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

[frigidweirdo]

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.

I don't think social contract theory is false in the case I am stating.

You have choices and one of those is to get out of the country you live in. You could also refuse to pay taxes, refuse to accept what is there. The problem is most people do accept it and you seem to accept most of the laws too.

Taxation is voluntary because you could choose to live a life without taxes. You, however, choose the life where you do pay taxes. That's your choice.

I buy food. I'd rather food be given to me free, however it's not free, so I have to buy it. I don't like it, but I accept it because it's either that or grow it myself.

Sometimes you have to choose something you don't like in order to get the thing you do like. I would prefer not to work, however I get money from working, therefore I accept working.

Government DOES create currency. Who do you think makes those coins and bills in your pocket?

It's not slavery. Slavery is something different.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Well, again, they are the way they are because of the system that makes it hard for them to get grassroots support because people only see two parties as viable. Change the way people think, and you open up the possibilities of other parties.

You want to force Hillary to do something about police brutality. And she might try things, but will she succeed? Does she have the model that will work?

The more parties you have, the more consensus you have, the better.

Germany isn't good? I've lived in Germany and I liked it better than the US.

 

[FA_Q2]

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 fond this position interesting because you rightfully note that communism is against human nature. The concept of communism represents another utopian version of society - one that sounds nice but is not workable in reality because it ignores the human element. Anarchy is another utopian ideal that fails for the same reason - it ignores human nature. It is human nature for some to seek power and control while others naturally acquiesce to it or even seek it out.

On the small scale in a large world, the ideas of anarchy work in the same manner that communism works on that scale. This is mainly due, IMHO, to the reality that small scales allow the individual actors to hold others accountable for their impacts on the group or other individuals. In the modern world, it is a different story. As technology grows the population and 'shrinks' the world an anarchist ideal no longer works. Within the vacuum of a real power structure, someone strong takes that power and consolidates it with themselves or their group. The r3ealities of technology and its ability to act as a force multiplier make this an inescapable reality.

 

[FA_Q2]

The logical conclusion of that stance is to only support an anarchy.

Obviously.

This makes your opposition to voting for a third party pointless, that same opposition can be said about voting for the main parties.

 

[FA_Q2]

"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.

You are WAY off base here. Taxation in inherently non-voluntary by its nature. You are born and subsequently FORCED to participate if you agree or not. That is the exact opposite of voluntary. Why is that so hard to accept?

"It's possible not to pay taxes. Not easy, and you'd be subsistence farming, but hey."
Actually - it is not. It is actually impossible to do so legally. You are taxed if you own property and even bartering is, if you do so legally, a taxable action.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Except that it is practiced in many places in the world successfully.

What is unrealistic is believing that two parties is the only possible political system.

 

[Onyx]

Anarchy is another utopian ideal that fails for the same reason - it ignores human nature.

False. It is a purely practical idea.

Kill uniformed thugs. Allow people to self govern. Promote self sufficiency. Hold people accountable.

Statism is a utopian ideology. It is the belief that the best managed society can be conditioned through the use of established rulers and systematic violence on a grand scale.

It is human nature for some to seek power and control while others naturally acquiesce to it or even seek it out.

Yeah.

I believe in permanent class war against rulers and those that are trying to emplace themselves as rulers, preferably through armed organization.

On the small scale in a large world, the ideas of anarchy work in the same manner that communism works on that scale. This is mainly due, IMHO, to the reality that small scales allow the individual actors to hold others accountable for their impacts on the group or other individuals.

You are trying to put an inherently individualistic ideology on a geopolitical scale.

Collectivism is one of the great ires that has driven many men to become anarchists.

The r3ealities of technology and its ability to act as a force multiplier make this an inescapable reality.

Irrelevant.

Force can be responded with equal or greater force.

The proportion of force does not matter, as long as it can be effectively replicated.

 

[Onyx]

Actually - it is not. It is actually impossible to do so legally. You are taxed if you own property and even bartering is, if you do so legally, a taxable action.

For many small businesses, you could end up paying to the government 2-3 times what it takes to pay for what is necessary to run the business itself.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

If we had more than two parties that were real contenders, too many elections would be decided in the House of Representatives. We had plenty of candidates to choose among in the primaries and third party would add nothing to the process at this point.

 

[Onyx]

This makes your opposition to voting for a third party pointless, that same opposition can be said about voting for the main parties.

Actually my argument was that a multi-party system would not change much.

Part of my job is tearing down other means of reform that will just lead humanity down the same hell funnels.

 

[bodecea]

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.

No problem here...voting against all incumbents and voting for Johnson.

 

[Onyx]

You have choices and one of those is to get out of the country you live in. You could also refuse to pay taxes, refuse to accept what is there. The problem is most people do accept it and you seem to accept most of the laws too.

False dilemma.

There are clearly more than two choices.

Also false.

The lack of dissidence does not = the validation of consent

Taxation is voluntary because you could choose to live a life without taxes. You, however, choose the life where you do pay taxes. That's your choice.

There is no way to completely avoid taxation without breaking the law.

That counts for squatters and wanderers.

Even if this were not the case, living in general squalor is not an option.

I buy food. I'd rather food be given to me free, however it's not free, so I have to buy it. I don't like it, but I accept it because it's either that or grow it myself.

The local market does not lord over me. Business in a market is pure interaction without power hierarchy.

It is reasonable to ask others to find business elsewhere. It is not reasonable to ask others to abandon their homeland when their humanity is being degraded.

Government DOES create currency. Who do you think makes those coins and bills in your pocket?

Restating that I do not inherently oppose governance. You seem to be lost on this one.

The existence of common forms of capital form as a natural consequence of trade. Every commodity has its market value.

Resource standards are the most efficient without government. The difference between a barter economy and a capitalist market is how many cheap commodities have a clear value assigned to them.

It's not slavery. Slavery is something different.

False.

Slavery is when ones personhood is owned by something/someone other than themselves.

In the case of the state, both something and someone own the personhood of all Americans.

 

[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.

You are WAY off base here. Taxation in inherently non-voluntary by its nature. You are born and subsequently FORCED to participate if you agree or not. That is the exact opposite of voluntary. Why is that so hard to accept?

"It's possible not to pay taxes. Not easy, and you'd be subsistence farming, but hey."
Actually - it is not. It is actually impossible to do so legally. You are taxed if you own property and even bartering is, if you do so legally, a taxable action.

Not necessarily. It's become "non-voluntary" just as having a phone has become "non-voluntary". You kind of need to do it because you want to live in society. However you don't have to live in the mainstream of society. You could sneak off into the wilderness and live in a tent in the forests and grow your own food away from the grid. Then you don't have to pay taxes. But, people choose to live within society, to have electricity, to have gadgets, to have a car, to buy food from the store and all that stuff, and then they pay taxes. They just don't see it as a choice, when it actually is.

But then again people also have the choice of voting for a party to get rid of taxes. They don't. They CHOOSE to vote for the main two parties. Again, choice.

 

[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.

If we had more than two parties that were real contenders, too many elections would be decided in the House of Representatives. We had plenty of candidates to choose among in the primaries and third party would add nothing to the process at this point.

Not at all. You really need to see how other systems work. Primaries wouldn't be necessary at all because you'd have so many parties who'd just choose their own people and you'd have loads of choice on the actual election day to have the need for primaries.

You think a 3rd party would add nothing right now. Well, I've seen other systems at work and know you're wrong here. I really suggest you take a look at the German system, it works quite well, but other systems in Europe also work differently.

Your view seems to be what you've been told by the main two parties. It's clear they try and stop any talk of a change in system, they simply don't want it because they're happy with the set up right now.

 

[Onyx]

However you don't have to live in the mainstream of society. You could sneak off into the wilderness and live in a tent in the forests and grow your own food away from the grid.

You are becoming incredibly drifted in order to support your narrative.

By your argument, a plantation slave is free because he can choose to run away... and end up being tortured, raped, and shot if he gets caught. If he does not get caught, the plantation slave becomes a vagrant outcast.

Taxation is not voluntary. If you refuse to give into the states intimidation, it will seize everything you have built and consider throwing you in a dark cell.

It does not matter how you spin it. True consent is absent of threat, force, and punishment for not "consenting."

^ Apply rape again

 

[frigidweirdo]

You have choices and one of those is to get out of the country you live in. You could also refuse to pay taxes, refuse to accept what is there. The problem is most people do accept it and you seem to accept most of the laws too.

False dilemma.

There are clearly more than two choices.

Also false.

The lack of dissidence does not = the validation of consent

Taxation is voluntary because you could choose to live a life without taxes. You, however, choose the life where you do pay taxes. That's your choice.

There is no way to completely avoid taxation without breaking the law.

That counts for squatters and wanderers.

Even if this were not the case, living in general squalor is not an option.

I buy food. I'd rather food be given to me free, however it's not free, so I have to buy it. I don't like it, but I accept it because it's either that or grow it myself.

The local market does not lord over me. Business in a market is pure interaction without power hierarchy.

It is reasonable to ask others to find business elsewhere. It is not reasonable to ask others to abandon their homeland when their humanity is being degraded.

Government DOES create currency. Who do you think makes those coins and bills in your pocket?

Restating that I do not inherently oppose governance. You seem to be lost on this one.

The existence of common forms of capital form as a natural consequence of trade. Every commodity has its market value.

Resource standards are the most efficient without government. The difference between a barter economy and a capitalist market is how many cheap items have a clear value assigned to them.

It's not slavery. Slavery is something different.

False.

Slavery is when ones personhood is owned by something/someone other than themselves.

In the case of the state, both something and someone own the personhood of all Americans.

More than two choices, there are thousands of choices.

There are different levels of support. By doing nothing you are accepting what exists in some way. You might go to work because you want money, that doesn't mean you like work. However you're willing to accept work in order to get the higher goal.

So, people support the system of government because it works. Taxation exists in every country, but some places have more and others less. You have accepted the choice of living in society, so you pay taxes for that too.

So you have consented to the taxation in a manner even if you don't like it. It's part of the society you have chosen to remain in.

Sure, living as a subsistence farmer or in squalor is not an option for you. You've chosen to live a life in which you have pride and respect for yourself and this requires taxation. Others have made other choices. But they are still choices even if you see them as not being options for you.

 

[Onyx]

By doing nothing you are accepting what exists in some way.

Not when the situation a human being is forced to undergo causes greater harm for dissenting.

Silence does not = consent. Running away does not = consent.

How are you not getting this?

In fact, these exact arguments are commonly made anytime anyone steps over anybody. Rapists, thugs, human traffickers, and statists included.

So, people support the system of government because it works.

Government can be efficient in some cases.

The state only causes harm and degradation.

 

[frigidweirdo]

However you don't have to live in the mainstream of society. You could sneak off into the wilderness and live in a tent in the forests and grow your own food away from the grid.

You are becoming incredibly drifted in order to support your narrative.

By your argument, a plantation slave is free because he can choose to run away... and end up being tortured, raped, and shot if he gets caught. If he does not get caught, the plantation slave becomes a vagrant outcast.

Taxation is not voluntary. If you refuse to give into the states intimidation, it will seize everything you have built and consider throwing you in a dark cell.

It does not matter how you spin it. True consent is absent of threat, force, and punishment for not "consenting."

^ Apply rape again

No, not really. A slave can make the choice of running away, but they don't become free by running away under the law.

A person who is free within society has choices they can make under the law where they can limit the amount of taxes they pay, or in the normal course of events reduce them to almost zero.

You want to buy a chocolate bar. You know you'll pay tax on that bar. Is anyone forcing you to pay the tax? No, they're not.
If you get a job where you'll pay tax on what you earn, is anyone forcing you to pay tax? No, they're not.

Quite simply you could just get up and leave the country and never go back and you'd never have to pay taxes there ever again. If there were a country you could find where you don't have to pay taxes.

Again with rape, rape isn't a choice. That's exactly what rape is, a lack of choice. We're talking about making choices and making these choices voluntarily.

The whole point of this is that you seem to be saying the govt is bad because it's somehow forcing you to pay taxes. If it's force therefore somehow it's bad or evil.

But you live in a society you accept the rules even if you don't like them. If you obey the rules you accept them. Liking isn't part of the equation here. Accepting the rules even if you might want to change them because you have accepted that society should be ordered and that you have a chance to change things on election day.

You also have the choice to reject society and to fight back.

 

[frigidweirdo]

By doing nothing you are accepting what exists in some way.

Not when the situation a human being is forced to undergo causes greater harm for dissenting.

Silence does not = consent. Running away does not = consent.

How are you not getting this?

In fact, these exact arguments are commonly made anytime anyone steps over anybody. Rapists, thugs, human traffickers, and statists included.

So, people support the system of government because it works.

Government can be efficient in some cases.

The state only causes harm and degradation.

I'm not getting it because it's not true.

You're using examples of choice v. non-choice and trying to equate them as being equal.

If someone is raped they have no choice.
If someone is paying taxes they do have a choice because they've decided to do something which requires the paying of taxes.

No, the state doesn't only cause harm and degradation. Maybe if people started choosing their representatives better, they'd see that.

Imagine this. An owner of a company decides to employ the first person who walks through the door as CEO of his company. Then he fires the CEO after 4 years because he's useless. Then he hires the next guy who walks in through the door and fires this CEO after 4 years because he is also useless, and the process continues like this.

Then the owner says "CEOs only cause harm and degradation to my company so CEOs are bad for a company".

It's a silly situation, but exactly what is happening in the USA right now.

People are choosing a CEO of the country, but think they're participating in a popularity contest or something. Your ability to do the job is hardly put out there. It's all based on fickle nonsense.

 

[Onyx]

You also have the choice to reject society and to fight back.

What do you think people like me are doing?

The ultimate fallacy that you are committing, is claiming that a voluntary interaction is still so under duress,"

Life and property are natural rights. Do you understand what that means philosophically? It means that when these are threatened, they are not up for negotiation.

Consensual is a synonym of voluntary. You are falsely implicating the term voluntary into common misrepresentations of what the word means.

Here are definitions for voluntary

done, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of one's own accord or by free choice: (dictionary.com)

done or given because you want to and not because you are forced to : done or given by choice


Are you getting it not? A voluntary interaction is not done under duress or threat.