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

[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.

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.

You're talking about parliamentary systems, but in our system, the winning candidate must win 270 electoral college votes or the election goes to the House of Representatives to decide. Three strong parties would mean many of our presidential elections would be decided by the House.

 

[Onyx]

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

Justify your incorrect definitions of how voluntary interactions can be taken under duress.

If someone is raped they have no choice.

Seriously? Huge fallacy.

Someone being raped could fight back

They have that option. By your exact same logic the interaction is just as voluntary.

When they refuse, they often catch a bullet. When you refuse the state, your livelihood will be seized, you might be thrown in a dark cell, and possibly even knocked off.

If you are going to form a position, at least make it consistent.

 

[Crixus]

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.

I'm thinking the same, just not Gary Johnson. I'm thinking after this election it will gain momentum.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

So, when you pay taxes on things, it is done under duress or a threat? If you buy a house, you're doing so under duress? When you buy food, you're doing so under duress? When you get a job, you're doing so under duress? Man, your life must suck if everything you do you feel threatened to do.

 

[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.

I'm thinking the same, just not Gary Johnson. I'm thinking after this election it will gain momentum.

I doubt it. The people are sheep who get advertised to death and can't really cope thinking for themselves. The only way you're going to get a chance is if you get someone like Trump who decides to use this as an issue and can get the country behind him. However the chances of this are remote at best.

 

[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.

You're talking about parliamentary systems, but in our system, the winning candidate must win 270 electoral college votes or the election goes to the House of Representatives to decide. Three strong parties would mean many of our presidential elections would be decided by the House.

I understand the US system. And I understand that if you change the system, the system is different.

You're acting like the US chances the way people vote, and yet it'd remain the same. That makes no sense.

Imagine if the US used the German system for choosing Congressmen and women instead of the present system. This is what we're talking about here.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

Justify your incorrect definitions of how voluntary interactions can be taken under duress.

If someone is raped they have no choice.

Seriously? Huge fallacy.

Someone being raped could fight back

They have that option. By your exact same logic the interaction is just as voluntary.

When they refuse, they often catch a bullet. When you refuse the state, your livelihood will be seized, you might be thrown in a dark cell, and possibly even knocked off.

If you are going to form a position, at least make it consistent.

Yes, someone being raped could fight back. However if they were raped then they failed, and they didn't have the choice in the matter. The very definition of rape is lack of choice.

Clearly there is a difference between you going to buy a chocolate bar and you being raped, and the difference is in choice!

 

[Onyx]

So, when you pay taxes on things, it is done under duress or a threat?

Yes.

Punishment is conditional with non-compliance.

If you buy a house, you're doing so under duress?

No.

When you buy food, you're doing so under duress?

No.

When you get a job, you're doing so under duress?

No.

Man, your life must suck if everything you do you feel threatened to do.

I will give you two reasons why the definition of voluntary you are using is wrong.

For one, it is not defined by majority usage. Words are defined by how they are used. Relatively few people consider voluntary to be an action taken under duress. Semantics are one of the few topics that can be legitimately argued through argumentum ad populum. This goes for the philosophical definition definition as well.

For the hell of it, I will even throw in the legal definition since you view it as legitimate. Consensual acts are not taken under duress, according to widespread precedent. The legal system establishes a distinction between compliance and consent. That is why people forced to murder at gunpoint will get manslaughter, and a rapist is not acquitted due to the victim not sufficiently fighting back.

 

[Onyx]

Yes, someone being raped could fight back. However if they were raped then they failed, and they didn't have the choice in the matter. The very definition of rape is lack of choice.x

The act of rape is done so under force. Rape victims have the choice to fight back, do they not? Are you saying that a victim needs to fight back before it can be considered voluntary?

There is NO difference between your argument that rape is involuntary and that taxation is voluntary.

You are shifting your narrative because the fault in your position is becoming self evident.

 

[Onyx]

This is how all social contract and rule of law arguments go by the way.

It should be noted that fascists and socialists are the ones that have primarily used these arguments to justify their collectivist ideologies.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, when you pay taxes on things, it is done under duress or a threat?

Yes.

Punishment is conditional with non-compliance.

If you buy a house, you're doing so under duress?

No.

When you buy food, you're doing so under duress?

No.

When you get a job, you're doing so under duress?

No.

Man, your life must suck if everything you do you feel threatened to do.

I will give you two reasons why the definition of voluntary you are using is wrong.

For one, it is not defined by majority usage. Words are defined by how they are used. Relatively few people consider voluntary to be an action taken under duress. Semantics are one of the few topics that can be legitimately argued through argumentum ad populum. This goes for the philosophical definition definition as well.

For the hell of it, I will even throw in the legal definition since you view it as legitimate. Consensual acts are not taken under duress, according to widespread precedent. The legal system establishes a distinction between compliance and consent. That is why people forced to murder at gunpoint will get manslaughter, and a rapist is not acquitted due to the victim not sufficiently fighting back.

But you know you have to pay tax BEFORE you do something, right? So... you've made the choice to accept before you've bought something, before you took a job.

Non-compliance is when you've agreed to it already then don't do it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, someone being raped could fight back. However if they were raped then they failed, and they didn't have the choice in the matter. The very definition of rape is lack of choice.x

The act of rape is done so under force. Rape victims have the choice to fight back, do they not? Are you saying that a victim needs to fight back before it can be considered voluntary?

There is NO difference between your argument that rape is involuntary and that taxation is voluntary.

You are shifting your narrative because the fault in your position is becoming self evident.

You might have the choice to fight back, but that doesn't mean you'll win that fight.

If you walk into a store and don't want to buy a chocolate bar, are you going to have to fight with someone in order to not buy the chocolate bar?

Yes, there is a MASSIVE difference.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is how all social contract and rule of law arguments go by the way.

It should be noted that fascists and socialists are the ones that have primarily used these arguments to justify their collectivist ideologies.

Do we not live in a society? We always have done. Just now people are getting more individualistic.

The funny thing is that the right want to be individualistic when it suits them, lower taxes, oh I'm being forced to pay taxes, then when it comes to morals they want to force them on people.

Basically if they like something, force it on people, if they don't like it, complain that they're an individual and shouldn't have to abide by the society.

 

[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.

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.

You're talking about parliamentary systems, but in our system, the winning candidate must win 270 electoral college votes or the election goes to the House of Representatives to decide. Three strong parties would mean many of our presidential elections would be decided by the House.

I understand the US system. And I understand that if you change the system, the system is different.

You're acting like the US chances the way people vote, and yet it'd remain the same. That makes no sense.

Imagine if the US used the German system for choosing Congressmen and women instead of the present system. This is what we're talking about here.

What advantage do you imagine there is?

 

[Onyx]

But you know you have to pay tax BEFORE you do something, right? So... you've made the choice to accept before you've bought something, before you took a job.

False premises lead to incorrect conclusions.

A rape victim is told to pull down her knickers and not to scream. She must of accepted her fate, right?

You need to stop conflating actions absent of force with actions where force is conditional.

Non-compliance is when you've agreed to it already then don't do it.

False.

Non-compliance is when one refuses to adhere to the wish or command of someone else.

One could agree and later not comply. That is not the definition of non-compliance.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But you know you have to pay tax BEFORE you do something, right? So... you've made the choice to accept before you've bought something, before you took a job.

False premises lead to incorrect conclusions.

A rape victim is told to pull down her knickers and not to scream. She must of accepted her fate, right?

You need to stop conflating actions absent of force with actions where force is conditional.

Non-compliance is when you've agreed to it already then don't do it.

False.

Non-compliance is when one refuses to adhere to the wish or command of someone else.

One could agree and later not comply. That is not the definition of non-compliance.

A rape victim doesn't seek out being raped. A person buying something or working seeks out the work. That's the difference. If you can't see that then you need to go speak to rape victims.

You're trying to claim that the choice of fighting back is the choice of being raped. It is not.

 

[Onyx]

Do we not live in a society? We always have done. Just now people are getting more individualistic.

False.

Humanity in the modern age is more collectivist and dependent than any other era in history.

The funny thing is that the right want to be individualistic when it suits them, lower taxes, oh I'm being forced to pay taxes, then when it comes to morals they want to force them on people.

I agree. Conservatives have little consistency in their rhetoric.

They use the rule of law argument, which means the exact same thing as the social contract argument, but is argued a little differently.

The funny thing is that liberals will argue against rule of law, and conservatives will argue against social contracts. They fail to recognize how they are no different at all.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Disagree.

Actual, substantive change can occur only at the very local level, not from the top-down, including top-down ‘third party’ voting.

 

[Onyx]

A rape victim doesn't seek out being raped.

I do not seek out taxation.

A person buying something or working seeks out the work. That's the difference.

More of this straw man argument? I am not arguing that those acts are involuntary.

My position is pretty clear. If you are forced to do something under duress, then the act is not voluntary. Hence, taxation.

You're trying to claim that the choice of fighting back is the choice of being raped. It is not.

False. That is what your own position is implying.

There is little difference between being forced to get fucked against ones will, and being forced to pay taxes against ones will.

I am noticing the contradictions in your position, but you fail to see them even when they are pointed out.

 

[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.

You're talking about parliamentary systems, but in our system, the winning candidate must win 270 electoral college votes or the election goes to the House of Representatives to decide. Three strong parties would mean many of our presidential elections would be decided by the House.

I understand the US system. And I understand that if you change the system, the system is different.

You're acting like the US chances the way people vote, and yet it'd remain the same. That makes no sense.

Imagine if the US used the German system for choosing Congressmen and women instead of the present system. This is what we're talking about here.

What advantage do you imagine there is?

With more parties in Germany getting into mainstream politics you have more choice for the voters. In the US they choose Rep or Dem and that's it. In Germany they have CDU/CSU conservatives, SPD liberals, FPD center right, die Gruene a green party, a far right party and other parties can come up quickly.

In the US you had the Tea Party and they were merely a part of the Republican Party because they had no chance of breaking off and forming their own party.

Also they have coalition governments which means there needs to be consensus and agreements. In the US it's all about friction between the two parties that stops anything happening. In Germany the two parties come to an agree BEFORE they start working together on how they're going to COOPERATE, and they do because they know that new elections would have to be called if they didn't cooperate.

Policies are far more people orientated. People can vote for one of the less parties knowing they might form junior government, and therefore negotiate with the larger party to have some of their main ideas get into the government's policy.

In the US that doesn't happen at all. Policies that aren't in favor of the Reps or Dems just die.