Finding the right answer for a whole system - people, earth and culture
- is difficult. Democracy sidesteps that question and functions by
selecting the most popular option, promoting alongside it a social
order of the same. If many (but not necessarily most) people like
something, it must be good, regardless of its consequences. Suppose a
product is garbage, a leader is criminal-minded, or a social group
psychotic? As long as the product, person or group is popular, these
questions are never raised. Democracy is insanity, and therefore we
must smash democracy!
http://www.*****.com/tribes/ada/
.
|
|
| User: "Harvey" |
|
| Title: Re: Smash Democracy! |
02 Mar 2006 08:29:03 PM |
|
|
<infoterror@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141335397.571310.206410@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Finding the right answer for a whole system - people, earth and
culture
- is difficult. Democracy sidesteps that question and functions by
selecting the most popular option, promoting alongside it a social
order of the same. If many (but not necessarily most) people like
something, it must be good, regardless of its consequences. Suppose a
product is garbage, a leader is criminal-minded, or a social group
psychotic? As long as the product, person or group is popular, these
questions are never raised. Democracy is insanity, and therefore we
must smash democracy!
http://www.*****.com/tribes/ada/
Wonderful site. Thought it was a joke at first, but then I saw it was
meant to be taken seriously, which is even better. I see you took the
above from the first "news" item on the homepage. Why not this one, just
under it?:
Sudanese man marries goat (February 27, 2006)
A Sudanese man has been forced to take a goat as his "wife", after he
was caught having sex with the animal.Mr Alifi, Hai Malakal in Upper
Nile State, told the Juba Post newspaper that he heard a loud noise
around midnight on 13 February and immediately rushed outside to find Mr
Tombe with his goat."They said I should not take him to the police, but
rather let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife,"
Mr Alifi told the newspaper.[If a man can marry a man in some places,
why not a goat, a kitten, or a tulip?]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Day Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Smash Democracy! |
02 Mar 2006 10:17:26 PM |
|
|
http://www.*****.com/tribes/ada/
I sympathize, but they aint going anywhere. As they say, the mindframe
is pervasive, and I mite add, neurotic; which is, as Dr. Freud noted, a
chronic condition that is very difficult to treat. In fact, so
difficult, the resources dont exist to cure it.
Tyranny, Oligarchy, or Democracy can work, provided that those engaged
in running it are *rational*. Given the number of neurotic rants
online, we all doubt that a rational majority still exists. I have some
hope for the next election; economic problems do tend to cure
psychopathology, but they also sometimes result in insane violence.
I've been trying to suggest to the Greens, as somewhat alluded to by
*****, that its time to think *LOCAL*, and begin to organize local
resources for sustainability in case the corruption and ineptitude of
national leadership leads to the dissolution of the United States of
Denial and economic crisis. It aint upta us anymore. Foreign investors
could panic at any time, and the value of the dollar would collapse
while the price of gas would go to 10$/gallon.
The Chinese have already tried to diversify the support for the Yuan on
a set of commodities. They believe that when the 3 Gorges irrigation
project comes online, that they will be able to feed their own people
.... in 3 years, and then be able to stop buying american grain. We
worry about foreign oil, China worries about foreign food.
And of course, given the irrationality and stupidity of the American
electorate, I dont see a rational policy to deal with this coming
before China pulls the plug on the US Dollar. Then Heartland America
goes into cardiac arrest.
The failure of the Fed to respond to Katrina tells all of us that we
need to be ready to organize on a local level. And that lesson is being
taken up by several states, such as establshing state militias to guard
the borders the Feds cant. Those same state militias can be called on
to support an independence or secession movement. But the South wont
rise again. Its too dependent on the obsolete military industrial
complex, and when those factories shut down, the south will be lucky if
it can prevent the Rednecks from running amok.
Whether its the state, county, or village level, the question is
whether the management is *rational*. Given the number of demagogues,
I'd expect some to organize support on the basis of religion and/or
race. While the Greens have tried to be egalitarian, they are in fact,
white. The environmental consciousness of blacks and hispanics is
somewhat obvious in regions run by blacks & hispanics. They have
different cultural values.
So- with all of these divisive forces, there's no need for a call to
smash democracy; what's needed is a warning to get the hell out of the
way for when the reality checks bounce. The Greens have been warning
that the day would come when environmental damage would risk survival;
well, they didnt listen, did they.
So- now its time to think about saving your own ***** and your kids. Its
no longer an issue of trying to preserve the environment, but *picking*
one that has the local resources to support a civil, rational society
to raise your kids in. Some of us in my neck of Ozark woods are trying
to organize a community garden and make another at the schoolyards so
that the kids at least know how to grow healty food if the supermarket
deliveries become erratic and prices rise beyond what parents can
afford.
I think you want an environment that has enough rain. I dont think you
want to depend on irrigation. There've been wars over water rights in
hard times before, and most often, everyone looses. Think about the
dirt too; some regions have soil contaminated with mercury, lead, as
well as dosed with organo-phosphates and other agribusiness
petrochemicals that have been traced to causing autism, ADD, and other
developmental psychopathologies. Which, in fact, has gone on so long,
for so many, that the electorate is no longer rational. which is, in
turn, why we are at this impass, and nobody listened to the Greens.
http://anzi.biz/buttermilkwood/butrmilk.htm is an example of an
entrepreneurial coop to produce high quality lumber. The point being,
that any area is going to have some local resource base that can be
developed to provide hard assets to trade for whatever else you need.
My neck of Ozark woods has crafts like pottery, leather, woodworking,
beadwork, & blacksmithing, that even if tourism stopped, these people
still have habits of working with their hands, and will find ways to
make whatever there's a market for. I also know people doing medical
transcription from homes in the woods. If you can figure out how to
telecommute, how far out can you get?
Hopefully, far enough away from the demagoguery that always arises in
cities under extreme economic stress.
Let's be precise: The Founding Fathers did not found a democracy, but a
*republic*. And despite all the high sounding language about the
equality of man, you had to be a white male landowner to particpate in
the process. But Machiavelli had seen the process unfold before. The
Aristocracy encourages immigration from tribes that lack republican
traditions and support demagogues under the table who pander to their
ethnicity.
Thus the damage ***** refers to- to the good of the whole. Mach noted
how the distribution of wealth became skewed, but also the inevitable
result: revolution to bring the books back into balance, where the
masses who have no investment in the system to protect, knock it over
to scavenge. Mach said the kingmakers supported candidates who promised
what we now call 'entitlements', but rather than raising the taxes on
the rich to pay for them, *borrowed the money from the rich*.
Which works until some creditor sees that the tax base will no longer
service the debt much less pay it off, and the system goes into
economic panic. And if that happens, what you then rely on, is a
*local* resource base and local community action. That, or starve.
There've been many revolutions in history, and what we see is that the
land falls back into the hands of the peasants. There aint many
peasants left in agribusiness today. Things could get really hairy on
that account.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Werner Hetzner" |
|
| Title: Re: Smash Democracy! |
03 Mar 2006 07:21:32 PM |
|
|
Day Brown wrote:
...
And of course, given the irrationality and stupidity of the American
electorate, I dont see a rational policy to deal with this coming
before China pulls the plug on the US Dollar. Then Heartland America
goes into cardiac arrest.
What is irrational about voting yourself a free lunch, a free education,
and free medical care?
The failure of the Fed to respond to Katrina tells all of us that we
need to be ready to organize on a local level. And that lesson is being
taken up by several states, such as establshing state militias to guard
the borders the Feds cant. Those same state militias can be called on
to support an independence or secession movement. But the South wont
rise again. Its too dependent on the obsolete military industrial
complex, and when those factories shut down, the south will be lucky if
it can prevent the Rednecks from running amok.
Whether its the state, county, or village level, the question is
whether the management is *rational*. Given the number of demagogues,
I'd expect some to organize support on the basis of religion and/or
race. While the Greens have tried to be egalitarian, they are in fact,
white. The environmental consciousness of blacks and hispanics is
somewhat obvious in regions run by blacks & hispanics. They have
different cultural values.
So- with all of these divisive forces, there's no need for a call to
smash democracy; what's needed is a warning to get the hell out of the
way for when the reality checks bounce. The Greens have been warning
that the day would come when environmental damage would risk survival;
well, they didnt listen, did they.
The Greens want to legislate more of these freebees on us. They are not
immune to buying votes.
So- now its time to think about saving your own ***** and your kids. Its
no longer an issue of trying to preserve the environment, but *picking*
one that has the local resources to support a civil, rational society
to raise your kids in. Some of us in my neck of Ozark woods are trying
to organize a community garden and make another at the schoolyards so
that the kids at least know how to grow healty food if the supermarket
deliveries become erratic and prices rise beyond what parents can
afford.
This is good. Mother Earth News has been around for a long time.
I think you want an environment that has enough rain. I dont think you
want to depend on irrigation. There've been wars over water rights in
hard times before, and most often, everyone looses. Think about the
dirt too; some regions have soil contaminated with mercury, lead, as
well as dosed with organo-phosphates and other agribusiness
petrochemicals that have been traced to causing autism, ADD, and other
developmental psychopathologies. Which, in fact, has gone on so long,
for so many, that the electorate is no longer rational. which is, in
turn, why we are at this impass, and nobody listened to the Greens.
Or the Libertarians, because the Libertarians know that nothing is free
and don't offer a free anything.
----
"
In crafting the Bill of Rights, the framers were careful to acknowledge
implicitly and explicitly two key truths:
The first is that government does not grant rights it acknowledges them.
They exist independently of government. They're part of who and what we
are. And, as Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence, the
only legitimate function of government is to secure them.
The second is that government is a servant to whom we delegate powers,
not a master who dispenses privileges. The Constitution carefully
enumerates the powers we, the people, delegate to our government and it
specifically denies that government any powers not so delegated. Our
rights lie beyond the pale of that delegation. They are sacrosanct. Any
government which infringes upon them is engaged in an intolerable
usurpation.
"
www.badnarik.org
-----
A "right" as envisioned by the Founders meant that the government was
not permitted to interfere with your pursuit of them, i.e., your pursuit
of happiness was to be unhindered by government.
The "right" of free speech means that government cannot interfere with
your free speech. The "right" of gun ownership means that the government
cannot infringe your gun ownership. What does "right" to health care
mean? It means that the government cannot stand in the way of your
pursuit of health care, or impede your obtaining health care. The
"right" to an attorney means that the government cannot prevent you
obtaining an attorney to represent you.
Of course, "right" has incorrectly come to mean that someone must supply
you with something. If your "right" to housing means that some slave
must supply you with housing, and your "right" to health care means that
some slave must supply you with health care, and your "right" to an
attorney means that some slave must supply you with an attorney, does
your "right" to free speech mean that some slave must supply you with a
loudspeaker, or TV air time? Does your "right" to own guns mean that
some slave must supply you with guns?
Gary Popkin,
NYC
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Rights.shtml
---
Its the same old story.
Taxes are up. Spending is up. Debts are up. Demand for more spending
continues. Votes are bought. Its politics-as-usual.
The reality is that votes can be bought and power can be sold.
Legislators understand this reality. Power corrupts. The greater their
power to create rights, dispense privileges, contracts or favors, the
higher the price such officials command.
This is the dynamic that drives politics-as-usual to grant the demands
of some at the expense of others.
Look at elections. What happens when politicians threaten to lower
spending? Those who lose money or favors organize against them and votes
are lost.
Given a choice between a Republican or Democrat who promises to "bring
home the bacon" and a Libertarian who does not, who do you expect will
get elected?
Now, consider the back room deals for money and privileges. Why is
lobbying a growth industry in a state that has been losing industries?
Politicians fill the treasury with our money and use it to buy
votes.Dollars in the common treasury can be harvested to extinction like
fish in the common sea. When taxes can no longer replenish the stock and
borrowing is no longer possible, treasury dollars become an endangered
species. Worst of all, votes can no longer be bought.
Government has then gone beyond dysfunction and become powerless. This
is when governments like Erie County and the city of Buffalo find
themselves taken over by a fiscal control board and the treasury no
longer controlled by politicians.
A fiscal control board is essentially a capitulation to an un-elected
dictatorial government because democracy has been corrupted and "We, the
people" made bankrupt. Yes, that can happen. It has happened. In New
York state, it will likely happen more often in the future.
How long will it be before New York State is governed by a fiscal
control board?
Politicians buy votes because people sell votes to get power and tap the
treasury. No, they will not reform because change means spending less.
That means losing votes needed to win elections.
www.SearchThePlace.com/LPNY/reform.html
Wasnt America supposed to be about limited government?If you think
liberty is better than forced obedience help get people back their
ability to make choices for themselves instead of having them imposed.
Laws steal choices. They make you obey. Its like being told where to
sit on the bus. Laws make you do things you would not want to do if you
were free. In todays political environment all other political parties
legislate to prohibit and limit choices for some people and mandate the
choices of others. Was it meant to be this way? What can be more
valuable than choice? What do you have when you have no choice?
www.ny.lp.org/choice
If youve had enough of the same old story, why not buy a new book?
....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Day Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Smash Democracy! |
05 Mar 2006 12:02:12 PM |
|
|
< What is irrational about voting yourself a free lunch, a free
education,
and free medical care? >
Not having the freebies last as long as you do. Same deal with the
environment; the effects of pollution from free market operations are
not often felt until you see kids with autism from the mercury, kids
with low IQ from the lead, or kids with ADD from the organophosphates
that agribusiness uses.
The Free Market rewards agribusiness with profit which comes from
maximizing the *tonnage* per acre. But as Jared Diamond notes in
"Collapse", the amont of protein has declined dramatically in grains
over the course of the last 50 years of transition from family farms to
agribusiness.
Which do you want, short term, or long term profitablilty? And what
price are you willing to pay for national security? Robt Kaplan,
"Imperial Grunts" notes that half of the Green Berets grew up on family
farms. This is *1%* of the total population making up *50%* of our
nation's most competent people. Healthy food wasnt the only crop raised
on family farms.
When my son graduated from the local small town high school (which had
lots of parents like me with organic gardens, and no junkfood outlets
in town) 25% of the class scored above the 90th percentile. Colleges
and the military were all over themselves trying to get these kids to
sign up.
They are increasingly short supply, the vast majority of the kids
suffer with obvious obesity, and when you get to know them, you get
some idea of why they need Ritalin or other psychotropic drugs, but I
doubt that you understand how the free market has sacrificed their
health, their future, and the money to support the entitlements
mentioned at the top of this post in their effort to maximize tonnage,
but not nutrition.
The Libertarians are correct that big government is a problem. The
Greens are correct that big transnationals and agribusiness is a
problem. Both Greens and Libertarians are right, but the path to
solutions rests on each being able to understand the necessity to limit
*both* big government, and big business.
< people sell votes to get power and tap the treasury> because their
mental powers have been diminished by junkfood, fastfood, sodapop, &
candy at the same time the grain and vegetables which should be healthy
have reduced levels of essential micro-nutrients that neurotransmitters
use in the laying down of new neural networks during learning, which
are also poisoned by traces of organ-phosphates locking onto
neurotransmitters preventing them from biochemically responding
appropriately.
Thus, the news on TV has been dumbed down. <What do you have when you
have no choice? > What choice do you have if you are not rational, but
neurotic, delusional, & compulsive? The *reason* you dont get anywhere
with the public Werner, is that they are no longer mentally competent
to follow your logic.
The news media and the political spin meisters of both major parties
understand this, so when you look at what they say to each other in
strategy meetings, you see the lip service to 'educating the public',
but you also see the search for emotional triggers, sound bytes that
get the most votes for the buck.
But the Greens & Libertarians can play that game even better because
they are not yet tied down with deals to lobbyists. Want to reduce the
cost of healtcare? Ask American farmers to grow herbs. Many of the
pills sold dont do what they're spozed to anyway, but the sheeple feel
the need to be taking something. Herbs are gonzo cheaper, we dont need
to import them from transnat pharmaceuticals, and the money we do pay
goes back into local communities. Dont you want to support small
business?
The Greens & Libertarians are free thinkers, and can come up with lots
of new solutions that even a dumbed down electorate can see. But we
havta quit preaching to our respective choirs and search thru their
ideas, where there's a lot more common ground to build a sustainable
economy on than what either the GOP or the Democratic givernment can
provide.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harvey" |
|
| Title: Re: Smash Democracy! |
05 Mar 2006 12:47:54 PM |
|
|
"Day Brown" <daybrown@ozarkisp.net> wrote in message
news:1141581731.961086.249590@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
< What is irrational about voting yourself a free lunch, a free
education,
and free medical care? >
Not having the freebies last as long as you do. Same deal with the
environment; the effects of pollution from free market operations are
not often felt until you see kids with autism from the mercury, kids
with low IQ from the lead, or kids with ADD from the organophosphates
that agribusiness uses.
The Free Market rewards agribusiness with profit which comes from
maximizing the *tonnage* per acre. But as Jared Diamond notes in
"Collapse", the amont of protein has declined dramatically in grains
over the course of the last 50 years of transition from family farms
to
agribusiness.
Which do you want, short term, or long term profitablilty? And what
price are you willing to pay for national security? Robt Kaplan,
"Imperial Grunts" notes that half of the Green Berets grew up on
family
farms. This is *1%* of the total population making up *50%* of our
nation's most competent people. Healthy food wasnt the only crop
raised
on family farms.
When my son graduated from the local small town high school (which had
lots of parents like me with organic gardens, and no junkfood outlets
in town) 25% of the class scored above the 90th percentile. Colleges
and the military were all over themselves trying to get these kids to
sign up.
They are increasingly short supply, the vast majority of the kids
suffer with obvious obesity, and when you get to know them, you get
some idea of why they need Ritalin or other psychotropic drugs, but I
doubt that you understand how the free market has sacrificed their
health, their future, and the money to support the entitlements
mentioned at the top of this post in their effort to maximize tonnage,
but not nutrition.
The Libertarians are correct that big government is a problem. The
Greens are correct that big transnationals and agribusiness is a
problem. Both Greens and Libertarians are right, but the path to
solutions rests on each being able to understand the necessity to
limit
*both* big government, and big business.
< people sell votes to get power and tap the treasury> because their
mental powers have been diminished by junkfood, fastfood, sodapop, &
candy at the same time the grain and vegetables which should be
healthy
have reduced levels of essential micro-nutrients that
neurotransmitters
use in the laying down of new neural networks during learning, which
are also poisoned by traces of organ-phosphates locking onto
neurotransmitters preventing them from biochemically responding
appropriately.
Thus, the news on TV has been dumbed down. <What do you have when you
have no choice? > What choice do you have if you are not rational, but
neurotic, delusional, & compulsive? The *reason* you dont get anywhere
with the public Werner, is that they are no longer mentally competent
to follow your logic.
The news media and the political spin meisters of both major parties
understand this, so when you look at what they say to each other in
strategy meetings, you see the lip service to 'educating the public',
but you also see the search for emotional triggers, sound bytes that
get the most votes for the buck.
But the Greens & Libertarians can play that game even better because
they are not yet tied down with deals to lobbyists. Want to reduce the
cost of healtcare? Ask American farmers to grow herbs. Many of the
pills sold dont do what they're spozed to anyway, but the sheeple feel
the need to be taking something. Herbs are gonzo cheaper, we dont need
to import them from transnat pharmaceuticals, and the money we do pay
goes back into local communities. Dont you want to support small
business?
The Greens & Libertarians are free thinkers, and can come up with lots
of new solutions that even a dumbed down electorate can see. But we
havta quit preaching to our respective choirs and search thru their
ideas, where there's a lot more common ground to build a sustainable
economy on than what either the GOP or the Democratic givernment can
provide.
I learned a couple of things from a Green on these pages a couple of
years ago. One was that I was ignorant of other voting systems that make
more sense, such as Instant Runoff. He also made some points about
common grounds on other issues that existed between Greens and
Libertarians, though now I can't recall just what those were. Seems to
me between Libertarians selling the national parks and Greens turning my
backyard into one... obviously I'm exaggerating, but it's a rather
yawning gap on most things.
Perhaps you can remind me where the commonalities were? This fellow was
arguing running an alternative candidate endorsed by both parties,
rather than each party running their own.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Werner Hetzner" |
|
| Title: Re: Smash Democracy! |
05 Mar 2006 03:50:41 PM |
|
|
Harvey wrote:
...
I learned a couple of things from a Green on these pages a couple of
years ago. One was that I was ignorant of other voting systems that make
more sense, such as Instant Runoff. He also made some points about
common grounds on other issues that existed between Greens and
Libertarians, though now I can't recall just what those were. Seems to
me between Libertarians selling the national parks and Greens turning my
backyard into one... obviously I'm exaggerating, but it's a rather
yawning gap on most things.
Perhaps you can remind me where the commonalities were? This fellow was
arguing running an alternative candidate endorsed by both parties,
rather than each party running their own.
I don't see any commonality. Libertarian want to maximize choice. Greens
are all for choice, as long as it is also their choice. Greens, like all
other political parties want to legislate their preferred agenda and
force it on other people who don't want it.
Like many libertarians, Greens want the US out of Iraq. That is only
because the Iraq war is Republican. Greens had
no porblem with using force on the Serbs.
---
It was another close election. We find ourselves warring against each
other - - red states and blue; 'them against us'; ‘Left’ vs. ‘Right’;
Republicans vs. Democrats. These forces are just about equal. Each seeks
to take, keep and expand the power to impose values on the other.
Campaign finance laws not withstanding, this election cost much more
than the last. Both sides spent as if in combat and more than many
countries spend on a real war. All else -- other ideas for example -- is
a distraction we can no longer afford in this new war between Americans.
Win at all cost! Tons of money, advertising campaigns, phone banks,
promises, defections, “Get out the vote” battalions, voter registration
shenanigans, vote fraud, hoards of pollsters, and armies of lawyers have
become our new reality. Except for that other war, the media covered
little else and ignored other candidates.
Why is an election so important? Is it because so much power has never
been so concentrated in so few? If power corrupts, what has happened to
our perspective? Can’t there be more colors than just red or blue? We
keep getting evidence that politics as usual is dysfunctional. So why do
we allow ourselves to see no other choices? Is choice even possible
without diversity? What do you have when you have no choice? Cars aren’t
either red or blue so why must we all be limited by Republican or
Democrat rules?
Prohibitions, limitations and mandates now rule us all. Red voters hope
to impose their values on the blue and visa versa. The red forces will
limit, mandate or prohibit some things while blue cohorts would do the
same to others. No matter the outcome, one half of the electorate will
have gained more power to impose its values at the expense of the other
half. Isn’t that expense becoming unbearable and unsustainable for all?
Should we be ruled by anyone? Should values be forced on us and choices
restricted by any party? Can’t we try to liberate instead of regulate
each other? Wasn’t America supposed to be about voluntary agreement
instead of forced obedience?
http://www.NY.LP.org/choice
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/index.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Day Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Smash Democracy! |
06 Mar 2006 12:43:14 PM |
|
|
Spoken like a true Libertarian zealot. Who will never live to see
enough fellow zealots get elected to do anything, which is why the Dems
and GOP is in power. Ditto for the Greens.
Those who actually *get* power do so by biting their tongue, and not
starting emotional issues with others who are not in complete
agreement. Lotsa Greens, by the way, had problems with the war in
Yugoslavia.
Lets start with what we can agee on. You dont get a sustainable economy
without a sustainable environment, and you dont get a sustainable
environment without a sustainable economy. Big goverment is a danger,
but so is Big Business.
But today, we do have email, and maybe we can hammer out a platform in
ASCII, just like here, starting right now, without using either the
'smoke filled room', nor the emotional pandering that goes on in a
convention hall.
Greens are coming around to see that the welfare system has encourged
welfare recipients to breed faster, and Greens want to see a stable
population. Which I think Libertarians want as well. Both G&L agree
that affirmative action has past the point of diminishing returns and
that the regulation on racial quotas should be abolished.
If Libertarians want a *rational* electorate to make their case to,
then they'd do well to come around to the Green position on organic
food and controlling contaminants like lead and mercury that have
already made the sheeple even stupider than they'd otherwise be.
< Should we be ruled by anyone? Should values be forced on us and
choices
restricted by any party? Can't we try to liberate instead of regulate
each other? Wasn't America supposed to be about voluntary agreement
instead of forced obedience? >
Aristotle:"most men are such slaves to passion that they'd do better in
the hands of a more rational master." Values *will* be forced on you by
demagogues pandering to stupid neurotic massess. We can *not* liberate
the insane, we need systems to control alcoholism, drug addiction, and
prevent pregnant women from bringing mentally damaged fetuses to term
and adding to the horrendous welfare load.
We are not only for abortion, we will get to the point where we
*demand* it in order to protect the freedom you want to enjoy from
demagogues pandering to all the insanity such stupid women produce.
The Founding Fathers always assumed that an electorate limited to white
male landowners would be rational, and capable of voluntary agreement
just was now search for it online. But let's face it Warner; how many
of the posts you see were written by *rational* individuals *capable*
of voluntary agreement and not needing coercion?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Werner Hetzner" |
|
| Title: Re: Smash Democracy! |
06 Mar 2006 06:03:47 PM |
|
|
Day Brown wrote:
Spoken like a true Libertarian zealot. Who will never live to see
enough fellow zealots get elected to do anything, which is why the Dems
and GOP is in power. Ditto for the Greens.
Those who actually *get* power do so by biting their tongue, and not
starting emotional issues with others who are not in complete
agreement. Lotsa Greens, by the way, had problems with the war in
Yugoslavia.
Lets start with what we can agee on. You dont get a sustainable economy
without a sustainable environment, and you dont get a sustainable
environment without a sustainable economy. Big goverment is a danger,
but so is Big Business.
and big unions and anyone with power to tell you what to do.
Still, only government has the power to put you in jail or worse. That
is why the original idea was to limit the power of government.
But today, we do have email, and maybe we can hammer out a platform in
ASCII, just like here, starting right now, without using either the
'smoke filled room', nor the emotional pandering that goes on in a
convention hall.
Greens are coming around to see that the welfare system has encourged
welfare recipients to breed faster, and Greens want to see a stable
population. Which I think Libertarians want as well. Both G&L agree
that affirmative action has past the point of diminishing returns and
that the regulation on racial quotas should be abolished.
If Libertarians want a *rational* electorate to make their case to,
then they'd do well to come around to the Green position on organic
food and controlling contaminants like lead and mercury that have
already made the sheeple even stupider than they'd otherwise be.
< Should we be ruled by anyone? Should values be forced on us and
choices
restricted by any party? Can't we try to liberate instead of regulate
each other? Wasn't America supposed to be about voluntary agreement
instead of forced obedience? >
Aristotle:"most men are such slaves to passion that they'd do better in
the hands of a more rational master." Values *will* be forced on you by
demagogues pandering to stupid neurotic massess. We can *not* liberate
the insane, we need systems to control alcoholism, drug addiction, and
prevent pregnant women from bringing mentally damaged fetuses to term
and adding to the horrendous welfare load.
We are not only for abortion, we will get to the point where we
*demand* it in order to protect the freedom you want to enjoy from
demagogues pandering to all the insanity such stupid women produce.
The Founding Fathers always assumed that an electorate limited to white
male landowners would be rational, and capable of voluntary agreement
just was now search for it online. But let's face it Warner; how many
of the posts you see were written by *rational* individuals *capable*
of voluntary agreement and not needing coercion?
I may be too stupid to make a car, buy I can certainly choose a car I
like. Why not a school? Fortunately, the laws still permit me to choose
the car I want. Unfortunately for most folks, they can't choose the
school they want because they have to pay for one that doesn't work anyway.
People are rational. That is why politicians can buy votes.
---
It will be the same old story.
Still they will call it 'reform'.
The American Dream was not built on obedience, prohibitions,
limitations, and mandates.
If government is of, by and for the people , why do so many people
complain about government?
If government is accountable to We, the People , why are so many
dissatisfied with the results?
How can it be both - accountable and in need of reform?
----
Taxes are up. Spending is up. Debts are up. Demand for more spending
continues. Votes are bought. Its politics-as-usual.
The reality is that votes can be bought and power can be sold.
Legislators understand this reality. Power corrupts. The greater their
power to create rights, dispense privileges, contracts or favors, the
higher the price such officials command.
This is the dynamic that drives politics-as-usual to grant the
demands of some at the expense of others.
Look at elections. What happens when politicians threaten to lower
spending? Those who lose money or favors organize against them and
votes are lost.
Given a choice between a Republican/Democrat who promises to "bring
home the bacon" and a Libertarian who does not, who do you expect will
get elected?
Now, consider the back room deals for money and privileges. Why is
lobbying a growth industry in a state that has been losing industries?
Politicians fill the treasury with our money and use it to buy votes.
Dollars in the common treasury can be harvested to extinction like
fish in the common sea. When taxes can no longer replenish the stock
and borrowing is no longer possible, treasury dollars become an
endangered species. Worst of all, votes can no longer be bought.
Government has then gone beyond dysfunction and become powerless. This
is when governments like Erie County and the city of Buffalo find
themselves taken over by a fiscal control board and the treasury no
longer controlled by politicians.
A fiscal control board is essentially a capitulation to an un-elected
dictatorial government because democracy has been corrupted and "We,
the people" made bankrupt. Yes, that can happen. It has happened. It
will likely happen more often in the future.
How long will it be before New York State is governed by a fiscal
control board?
Politicians buy votes because people sell votes to get power and tap
the treasury. No, they will not reform because change means spending
less. That means losing votes needed to win elections.
www.SearchThePlace.com/LPNY/reform.html
Wasnt America supposed to be about limited government? Laws steal
choices. They make you obey. Its like being told where to sit on the
bus. Laws make you do things you would not want to do if you were
free. In todays political environment all other political parties
legislate to prohibit and limit choices for some people and mandate
the choices of others. Was it meant to be this way? What can be more
valuable than choice? What do you have when you have no choice? If you
think liberty is better than forced obedience help get people back
their ability to make choices for themselves instead of having them
imposed. If you agree that competition moves society forward better
than government decrees then why not help make that happen?
If youve had enough of the same old story, why not buy a new book?
The Libertarian Party: Not the same old thing
We invite you to join the resistance. The Libertarian Party of New
York is trying to gear up to become more politically relevant. We need
people like you to help change attitudes, question prevailing
assumptions and support our candidates. Consider it a form of civil
disobedience.
Libertarian Party of New York
www.ny.lp.org/choice
What do you have when you have no choice?
----
-- You may share this as you wish. --
----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Bramscher" |
|
| Title: Re: Smash Democracy! |
03 Mar 2006 11:10:14 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Finding the right answer for a whole system - people, earth and culture
- is difficult. Democracy sidesteps that question and functions by
selecting the most popular option, promoting alongside it a social
order of the same. If many (but not necessarily most) people like
something, it must be good, regardless of its consequences. Suppose a
product is garbage, a leader is criminal-minded, or a social group
psychotic? As long as the product, person or group is popular, these
questions are never raised. Democracy is insanity, and therefore we
must smash democracy!
http://www.*****.com/tribes/ada/
The idea that democracy degenerated into mob rule was noted back in
ancient Greece, and the alternative was aristocracy. If you can
disconnect the caste/inheritance aspect, it's not really a bad idea:
government by the best and brightest.
As for the other undercurrents there, I would suggest a healthy reading
of Kropotkin and pondering the notion that the problem of democracy is
inherrent limits of scalability. I've come to conclude that no leader,
representation, jurisdiction or border should encompass more than about
500-2,000 people. Beyond that, and people become mere abstractions.
Corruption, cronyism, etc. inevitably kick-in, either deliberately or not.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Smash Democracy! |
05 Mar 2006 04:39:42 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Finding the right answer for a whole system - people, earth and culture
- is difficult. Democracy sidesteps that question and functions by
selecting the most popular option, promoting alongside it a social
order of the same. If many (but not necessarily most) people like
something, it must be good, regardless of its consequences. Suppose a
product is garbage, a leader is criminal-minded, or a social group
psychotic? As long as the product, person or group is popular, these
questions are never raised. Democracy is insanity, and therefore we
must smash democracy!
I think you are quite crazy.
Most countries have 'constitutional democracies'... which seem to work
wonderfully well as long as any fairly elected ruling administrations
adhere to the laws set forth in the constitution.
It's only when administrations, which are not fairly elected,
transgress constutional strictures.. only then do you have great big
messes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iconoclast" |
|
| Title: Re: Smash Democracy! |
09 Mar 2006 12:41:40 PM |
|
|
You're right. Constitutional democracies work wonderfully well if you
enjoy living in a city full of morons, while working most of your day.
Afterwards, you do not have enough time to cook a meal (and your spouse
has to work too!) so you stop by at Burger King and ingest Progress
Grease (TM).
Then you can go watch TV and catch the latest episode of Friends.
After all, you're not criticizing anyone or making things uncomfortable
for anyone. I think that is what freedom is all about.
Have fun navigating the bureaucracy and having to depend on dozens of
faceless people and not yourself and a few friends and family.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iconoclast" |
|
| Title: Re: Smash Democracy! |
09 Mar 2006 12:58:53 PM |
|
|
Iconoclast wrote:
You're right. Constitutional democracies work wonderfully well if you
enjoy living in a city full of morons, while working most of your day.
Afterwards, you do not have enough time to cook a meal (and your spouse
has to work too!) so you stop by at Burger King and ingest Progress
Grease (TM).
Then you can go watch TV and catch the latest episode of Friends.
After all, you're not criticizing anyone or making things uncomfortable
for anyone. I think that is what freedom is all about.
Have fun navigating the bureaucracy and having to depend on dozens of
faceless people and not yourself and a few friends and family.
And let me add to this: it is hard enough to find a job that one can
stand, much less one that pays enough to pay bills and fees.
What do you want your life to amount to? A cog in the wheel, a little
pansy who gives lip service to others and hides what he really thinks
because he doesn't want to lose his job or get noticed by people with
money?
I'm glad that I'm not a social prostitute, at least.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Orval Fairbairn" |
|
| Title: Re: Smash Democracy! |
02 Mar 2006 09:38:23 PM |
|
|
In article <1141335397.571310.206410@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
spewed:
Finding the right answer for a whole system - people, earth and culture
- is difficult. Democracy sidesteps that question and functions by
selecting the most popular option, promoting alongside it a social
order of the same. If many (but not necessarily most) people like
something, it must be good, regardless of its consequences. Suppose a
product is garbage, a leader is criminal-minded, or a social group
psychotic? As long as the product, person or group is popular, these
questions are never raised. Democracy is insanity, and therefore we
must smash democracy!
http://www.*****.com/tribes/ada/
And -- just what flavor of garbage does "" advocate?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
