Personally, I'd rather sneak up on someone and get them to agree with me on something political than wave banners proclaiming my allegiance to a team. Do I do it well? Not really. I think I can un-motivate people from voting against my point of view but I dunno how many minds I have really changed.
Still though, I don't go around chanting this or that sucks in my signature warning people whatever I type is almost certainly slanted a particular way.
So my main goal of being here is to read opposing view points and see if they sway me. By this point in the game they usually don't but perhaps they moderate my point of view when presented well. If someone is out and about calling people names it makes me question the maturity of folks with their point of views.
Just saying.
Dear
Toronado3800
The people who impress me are ones who practice what they preach.
The Greens who go out and build worker coops, and teach how to manage independent labor-backed currency and health care networks.
The Conservatives who teach and invest in business empowerment and local management
instead of waiting and complaining about govt leaders like whiny liberals do.
The Liberals who really back free choice instead of contradicting it by regulating choices through govt mandates and taxes that take power away from people.
The Anarchists who work to build communities themselves based on autonomy and not depending on outside authority or resources handed to them.
I identify as Constitutionalist, where my views are close
to isocracy or isonomy or equal political power and representation.
I borrow from the Greens the idea of proportional representation by Party,
and their model for decision making based on resolving conflicts
and objections to form a consensus among the members directly.
If we can apply this to current govt, including party and media representation,
then all groups could voice and represent their own beliefs and interests without compromise, conflict or competing to dominate exclude or coerce others.
By allowing each group to manage its own policies and programs for its own members
under their own terms for funding, distribution and representation,
we don't have to agree with each other or force people to change their beliefs.
We either agree on a policy or program that then can be made public through govt,
or we disagree and separate the funding and administration to be localized
by district, state or even party so the members can stay local or go statewide or national.
But without imposing on people of opposing beliefs from other parties
with equal ability to run and fund their own programs according to their beliefs.
This is where I believe our democratic system is heading within a republican/representative form of govt.
Through the parties that have structures from precinct, district, county state and national,
and the Electoral College system that can be refined to allow proportional seats
for each party, union or affiliation represented per district or state,
we could manage our diversity instead of falling to partisan bullying that has
crippled our democratic process, backlogged our courts media and legislature with political battles,
and just use our freedom of speech, press, right to petition and due process
to mediate conflicts, spell out points and principles of agreement AND disagreement,
and accommodate these in public policy as well as localized policies that represent the people.
We can use our given structures, freedom and resources
to represent ourselves and our interests both locally and directly
and nationally and statewide through elected representatives.
But not allow these positions or procedures to be abused
to push one person or group's political beliefs over others.
See:
www.ethics-commission.net
