Repubs want to change electorial college
Quote: bigfoot66The roads would be privately owned and maintained. It would be between the consumer and provider to decide.
More and more roads are privately owned. The "government" is trading "infrastructure for debt" as I type.
Our rulers have already given title to many of what we think are our national parks to foreign interests.
Our rulers today in the news little by little are admitting their allegiance to the "UN". They don't represent the "people" anymore. They represent the corporations.
The UN partially under the rules of the "Agenda 21", are making the decisions about who and when for the US to go to war, whether or not we can own guns, today they are saying Col. and Wa. etc are violating international laws by legalizing cannabis.
On the news if you listen you will hear potentates say we will only go to war when the UN says so. There is no more sovereignty in this country. It does not matter who is elected.
Quote: TwirdmanBecause 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.
How can you distinguish the difference between the police seizing at will peoples property and being robbed by some gang?
The cops have killed way more citizens this year and every year then are killed "in the line of duty".
In the old west, most bank robbers were taken care of from the rooftops of innkeepers as they attempted to leave town, the cops are there to record the narrative, same as they are today.
How did these laws prevent Bundy and Gacy?
Quote: petroglyphThe 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. Unfortunately, they "provide for the national defense and maintain the highways," and regulate the sheeple.
Governments exist because they are a large scale criminal organization. They run a mafia protection racket on a large scale that benefits those in power. Your argument that any alternative scenario must fail because it is an alternative to reality is foolish and would fail in any philosophy 101 class.
National defense is not an issue if there are not nations. That said, this is a difficult question to answer effectively in 3 sentences on the internet. Much has been written there, though, specifically by David Friedman (son of Milton).
I agree, governments are organized murder control systems, they exist to fund themselves, I'm not sure what or if you are disagreeing with me?Quote: bigfoot66Quote:Governments exist because they are a large scale criminal organization.
So you say, my point would fail the class, can I ask who is teaching that class? Did they not get their education from Bernays, Sigmund Freud's nephew?Quote:Your argument that any alternative scenario must fail because it is an alternative to reality is foolish and would fail in any philosophy 101 class.
You see he who must go unmentioned admired Bernays a great deal and formulated his hypnotic like control over his nation. Tell a big enough lie enough times and the people will believe it.
So are you suggesting a "One World Order"?Quote:National defense is not an issue if there are not nations.
Quote: bigfoot66I 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?
Go ahead, share the tough questions.
I'm sorry if you didn't like my tone; but I find it unreasonable to believe that anyone is interested in studying a system that can't possibly work given that we live in a country that already has a Constitution and a more than a few people that actually think it works, though imperfectly. That seems to leave the only choices as continue to complain about our system and not do anything to change it (not vote, etc.) or to go and find some place where you can form your own country and see if it will work.
Quote: rudeboyoiWhat 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?
I'd like to see a "voluntaryist" management on this level without ending up calling it government. You could call all the managing of resources anything you want, but if you're going to attempt it at all it's going to look like government. (see below)
Furthermore, everyone with the attitude that they didn't sign up for all or part of these previous agreements, is a pox on society at large.
Quote:The Colorado River Compact is a 1922 agreement among seven U.S. states in the basin of the Colorado River in the American Southwest governing the allocation of the water rights to the river's water among the parties of the interstate compact. The agreement was signed at a meeting at Bishop's Lodge, near Santa Fe, New Mexico, by representatives of the seven states the Colorado river and its tributaries pass through on the way to Mexico.
The Colorado River is managed and operated under numerous compacts, federal laws, court decisions and decrees, contracts, and regulatory guidelines collectively known as "The Law of the River." [1]
Quote: rxwineFurthermore, everyone with the attitude that they didn't sign up for all or part of these previous agreements, is a pox on society at large.
This sort of statement is evidence that you are experiencing cognitive dissonance.
Quote: RonCGo ahead, share the tough questions.
I'm sorry if you didn't like my tone; but I find it unreasonable to believe that anyone is interested in studying a system that can't possibly work given that we live in a country that already has a Constitution and a more than a few people that actually think it works, though imperfectly. That seems to leave the only choices as continue to complain about our system and not do anything to change it (not vote, etc.) or to go and find some place where you can form your own country and see if it will work.
The tough questions involve producing certain very large scale public goods like national defense.
If I am 'unreasonable' and you have already decided that it can't possibly work then I am not interested in continuing the discussion with you. Surely you would not have come to the conclusion that something is unreasonable and impossible without giving it serious consideration so please humor me. Which of the great libertarian thinkers have you read? Hoppe? Rothbard? Woods? Block?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fZZqDJXOVg
Quote: bigfoot66This sort of statement is evidence that you are experiencing cognitive dissonance.
hah. I actually meant to refer to just the multiple contracts and agreements of the Colorado River use as a example. Sure you can say you're free to ignore all the previous agreements of everyone involved as you're a "free" person. I hazard to guess there were and still much haggling in all the decisions.
That's not freedom, that's just being an a-hole to everyone involved.
Quote: petroglyphI agree, governments are organized murder control systems, they exist to fund themselves, I'm not sure what or if you are disagreeing with me? So you say, my point would fail the class, can I ask who is teaching that class? Did they not get their education from Bernays, Sigmund Freud's nephew?
You see he who must go unmentioned admired Bernays a great deal and formulated his hypnotic like control over his nation. Tell a big enough lie enough times and the people will believe it.
So are you suggesting a "One World Order"?
I think I misunderstood your point....In fact I am still not sure I understand your point.
Not suggesting a new world order. I am suggesting that we do away with the concept of the nation state and replace it with "leave me alone" ism.
Quote: rxwinehah. I actually meant to refer to just the multiple contracts and agreements of the Colorado River use as a example. Sure you can say you're free to ignore all the previous agreements of everyone involved as you're a "free" person. I hazard to guess there were and still much haggling in all the decisions.
That's not freedom, that's just being an a-hole to everyone involved.
Yes and no....We are all bound to respect property so if someone owns the river then you need to respect the deals that they have struck, yes.
But in general people are not bound to agreements they did not negotiate or sign. For example, a child born today is said to owe tens of thousands of dollars as part of the federal government's debt. In my opinion that child does not owe anyone anything,
Never faced the draft, eh?Quote: rudeboyoiIts 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.
In your example, it would seem that another moral thing to do is, say, not pay taxes. Hear that I.R.S.?Quote: rudeoyoiIf 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.
Quote: SanchoPanzaNever faced the draft, eh?
In your example, it would seem that another moral thing to do is, say, not pay taxes. Hear that I.R.S.?
I think his point is that the draft is immoral. Go kill strangers in Vietnam or we will cage you. And yes, God Bless tax resisters!
Quote: bigfoot66I think I misunderstood your point....In fact I am still not sure I understand your point.
Not suggesting a new world order. I am suggesting that we do away with the concept of the nation state and replace it with "leave me alone" ism.
How can you state in the post above "The tough questions involve producing certain very large scale public goods like national defense."
And then, "I am suggesting that we do away with the concept of the nation state and replace it with "leave me alone" ism."?
And then "This sort of statement is evidence that you are experiencing cognitive dissonance." ?
Are not the first two quotes the definition of CD?
Have you not been reading "civil forfeiture laws"?Quote: bigfoot66Quote:Yes and no....We are all bound to respect property
The local indigenous peoples of the lower Colorado are still trying to get water rights, 30% of Navajo living "in the nation" are still without running water, same thing with electricity. Those kilowatts derived from the flow of the Colorado are withheld from the "owners whose property right are not respected".Quote:so if someone owns the river then you need to respect the deals that they have struck, yes.
Check with the lower Colorado Indian tribes on that. Or any tribe. The US gov has not kept one single treaty. They have violated these people every single time.Quote:But in general people are not bound to agreements they did not negotiate or sign.
The .gov as said above rules, with murder control systems. When you find out who you are not allowed to criticize, then you find out who owns you.
There is absolutely no reason in the world why I, of all people, should pay for roads that you use while you do not pay for them. Under your system, I think I am deciding not to pay a cent. Keep them roads paved, though!Quote: rudeboyoiEven if some residents decide to not pay for their roads to be fixed it doesn't take much for others to supplement them.
Quote: petroglyphHow can you state in the post above "The tough questions involve producing certain very large scale public goods like national defense."
And then, "I am suggesting that we do away with the concept of the nation state and replace it with "leave me alone" ism."?
And then "This sort of statement is evidence that you are experiencing cognitive dissonance." ?
Are not the first two quotes the definition of CD?
No, not CD. I read a good deal of anger in your post which is why I accused you of cognitive dissonance. Usually when people react angrily to a radical proposition is suggests something is there. For example, if I say that soldiers are murderers, this would anger a lot of people because they know it is true but clashes with their world view causing them to experience cognitive dissonance because they refuse to accept it. If I say that the sky is green, there is no anger even though my statement clashes with your world view--and no CD.
I think part of your misunderstanding may be because I used the term "public good". A public good is an economic term and it does not refer to goods produced by the government, it refers to a good that the producer cannot regulate who consumes it. A great example is a radio broadcast. If I broadcast a radio show I cannot force you to pay for it by restricting access. National defense is a public good in the sense that it is very difficult for me to protect my house from a nuclear attack without also protecting my next door neighbor's house.
National defense is tough but there is an answer. Part of the answer might be that a nonoptimal amount of defense will be produced but, again, we are comparing my solution to the world as it is, not perfection. Public goods get produced all the time because people come up with solutions. In the case of the radio broadcast, some genius decided to create 2 public goods, one called a radio show, the other called an advertisement, tie them up in a bundle and give away the package. Perhaps there is a similar solution for national defense.
The local indigenous peoples of the lower Colorado are still trying to get water rights, 30% of Navajo living "in the nation" are still without running water, same thing with electricity. Those kilowatts derived from the flow of the Colorado are withheld from the "owners whose property right are not respected".Quote: petroglyphHave you not been reading "civil forfeiture laws"?
Check with the lower Colorado Indian tribes on that. Or any tribe. The US gov has not kept one single treaty. They have violated these people every single time.
The .gov as said above rules, with murder control systems. When you find out who you are not allowed to criticize, then you find out who owns you.
I do not condone anything the people calling themselves the United States Government have done.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThere is absolutely no reason in the world why I, of all people, should pay for roads that you use while you do not pay for them. Under your system, I think I am deciding not to pay a cent. Keep them roads paved, though!
My favorite ice cream flavor is "who will build the rocky road"
Quote: bigfoot66The tough questions involve producing certain very large scale public goods like national defense.
If I am 'unreasonable' and you have already decided that it can't possibly work then I am not interested in continuing the discussion with you. Surely you would not have come to the conclusion that something is unreasonable and impossible without giving it serious consideration so please humor me. Which of the great libertarian thinkers have you read? Hoppe? Rothbard? Woods? Block?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fZZqDJXOVg
What I find "unreasonable" is that one of the folks on here supporting a system without government is unwilling to vote and help elect candidates who might help further the cause, one step at a time, of eliminating government one piece at a time. If you don't do it through elections and the current processes for making changes in government, how are you going to get to the type of government you are supporting?
Once you can't get there, all the talk becomes wasted--so my question is how would you get there? Would you change the US or would you create another country in some way?
Great thinkers can do lots of profound writing about better ways to do things but we live in a world of governments and borders; how do you go from what is written to actually living in the place they talk about?
Quote: bigfoot66No, not CD. I read a good deal of anger in your post which is why I accused you of cognitive dissonance. Usually when people react angrily to a radical proposition is suggests something is there. For example, if I say that soldiers are murderers, this would anger a lot of people because they know it is true but clashes with their world view causing them to experience cognitive dissonance because they refuse to accept it. If I say that the sky is green, there is no anger even though my statement clashes with your world view--and no CD.
I think part of your misunderstanding may be because I used the term [public good]. A public good is an economic term and it does not refer to goods produced by the government, it refers to a good that the producer cannot regulate who consumes it. A great example is a radio broadcast. If I broadcast a radio show I cannot force you to pay for it by restricting access. National defense is a public good in the sense that it is very difficult for me to protect my house from a nuclear attack without also protecting my next door neighbor's house.
National defense is tough but there is an answer. Part of the answer might be that a nonoptimal amount of defense will be produced but, again, we are comparing my solution to the world as it is, not perfection. Public goods get produced all the time because people come up with solutions. In the case of the radio broadcast, some genius decided to create 2 public goods, one called a radio show, the other called an advertisement, tie them up in a bundle and give away the package. Perhaps there is a similar solution for national defense.
You didn't accuse me of cd that I'm aware of, you said that about rxwine, you accuse me of failing psy101.
We differ in the phrase "the public good " I think what you are referring to is the "commons" or the common good?
If you are a reader of "Rothbard" than you know what can't be paid for won't be. He has good economic points as long as they are good for him. Ya got to watch them Canadians all the time.lol
I may be angry, but not for obvious reasons I don't think. Apologies for my venting. One being, I am nearly overran with more taxes. Between my wife and myself we have over 80 years of labor, and it seems regardless of what I think fair, they will be going up. I remember Clinton saying the effective tax rate was over 80% during his reign.
I believe we are on the same side, lets don't take offense.
Like Stalin said, its not who votes, its who counts the votes that matters.
Quote: RonCWhat I find "unreasonable" is that one of the folks on here supporting a system without government is unwilling to vote and help elect candidates who might help further the cause, one step at a time, of eliminating government one piece at a time. If you don't do it through elections and the current processes for making changes in government, how are you going to get to the type of government you are supporting?
Once you can't get there, all the talk becomes wasted--so my question is how would you get there? Would you change the US or would you create another country in some way?
Great thinkers can do lots of profound writing about better ways to do things but we live in a world of governments and borders; how do you go from what is written to actually living in the place they talk about?
It can't be done. It's all a load of hogwash that makes them "feel good because they know the 'truth' ".
http://winkprogress.com/liberalbias/3341/rand-paul-decides-to-educate-those-poor-ignorant-immigrant-folks/
Quote: rudeboyoiGovernments got to be disbanded at the local level initially. Demonstrate to each other that we can help each other without the aide of the government. Build a community spirit through volunteering your labor and encouraging others to do the same. Start small. Offer to build gardens for people. Collect food, clothes, hygiene to give out to the needy. Start a volunteer library collecting used books to give away. Help the disabled and elderly. Basically stuff Jesus would do without all the religious overtones. Focus on making the court systems as expensive as possible. Educate the community about what constitutes an actual crime and their rights as jurors. Specifically jury nullification. No victim. No crime. Persuade the community to then take every non-criminal act to trial assuring them the rest of the community has their back and will find them not guilty. Then persuade the community to not vote in the next upcoming election to show the current government has no legitimacy. Then convince the community to stop paying taxes at the local level and the local government will collapse. Then once your local government has collapsed, repeat the process at other towns in your county until the county government collapses and so forth.
So the first thing you would have to do is get as many of the folks who think this is even remotely possible to live in one community as you possibly can because I don't see how you'll convince the 90%-99% who don't think it is possible to go along with the system. you'll actually have to be in the majority somewhere to get it rolling on even the smallest scale.
So what things are crimes and what things will not be crimes?
It is interesting to talk about...but it is pretty unrealistic in any real sense...again, unless you get enough people that think this way in one area but then the 1%-10% would control the elected power while you got things moving since you won't participate in that process. If they knew what was being attempted, they could make laws that made it harder overall.
The original ideals of democracy had you voting for the an honest honorable person who would make his decisions based on the greatest good for all. We sometimes think that is how we are operating today. Good Luck with that assumption.
Quote: ThatDonGuy
Little-known fact: nowhere in the Constitution or laws of the USA does it say that popular vote needs to have anything to do with deciding who the electors from each state are, or how they vote. (Senators and Representatives, on the other hand, must be elected by direct vote of the people.)
This whole statement is not true. Fact #1: Regarding the popular vote, this is not a little-known fact. Pretty much everyone knows that the electoral college is used and not the popular vote; if they didn't they were made keenly aware of it in 2000.
Fact 2: Regarding how electors may vote. In some states, faithless electors can be jailed. In others, their votes are disregarded and recast. Although technically not in a federal statute so not a 'USA law", this subject falls under the purview of an individual state's law--or you could interpret to mean it is covered in the Constitution's 10th Amendment.
Quote: rudeboyoiGovernments got to be disbanded at the local level initially. Demonstrate to each other that we can help each other without the aide of the government. Build a community spirit through volunteering your labor and encouraging others to do the same. Start small. Offer to build gardens for people. Collect food, clothes, hygiene to give out to the needy. Start a volunteer library collecting used books to give away. Help the disabled and elderly. Basically stuff Jesus would do without all the religious overtones. Focus on making the court systems as expensive as possible. Educate the community about what constitutes an actual crime and their rights as jurors. Specifically jury nullification. No victim. No crime. Persuade the community to then take every non-criminal act to trial assuring them the rest of the community has their back and will find them not guilty. Then persuade the community to not vote in the next upcoming election to show the current government has no legitimacy. Then convince the community to stop paying taxes at the local level and the local government will collapse. Then once your local government has collapsed, repeat the process at other towns in your county until the county government collapses and so forth.
I'm pretty sure you're a homeless man describing Detroit.
Quote: bigfoot6630% of Navajo living "in the nation" are still without running water, same thing with electricity.
Maybe they should invent them like we did. They're only hundreds of years behind us...SLAM
Quote: kewljAs I predicted in one of the Election threads, The republicans are floating the idea of changing the electoral process in several states to benefit themselves. To do this they would need to control the governorship and both chambers in any given state of which they currently control many. If implemented instead of a winner take all for each state, the winner would take 1 for each congressional district that they won.
Technically the winner take all system is simply the most popular way to award electoral votes. All states do it to increase their clout politically. There is no constitutional reason to do this way.
Quote: kewljAs I predicted in one of the Election threads, The republicans are floating the idea of changing the electoral process in several states to benefit themselves. To do this they would need to control the governorship and both chambers in any given state of which they currently control many. If implemented instead of a winner take all for each state, the winner would take 1 for each congressional district that they won.
Lets look at how this would have played out in Pennsylvania, one of the states being talked about. In 2012 president Obama won Pennsylvania by 320,000 votes, over Mitt Romney or won by about 6%, a pretty decent margin. he collected all 23 Pennsylvania electoral votes. Under the republican plan, Mitt Romney despite losing the vote in the state by over 300,000 votes and 6%, would have received 18 of Pa's electoral votes, while Obama received 5.
I am not the least bit surprised by this. The republicans looking at the unfavorable changing demographics are trying to change the election process and prevent people from voting.
This is the way they should do it, in principle. The reason why we have the electoral system, as-is, was so the south could count slaves as 3/5 of a person to increase their political clout without increasing their # of voters. As it stands now, not only are individual votes meaningless, many states are meaningless. And not just small states. California is meaningless. It votes democratic. No point in convincing anyone there to vote one way or the other. Just focus on large swing states. (I should point out here, for all the Republicans, is that the reason why they made the second amendment was because the government was not in possession of jets and nuclear bombs and therefore not impervious to armed revolt; and the term "arms" refers solely to muskets and revolvers since there were no police, not future space-like weapons to carry with you for fun.)
The problem you have with it is valid, but it has to do with gerrymandering. If a state has a 10 electoral votes, 70% vote D, 30% vote R, then D should get 7 votes and R should get 3. You can't go by district because there's always a district that is 99% black or something completely unrepresentative of the state, which everyone knows is purposely done to screw with the vote in nearby districts. That's what your data shows. It shows Romney was slightly more popular all across the state...except in two or three districts where he was slightly less popular, and one or two where he got absolutely crushed.
http://abc7.com/society/90-year-old-man-arrested-for-feeding-the-homeless/382211/
Quote: bigfoot66But Rudeboy, without the government who would arrest people for feeding the homeless?
http://abc7.com/society/90-year-old-man-arrested-for-feeding-the-homeless/382211/
He's been kidnapped a 3rd time now.
http://patch.com/florida/sarasota/3rd-arrest-90-year-old-man-who-feeds-homeless-0
Quote: SonuvabishThe reason why we have the electoral system, as-is, was so the south could count slaves as 3/5 of a person to increase their political clout without increasing their # of voters.
This isn't the first time that I have heard this claim, but I seem to have problems finding any authoritative sources to confirm it.
Quote: SonuvabishAs it stands now, not only are individual votes meaningless, many states are meaningless. And not just small states. California is meaningless. It votes democratic. No point in convincing anyone there to vote one way or the other.
This isn't limited to the Presidential election. I can't remember the last time I saw either a Republican or Democratic TV ad for a Senate race in California.
Quote: SonuvabishThe problem you have with it is valid, but it has to do with gerrymandering. If a state has a 10 electoral votes, 70% vote D, 30% vote R, then D should get 7 votes and R should get 3.
Another problem is at the state level. The number of people per electoral vote varies; 650,000 people equals about one electoral vote in California, but about three in Wyoming, Vermont, and Alaska.
Speaking of Wyoming, there's another problem with Congressional district allocation; in the states with one Representative, its three Electoral Votes are still statewide winner take all.
Quote: ThatDonGuy
Another problem is at the state level. The number of people per electoral vote varies; 650,000 people equals about one electoral vote in California, but about three in Wyoming, Vermont, and Alaska.
This is the point of the system, so that small states do not get steamrolled and ignored. Everything the Founders did was to balance things out.
Quote: ThatDonGuyThis isn't the first time that I have heard this claim, but I seem to have problems finding any authoritative sources to confirm it.
read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise and check the sources if you like.
Quote: rudeboyoiHere's another really good video:
http://youtu.be/N6uVV2Dcqt0
Statism: The Most Dangerous Religion
The Larken rose videos are very good. Do you listen to free talk live?
