Repubs want to change electorial college

Quote: AZDuffman

Just got done voting, what happened was amazing. I mean A-M-A-Z-I-N-G!

First, I had to leave for work, a 70 mile drive each way today. Left just before 7 so I could not vote before work. Got back about 6. So I had an 11 hour day and golly gee, I still found time to vote! I was told when you work such a day you don't have time to vote. Weird.

Sadly, they did not ask for ID. I could have been anybody. I could have registered and voted under a fake name. This needs to be corrected.

AZ proved voter suppression.
I live in the city, of course my ID was examined very closely.
Az, he's a republican. Republicans could care less about his ID. He voted without ID. Probably lives in a traditional Republican stronghold. No ID required to vote in republican precincts. I live in the city, could not vote without ID.
Its about voter suppression in the cities.
Thanks AZ for proving the case of voter suppression in the cities.
Thanks for your honesty about voting without ID :-)

Quote: terapined

Thanks for your honesty about voting without ID :-)

Last election (not this year, 2 years ago) they asked for ID but it was not required somehow. I was happy to show mine, and the woman commented to another poll worker the attitude difference between people who supported clean elections and those who want to allow voter fraud. (well, I couldn't quite hear most of what she said but that was the gist of it.)

BTW: my precinct is anything but a GOP district. Two lines had no GOP candidate. So John Galt got two write-in votes.

I wish my ID was examined.

The current "system" for choosing electors hasn't changed since the nation's founding. Each state's legislature determines how electors are chosen. These days, it's generally the majority of the popular vote within that state. Some states, I think Nebraska and Maine, do it slightly differently.

Technically, you didn't vote for either Obama or Romney in 2012, but for a slate of electors pledged to vote for their candidate. If you pull your 2012 ballot from your election office, I think you'll see this.

Electors for each candidate are not up for popular election. Usually, the slate is selected by the party. I don't know if this is part of the legislation written by the state, but it would stand to reason so.

While you do see some faithless electors, it's never like Obama's elector voted for Romney. It's more like Obama's elector abstains or does some other "protest" vote, knowing their candidate will win/lose. This happens somewhat frequently, I think most recently in 2004 when some midwest elector voted for John Edwards for President (even though he was the VP nominee). The national archives has all the electoral results at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/historical.html. An interesting read, actually, esp. in 1824 and after Reconstruction.

The electoral college favors the favorite candidate of the northeastern states pretty heavily. Starting at Maine, an area the size of Texas (2 EVs from senators) yields 15 EVs from senators (NJ, NY, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, and, say, 1 in NH). Split Texas up five ways (which is actually part of the annexation agreement) and California up six ways (a recent proposal), and 100 senators becomes 118, and the northeast liberal electoral bias is neutralized along with senate liberal bias. Liberals depend upon the smallness of those states. Should those states ever see the light, liberals will never again hold a majority.

States can set how electors are chosen. They are under no obligation to put it to popular vote within the state, but they just have landed there. This is true for the proposal to award a state's electors to the winner of the national popular vote. However, that creates a fundamental constitutional decision: the power of the states to set their own electoral college selection against the absolute intent of the Constitution and the framers to precisely NOT select the President on a national popular basis.

As a practical matter, it would have no consequence unless it's a purple state or a state shifts from blue to red. Although, should the conservative win the popular vote, I can't imagine 55-45 blue states like CA, NY, MI, IL, etc., being OK with their electors voting conservative. That knife has two edges. Given the current momentum of blue states and Republican governors (WI, MI, OH, IL for god's sake, MD for god's sake, MA, NM, ME, IA) and the coming fall of the Midwestern Firewall, I would not think liberals would want to go that way and lose their small-area state bias. The whole idea is, frankly, seeded from the 2000 Gore loss.

A similar dynamic exists in state legislatures, who determine the method of selecting electors. 23 state legislatures are now completely under Republican control, including 11 pick-ups in states live NV (both), MN (house), NH (house), NY (senate), NM (house), and WA (senate). So ... I would not expect the selection process to change any time soon.

Quote: MrWarmth

As a practical matter, it would have no consequence unless it's a purple state or a state shifts from blue to red. Although, should the conservative win the popular vote, I can't imagine 55-45 blue states like CA, NY, MI, IL, etc., being OK with their electors voting conservative. That knife has two edges. Given the current momentum of blue states and Republican governors (WI, MI, OH, IL for god's sake, MD for god's sake, MA, NM, ME, IA) and the coming fall of the Midwestern Firewall, I would not think liberals would want to go that way and lose their small-area state bias. The whole idea is, frankly, seeded from the 2000 Gore loss.

It was totally a reaction to the Gore loss. What I see happening is what so often happens. It will eventually pass enough states and when it does the liberals will get the exact opposite of what they wanted and a GOP candidate will look as though they will either win the popular vote but would have lost the EC *or* it will be such that the liberals will wish they had the lock on their several big states and try to reverse things.

Quote: RS

Those who don't vote don't get a say. You want your voice heard? Vote. Sounds fair to me. I hear too much these days (at least a year or two ago), "President sucks, this n that suck, everything sucks." I ask if they voted, they say no. Well there you go.

Democracy is supposed to be about the majority. If the majority isn't voting why wouldn't that be more important than the minority that is voting?

Quote: rudeboyoi

Democracy is supposed to be about the majority. If the majority isn't voting why wouldn't that be more important than the minority that is voting?

If there are more stupid people than bright people in the country what does that say about the future of democracy?

Quote: ncfatcat

If there are more stupid people than bright people in the country what does that say about the future of democracy?

Let's take it to the extreme. If only 1% of the population voted and 99% of the population didn't vote, should the 1% be able to tell the other 99% what to do? Would that be fair?

I am sure the thread starter got his information on what Republicans think and why from the same impeccable sources and with similar care as his understanding of the history of the Electoral College and comprehension of its current and past functioning through all the multiple revisions of it among the states which determine the selection of it.

It is well known (among all the cool people I hang out with who are excruciatingly like me and always agree with me or pretend to in my presence) that those who do not vote the way I do are evil, and stupid, and when they win they must be cheating and the result cannot be legitimate. It has been thoroughly documented (on the cool people's websites I go to that tell me what I want to hear) that people with very different experiences and views of the world than me and my circle of friends can only think differently than me because they are mean, racist, morally and intellectually inferior people, who are unfairly conspiring to oppress everyone so they can starve them, make them die of cancer, and throw their grandma off a cliff. I know this, because all my friends agree.

Or they would, if not for the fact that I am...

Yours truly,

D. Dead
Board Member Emeritus and
Secretary-Treasurer of VRWCSMYFKGOE, Inc.
(Vast Right Wing Conspiracy of Scumbags to Make You Fail, Kill Grandma, and Oppress Everyone)
[IRS 501(c)(3) status pending]

Welcome to the WoV treatment center for emotionally disturbed adolescents. The inmates of which tend to bear a suspicious resemblance to folks who are prone to fantasies that maybe they are really going to make oodles of money with little effort by playing casino games, if only they can avoid the bad people who are conspiring to cheat them out of their entitlement to win.

As the M.I.T. genius propelling and writing the Affordable Care Act says, the only way to pass the act was to lie to the American public and rely on their stupidity to be acquiescent.

Quote: rudeboyoi

Let's take it to the extreme. If only 1% of the population voted and 99% of the population didn't vote, should the 1% be able to tell the other 99% what to do? Would that be fair?

If the 99% can vote, but don't, then they have made -no- indication of their opinions. So we have no way of knowing.

I personally think there should be a 'none of the above' on every ballot for electing a representative. If 'none of the above' wins, the candidates can no longer stand in for the position for a period of time, and a re-election held.

Quote: thecesspit

If the 99% can vote, but don't, then they have made -no- indication of their opinions. So we have no way of knowing.

I personally think there should be a 'none of the above' on every ballot for electing a representative. If 'none of the above' wins, the candidates can no longer stand in for the position for a period of time, and a re-election held.

+1

Quote: thecesspit

If the 99% can vote, but don't, then they have made -no- indication of their opinions. So we have no way of knowing.

I personally think there should be a 'none of the above' on every ballot for electing a representative. If 'none of the above' wins, the candidates can no longer stand in for the position for a period of time, and a re-election held.

Not voting is saying I don't approve. Let's say you asked your neighbors to show up to a meeting you created at your place to decide whether or not everyone on the block should be required to have a pink flamingo in their front yard. Most your neighbors think you're nuts and don't show up. But two of your neighbors do and together you vote that everyone should have a pink flamingo in their front yard. Should the neighbors who didn't show up be required to have a pink flamingo in their front yard now?

You seem to be implying that if somebody doesn't bother to vote, then the people who win shoudn't be allowed to govern them, and that isn't fair, but if you do vote and lose, then it is fair. That makes no sense to me. Your neighbor example also doesn't make sense to me, and I doubt that the three of you constitue a quorum.

Quote: rudeboyoi

Not voting is saying I don't approve. Let's say you asked your neighbors to show up to a meeting you created at your place to decide whether or not everyone on the block should be required to have a pink flamingo in their front yard. Most your neighbors think you're nuts and don't show up. But two of your neighbors do and together you vote that everyone should have a pink flamingo in their front yard. Should the neighbors who didn't show up be required to have a pink flamingo in their front yard now?

Only if there is a implicit agreement that said meeting is for everyone to decide on the rules of the neighbourhood.

In the case of countries, there is such an implicit and explicit agreement. You might not like it, or approve of it, but it's there.

Quote: thecesspit

Only if there is a implicit agreement that said meeting is for everyone to decide on the rules of the neighbourhood.

In the case of countries, there is such an implicit and explicit agreement. You might not like it, or approve of it, but it's there.

How so? Why does it matter if its a country? What's the difference besides scale? Its still just a group of people deciding how another group should live.

If its wrong of you to tell your neighbors what to do its wrong for any group of people to tell any other group of people what to do. There's nothing special about the government. Its simply a group of people. There's nothing special about the constitution. Its simply a piece of paper. We've been indoctrinated since our youth to revere the government and the law like something holy. When there's nothing special about them.

Quote: rudeboyoi

Not voting is saying I don't approve. Let's say you asked your neighbors to show up to a meeting you created at your place to decide whether or not everyone on the block should be required to have a pink flamingo in their front yard. Most your neighbors think you're nuts and don't show up. But two of your neighbors do and together you vote that everyone should have a pink flamingo in their front yard. Should the neighbors who didn't show up be required to have a pink flamingo in their front yard now?

If "not voting" means not going to the polling place or sending in the mail ballot, that is nothing less than abdication of responsibility. Barring an emergency or physical problem.
As for lunatic "neighbors," H.O.A.'s by and large have minimum participation quotas.

Quote: rudeboyoi

If its wrong of you to tell your neighbors what to do its wrong for any group of people to tell any other group of people what to do. There's nothing special about the government. Its simply a group of people. There's nothing special about the constitution. Its simply a piece of paper. We've been indoctrinated since our youth to revere the government and the law like something holy. When there's nothing special about them.

Sounds like a putative anarchist. Not any run-of-the-mill liberal.

Quote: SanchoPanza

If "not voting" means not going to the polling place or sending in the mail ballot, that is nothing less than abdication of responsibility. Barring an emergency or physical problem.
As for lunatic "neighbors," H.O.A.'s by and large have minimum participation quotas.

Why is it responsible to vote? Where does this belief stem from? If someone doesn't believe in a system how could it be responsible of them to participate in said system?

Quote: SanchoPanza

Sounds like a putative anarchist. Not any run-of-the-mill liberal.

I'll take that as a compliment. I prefer the term voluntaryist. We've been indoctrinated to associate anarchy with something bad when it simply means "No rulers". So its easier speaking to others saying voluntaryism than anarchism.

Quote: rudeboyoi

Why is it responsible to vote? Where does this belief stem from? If someone doesn't believe in a system how could it be responsible of them to participate in said system?

You can't necessarily opt out of not being affected though. Say you live back in the early pioneer days where you were less likely to have to answer to anyone.

If you opt to not participate, people may vote to dam the river a mile upstream. Suddenly the river you depended on is no longer there.

The modern version might be ending a jet runway right at your property line. Or having a city start a dump next to your property.

Were it only a plastic bird ornament all the time.

Quote: rudeboyoi

I'll take that as a compliment. I prefer the term voluntaryist. We've been indoctrinated to associate anarchy with something bad when it simply means "No rulers". So its easier speaking to others saying voluntaryism than anarchism.

Whatever that means, the best of luck to you.

Realistically, we live in a country that has elected leaders based on our Constitution. The reason even you should vote is that you can help elect leaders that more closely reflect your point of view than others. Libertarians, perhaps. If you and others like you convince enough people to vote your way, policies of the government would slide towards less government...and the ball could roll towards no government if people were convinced that none is even better than less.

You can adopt positions that try to ignore the Constitution as a mere piece of paper, but it's the paper the country was built on and will be the most important paper until you help do something about it, if you think it should mean nothing.

...or you can opt out and believe what you want. You just won't ever move the ball forward towards it happening anywhere in any meaningful way.

Quote: RonC

Whatever that means, the best of luck to you.

Realistically, we live in a country that has elected leaders based on our Constitution. The reason even you should vote is that you can help elect leaders that more closely reflect your point of view than others. Libertarians, perhaps. If you and others like you convince enough people to vote your way, policies of the government would slide towards less government...and the ball could roll towards no government if people were convinced that none is even better than less.

You can adopt positions that try to ignore the Constitution as a mere piece of paper, but it's the paper the country was built on and will be the most important paper until you help do something about it, if you think it should mean nothing.

...or you can opt out and believe what you want. You just won't ever move the ball forward towards it happening anywhere in any meaningful way.

This is the problem thinking voting is the only way to change the government. Weve been so indoctrinated thinking we can vote ourselves to freedom but it has never happened nor will ever happen. It is a false belief. You cant work within a system to change it. At least if people stopped voting all together, the government would fail to have any legitimacy.

Quote: rudeboyoi

Not voting is saying I don't approve. Let's say you asked your neighbors to show up to a meeting you created at your place to decide whether or not everyone on the block should be required to have a pink flamingo in their front yard. Most your neighbors think you're nuts and don't show up. But two of your neighbors do and together you vote that everyone should have a pink flamingo in their front yard. Should the neighbors who didn't show up be required to have a pink flamingo in their front yard now?

You can't just force something on everyone else because they didn't show up to your specific meeting that you held. You can't choose what goes in front of other people's yards.

On the other hand, let's say there was an HOA meeting where the home-owners would be able to vote on this plastic-flamingo thing. In that situation, whoever wins the vote, gets their say on the matter and people will get pink flamingos in front of their yard.

The difference is one is an agreed upon practice, where people in a specific housing area have agreed to the rules set forth by the HOA, etc. (ie: like USA laws). If half the people show up and vote -- their voice is heard. The other half who didn't show up don't care what happens.

Not voting is saying, "I don't care what the results are".

Voting is saying, "I do / do not approve."


If you're saying not voting is saying you disapprove (with the system, not what's being voted on)....well, tough shit. If you live in an HOA thing, then you're agreeing to how they do things. Kind of like how living in the US you agree to the US laws / constitution / etc.

And I find it very hard to believe that a majority of these people who aren't voting are not voting because they disapprove with the voting system. They are either lazy or don't care (which is pretty much the same thing). I'd say a tiny minority of non-voters are doing it because they don't agree with the voting system. I'm not saying that you said that a majority of non-voters aren't voting because they disapprove with the system....but that's what you're implying.

Quote: RS

You can't just force something on everyone else because they didn't show up to your specific meeting that you held. You can't choose what goes in front of other people's yards.

On the other hand, let's say there was an HOA meeting where the home-owners would be able to vote on this plastic-flamingo thing. In that situation, whoever wins the vote, gets their say on the matter and people will get pink flamingos in front of their yard.

The difference is one is an agreed upon practice, where people in a specific housing area have agreed to the rules set forth by the HOA, etc. (ie: like USA laws). If half the people show up and vote -- their voice is heard. The other half who didn't show up don't care what happens.

Not voting is saying, "I don't care what the results are".

Voting is saying, "I do / do not approve."

My example had nothing to do with HOA. Maybe I should've used something different than property. I was simply trying to say if its not right for you to command your neighbors to do something how can it possibly be right for anyone to command anyone to do anything. Its all a fear-based perception that the government has any right to command anyone to do anything. Every law is a threat of violence. If you don't obey you will be fined or caged. If its immoral for you to extort people for money. If its immoral for you to kidnap and throw others in a cage. If its immoral for you to initiate violence against other people. Why is it moral for the government to do so? By voting you are giving your consent for a third party to initiate violence against others. The only moral thing to do is not vote. Don't participate.

Here's a neat little video. I'm assuming the story is fictitious but it helps one to start looking outside the box and to think about democracy for what it really is. Another form of slavery.

The Jones Plantation: http://youtu.be/vb8Rj5xkDPk

And here's one about the constitution.

Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper: http://youtu.be/NhSqzANQvbk

Quote: rudeboyoi

My example had nothing to do with HOA. Maybe I should've used something different than property. I was simply trying to say if its not right for you to command your neighbors to do something how can it possibly be right for anyone to command anyone to do anything. Its all a fear-based perception that the government has any right to command anyone to do anything. Every law is a threat of violence. If you don't obey you will be fined or caged. If its immoral for you to extort people for money. If its immoral for you to kidnap and throw others in a cage. If its immoral for you to initiate violence against other people. Why is it moral for the government to do so? By voting you are giving your consent for a third party to initiate violence against others. The only moral thing to do is not vote. Don't participate.

I edited my post between my initial post and you quoting/replying.

Point is, when you live in an HOA, you agree to how things work in that HOA.


Sounds like you are an anarchist (or voluntarist or whatever you called it). I'm not saying the government is perfect, but, without government or someone in authority, chaos ensues. I don't want to live in a world where there are no rules -- anyone can do whatever they want without repercussion. I've had the whole anarchy conversation with a friend of mine before (few hours a day for a good 2 weeks). Whenever you come up with the idea, "Anarchy is good because of _____", think of the opposite side, what bad things come from that, or rather the things you're thinking about actually enforce a need for government and authority.

Quote: RS

I edited my post between my initial post and you quoting/replying.

Point is, when you live in an HOA, you agree to how things work in that HOA.


Sounds like you are an anarchist (or voluntarist or whatever you called it). I'm not saying the government is perfect, but, without government or someone in authority, chaos ensues. I don't want to live in a world where there are no rules -- anyone can do whatever they want without repercussion. I've had the whole anarchy conversation with a friend of mine before (few hours a day for a good 2 weeks). Whenever you come up with the idea, "Anarchy is good because of _____", think of the opposite side, what bad things come from that, or rather the things you're thinking about actually enforce a need for government and authority.

Engage me. Why do you think society would descend into chaos with no authority? Anarchy is purely conjectural. There's no proof it would fail. But theres plenty of proof that governments eventually fail. What is it you believe government does that we can't do on our own? Essentially this is what government does. They extort money from their citizens to pay for their agenda then spend a small portion to placate their constituents. Why not just get rid of this horribly inefficient middleman?

Most people feel its wrong to rob, rape, and murder (actual crimes). Why does there need to be a law that says its wrong to do so? Its redundant. Whats immoral will always be immoral. If government ceased to exist, why would these morals simply go out the window? Probably the most common form of anarchism we practice is tipping. No one is required to tip yet most people feel compelled to still do so.

Quote: rudeboyoi

Most people feel its wrong to rob, rape, and murder (actual crimes). Why does there need to be a law that says its wrong to do so? Its redundant. Whats immoral will always be immoral. If government ceased to exist, why would these morals simply go out the window? Probably the most common form of anarchism we practice is tipping. No one is required to tip yet most people feel compelled to still do so.

Because most people is not all. We can see clear examples of people who did not find these things wrong in the slightest, you have Bundy and Gacy. So without laws what do we do with these individuals and others like them who appear. Again you don't need a large number of people to devolve into chaos or tyranny. What is to stop one person from joining with a few of these people who have no problem killing and stealing and fashioning himself into a warlord.

Quote: rudeboyoi

My example had nothing to do with HOA. Maybe I should've used something different than property. I was simply trying to say if its not right for you to command your neighbors to do something how can it possibly be right for anyone to command anyone to do anything. Its all a fear-based perception that the government has any right to command anyone to do anything. Every law is a threat of violence. If you don't obey you will be fined or caged. If its immoral for you to extort people for money. If its immoral for you to kidnap and throw others in a cage. If its immoral for you to initiate violence against other people. Why is it moral for the government to do so? By voting you are giving your consent for a third party to initiate violence against others. The only moral thing to do is not vote. Don't participate.

Government forms because we need to make sure the sheepdogs do not become wolves.

Most people in society are sheep. Some are more sheepish than others, following the herd. Some are "independent sheep" that more follow their own direction. But most people prefer to graze in the meadow, not wanting to bother anyone else and have nobody bother them.

Some people in society are wolves. They want to prey on the sheep. And some people see the wolves, say "that is not right!" and become sheepdogs, protecting society from the wolves. But the problem is that as the wolves are controlled to a high enough degree, the sheepdogs can take on wolf behavior. Consider that in various places the cops can become the strongest and best armed gang. Heck, in Las Vegas way back in the era of mafia control, I believe Ralph Lamb had his own booze distribution business, which you can bet made for interesting sales calls. Wyatt Earp lived on both sides of the law.

So the society has laws. We can agree murder and rape are bad. But we must equalize the penalties and at the same time have protection for the accused. You have to pick who will administer said laws. So you vote, after showing proper ID of course.......

As to the Flamingo thing, IMHO if you live in an HOA (except for if you own a condo) by choice you need your head examined.

So based on the video, we are all slaves and no one can run for president.

Quote: rudeboyoi

Engage me. Why do you think society would descend into chaos with no authority? Anarchy is purely conjectural. There's no proof it would fail. But theres plenty of proof that governments eventually fail. What is it you believe government does that we can't do on our own? Essentially this is what government does. They extort money from their citizens to pay for their agenda then spend a small portion to placate their constituents. Why not just get rid of this horribly inefficient middleman?

What we cannot do on our own? I like the fact there are rules and laws. You can't just go do whatever you want and I can't do whatever I want.

So the next logical solution is that we all make our own rules. If everyone has their own rules...there really are no rules. So that doesn't really make sense.

I suppose we could make our own rules in small groups. Everyone that lives in my neighborhood likes the idea of having rules so we do that. Everyone in the neighborhood one over from mine has their own rules. So on and so forth. But, we've really just created a government for a smaller group of people.

Let's take WOV website for example -- the Wizard (or whoever owns it now....Zuga?) owns the website and is absolute authority. What would happen if we all ran the website collaboratively? Everything would go crazy. Everyone would be banning everyone, editing everyone's posts, changing stuff around, etc. And guess what -- no one is going to want to pay for the server to keep the website up. No one is going to want to do maintenance on the website, put their own time and energy into the betterment of the website.

In an anarchist state, who pays for policemen, firefighters, roads, etc.?

There is the argument that these things can be hired on a personal level. For example, I could pay some firefighting company $/month so if there's ever a fire at my house, they'll come and put it out. Sounds good. But what happens when my neighbor's house catches on fire? He doesn't pay money for a firefighting company to come put out the fire....and so, my house catches on fire. Sure, my firefighters come and put out the fire, but, WTF, that's not fair.....him not paying for fire-protection now cost my house to get burnt down or at least on fire.

So what.....does this mean everyone should pay for fire-protection now because it would be negligent to not have it? Sounds good to me. But wait -- that can't be done because we are in an anarchist state where there is no authority.


What about policemen? I pay for safety-protection (ie: police), money every month, so if someone breaks into my house they can come and save me, or....whatever else. There are of course multiple different safety-protection agencies (some cost more, some cost less). Does anyone regulate these agencies? Nope -- because we have no sovereign authority. What happens now, if say, I call my safety-protection hot line and say, "Hey, go kill Jason Dilaurentis, he [killed my wife / ran over my dog / has bad breath / I just want him dead]." No one is regulating this, so, they go off and do it (after all, that's what I pay them for). [Or maybe there's just a hit-man agency. That's their job. You pay them, they kill people for you. There is no regulation.]

So that leads us back to square one -- people want regulations, laws, and rules.


In an anarchist state, there is no regulation. Anyone can do whatever they want with no repercussions. That is ultimately why anarchy would fail.


So, entertain me. How is anarchy better.



BTW AZD: I have an HOA because I own a condo. So I ain't crazy.....'t least don't think so.

Quote: Twirdman

Because most people is not all. We can see clear examples of people who did not find these things wrong in the slightest, you have Bundy and Gacy. So without laws what do we do with these individuals and others like them who appear. Again you don't need a large number of people to devolve into chaos or tyranny. What is to stop one person from joining with a few of these people who have no problem killing and stealing and fashioning himself into a warlord.

That makes no sense. Bundy and Gacy killed people in a society with laws. I'm not saying some people won't rob and murder people but that happens with or without laws. The only thing we know for certain is that governments have been responsible for killing hundreds of millions of people.

Quote: rudeboyoi

That makes no sense. Bundy and Gacy killed people in a society with laws. I'm not saying some people won't rob and murder people but that happens with or without laws. The only thing we know for certain is that governments have been responsible for killing hundreds of millions of people.

No one is arguing everyone is going to become a murdered but without law how do you handle those who are murders. In a society with laws you have clear methods in place on both how to find the person and how to handle him when he was apprehended an anarchic society has no such method. So do we simply allow these people to do whatever they want?

Quote: RS

So based on the video, we are all slaves and no one can run for president.



What we cannot do on our own? I like the fact there are rules and laws. You can't just go do whatever you want and I can't do whatever I want.

So the next logical solution is that we all make our own rules. If everyone has their own rules...there really are no rules. So that doesn't really make sense.

I suppose we could make our own rules in small groups. Everyone that lives in my neighborhood likes the idea of having rules so we do that. Everyone in the neighborhood one over from mine has their own rules. So on and so forth. But, we've really just created a government for a smaller group of people.

Let's take WOV website for example -- the Wizard (or whoever owns it now....Zuga?) owns the website and is absolute authority. What would happen if we all ran the website collaboratively? Everything would go crazy. Everyone would be banning everyone, editing everyone's posts, changing stuff around, etc. And guess what -- no one is going to want to pay for the server to keep the website up. No one is going to want to do maintenance on the website, put their own time and energy into the betterment of the website.

In an anarchist state, who pays for policemen, firefighters, roads, etc.?

There is the argument that these things can be hired on a personal level. For example, I could pay some firefighting company $/month so if there's ever a fire at my house, they'll come and put it out. Sounds good. But what happens when my neighbor's house catches on fire? He doesn't pay money for a firefighting company to come put out the fire....and so, my house catches on fire. Sure, my firefighters come and put out the fire, but, WTF, that's not fair.....him not paying for fire-protection now cost my house to get burnt down or at least on fire.

So what.....does this mean everyone should pay for fire-protection now because it would be negligent to not have it? Sounds good to me. But wait -- that can't be done because we are in an anarchist state where there is no authority.


What about policemen? I pay for safety-protection (ie: police), money every month, so if someone breaks into my house they can come and save me, or....whatever else. There are of course multiple different safety-protection agencies (some cost more, some cost less). Does anyone regulate these agencies? Nope -- because we have no sovereign authority. What happens now, if say, I call my safety-protection hot line and say, "Hey, go kill Jason Dilaurentis, he [killed my wife / ran over my dog / has bad breath / I just want him dead]." No one is regulating this, so, they go off and do it (after all, that's what I pay them for). [Or maybe there's just a hit-man agency. That's their job. You pay them, they kill people for you. There is no regulation.]

So that leads us back to square one -- people want regulations, laws, and rules.


In an anarchist state, there is no regulation. Anyone can do whatever they want with no repercussions. That is ultimately why anarchy would fail.


So, entertain me. How is anarchy better.

Show Spoiler

Disclaimer
Perhaps I'm misunderstood on anarchy or even what you point of view is.

BTW AZD: I have an HOA because I own a condo. So I ain't crazy.....'t least don't think so.

There are already volunteer fire departments so we can awknowledge that that works. I've said it plenty of times before. Police do not protect us. They are merely there to enforce political edicts. Only we can protect ourselves. As for roads the same people that build them now will prob continue building them. Residential roads will most likely be paid for by people that live around those roads. Commercial roads will be paid for by businesses that want to bring traffic to their establishment. Highways will prob be paid for by businesses that need them to transport their goods

Quote: Twirdman

No one is arguing everyone is going to become a murdered but without law how do you handle those who are murders. In a society with laws you have clear methods in place on both how to find the person and how to handle him when he was apprehended an anarchic society has no such method. So do we simply allow these people to do whatever they want?

Its a ridiculous notion that everyone will be unwilling to defend themselves. You can't run good forever. Murderers will eventually be killed trying to murder someone. Google what percentage of the population are murderers. The rate is extremely low. Its fear that's propagated by the government that people want to go around killing each other.

Quote: rudeboyoi

If its wrong of you to tell your neighbors what to do its wrong for any group of people to tell any other group of people what to do. There's nothing special about the government. Its simply a group of people. There's nothing special about the constitution. Its simply a piece of paper. We've been indoctrinated since our youth to revere the government and the law like something holy. When there's nothing special about them.

I like where your head is, and you are right of course.

Another problem with elections is that the options available are very narrow. Take the income tax. The Republicans want to see the top rate at 35%, the Democrats want it at 37.5%. This is the glorious spectrum of allowable opinion.

The country had no income tax for 150 years, and the current system is about 100 years old. But if you prefer abolishing the income tax (heck, even reducing the top rate to 10%) who do you vote for? The country also once had a 90% marginal rate. Let's say you believe that a 75%+ income tax on the super wealthy would reduce inequality and might not be a bad idea. Who do you vote for? Does voting for 35% or 37.5% really advance your cause? Can we really tell these people that because they decided to sit on their hands (perhaps as a protest?) they don't get to complain?

Believing in the state is a sort of religion, and voting is one of the sacraments. Real statists believe that simply going to the poll and casting a ballot (even if it is for Mickey Mouse) is VERY IMPORTANT and it's a damn shame more people don't do it. Even if there is no real dissent or opposition and your opinions fall radically outside the mainstream.

Quote: RS

What we cannot do on our own? I like the fact there are rules and laws. You can't just go do whatever you want and I can't do whatever I want.

So the next logical solution is that we all make our own rules. If everyone has their own rules...there really are no rules. So that doesn't really make sense.

I suppose we could make our own rules in small groups. Everyone that lives in my neighborhood likes the idea of having rules so we do that. Everyone in the neighborhood one over from mine has their own rules. So on and so forth. But, we've really just created a government for a smaller group of people.

I can't speak for rudeboy but I would respond to this that yes, we like rules! Rules are good! Rules should apply to all people at all times. For example, it is wrong to steal. While I have never been mugged, the people who call themselves the government regularly take a significant portion of my paycheck against my will and under threat of violence. The state also claims the right to kill you because you are not following one of their little rules, even not wearing your seatbelt! (Yes, people have been killed by police for not pulling over when the original violation was for failure to wear a seatbelt.)

Is it really necessary to back up every little rule with a threat of violence? This is the state's answer, we believe that a better world is created when violence is minimized.

Quote: bigfoot66

I like where your head is, and you are right of course.

Another problem with elections is that the options available are very narrow. Take the income tax. The Republicans want to see the top rate at 35%, the Democrats want it at 37.5%. This is the glorious spectrum of allowable opinion.

The country had no income tax for 150 years, and the current system is about 100 years old. But if you prefer abolishing the income tax (heck, even reducing the top rate to 10%) who do you vote for? The country also once had a 90% marginal rate. Let's say you believe that a 75%+ income tax on the super wealthy would reduce inequality and might not be a bad idea. Who do you vote for? Does voting for 35% or 37.5% really advance your cause? Can we really tell these people that because they decided to sit on their hands (perhaps as a protest?) they don't get to complain?

Believing in the state is a sort of religion, and voting is one of the sacraments. Real statists believe that simply going to the poll and casting a ballot (even if it is for Mickey Mouse) is VERY IMPORTANT and it's a damn shame more people don't do it. Even if there is no real dissent or opposition and your opinions fall radically outside the mainstream.

Thank you. Always good to see when someone else sees the light. We've all been brainwashed so its exceptionally difficult to unlearn what we've learned.

Quote: RS

Let's take WOV website for example -- the Wizard (or whoever owns it now....Zuga?) owns the website and is absolute authority. What would happen if we all ran the website collaboratively? Everything would go crazy. Everyone would be banning everyone, editing everyone's posts, changing stuff around, etc. And guess what -- no one is going to want to pay for the server to keep the website up. No one is going to want to do maintenance on the website, put their own time and energy into the betterment of the website.



In an anarchist state, there is no regulation. Anyone can do whatever they want with no repercussions. That is ultimately why anarchy would fail.


So, entertain me. How is anarchy better.

No, at WOV Zuga gets to make all the rules because he owns the site! If you don't like it you can pound sand! In a world without a state everything would have an owner and be private property. And private owners are much better stewards of property than the government.

It is profoundly silly to say that, absent the state, there are no regulations or repercussions. You must be smarter than this. There is no law forbidding infidelity, so does everyone cheat on his wife? It is not illegal to burp in someone's face, is this a major problem? Why not? The state does not act in this area, under your model there is no mechanism for controlling human behavior. Shouldn't the idea of marriage vows be laughable?

You write that hitmen would exist in a free society. I don't believe they would but let's say you are right. Do hitmen exist in a world with government? YES! In fact the government raises a literal army of murderers, but I assume you are only referring to private killers for hire. Instead of comparing a free society with perfection, let's compare a free society to our current arrangement where hitmen do indeed exist. In fact, a random murderer gets caught less than half the time by government law enforcement. The clearance rate for property crimes is tiny, think less than 20%.

So no, it won't be all rainbows and flowers in a free society, but it will be a hell of a lot better than our current arrangement--and you will get a 100% tax cut! :)

Quote: bigfoot66

No, at WOV Zuga gets to make all the rules because he owns the site! If you don't like it you can pound sand! In a world without a state everything would have an owner and be private property. And private owners are much better stewards of property than the government.

It is profoundly silly to say that, absent the state, there are no regulations or repercussions. You must be smarter than this. There is no law forbidding infidelity, so does everyone cheat on his wife? It is not illegal to burp in someone's face, is this a major problem? Why not? The state does not act in this area, under your model there is no mechanism for controlling human behavior. Shouldn't the idea of marriage vows be laughable?

You write that hitmen would exist in a free society. I don't believe they would but let's say you are right. Do hitmen exist in a world with government? YES! In fact the government raises a literal army of murderers, but I assume you are only referring to private killers for hire. Instead of comparing a free society with perfection, let's compare a free society to our current arrangement where hitmen do indeed exist. In fact, a random murderer gets caught less than half the time by government law enforcement. The clearance rate for property crimes is tiny, think less than 20%.

So no, it won't be all rainbows and flowers in a free society, but it will be a hell of a lot better than our current arrangement--and you will get a 100% tax cut! :)

Who would take care of the infrastructure in your little utopia? Would all roads be privately owned toll roads? Do you really think a group of 300 million or so people could live together with no government at all?

Quote: RonC

Who would take care of the infrastructure in your little utopia? Would all roads be privately owned toll roads? Do you really think a group of 300 million or so people could live together with no government at all?

Do you really think out of 300million people no ones going to build a road? Do you also think in cold climates no one shovels their driveway in the winter?

Quote: rudeboyoi

Do you really think out of 300million people no ones going to build a road? Do you also think in cold climates no one shovels their driveway in the winter?

People maintain their driveways; that is a lot different than building a road. Would the person who built the road be allowed to enforce the rules of the road? Wouldn't that person be very powerful even though not elected? I'd just like to know how the infrastructure issues like sewage, water supply, roads, electric, etc. would be handled in your utopia.

Quote: RonC

People maintain their driveways; that is a lot different than building a road. Would the person who built the road be allowed to enforce the rules of the road? Wouldn't that person be very powerful even though not elected? I'd just like to know how the infrastructure issues like sewage, water supply, roads, electric, etc. would be handled in your utopia.

Just because there's no government doesn't mean these things will disappear. They'll just be paid for voluntarily instead of coercively. The only question is how to effectively chop up what was once public property.

Quote: rudeboyoi

Just because there's no government doesn't mean these things will disappear. They'll just be paid for voluntarily instead of coercively. The only question is how to effectively chop up what was once public property.

That's a pretty big question...

How do I pay voluntarily? Does everyone have "1 share" and pay for that share or do people who have more pay more?

Quote: rudeboyoi

Here's a neat little video. I'm assuming the story is fictitious but it helps one to start looking outside the box and to think about democracy for what it really is. Another form of slavery.

The Jones Plantation: http://youtu.be/vb8Rj5xkDPk

And here's one about the constitution.

Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper: http://youtu.be/NhSqzANQvbk

Cute and informative, thanks.

Even if they are the truth, no one wants to understand them.

I wonder how long you have known?

Quote: RonC

That's a pretty big question...

How do I pay voluntarily? Does everyone have "1 share" and pay for that share or do people who have more pay more?

The roads would be privately owned and maintained. It would be between the consumer and provider to decide.

Quote: RonC

That's a pretty big question...

How do I pay voluntarily? Does everyone have "1 share" and pay for that share or do people who have more pay more?

Through whatever agreement people reach with each other. For residential purposes most people have near the same income who live in the same area so most residential roads will be contributed towards equally. Currently a very small percentage of taxes goes towards building roads. Its a percent of 3% on the federal level. And on the state level its about 30% of the taxes that are specifically for roads. So even if some residents decide to not pay for their roads to be fixed it doesn't take much for others to supplement them.

Quote: rudeboyoi

Quote:

There's no proof it would fail.

The proof it would fail is that governments formed in the first place. Granted they formed by them to benefit them, but they formed because of human nature that just wants to lay in green pastures and follow the path of least restistance.

Quote:

What is it you believe government does that we can't do on our own?

Unfortunately, they "provide for the national defense and maintain the highways," and regulate the sheeple.

Quote: RonC

Who would take care of the infrastructure in your little utopia? Would all roads be privately owned toll roads? Do you really think a group of 300 million or so people could live together with no government at all?

I don't appreciate your condescending attitude. I understand that I am presenting a radical idea, and, yes, I can effectively deal with the first objection that comes to your mind. These questions are easy, if you want I can tell you the tough questions you should be asking us.

To answer your question, I believe that government/dispute resolution is very important to regulate human interaction. But it is not at all clear to me that the government must be A) coercive, B) a monopoly, or C) tied to a geographic region.

A) Coercive. The government believes that they own you. They get to tell you what to do and if you don't like it tough. They get to tell you how much of your labor you own, and how much they get to keep. (BTW isn't this a slavery relationship? I mean if they took everything you earned, then you would be 100% a slave, no doubt. If they take half are you half a slave? Is there such a thing?)

B) Monopoly. The government does not allow competition with its services. Aren't monopolists usually bad actors? Why can't we have competing governments who are actually accountable to the citizens. I, for example, find it morally objectionable to kill Muslims with flying robots. Why can't I find a government that doesn't do that and subscribe to their services?

C) Tied to a geographic region. There was a time when you could go to a village in Ireland and ask the first person you met if he was Catholic or Protestant, and the answer you got from him would describe the whole community. The religion was tied to geographic regions. Why does the agency that resolves disputes between individuals have to be tied to a geographic area?