hell they like. It also offers much more accountability as these parties would just pull out of govt if they didn't like what was happening, and with more voices and more opinions on show, parties are far more likely to suffer attacks for their policies.

In the US attacks just seem to be part of the game, rather than decent politics.

Germany's politics is far more ordinary citizen friendly, they don't go rushing into stupid wars like Vietnam or Iraq, however they do their duty as NATO and UN members in places like Kosovo.

I really suggest you go look at the German system to see what could be.

This isn't Germany. In Germany the Green Party is a real party. Here in the US it's a club for disaffected democrats.

The dynamics of the American system doesn't allow for 3rd parties, and the American people are media-driven sheeple. In America, war is just business.

There are real issues that need solutions now .. and 3rd parties can't solve any of them.

And this is my whole point.

In the US the Green Party is such a fringe party, and the reasons why are because they can't get into Congress. The reason being that the way people vote is massively against them.

Change the system and then all of a sudden the Green Party would attract more people, would become a viable option at the ballot box and would become a "real party" as it is in Germany where they have PR (sort of).

Again, I know the US system doesn't allow for 3rd parties, that's what I'm talking about.

The real issues need solutions now, but with the main two parties controlling everything it's not going to happen. So.... unless you change the way people vote, nothing changes. Trump isn't going make a difference.

 

[Onyx]

That doesn't mean you aren't advocating Communism. It just means you aren't advocating the sort of Communism seen around the world in the last 100 years.

Big difference.

'a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state."

I will reiterate.

I believe in money, private property, and private business. I do not oppose social classes.

Communism is contrary to everything I believe, other then the abolition of the state.

You want there to be no government, for people to be in control.

For the third time, I do not inherently oppose government.

I oppose the state.

Do you understand the difference?

No government means no government issued money

That does not imply the non-existence of capital.

Government printed money is a relatively modern concept.

Our own currency used to be valued based on the gold standard.

It also means people can't own land as there's no one to give this authority because there isn't any government.

You do not need government authority to give a man the right to property.

Property, being a natural right, only requires an actor willing to defend his land.

Laws are just pieces of paper. They mean nothing.

Within Communism there would be a free market, however the people would be honest enough to charge a decent price for it.

Not true.

Communists believe in collectively sharing resources among workers. It is not market fairness.

You say the statist system now is chaos, but how would you not have chaos? I don't understand.

Figures.

The state produces destructive wars, violent conflicts among civilian populations, crime, rioting, and discontent.

You have two choices, set up a government system where they can be controlled, or let them loose like wild dogs.

False.

The alternative choice is to not give a platform for controlling individuals to come into power, and kill those that attempt to establish a platform to exercise control.

You are going off another false premise that says governments control thugs, when in reality all government is controlled by thugs.

The strawman in this post is off the charts. Refute what I say I believe, and not what you assume I believe.

 

[Onyx]

Well then, if you want to stay in your country you're consenting to what is happening. You vote, I assume, which means you consent regardless of whether you vote for the winners or not.

Social contract theory is false.

Silence does not mean consent.

If a woman refuses to lock herself up in her house, that does not mean she is consenting to being raped when she walks the streets.

Pensions are truly voluntary, so too are taxes, you just don't see it like that.

False.

Taxation is not voluntary. Failure to pay taxation will incur property seizure and legal punishment.

If you use the government's currency then you're consenting, if you make a legal contract with this currency, you're consenting.

False.

The government does not create currency. It appropriates the creation of currency.

The only effective roles of government are appropriation and control.

Leadership and rulership, a difference? Sure, one leads by their inherent power, the other is there because they're there. However people in the US get elected.

It is still slavery, when your only voice is electing your next ruler.

 

[Onyx]

Memes to describe the argument of frigid weirdo

It is the liberal variation of the rule of law argument.

 

[JBond]

The biggest problem is getting Americans to agree on what they consider positive change. Someone like Bernie Sanders in a third party bid would certainly bring about some very positive changes for lower and middle class Americans, but very few Republicans would agree with his brand of change, even though it would benefit most of them.

Adding $30 trillion in new taxes that will be passed on the to the middle class from banks and corporations will help them how exactly?

 

[BlackAsCoal]

I don't disagree with the intent .. but the reality is that we don't live in a country that has many relevant parties.

The intent is why I vote Green .. when I have the luxury to do so. This moment in time does not allow me such luxury.

The reality is that voting 3rd party amounts to a protest vote .. which may be good for the conscience, but does nothing to solve problems today.

The reality is that voting 3rd party amounts to a protest vote .. which may be good for the conscience, but does nothing to solve problems today.

This may be true for you but it is not true for everyone. Some people's understandings of the problems leads them to conclude that the candidates that represent the duopoly are part of the problems we face today.

And what issues will change? Seriously. What problems could such a person solve?

What could a 3rd party candidate do to affect change when that person must work through the same democrats and republicans that you abhor?

The answer is really simple. Go look at the German system.

In Germany they've not had a single party in power, I believe, since the NSDAP of Hitler.

In that time they've had coalitions of CDU/CSU and FPD, SPD and die Gruene, CDU/CSU and SPD.

What it means is that issues of smaller parties get taken into account much more, because deals have to be done. The main parties can't just do whatever the hell they like. It also offers much more accountability as these parties would just pull out of govt if they didn't like what was happening, and with more voices and more opinions on show, parties are far more likely to suffer attacks for their policies.

In the US attacks just seem to be part of the game, rather than decent politics.

Germany's politics is far more ordinary citizen friendly, they don't go rushing into stupid wars like Vietnam or Iraq, however they do their duty as NATO and UN members in places like Kosovo.

I really suggest you go look at the German system to see what could be.

This isn't Germany. In Germany the Green Party is a real party. Here in the US it's a club for disaffected democrats.

The dynamics of the American system doesn't allow for 3rd parties, and the American people are media-driven sheeple. In America, war is just business.

There are real issues that need solutions now .. and 3rd parties can't solve any of them.

And this is my whole point.

In the US the Green Party is such a fringe party, and the reasons why are because they can't get into Congress. The reason being that the way people vote is massively against them.

Change the system and then all of a sudden the Green Party would attract more people, would become a viable option at the ballot box and would become a "real party" as it is in Germany where they have PR (sort of).

Again, I know the US system doesn't allow for 3rd parties, that's what I'm talking about.

The real issues need solutions now, but with the main two parties controlling everything it's not going to happen. So.... unless you change the way people vote, nothing changes. Trump isn't going make a difference.

With respect my friend, the reason the Green Party isn't a real party is because of their model .. top down. You cannot build a real party from the top down. It's a party that only shows up every 4 years. I know Jill Stein, hosted her at my house, drove her to several events 4 years ago .. when I voted for her, not Obama. I've had good discussions with her on critical issues .. loved every one of her answers. She surprised me on her stance on Israel. Glad I voted for her .. but this is where the luxury ends.

Voting for Obama was mainly symbolic. I understand the symbolism, but that's pretty much all it was. Obama / Romney .. Beyond the tan, I don't see much difference. Both are corporatists, and Romney might not have destroyed Libya the way Obama did. I'm not suggesting that I would have voted for Romney .. he's a republican. But given their similarities, I had the luxury of voting for Stein. Obamacare IS Romneycare.

This election is different. I'm not only voting to put a nail in the RW political coffin, I'm voting to force Hillary Clinton to do something serious about police brutality .. and she will .. because she wants to get re-elected, and she will once again need energized black votes to do that.

Intelligent voting isn't always about who you like .. it's about purpose. No 3rd party candidate running .. including Jill Stein can do much of anything about the problems we face today.

This isn't Germany good brother. We have to intelligently work and shape the system from within. No matter how corrupt and controlled it may be .. and it is both .. it's the only system we've got. If you're looking for American to figure it out :0) .. Americans are a colonized people .. colonized minds. Good luck with that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That doesn't mean you aren't advocating Communism. It just means you aren't advocating the sort of Communism seen around the world in the last 100 years.

Big difference.

'a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state."

I will reiterate.

I believe in money, private property, and private business. I do not oppose social classes.

Communism is contrary to everything I believe, other then the abolition of the state.

You want there to be no government, for people to be in control.

For the third time, I do not inherently oppose government.

I oppose the state.

Do you understand the difference?

No government means no government issued money

That does not imply the non-existence of capital.

Government printed money is a relatively modern concept.

Our own currency used to be valued based on the gold standard.

It also means people can't own land as there's no one to give this authority because there isn't any government.

You do not need government authority to give a man the right to property.

Property, being a natural right, only requires an actor willing to defend his land.

Laws are just pieces of paper. They mean nothing.

Within Communism there would be a free market, however the people would be honest enough to charge a decent price for it.

Not true.

Communists believe in collectively sharing resources among workers. It is not market fairness.

You say the statist system now is chaos, but how would you not have chaos? I don't understand.

Figures.

The state produces destructive wars, violent conflicts among civilian populations, crime, rioting, and discontent.

You have two choices, set up a government system where they can be controlled, or let them loose like wild dogs.

False.

The alternative choice is to not give a platform for controlling individuals to come into power, and kill those that attempt to establish a platform to exercise control.

You are going off another false premise that says governments control thugs, when in reality all government is controlled by thugs.

The strawman in this post is off the charts. Refute what I say I believe, and not what you assume I believe.

I understand. However I don't see how you can wish for the abolition of the state, and yet want all the stuff the state stands for.

Money exists because states do. Private property exists because states do. Private business exists because states do. Without the state none of these actually exist.

So there's a problem. I don't understand how you can come up with such contradictory ideas, though I'm open to more detailed explanations.

No, I don't really understand what you mean by opposing the state but no opposing government.

Yes, money is a relatively new thing. So too is international trade, even national trade. Back in the day people would barter for goods. That's fine in a limited society. But hey, I want to buy an airplane and the only thing I produce is traveling on airplanes. So I give you 10,000 free flights on my airplane that flies to where you don't want to go in order for you to give me the airplane. Doesn't really work, because the person with the flights is then going to have to barter those flights away for other stuff and the amount of work involved in this would be ridiculous.

As for land, no, you don't need the govt to tell you that the land is "yours", however ownership of land didn't exist for the Native Americans, they just used the land as they saw fit. The actual ownership, the giving of titles and deeds and so forth is done by an entity which is a government which claims to have control over that land.

i.e., if you murder someone on your land that you own, you'll be prosecuted for murder, perhaps. If you live in a society without government and you claim that land, you murder someone, you're at the mercy of mob justice perhaps, or perhaps not. There are differences here.

Laws are just pieces of paper, backed up by physical power and accepted by a certain amount of people to keep the whole system going.
Without a government they don't exist and without laws it's all about what the people with the power want.

To go to Russia in the 1990s, people had to buy protection from the Mafia. If your mafia wasn't as strong as someone else's mafia, then you might get killed, and there would be no justice for this.

What Communists believe and what Communism is might be two separate things. Communism, proper Communism, is when there is no government. So each person acts appropriately, not because someone made laws, but because they wish to act in such a way (hence why it's impossible).
So within pure Communism some person would take the land that is appropriate for themselves, and they would work on this land and they would barter their goods with others, or give it away freely if they felt that this was the right course of action.

Yes, the state produces wars, it produces bad things, but there's a semblance of order. However it depends on how you're using the word chaos. Chaos is still based on order, it's just we don't understand this order, so you might be right.

However discontent is a part of human life, violence is too. Is there more violence in today's society than in, say, the Native American society where they were constantly at war with each other? Probably not.


People are going to try and control people no matter what. You'd be hard pressed to find any society where there aren't people who control and want to control. Wanting a world where people don't control each other is utopian, and completely impossible.

You believe I'm going off on a false premise, I don't believe I am. I didn't say governments control the thugs, or anything of the sort. I said you have two choices between those who want to control being forced into a system which helps control them, or them doing what they like.

The Founding Fathers set up the Constitution in a manner that would pit the control each politician had with the power others had. So that no one had ultimate power. They called it the separation of powers and at the time was revolutionary, it still is, however it needs an overhaul as it's cracking at the seams quite badly now.

Some governments are better than others. No other system has existed whereby there isn't a government to control things. So you can wish for such a place, but it'll never happen.