Midterm Elections

[Burt Gummer]

  Done deal, it will happen, accept it.  If you cannot, you will not be permitted to exist in anything but an extremely well controlled environment and separated from the general system.  So you have a choice to make.

I reread this a couple times...

it's pretty fucked up.


I deserve to kidnapped and caged if I don't follow the arbitrary and whimsical rules made by the guy you elected.


So if by proxy all that becomes moral to you.


I worked within the US prison complex for a short time and it becomes less simple when these "bad guys" have faces.
so here's mine.


Ok...ok... I'm a bit more hairy now.

[rah45]

He's right, Burt. Guys that look like you should be separated and caged.

[Grudgie]

The human mind is not to a stage (or past it) that it can exist without external rules and rulers to make sure those rules are followed.

If the human brain cannot rule itself, what gives it the moral authority to rule other brains?

Do you spot the contradiction? You can't argue against self rule, while at the same time exercising self rule.

There are either two possibilities:
1. The human brain is incapable of ruling itself, therefore it is incapable of ruling others.
2. The human brain is capable of ruling itself.

So, there will be rulers and rules.

Ah. I see. You don't know what anarchy means. I'm not talking down to you, not at all. The vast majority of people do not know what anarchy means, and those who do.. are anarchists. So let me elaborate on what anarchy means, copy and pasted from one of my Youtube comments:

Anarchy translates into "Without rulers", which is often confused with anomie. Wich means "without rules".

Anarchy in the political sense does not mean 'without leaders'. It does not mean 'without clans'. It does not mean 'without groups'. It does not even mean 'without government', and it certainly does not mean 'chaos'. It simply means, 'without rulers'.

So then you might ask, what is a ruler? And how do they differentiate between leaders? The answer is simple: A ruler is a leader who governs without *consent.

*Consent being the key word. Therefore, anarchists aren't against anyone having 'leaders' and forming their own governments. By all means, if you would like to form a government with a group of people and appoint leaders and taxes, there is nothing morally wrong with doing that. Simply buy the land, and create contracts with people who want to join your government. It could be very beneficial. However..

That government becomes immoral when you impose that government on others who never signed your contract. It is WITHOUT CONSENT. For example, you were born into a geographical boundary (a country) and you are forced to pay its taxes and follow its laws without your consent. There was no contract, there was no voluntary agreement. You were simply born, tagged, and stamped as tax livestock. You are being ruled over the same way a farmer rules over a cow.

Anarchy isn't really a utopia. Edward Abbey puts it best:  “Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners.”

[Burt Gummer]

I know right?! Receding hairline at that age! what was my DNA thinking? 

[JohnyMac]

Very well explained Grudgie! The best explanation I have heard read to date. 

Now Burt, I want you to know that men with receding hairlines have higher levels of androgen AKA testosterone. And we all know that women are naturally drawn to men with higher levels testosterone. 

[Nemo]

  Done deal, it will happen, accept it.  If you cannot, you will not be permitted to exist in anything but an extremely well controlled environment and separated from the general system.  So you have a choice to make.

I reread this a couple times...

it's pretty fucked up.

I deserve to kidnapped and caged if I don't follow the arbitrary and whimsical rules made by the guy you elected.

No you do not deserve to be at all.  But because you choose to sit out the choice of the method/persons of making decisions like that you have no say in what that decision is.  So you cannot complain or object.  Do you deserve to be-- (arguably) No.  Will you be (if you do not follow them)-- Yes.

The human mind is not to a stage (or past it) that it can exist without external rules and rulers to make sure those rules are followed.

If the human brain cannot rule itself, what gives it the moral authority to rule other brains?

Do you spot the contradiction? You can't argue against self rule, while at the same time exercising self rule.

There are either two possibilities:
1. The human brain is incapable of ruling itself, therefore it is incapable of ruling others.
2. The human brain is capable of ruling itself.

So, there will be rulers and rules.

OK, there will be laws, lawmakers and law enforcers.  Maybe I should have said rulemakers.  I meant rules and rulers in the most generic definition. 

As far as the consent, you are here, so you give implied consent.  You do not work to change the system, you imply consent to the current system.  Your implied consent is not actually given, leave. 

As far as Anarchy, I understand the concept.  But the problem is that in order to live in the country/city/state or where ever you have to accept the contract that is in place.  Currently that contract says you follow the rules made by the persons selected by the general population.  If you do not want to accept that contract and follow those rules you must leave.  If you do not accept and do not leave you get incarcerated.

As to the moral authority or morality, you want that, go talk to the Pope.  Or get involved in the system and impose a morality requirement.  The current system has decided that it needs not be moral.  You do not participate because you require morality,  you cannot complain about it.  You want to complain or change you must be involved trying to impose those.

Those are the realistic choices in the current system.  I do not argue it is a good system nor do I argue it is a bad system. I have tried very hard to not let my personal views show in this.   It is the system.  Accept it (which you impliedly do by sitting out), work to change it, leave.  Your only options.

Nemo

[Grudgie]

OK, there will be laws, lawmakers and law enforcers.  Maybe I should have said rulemakers.  I meant rules and rulers in the most generic definition.

Ok let's go with that. Changing around the labels of coercive rulers doesn't make coercion ok. You can call jail a slumber party but it's still fucking jail.

As far as the consent, you are here, so you give implied consent.  You do not work to change the system, you imply consent to the current system.  Your implied consent is not actually given, leave.

The absence of consent is not implied consent. If you rape a woman and she doesn't fight back, it is still rape.

As far as Anarchy, I understand the concept.  But the problem is that in order to live in the country/city/state or where ever you have to accept the contract that is in place.  Currently that contract says you follow the rules made by the persons selected by the general population.  If you do not want to accept that contract and follow those rules you must leave.  If you do not accept and do not leave you get incarcerated.

Maby I missed the memo. I don't remember signing a contract to live here.

Nemo, imagine if you moved into a neighborhood. Imagine if the Mafia moved in and extorted money from you under threat of violence. Imagine if you complained about it to other neighbors. Imagine if they actually thought the extortion was acceptable because they believed the Mafia kept them safe. Imagine if you pointed out how the Mafia is a criminal organization and commits murder. Imagine if instead of refuting you they said, “If you don’t like this neighborhood, then you can get out!”

It isn't the responsibility of the person being violated to leave the situation. You can tell a monkey, "If you don't like your cage, move to another cage!". But that is avoiding the argument on the immorality of cages.

[Burt Gummer]

  Done deal, it will happen, accept it.  If you cannot, you will not be permitted to exist in anything but an extremely well controlled environment and separated from the general system.  So you have a choice to make.

I reread this a couple times...
It's pretty fucked up.
I deserve to kidnapped and caged if I don't follow the arbitrary and whimsical rules made by the guy you elected.
So if by proxy all that becomes moral to you.

No you do not deserve to be at all.  But because you choose to sit out the choice of the method/persons of making decisions like that you have no say in what that decision is.  So you cannot complain or object.  Do you deserve to be-- (arguably) No.  Will you be (if you do not follow them)-- Yes.

You skirted the issue.
Your comment rationalizes (not moralizes, my bad) the incarceration of any persons (such as my self) for the violation of laws decided upon by your proxy.
Morality comes into play when covering the aim of those laws. Currently the VAST majority of laws (of which all could lead to incarceration) are regulatory and aimed at commercial and non violent issues.

Which you as a "conservative" somehow appear to be totally fine with.

Government is the solution, not the problem. - - R. Reagan

Did I get that right??

Now allow me to place it into context:
I did not pay my lemonade stand fee!
For which I then got fined. I find it ridiculous that I need to pay a fee (and now fine), so I don't.
Then this group of large guys in costumes and guns show up and take me to jail!
- You are ok with this, because you voted for the guy(s) that made the fee.
On what logical planet is this not robbery by proxy?

Then you tell me that I could have had input on the lemonade stand fee, or the amount, or perhaps even change it to coffee! So I should have voted to make a fee for coffee instead of lemonade then I would have been fine, problem solved. Boy thanks Nemo!

Grudie did not pay his coffee stand fee!
for which he then got fined. Calls Burt up and say's WTF!

[JohnyMac]

Great analogy Burt!

Burt Wrote:
Now allow me to place it into context:
I did not pay my lemonade stand fee!
For which I then got fined. I find it ridiculous that I need to pay a fee (and now fine), so I don't.
Then this group of large guys in costumes and guns show up and take me to jail!
- You are ok with this, because you voted for the guy(s) that made the fee.
On what logical planet is this not robbery by proxy?

Then you tell me that I could have had input on the lemonade stand fee, or the amount, or perhaps even change it to coffee! So I should have voted to make a fee for coffee instead of lemonade then I would have been fine, problem solved. Boy thanks Nemo!

Grudie did not pay his coffee stand fee!
for which he then got fined. Calls Burt up and say's WTF!

The question is/are to the group:

1) How does the average Joe work towards eliminating the Lemonade Fee already in place?
2) How does the average Joe work towards not having Lemonade fee's period?

[Nemo]

JM, I submit your questions are too far down the steps in argument here.  I agree that is a question but to ask or respond to that question you must work within the system or revolt.  I argue staying in the system currently and changing from within and not revolt-- at current.

Other Gents,  I argue the system AS IT IS. I do NOT say it is good or bad under my personal view.  I believe I have avoided doing that and show no personal views at all.  I want to argue from a position that you cannot determine from my arguments here that I am a Stalinist, Leninist, Fascist, Right Wing Republican, Liberal Democrat, or Anarchist.  I state the way it is and how to change it.  You want it changed  and claim not being involved is a good argument and method for change and shows your desire for change.  It may show your desire for change to you and no one else but will accomplish nothing.

I argue dack of participation can also be easily interpreted as agreeing with the system as it or complete lack of care as to what works or how it works.

You are arguing morality.  Note my comment/argument above, quoted here:

As to the moral authority or morality, you want that, go talk to the Pope.  Or get involved in the system and impose a morality requirement.  The current system has decided that it needs not be moral.  You do not participate because you require morality,  you cannot complain about it.  You want to complain or change you must be involved trying to impose those.

I presume you are of a Christian type faith or argument position.  If you are not, substitute the appropriate "god on earth" for your faith in where I noted "Pope".

As to your lemonade stand, you find that ridiculous to have to pay the fee.  In your context, or any context it may or may not be.  I make no argument as to the morality/validity/goodness/badness of that basis or any basis.  BUT under the current system THAT IS HOW IT IS.  You want to change, you have to participate in the current system.  Because that is how the current system is.  Again, I make no argument as to good or bad, I only argue as to what is and how to change what is.  Whether changing it to Stalinism or Anarchy, you must work within the system.  At the current times. 

There may become a time in the future when I am arguing in the shadow of Jefferson regarding how to properly water the tree of liberty.  I do not state that, just note it regarding my arguments at the current time.

Please recall that this all started over my statement-- you did not vote, you cannot bich.  In the current system that is all you can do to change it.  If you want to go outside the current system, revolution is your only option.  But that is an argument for another day.

Nemo

[JohnyMac]

Another way to change the system is just not participate.

This is a radical option and would need a hefty percentage of folks in the USA to make it work. An example might be:

Nobody pays federal or state income tax. This would require everyone to become a 1099 employee though as it is required that employees deduct 'said tax' from your pay before you get a dime. 

Another way, is to not buy food - Grow your own. Don't buy booze - Make your own. The list goes on and on. Work in the underground work place and barter your labor for goods or money. Basically "drop-out."

 

[Grudgie]

You are arguing morality.

Murder, theft, and rape are immoral by definition. Do you disagree? But if you don't want to acknowledge the immorality of the state, will you at least acknowledge the destructiveness of the state?

The question is/are to the group:

1) How does the average Joe work towards eliminating the Lemonade Fee already in place?
2) How does the average Joe work towards not having Lemonade fee's period?

All we can do is peacefully, and patiently explain to people the moral inconsistency and destructive nature of the state.

In 150 years we will be remembered as being ahead of our time. A few voices of light crying out in the dark. At least that's how I picture it. lol.

[Nemo]

Your arguments as to morality/destructiveness/goodness/whateverness are irrelevant and a smoke screen.  They just plain do not matter and have no basis.  I am sure you recall this started on the premise-- didnt vote, cannot bich. 

You are arguing the system is bad so you do not participate and that will change it.  I argue that whatever way the current system is you cannot change without participation.  Let us get back to the basic argument.

Your position effectively is-- I disagree with the current system being used.   Non participation in this system is a valid way to get it to change to something I agree with.  Support that.  You cannot.


My argument is-- I disagree with the way the current system is operated.  The system in general is OK but it operated wrong.  The best way to change that operation to something I agree with is to participate and vote.  And if you do not participate in the system to support it as is or change it a bit or radically you cannot complain.


I do not care if your views are 180 degrees opposite of mine on how the system operates, or what the definitions within the system are, those do not matter.  We are not arguing those points


The only possibility other than participation is revolution but we are not there yet in this discussion. We are arguing participation for change against non participation for change. In the current system or even changing the entire system.

Further, I ask you to name one political type thing that you claim can be changed by doing nothing.

 JM, your radical option would need a good number of people to join it.  I seriously believe that will never happen.  At current the vast majority of people fear that unknown and want what they know is there now.  Think sheeple.  As far as the daily life they follow the laws.  A fair bit will speak (via vote) on who makes the laws when appropriate but still follow them, even if they do not get changed/amended.

Nemo

[Burt Gummer]

He's not doing nothing nemo...

He's trying to reason with you.

[rah45]

I think we should all write in Cheech and Chong for prez and vice prez for the next 3 federal elections, and let them sort it all out.

[JohnyMac]

Nemo wrote:
JM, your radical option would need a good number of people to join it.  I seriously believe that will never happen.

I agree 

There are people doing this though and don't even know that they are making a political statement. Up at the cabin many people trade labor for things or for money under the table. As I have written before, go into my neighbors Pub and let him know you need work or are looking for X and within a couple of days he will have a phone number for you to call.

The citizens of the little town my cabin is near, fall into three categories:

> People on the dole (This includes folks who have retired) about 20%
> People who work under the table about 30%
> People that work for a company and receive a hourly wage about 50%

With that written, they all tend to barter for things too.

Looking at the total population in my little town, about 1/3 grow their own food - Veggies & livestock and about another 1/3 grow their own veggies or livestock. Some folks trade excess of any thing (Veggies, livestock, hay, wood, timber, etc) for what they need to make up the difference.

Now this is a VERY rural area. The average suburbanite or city dweller would not be able to do this of course. 

As a side note: For all intents and purposes there is no theft in the town. There is a drug problem like everywhere but the one cop who only works 7 hours a week knows who each druggy is. Nobody locks the door to their home or vehicle. As a matter of fact, in the winter most folks leave their vehicle running when they run into the store or chow down on a breakfast, lunch or dinner. This is the one thing that I have yet to get use to 

[Nemo]

He's not doing nothing nemo...

He's trying to reason with you.

We are discussing/arguing/reasoning/debating on the idea (or so I thought) that if you didn't vote, you cannot bich.

Burt, go back and read the first 4 paragraphs of my last post.  That is what I see the disagreement is. 

As I understand it, his position is that even with no participation in the current system, ie, not voting, he can still bich because that can change the system to something he supports.  Basically non-participation can result in change.   THAT is what I say he cannot reasonably defend or support.   The no vote, no bich position is what I have been arguing.  If I am in error please advise.

I am game for another discussion.  I would really like to see it (or them)  happen and whatever subjects.  With that, we should have everyone involved.  The the valid views shall rise to the top and the rest shall end up on the ash heap of history. 

IMHO, the best way to understand things is to have to defend your beliefs.  If you cannot defend it you know too little about it and with that, you cannot challenge others with different views to defend their side.  For example-- religious views.  Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.  Nothing there to argue to defend or challenge others with.  Not getting into the right/wrong area.

Do we need to change the system?  To what?  Any system?  No system?  Who decides?  What defines morality?  Who?  How?  Those are not under discussion here.  I thought.

Nemo

[Grudgie]

As I understand it, his position is that even with no participation in the current system, ie, not voting, he can still bich because that can change the system to something he supports.

This is where we are having a confusion. My goal is not to impose change on you or your system. But your goal through voting, is to impose change on my system.

I cannot change a violent system into a peaceful system by participating in that violent system. I cannot preach to other people about the immorality of a violent system if I participate in that violent system.

For example: If I created a new diet plan, and I weighed 350 pounds, nobody would listen to my diet plan.

[Nemo]

My goal is not to impose change on you or your system. But your goal through voting, is to impose change on my system.

So you want to get your system operating without changing my (the current) system?  How do you believe you can accomplish change in the current system?

Other than by complete overthrow I submit that cannot happen.  The only way you can get incremental change is by participation.

Nemo

[JohnyMac]

Nemo, I think your question hits the nail on the head.

"So you want to get your system operating without changing my (the current) system?  How do you believe you can accomplish change in the current system?

Have at it folks.

[crudos]

Elect more nutjobs.

[Nemo]

Elect more nutjobs.

That could change the current system.  But I really don't think it would change in a reasonable manner.  Especially if it were democratic nutjobs.

Nemo

[Burt Gummer]

Elect more nutjobs.

My nutjob is better then yours! 

Also he says he'll create jurbs.

[JohnyMac]

Take a stab at answering Nemo's question...If you dare.

[Grudgie]

So you want to get your system operating without changing my (the current) system?  How do you believe you can accomplish change in the current system?

Other than by complete overthrow I submit that cannot happen.  The only way you can get incremental change is by participation.

Nemo

Short answer is, I don't know. I don't know when and what the transition to voluntarism will be. All I can do is call out violence when I see it.