2016 Election
Quote: rainmanFear of arrest, prosecution, & incarceration.
So you're saying the law would be the only thing keeping you from robbing your neighbor? I'm not asking what you think other people would do. I'm asking what you would do. If law ceased to exist would you start going around robbing people?
Quote: AZDuffmanYou have a logic flaw here. There were no laws "banning gay marriage." Marriage was always one man and one woman. Gays wanted to change these laws. The will of the people was not to do so. So gays sued in court. DOMA simply states that if a state passed a law extending marriage to gays then other states did not have to recognize that license. This is in line with other laws states do not recognize from other states, like the conceal-carry laws I have mentioned. Also said the Feds codified what was already assumed, marriage being one man and one woman. As to DADT there is no issue. Military service is NOT a right. The military declines service on many grounds.
I have done no such thing. Any gay is welcome to walk into a bakery and buy anything on the shelf. When you special order an item then it is different. In a free country the baker should be allowed to say "I do not want to carry that product." But we no longer live in a free country. For other wedding services like a DJ or photographer there really is no question. But in today's USA the provider gets sued because he declines business.
There is a victim here, it is the baker and photographer being forced to do business they do not want to accept.
AND AT LEAST ONE GAY AGREES WITH ME!
Again are you ignorant or willfully lying. DOMA also made it so the federal government did not recognize same sex marriage even if it occurred in a state where same sex marriage was legal. In effect for federal benefits DOMA made gay marriage illegal.
Quote: rudeboyoiSomalia is not anarchist. Since the US government got rid of their government you have had different warring factions fighting amongst eachother in an attempt to establish a new government. That's why it's important to destroy the belief that government is necessary for a society to function. Replacing one government with another government does not solve the root of the problem. Look at this country as an example. The British government was overthrown and replaced with what the founding fathers would believe to be a limited government. Look at the behemoth it has grown into since then.
You don't think if all governments disappeared overnight, warlords and factions would not pop up to seize control of land all over the place?
Quote: GandlerYou don't think if all governments disappeared overnight, warlords and factions would not pop up to seize control of land all over the place?
100 percent correct.
Quote: Twirdman
Again are you ignorant or willfully lying. DOMA also made it so the federal government did not recognize same sex marriage even if it occurred in a state where same sex marriage was legal. In effect for federal benefits DOMA made gay marriage illegal.
Again, it did not make it "illegal." It just said that the feds do not recognize it. Gays were free to go have a ceremony and all they wanted. Feds just did not recognize it. Federal benefits were never designed for same sex couples.
Quote: GandlerYou don't think if all governments disappeared overnight, warlords and factions would not pop up to seize control of land all over the place?
It depends on how they were removed. If they were removed through a violent revolution then it's likely it will be replaced by another government. If it was peacefully disbanded through people realizing government is not necessary, we don't want you no more, then no.
Quote: rudeboyoiIt depends on how they were removed. If they were removed through a violent revolution then it's likely it will be replaced by another government. If it was peacefully disbanded through people realizing government is not necessary, we don't want you no more, then no.
If that ideal utopia was possible don't you think it would have happened somewhere by now?
And, maybe the fact that peaceful revolution is not possible is a sign of why we need governments?
Even if there was a 100% peaceful revolution by some miracle. You really don't think overtime people will form together in militant bands and seize what they want? And, who will stop them? The only thing that could is a bigger militant band. Even a private security guard company (as I am sure you will bring up) would not be able to stop thousands of heavily armed militants storming your homes and land.
And, if a militant group does kill your wife lets say, how do you get justice on them and their followers and associates? Do you think a private company is going to risk going after a warlord for somebody on a Middle Income Salary, how could any average individual afford to pay for wars for justice?
You whole system involves living in a perfect utopia where violence cannot exist. It would be great for the richest, and the most powerful, but everyone else would suffer, and full and complete justice and security for most would not be possible.
The indian tribes in America existed for thousands of years prior to the "Bill of Rights", and by the way the Bill of Rights just like States don't "give" people rights. Rights are inalienable, they are only recognized by the states [in writing].
The laws ultimately exist, having been written by wealthy, to guarantee the plutocracy and the generational wealth of oligarchs.
People need to quit arguing among themselves [the plan] and recognize who and why things are as they are. As long as the controllers can plant bigotry and distrust among the servants, they will never question their own sufferage and question why the fruit of their labor is being harvested by the rulers. Nothing has changed in 2000 years.
Beware the moneychangers.
Quote: GandlerIf that ideal utopia was possible don't you think it would have happened somewhere by now?
And, maybe the fact that peaceful revolution is not possible is a sign of why we need governments?
Even if there was a 100% peaceful revolution by some miracle. You really don't think overtime people will form together in militant bands and seize what they want? And, who will stop them? The only thing that could is a bigger militant band. Even a private security guard company (as I am sure you will bring up) would not be able to stop thousands of heavily armed militants storming your homes and land.
And, if a militant group does kill your wife lets say, how do you get justice on them and their followers and associates? Do you think a private company is going to risk going after a warlord for somebody on a Middle Income Salary, how could any average individual afford to pay for wars for justice?
You whole system involves living in a perfect utopia where violence cannot exist. It would be great for the richest, and the most powerful, but everyone else would suffer, and full and complete justice and security for most would not be possible.
Government is a centralized power. With decentralization no militants group could ever hope to become as powerful as a centralized power under government. The only reason the government can afford to maintain such a powerful military is because they steal mass amounts of wealth from this country's citizens. No decentralized group can ever hope to accomplish such a feat on such a massive scale since they'd have to compete with other decentralized forces refusing to be robbed. It doesn't matter how rich someone is. It is peanuts when compared to the size of the government. That's the whole point. Individuals can't pay for war. Only states can afford to go to war.
Quote: rudeboyoiGovernment is a centralized power. With decentralization no militants group could ever hope to become as powerful as a centralized power under government. The only reason the government can afford to maintain such a powerful military is because they steal mass amounts of wealth from this country's citizens. No decentralized group can ever hope to accomplish such a feat on such a massive scale since they'd have to compete with other decentralized forces refusing to be robbed. It doesn't matter how rich someone is. It is peanuts when compared to the size of the government. That's the whole point. Individuals can't pay for war. Only states can afford to go to war.
That did not answer the question.
Let's say a militant group of 100 people kill my family and seize my land. I am an average man, middle income, etc... I have no fancy connection, no great wealth, no close friends who could help with something like this.
If you really don't think bands of 100s, even thousands of brigands would not form together, you have far too much to a naive level, faith in humanity.
How would I get my land back and perpetrate justice on the group and their followers. Would an independent security firm help somebody who could only afford a modest security investment if any, on such a risky endevour ?
Even if you bring up property insurance, which would be wise to have. How would that help with the justice aspect?
My point is yes government is a centralized force. And, that is why it is critical. It needs to be able to quickly put down any militant groups, gangs, etc...
Quote: rudeboyoiSo you're saying the law would be the only thing keeping you from robbing your neighbor? I'm not asking what you think other people would do. I'm asking what you would do. If law ceased to exist would you start going around robbing people?
Absolutely. I would rob every bank in sight. Millions would. That's why we have laws.
Quote: petroglyphGovernments, just like religion, was created to protect the rich from the poor.
The indian tribes in America existed for thousands of years prior to the "Bill of Rights", and by the way the Bill of Rights just like States don't "give" people rights. Rights are inalienable, they are only recognized by the states [in writing].
The laws ultimately exist, having been written by wealthy, to guarantee the plutocracy and the generational wealth of oligarchs.
People need to quit arguing among themselves [the plan] and recognize who and why things are as they are. As long as the controllers can plant bigotry and distrust among the servants, they will never question their own sufferage and question why the fruit of their labor is being harvested by the rulers. Nothing has changed in 2000 years.
Beware the moneychangers.
Of course history shows us that the biggest "controllers" and most oppressive "rulers" of all time are by far those of atheistic socialism who preach egalitarianism and foam at the mouth about "income inequality". All history's biggest murderers were some type of socialists from the Gracchi and later the Ceasers, the French Revolution of 1789 and Commune of 1871 to Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Mengistu, Castro, etc.
Of course it will be different in America?
LOL
Beware the progressives.
Quote: bobsimsAbsolutely. I would rob every bank in sight. Millions would. That's why we have laws.
Absolutely not. People of good character behave good (don't go initiating violence on another or their property) regardless of the law. Do you think only bad people smoke weed?
Quote: GandlerThat did not answer the question.
Let's say a militant group of 100 people kill my family and seize my land. I am an average man, middle income, etc... I have no fancy connection, no great wealth, no close friends who could help with something like this.
If you really don't think bands of 100s, even thousands of brigands would not form together, you have far too much to a naive level, faith in humanity.
How would I get my land back and perpetrate justice on the group and their followers. Would an independent security firm help somebody who could only afford a modest security investment if any, on such a risky endevour ?
Even if you bring up property insurance, which would be wise to have. How would that help with the justice aspect?
My point is yes government is a centralized force. And, that is why it is critical. It needs to be able to quickly put down any militant groups, gangs, etc...
The point is with decentralized power no militant group can become as powerful as the military since other decentralized groups can easily rise up to resist them. There will be no monopoly on force.
Good people do good things. Bad people do bad things. When good people do bad things, that diminishes, to varying extents, their goodness. When bad people do good things, that mitigates, to varying extents, their badness.Quote: rudeboyoiPeople of good character behave good (don't go initiating violence on another or their property) regardless of the law. Do you think only bad people smoke weed?
Tell that to Islam. They certainly practice what you are preaching.Quote: rudeboyoiGovernment is a centralized power. With decentralization no militants group could ever hope to become as powerful as a centralized power under government. The only reason the government can afford to maintain such a powerful military is because they steal mass amounts of wealth from this country's citizens. No decentralized group can ever hope to accomplish such a feat on such a massive scale since they'd have to compete with other decentralized forces refusing to be robbed. It doesn't matter how rich someone is. It is peanuts when compared to the size of the government. That's the whole point. Individuals can't pay for war. Only states can afford to go to war.
Forcing private businesses to accept all types of business could be a big problem. If a restaurant wants to allow smoking then why not? They will lose business from the nonsmokers and families but it should be their choice.
Quote: SanchoPanzaTell that Islam. They certainly practice what you are preaching.
Stop it.
Islam is completely allowed to engage in centralized force.
America is the only country at fault. Islam is innocent. Let us all worship and respect all Muslims......
Because after all, no Muslim leader steals from their people for military reasons, that would be absurd. Let us continue to worship Muslims.
And yes, we should all criticize democracies while sticking our neck out to defend Islamic Theocracies, anyone who says otherwise is an Islamaphobe and should be beheaded. Islam is far superior to secularism, and we should all unthinkably support it.
Anyone who criticizes the tenants of the Koran should be beheaded or enslaved.
Islam is far superior to a constitutional Republic. Anyone who argues should be beheaded.
(this is all sarcasm before any admin accuses me of being an Islam supporter).
Quote: AZDuffman...
Sandusky was not straight, if he was he would not have been preying on males. Simple logic test. And this kind of statement is another reason I have no respect for the gay movement. If gays and gay supporters should just say Sandusky is an awful human being. But they have to defend the premise that gays can do no wrong. So they say he was not gay. Plenty of gay males had wives, Rock Hudson to name one famous one. When a guy engages in predatory gay behavior and you try to say he wasn't gay, sorry, but you lose all credibility in your argument.
...
This is just not correct. Sandusky was a criminal pedophile. His crimes were committed due to opportunity. How many adolescent females were in his sphere of possible victims (encompassing exposure to Sandusky, opportunity for him to act undetected, plausible contact in unsupervised environments, position of authority over his victims)? Zero. How many adolescent males? Hundreds, maybe thousands. His focus was age/undeveloped sexual characteristics/vulnerability/whatever. The sex of his victims was almost completely irrelevant, the only relevancy being a single-sex victim pool.
I daresay (highly speculative as I don't know him) that, had he not had the opportunity/made the opportunity through concentrating his interest in youth sports, he would not have acted on his pedophilia. Conversely, had he had equal access to both sexes, I seriously doubt he would have limited his activities to only the males. Obviously I can't know for sure in either case. But that's how pedophiles work; opportunity and intimidation.
Gay is completely different from this, as is straight. Both have to do with a full progression to sexual maturity among adult humans ("adult" as in fully developed secondary sex characteristics, not as an arbitrary age of consent or legality) and a consensual relationship.
Quote: rudeboyoiAll religions are dangerous but nothings more dangerous than the religion of statism.
What happens when people under your system prefer something more like "statism?" I get that you reject the statism you live under now. So, what happens when a group of people prefer some version of statism?
Do you just reject their preference to live as they wish.
As far as I can tell most people prefer a little for practical matters. Then it varies all over the map after that.
Quote: rxwineWhat happens when people under your system prefer something more like "statism?" I get that you reject the statism you live under now. So, what happens when a group of people prefer some version of statism?
Do you just reject their preference to live as they wish.
As far as I can tell most people prefer a little for practical matters. Then it varies all over the map after that.
People can agree to follow whatever set of rules they wish to follow as long as it requires explicit consent and they're free to opt out at any time.
Quote: beachbumbabsThis is just not correct. Sandusky was a criminal pedophile. His crimes were committed due to opportunity. How many adolescent females were in his sphere of possible victims (encompassing exposure to Sandusky, opportunity for him to act undetected, plausible contact in unsupervised environments, position of authority over his victims)? Zero. How many adolescent males? Hundreds, maybe thousands. His focus was age/undeveloped sexual characteristics/vulnerability/whatever. The sex of his victims was almost completely irrelevant, the only relevancy being a single-sex victim pool.
I daresay (highly speculative as I don't know him) that, had he not had the opportunity/made the opportunity through concentrating his interest in youth sports, he would not have acted on his pedophilia. Conversely, had he had equal access to both sexes, I seriously doubt he would have limited his activities to only the males. Obviously I can't know for sure in either case. But that's how pedophiles work; opportunity and intimidation.
I disagree here. Guys like Sandusky are attracted to males. So they put themselves in a position to be in a position of power above them. Perhaps the most common abuser is "mom's new boyfriend/husband." And it has been shown that these people will even seek out single moms for "action" with the kids.
Quote:Gay is completely different from this, as is straight. Both have to do with a full progression to sexual maturity among adult humans ("adult" as in fully developed secondary sex characteristics, not as an arbitrary age of consent or legality) and a consensual relationship.
Sorry, but "gay" is not at all completely different from this. The oldest victims were 17 years old. What is the difference between 17 and 18 besides a number and it being a crime? Sandusky was a gay male who preyed on younger males. I will say it again. If a guy has sex with a 17 year old student it is statutory rape. But you do not hear people saying, "Hey, he is 'not straight.'" He can be gay and an awful human being at the same time.
Scholars? Would-be scholars? Bueller?
Quote: rxwineThey forgot the "opt out" clause in the Constitution. I don't recall if there were discussions on such a thing or not.
Scholars? Would-be scholars? Bueller?
And to bind those that never signed it including future generations. That's why constitutionalists aren't any better than any other flavor of statists.
Quote: rudeboyoiAnd to bind those that never signed it including future generations. That's why constitutionalists aren't any better than any other flavor of statists.
That's absurd. Do you really think constitutionalists are identical to communists or fascists or theocrats?
Quote: GandlerThat's absurd. Do you really think constitutionalists are identical to communists or fascists or theocrats?
They are all WORDISTS, so in that sense, yes, they are alike. Never trust anybody who gives loyalty to an abstraction, hey hey.
Quote: soxfanThey are all WORDISTS, so in that sense, yes, they are alike. Never trust anybody who gives loyalty to an abstraction, hey hey.
Saying all forms of goverments are the same is like saying all religions are the same.
They all follow a set of precepts. Depending on what you beleive in determines how positive or negative your belief is.
Quote: GandlerSaying all forms of goverments are the same is like saying all religions are the same.
They all follow a set of precepts. Depending on what you beleive in determines how positive or negative your belief is.
Thats cause they are all the same. Just different ways of explaining the same concept. The belief in a higher power/authority that should determine how you should lead your life.
Quote: rudeboyoiThats cause they are all the same. Just different ways of explaining the same concept. The belief in a higher power/authority that should determine how you should lead your life.
Yes. Except one is grounded in reality. Goverment is a society's way of maintaining order and saftey.
Quote: GandlerYes. Except one is grounded in reality. Goverment is a society's way of maintaining order and saftey.
Neither is real. They're both just ideas. Explain to me how religion doesn't attempt to maintain order and safety.
Quote: rudeboyoiNeither is real. They're both just ideas. Explain to me how religion doesn't attempt to maintain order and safety.
Some religions might. However, religion is organized spirituality.
Religion is the process of beleiveing in the tenants of the religion over anything else. Sometimes (often in the case of the major religions) those tenants do the opposite of order and saftey.
Goverments are real as they oversee and administer a society's agreed upon ideas.
Quote: GandlerSome religions might. However, religion is organized spirituality.
Religion is the process of beleiveing in the tenants of the religion over anything else. Sometimes (often in the case of the major religions) those tenants do the opposite of order and saftey.
Goverments are real as they oversee and administer a society's agreed upon ideas.
The tenants of statism is the law. That's it's holy scripture. Government also does the opposite of order and safety. Just look at war. The jihad of democracy. Begone you infidel commies!
Governments are not real. It's the people acting upon the belief in government that makes it appear real. The order followers following the order givers. The order followers such as the crusaders, jihadists, soldiers, and police. The order givers such as the politicians and priests.
Im a member of society so simply me saying I don't agree upon it means the ideas are not agreed upon.
Quote: rudeboyoi
Governments are not real. It's the people acting upon the belief in government that makes it appear real. The order followers following the order givers. The order followers such as the crusaders, jihadists, soldiers, and police. The order givers such as the politicians and priests.
Government and laws aren't simply to oppress people to keep them from doing all the great things they would do as free people. They keep people from filling the Grand Canyon with garbage, dumping oil into your drinking water, turning Yellowstone park into a parking lot, siphoning off the Colorado river from seven states into one state.
And you have to have force to enforce these things because "I said so" is not going impress anyone.
Quote: rxwineGovernment and laws aren't simply to oppress people to keep them from doing all the great things they would do as free people. They keep people from filling the Grand Canyon with garbage, dumping oil into your drinking water, turning Yellowstone park into a parking lot, siphoning off the Colorado river from seven states into one state.
And you have to have force to enforce these things because "I said so" is not going impress anyone.
It doesn't matter how noble you believe your ideas to be. Government will always grow to oppress. Someone will come along and say hey its not right that these people are doing this government please come along to stop them. Okay well in order for us to stop them from doing that we are going to have to steal more from you to set some institution in place to deal with it. Then the next problem comes along and government says okay were going to have to steal more from you to put another institution in place to prevent people from doing that. Then before you know it government becomes so large, freedoms become so restricted, so much wealth is stolen from the citizenry, the economy collapses, and with it the government that was dependent on the economy since they're a parasite and without their host producing wealth to leech off of they will wither away and die. This cycle will always keep happening as long as people believe that government is necessary. We as anarchists/voluntaryists can only speculate on the best way to deal with society's problems but we realize that government is not the answer. We do not fear the unknown. We embrace it.
Quote: rudeboyoiIt doesn't matter how noble you believe your ideas to be. Government will always grow to oppress. Someone will come along and say hey its not right that these people are doing this government please come along to stop them. Okay well in order for us to stop them from doing that we are going to have to steal more from you to set some institution in place to deal with it. Then the next problem comes along and government says okay were going to have to steal more from you to put another institution in place to prevent people from doing that. Then before you know it government becomes so large, freedoms become so restricted, so much wealth is stolen from the citizenry, the economy collapses, and with it the government that was dependent on the economy since they're a parasite and without their host producing wealth to leech off of they will wither away and die. This cycle will always keep happening as long as people believe that government is necessary. We as anarchists/voluntaryists can only speculate on the best way to deal with society's problems but we realize that government is not the answer. We do not fear the unknown. We embrace it.
Well, I guess I view government differently (obviously).
If I compared our current government to anything it would be an operating system like the complex ones built up over several years of tweaking by the programmers to run our computers.
Some people (like you) want to just toss it into a bin and be done with it, me I just want to keep tweaking it. I can see its flaws but not interested in throwing out the baby and bathwater. I find it serviceable if imperfect.
I don't expect perfection, in fact, I think fixes are constantly evolving depending on requirements. Seeing as we are a multi-organism (as a nation) there is never going to be one perfect solution that suits everyone.
I don't complain too much about how it operates, because I think like any machine, a machine will operate exactly the way it was built, not necessarily the way you want it to. So, our government is exactly where it supposed to be, because it must operate as designed, not as wished it were designed.
Of course, Petro thinks we are all being fooled and we're just cogs in a few oligarchs control. So, I guess everyone has a view and some reason to believe it.
Eh, anyway, that's mine, more or less.
Quote: rxwineWell, I guess I view government differently (obviously).
If I compared our current government to anything it would be an operating system like the complex ones built up over several years of tweaking by the programmers to run our computers.
Some people (like you) want to just toss it into a bin and be done with it, me I just want to keep tweaking it. I can see its flaws but not interested in throwing out the baby and bathwater. I find it serviceable if imperfect.
I don't expect perfection, in fact, I think fixes are constantly evolving depending on requirements. Seeing as we are a multi-organism (as a nation) there is never going to be one perfect solution that suits everyone.
I don't complain too much about how it operates, because I think like any machine, a machine will operate exactly the way it was built, not necessarily the way you want it to. So, our government is exactly where it supposed to be, because it must operate as designed, not as wished it were designed.
Of course, Petro thinks we are all being fooled and we're just cogs in a few oligarchs control. So, I guess everyone has a view and some reason to believe it.
Eh, anyway, that's mine, more or less.
Like any machine it will always eventually fail over time. You can keep trying to repair it but that machine will eventually break down. Petros not far off, it's the corporations who can afford to bribe (lobby) the politicians to pass laws in their favor and only a small percentage of the population control the decisions of those corporations. Our currency is even printed by a corporation.
All eyes on Iowa 1st.
Iowa?
Why Iowa.
Back in the day when I followed politics, All eyes were on New Hampshire.
It was extremely rare for any candidate to lose NH and win the presidency.
NH seemed to be a great bellweather for candidates, it kind of represented the country.
NH was looked upon as a must win.
Now with Iowa, we get the nuts winning.
Michelle Bachmann won an important poll to put her in the lead last cycle.
Last 2 elections, HucKabee and Santorum won.
Hmm, Bachmann , Huck and Santorum, none had a chance lol
Who is the next nut on the right to win Iowa and get the kiss of death to a campaign, Ted Cruz?
Iowa crowns the latest right wing nut.
Quote: terapinedBack to the Election.
All eyes on Iowa 1st.
Iowa?
Why Iowa.
Back in the day when I followed politics, All eyes were on New Hampshire.
It was extremely rare for any candidate to lose NH and win the presidency.
NH seemed to be a great bellweather for candidates, it kind of represented the country.
NH was looked upon as a must win.
Now with Iowa, we get the nuts winning.
Michelle Bachmann won an important poll to put her in the lead last cycle.
Last 2 elections, HucKabee and Santorum won.
Hmm, Bachmann , Huck and Santorum, none had a chance lol
Who is the next nut on the right to win Iowa and get the kiss of death to a campaign, Ted Cruz?
Iowa crowns the latest right wing nut.
Yeah given the Aimes straw polls record of successs I don't get why any take it seriously and their actual Caucus isn't really much better.
Now the Iowa republican caucuses are a joke. Caucuses on top of being a small state. That means about 2% participation and they are the fringe (right) of the fringe that participate.
For the record, I have to wonder how Iowa or New Hampshire can be considered a fair representation of America. According to census numbers Iowa is 92.5% white and new Hampshire 94.2% white. Lol.
Quote: terapined
Now with Iowa, we get the nuts winning.
2008 Democrat Party being a perfect example!
Quote: AZDuffman2008 Democrat Party being a perfect example!
Iowa 2008 primary.
Dems got it right
Barack Obama (38%), John Edwards (30%), Hillary Clinton (29%), Bill Richardson (2%), Joe Biden (1%)
Repubs way way off, McCain 4th place got the nomination
Mike Huckabee (34%), Mitt Romney (25%), Fred Thompson (13%), John McCain (13%), Ron Paul (10%), Rudy Giuliani (4%), and Duncan Hunter (1%)
2008 Iowa primary Dems get it right
Repubs pick right wing nut Huckabee
Maybe the way to look at it is on the right, who ever wins Iowa Republican primary is a loser :-)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/20/the-super-rich-have-a-new-way-to-buy-elections.html
"Ted Cruz’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination would be boosted not by one anointed super PAC but four, each controlled by a single donor or donor family."
The candidates need to wear jackets with their sponsors logo's on them like Nascar drivers, so the voters can see who they are really voting for, as most are to busy eeking out a living to research who the candidates represent and who they are speaking to or for.
Quote: terapined
2008 Iowa primary Dems get it right
Repubs pick right wing nut Huckabee
Oh I know Dems picked their winner. Just saying they picked the left wing nut. And a left wing nut with the least qualifications on either side.
Quote: rudeboyoiThe tenants of statism is the law. That's it's holy scripture. Government also does the opposite of order and safety. Just look at war. The jihad of democracy. Begone you infidel commies!
Governments are not real. It's the people acting upon the belief in government that makes it appear real. The order followers following the order givers. The order followers such as the crusaders, jihadists, soldiers, and police. The order givers such as the politicians and priests.
Im a member of society so simply me saying I don't agree upon it means the ideas are not agreed upon.
Nobody will agree upon everything. But in a Democratic Republic we elect Representatives and executives to write rules and guidelines that hold together society.
Quote: GandlerNobody will agree upon everything. But in a Democratic Republic we elect Representatives and executives to write rules and guidelines that hold together society.
Those that abstain from voting are not being represented. Those that do not participate have no obligation to obey the edicts of the elected from those that did. It's such a simple concept to understand. Say me and a group of people go to a restaurant. The group of people suggest having a vote to decide who pays for the meal. I say I want no part of it. I choose not to participate. They all vote and decide I have to pay the bill. I have no obligation to pay. I chose not to participate. It doesn't matter what decision they came to reach. To make it more like a republic say they vote for 3 of the group to make the final decision on who should pay for the meal. Even if those 3 chose to decide I should pay the bill. I still have no obligation to pay the bill since I chose not to participate. I am responsible for my bill and my bill alone.
Quote: rudeboyoiThose that abstain from voting are not being represented. Those that do not participate have no obligation to obey the edicts of the elected from those that did. It's such a simple concept to understand. Say me and a group of people go to a restaurant. The group of people suggest having a vote to decide who pays for the meal. I say I want no part of it. I choose not to participate. They all vote and decide I have to pay the bill. I have no obligation to pay. I chose not to participate. It doesn't matter what decision they came to reach. To make it more like a republic say they vote for 3 of the group to make the final decision on who should pay for the meal. Even if those 3 chose to decide I should pay the bill. I still have no obligation to pay the bill since I chose not to participate. I am responsible for my bill and my bill alone.
Yes they do.
Let's say there a goverment-free world. And, lets say I own a large swathe of land that I use to rent our houses and land (essentially a small village in which houses are rented). People that live there and that are born there would be forced to abide by my rules and I would obviously be entitled to have a private security team to enforce them as well as to ensure people pay their rent on time. I may even have my own schools that children born are required to attend and pay for.
In a government free world these sorts of privately owned and controlled city-state type developments would without doubt become common for the safety and security and stability that many humans desire. How would these scenarios be any different than a government?
Without states there would be essentially private government. Life would hardly be different.
Quote: GandlerYes they do.
Let's say there a goverment-free world. And, lets say I own a large swathe of land that I use to rent our houses and land (essentially a small village in which houses are rented). People that live there and that are born there would be forced to abide by my rules and I would obviously be entitled to have a private security team to enforce them as well as to ensure people pay their rent on time. I may even have my own schools that children born are required to attend and pay for.
In a government free world these sorts of privately owned and controlled city-state type developments would without doubt become common for the safety and security and stability that many humans desire. How would these scenarios be any different than a government?
Without states there would be essentially private government. Life would hardly be different.
No I dont. Being born in a certain geographic area does not bind me to anything. You bring up an interesting point though in regards to the property being privately owned. I went over it some pages back. Comparing anarcho-capitalism to anarcho-communism. Anarcho-communism rejects property rights. Government property is not privately owned though. It was obtained through conquest and theft is not a legitimate ownership claim.
Quote: rudeboyoiNo I dont. Being born in a certain geographic area does not bind me to anything. You bring up an interesting point though in regards to the property being privately owned. I went over it some pages back. Comparing anarcho-capitalism to anarcho-communism. Anarcho-communism rejects property rights. Government property is not privately owned though. It was obtained through conquest and theft is not a legitimate ownership claim.
I have met and know quite a few ancaps. I have never heard of anarcho communism.
I don't see how communism could possibly work without a governing body?
Ancaps I can understand where you are coming from even if I disagree. Ancommunism, sounds like madness, not even feasible. How can you prevent private ownership and control without an enforcement agency? The whole philosophy sounds impossible and country productive.
