American Third Position Political Party
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: The detached observer, or semi-bad day in the mountains
Next: Anyone here use a Panasonic DMW-LT55 Teleconverter?
From: Brent on 25 Jan 2010 15:16 On 2010-01-25, Frank Sereno <fsereno(a)domain.invalid> wrote: > On 1/25/2010 12:04 PM, Brent wrote: >> On 2010-01-25, Frank Sereno<fsereno(a)domain.invalid> wrote: >>> On 1/25/2010 10:37 AM, Brent wrote: >>>> On 2010-01-25, Brent<tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2010-01-25, Frank Sereno<fsereno(a)domain.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Brent, is there a particular political party that you belong to? >>>>> >>>>> What difference does it make? There are only two political parties >>>>> allowed to operate in the USA and both are pro-government, >>>>> pro-big-business parties. >>>> >>>> speaking effectively here.... not absolutely. you can have a different >>>> political party, the system just doesn't allow for it to be effective as >>>> it has been set up for the benefit of the two. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> I'm trying to figure out where exactly where you are coming from. >> >> That I can be defined by group? This is another sad american mentality >> that people are defined by groups. >> >>> There are more than two political parties. Effective speakers and >>> understandable policies might actually generate enough interest >>> to make another party viable. >> >> That shows a great ignorance of election law. Even known 'third' parties >> like the libertarian party have a great deal of difficulty with things >> like ballot access. Meanwhile democrats and republicans get a great deal >> of taxpayer money to support their activities. The laws are constructed >> to make it exceedingly difficult for any other party to be effective >> regardless of its popularity. >> >>> All I understand so far is that you >>> hate taxes and apparently feel you have no need for any of the >>> services that the government provides for the public health and >>> safety. >> >> I'm sorry that you don't understand the true nature of these "services". >> I suggest you look at the health care debate. >> >>> So what would you replace the government with? >> >> Something civilized. >> >>> I'm pretty certain >>> that without a government, it wouldn't take long for the >>> have-nots to begin taking things from those who have. >> >> As opposed to the "have-nots" that are already using government to do so >> along with the "have-alots" who take far, far more through government? >> > > If the government magically disappeared tomorrow, I don't believe > for a minute that it would be replaced with something civilized. Only if civilized people allowed another government to be established. Government in human history usually begins as just the strongest criminal gang in that particular area. Sometimes there may be some other sort of fraud involved where a person convinces other's he's a 'god' or something of that nature rather than just strong arming. > Can you cite an example in the whole of human history where such > a scenario has worked to the benefit of the people? Until new governments rose up, the former eastern block and its puppet states in eastern europe. For the most part the people are still better off than they were. > If you are so > much smarter than everyone else, let's hear your actual solutions > rather than the babbling meaningless platitudes. I offered several already as I countered your nonsense about government "services". There isn't very much that government does that cannot be done in a more reasonable manner when people don't have a mentality that their neighbors must live and think as they do. I state it that way, but off hand I can't think of what we really need a government, an entity that has one tool, the use of legal violence against us to rule us, for. All that it does is encourage a parasitical class to suck our (the host's) resources and wealth until everything collapses.
From: mrbawana2u on 25 Jan 2010 15:36 On Jan 25, 12:42 pm, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On 2010-01-25, Ray Fischer <rfisc...(a)sonic.net> wrote: > >> Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>On 2010-01-24, Ray Fischer <rfisc...(a)sonic.net> wrote: > >>>> Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>On 2010-01-24, Ray Fischer <rfisc...(a)sonic.net> wrote: > >>>>>> Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>On 2010-01-24, Chris Malcolm <c...(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> Government has killed more people than anything else in human history. > >>>>>>>>> Government is fundamentally a criminal enterprise. Government and a > >>>>>>>>> criminal gang with sufficent power are for all purposes the same thing. > > >>>>>>>> There are still some countries with no effective government at all you > >>>>>>>> could go to. > > >>>>>>>Where various criminal gangs battle to be the government. > > >>>>>> That's kind of what anarchy is. If you don't like government then you > >>>>>> get to deal with thugs. > > >>>>>no that's not what anarchy is. Government employs the thugs. > > >>>> No government, idiot. > > >>>You confuse a lack of government with a lack of civilized behavior. > > >> You confuse your selfish whining with actual facts. > > >You don't have any facts, > > Obviously you're[yawn] You ancient, brain dead retard, you don't make any sense...
From: mrbawana2u on 25 Jan 2010 15:38 On Jan 25, 12:57 pm, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On 2010-01-25, Ray Fischer <rfisc...(a)sonic.net> wrote: > > >> Apparently not. It's only stupid rightards who think that payment for > >> services is "wealth redistribution". > > >Services don't need the threat of violence to be sold. > > Don't be stupid. There are always thieves who try to take without > paying. They are called liberal demonkraps, you alzheimers addled retard.
From: Chris H on 26 Jan 2010 03:33 In message <4b5e6b3c$0$1601$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer <rfischer(a)sonic.net> writes >Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>On 2010-01-25, Ray Fischer <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote: >>>>Nothing that could not be provided without forced payment. >>> >>> Simple solution, brat: Insist that nobody pay you any money. None. >>> >>> Money is, after all, a service provided by the government, and >>> since you don't want government services then you should not be using >>> government services. >> >>Real money, gold, silver, and/or anything else the market settles on >>does not need to come from government and for much of US history did >>not. > >You really are a first class idiot. For thousands of years money has >come from government. Without the benefit of government and modern >banking this society would collapse overnight and your standard of >living would revert to that enjoyed by people lving 2000 years ago. > >And you, being a stinking hypocrite, still use the money that is >wholly a creation of the government you despise. You enjoy countless >benefits from government even as you whine about having to pay for >those benefits. Not all money has come from the government. In the UK Banks (and others) did issue their own "money" or promissory notes. In recent times this was more common with the Scottish banks. However outside Scotland, even in other parts of the UK, they were not accepted as legal tender. Other people still issue "money" in the form of travellers cheques. (Started by the Knights Templar about 100 years ago) However outside some tourist areas these travellers cheques are usually only usable at banks. They are not normally accepted as money by most businesses. This highlights Rays point that only the Government issues "money" The rest is not "real" money and usually only has local validity and normally alongside the real money. Not a complete replacement. There are still a few small places in the UK that issue their own promissory notes. These tend to be small self help schemes but these are a few isolated places and these operate alongside the government issued money. Even in the areas where they are used "real money" is also used as well and not all places accept the "local money" Most of these Libertarians are not in fact American (in this case)... they are isolationists who do not want to be part of society (any society from what I can see) and just want to do their own thing with out helping anyone else at all. The problem is then what happens if the couple of families next door want to "do their own thing". What happens if them doing what they want makes your life hell? Without accepted rules of society (ie the laws of the state) there would be chaos and the strongest person gets ti inflict their will on everyone else. There for the people make rules to live by. Locally at first for the village then the area and finally for the country. Now in the modern world there are international rules. One of the problems of late is the last Republican US Administration has broken many international rules. These "libertarians " want to go back to no rules..... well that is fine by me. We can just go out and shoot them (remember no rules) and then when we have got rid of them get back to civilisation. Civilisation is defined by having social rules and a society. The problem is these idiots see: society == socialism == communism == totalitarian state Most of these libertarian seem to be insecure and paranoid. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Brent on 26 Jan 2010 09:25
On 2010-01-26, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: > Most of these Libertarians are not in fact American (in this case)... > they are isolationists who do not want to be part of society (any > society from what I can see) and just want to do their own thing with > out helping anyone else at all. Interesting spin. I guess it's helpful to paint people who do not like the violence based "society" that most favor as wierd people deserving of god knows what and pasting all sorts of odd qualities to them. > The problem is then what happens if the couple of families next door > want to "do their own thing". What happens if them doing what they want > makes your life hell? There are many forms of disupte resolution outside of having a government use violence on your behalf. Nor is there in need for government to have a monopoly on dispute resolution. There is no need to have people ruling over us to have dispute resolution. Various private companies could fill this need. Those that were fair would get the most business. Government courts don't have to be fair and throughout history are generally not fair because they have a monopoly. > Without accepted rules of society (ie the laws of the state) there would > be chaos and the strongest person gets ti inflict their will on everyone > else. There for the people make rules to live by. Locally at first for > the village then the area and finally for the country. Now in the modern > world there are international rules. Who said there wouldn't be rules ? But it appears you favor world government, well that's going to be an entirely new layer of theft and corruption. > One of the problems of late is the last Republican US Administration has > broken many international rules. And the new one continues the same policies. Empire. Rule by violence. Look at what it brings the world. If you accept violence as the basis of law, the ruler is going to be the one most capable of delivering violence. Today that is the United States Federal Government. > These "libertarians " want to go back to no rules..... well that is fine > by me. We can just go out and shoot them (remember no rules) and then > when we have got rid of them get back to civilisation. Not at all the case. But it is interesting that this is what you do instead of creating an argument for a violence based government system. > Civilisation is defined by having social rules and a society. > The problem is these idiots see: society == socialism == communism == > totalitarian state > Most of these libertarian seem to be insecure and paranoid. More name calling. Insecurity breeds people who need a big bad government wielding violence to "protect" them. The more insecure the people and/or the rulers the more violent and intrusive the state becomes. Look at the way the US federal government sees terrorists under every bed. A man goes in the out door at an airport to kiss his girlfriend goodbye and the paranoids go into full frenzy and lock down. They fear all sorts of boogiemen. |