What is the one thing that shapes your whole political philosophy?

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

But a well organized government is better in every respect when compared to the individual.

 

a weak federal government holds the people back.

frannkzappa

But out of curiosity, how is a well-organized government better in every respect when compard to the individual?

what can one man do that a group of experts can't do better?

(with cost not being part of the question)

would you have one man build you a boat? or 3?

who would win in a fight a group of six or an individual.

etc...

But why does that group have to be the government?

Why couldn't it be the private sector?

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

 

br0kenrabbit

Equality of opportunity, I guess. There's more to my views than that, though. Also, [QUOTE="JML897"]I think political issues are way too complicated to simplify it like thatghoklebutter

ah, A core element of technocracy,

Assuming direct controlchessmaster1989

this hurts you, Shepard.

Freedom is freedom from the government.

 

Federal government should (in my opinion) be there to protect people militarily, and to protect their rights granted by the constitution. It should do little else.

 

I think the government should let people be. That is freedom to me.

BMD004

What's to stop the states from enacting 'freedom' restricting laws if the federal government is stripped of power? 

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="BMD004"]First off... it doesn't matter. For better or for worse, I'd rather the government butt out.

But out of curiosity, how is a well-organized government better in every respect when compard to the individual?

BMD004

what can one man do that a group of experts can't do better?

(with cost not being part of the question)

would you have one man build you a boat? or 3?

who would win in a fight a group of six or an individual.

etc...

But why does that group have to be the government?

Why couldn't it be the private sector?

the private sector can not impose it's rule... other wise it would be a government in in and of it's self.

A technocratic government should be free to impose it's decisions.

The private sector need not even exist as it would best be controlled by a technocratic group than by the people.

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

 

ghoklebutter

For some reason, I'm surprised to hear that you're a communist.ghoklebutter

I am, but not in the way most people think of communism.

I'm fond of small tribal societies where everyone is held accountable for their actions by the community. Won't work? Starve. Get a girl pregnant? Buddy, you ain't going nowhere. Grab that shovel and start providing. Lie a lot? Well, now everyone knows and there's now weight to soiling your good name.

Obviously to pull this off would require technological regression (you can't exactly make the complex parts necessary for a modern world in a tribal society) but not only am I okay with this, but I feel it's coming anyway through one method or another.

I believe a persons first moral obligation is to those around him, so go figure I'd assosiate with communist ideas and ideals.

Shhh, he's hunting Bulbasaurs.foxhound_fox

Don't kill me, but I have never, ever, not even once, played a Pokeman game.

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

Freedom is freedom from the government.

 

Federal government should (in my opinion) be there to protect people militarily, and to protect their rights granted by the constitution. It should do little else.

 

I think the government should let people be. That is freedom to me.

HoolaHoopMan

What's to stop the states from enacting 'freedom' restricting laws if the federal government is stripped of power? 

Now personally, I'd like the state I live in to have a lot of freedom, and less government help. People in other states may feel differently about how much government they want.

But with 50 states, there would be 50 different experiments going on. And it is easier to enact change at the state level than the federal level.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]Shhh, he's hunting Bulbasaurs.br0kenrabbit

Don't kill me, but I have never, ever, not even once, played a Pokeman game.

Won't work? Starve. Get a girl pregnant? Buddy, you ain't going nowhere. Grab that shovel and start providing. Lie a lot? Well, now everyone knows and there's now weight to soiling your good name.br0kenrabbit

Don't kill me, but I have never, ever, not even once, played a Pokeman game.br0kenrabbit

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]For some reason, I'm surprised to hear that you're a communist.br0kenrabbit

I am, but not in the way most people think of communism.

I'm fond of small tribal societies where everyone is held accountable for their actions by the community. Won't work? Starve. Get a girl pregnant? Buddy, you ain't going nowhere. Grab that shovel and start providing. Lie a lot? Well, now everyone knows and there's now weight to soiling your good name.

Obviously to pull this off would require technological regression (you can't exactly make the complex parts necessary for a modern world in a tribal society) but not only am I okay with this, but I feel it's coming anyway through one method or another.

I believe a persons first moral obligation is to those around him, so go figure I'd assosiate with communist ideas and ideals.

that made me vomit more than a little.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

Freedom is freedom from the government.

 

Federal government should (in my opinion) be there to protect people militarily, and to protect their rights granted by the constitution. It should do little else.

 

I think the government should let people be. That is freedom to me.

BMD004

What's to stop the states from enacting 'freedom' restricting laws if the federal government is stripped of power? 

Now personally, I'd like the state I live in to have a lot of freedom, and less government help. People in other states may feel differently about how much government they want.

But with 50 states, there would be 50 different experiments going on. And it is easier to enact change at the state level than the federal level.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

Freedom is freedom from the government.

Federal government should (in my opinion) be there to protect people militarily, and to protect their rights granted by the constitution. It should do little else.

I think the government should let people be. That is freedom to me.

BMD004

What's to stop the states from enacting 'freedom' restricting laws if the federal government is stripped of power?

Now personally, I'd like the state I live in to have a lot of freedom, and less government help. People in other states may feel differently about how much government they want.

But with 50 states, there would be 50 different experiments going on. And it is easier to enact change at the state level than the federal level.

the state government system is one of the many reasons that the constitution should amount to little more than toilet paper.

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]Won't work? Starve. Get a girl pregnant? Buddy, you ain't going nowhere. Grab that shovel and start providing. Lie a lot? Well, now everyone knows and there's now weight to soiling your good name.foxhound_fox

Don't kill me, but I have never, ever, not even once, played a Pokeman game.br0kenrabbit

It's communism in the communal sense. There would be no money, simply the community providing for each other on a needs basis.

Ever hear of a barn-raising? Stuff like that.

Definitely an agrarian existence.

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

What's to stop the states from enacting 'freedom' restricting laws if the federal government is stripped of power?

frannkzappa

Now personally, I'd like the state I live in to have a lot of freedom, and less government help. People in other states may feel differently about how much government they want.

But with 50 states, there would be 50 different experiments going on. And it is easier to enact change at the state level than the federal level.

the state government system is one of the many reasons that the constitution should amount to little more than toilet paper.

Actually, U.S. founding fathers wrote the Constitution with the intent of giving more power to the federal government. If this wasn't their intention, then they would've never ratified the U.S. Constitution and just kept the Articles of the Confederation.

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

What's to stop the states from enacting 'freedom' restricting laws if the federal government is stripped of power? 

HoolaHoopMan

Now personally, I'd like the state I live in to have a lot of freedom, and less government help. People in other states may feel differently about how much government they want.

But with 50 states, there would be 50 different experiments going on. And it is easier to enact change at the state level than the federal level.

I'm not against the federal government. I just think it has greatly over-stepped it's bounds, and should be much smaller than it currently is.

I'm pretty sure that warrants the death penalty. :Pchessmaster1989

I was already out of college and married when Pokemon came out. I had other things on my mind.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="BMD004"]The states should have more power, because that is how this country was intended to be. The constitution was written with the intention of keeping the federal government small, and giving the power to the individual states.

Now personally, I'd like the state I live in to have a lot of freedom, and less government help. People in other states may feel differently about how much government they want.

But with 50 states, there would be 50 different experiments going on. And it is easier to enact change at the state level than the federal level.

Jimn_tonic

the state government system is one of the many reasons that the constitution should amount to little more than toilet paper.

Actually, U.S. founding fathers wrote the Constitution with the intent of giving more power to the federal government. If this wasn't their intention, then they would've never ratified the U.S. Constitution and just kept the Articles of the Confederation.

that doesn't contradict anything i said...

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"] Yeah, that definitely isn't communism. >_> Edit: I'd be in favour of such a system as well. [QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]Don't kill me, but I have never, ever, not even once, played a Pokeman game.br0kenrabbit

It's communism in the communal sense. There would be no money, simply the community providing for each other on a needs basis.

Ever hear of a barn-raising? Stuff like that.

Definitely an agrarian existence.

Are you expecting an apocalypse? HoolaHoopMan

Not in a Hollywood "SHITS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW" sense. It'll be a slow decline, like Rome.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="BMD004"]The states should have more power, because that is how this country was intended to be. The constitution was written with the intention of keeping the federal government small, and giving the power to the individual states.

 

Now personally, I'd like the state I live in to have a lot of freedom, and less government help. People in other states may feel differently about how much government they want.

 

But with 50 states, there would be 50 different experiments going on. And it is easier to enact change at the state level than the federal level.

Jimn_tonic

the state government system is one of the many reasons that the constitution should amount to little more than toilet paper.

Actually, U.S. founding fathers wrote the Constitution with the intent of giving more power to the federal government. If this wasn't their intention, then they would've never ratified the U.S. Constitution and just kept the Articles of the Confederation.

 

that doesn't contradict anything i said...

frannkzappa

well that's good, because i was trying to reinforce your previous statement.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

that doesn't contradict anything i said...

Jimn_tonic

well that's good, because i was trying to reinforce your previous statement.

ahh, excuse the misunderstanding.

[QUOTE="Jimn_tonic"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

the state government system is one of the many reasons that the constitution should amount to little more than toilet paper.

BMD004

Actually, U.S. founding fathers wrote the Constitution with the intent of giving more power to the federal government. If this wasn't their intention, then they would've never ratified the U.S. Constitution and just kept the Articles of the Confederation.

and look where that lead us...

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

[QUOTE="Jimn_tonic"]

Actually, U.S. founding fathers wrote the Constitution with the intent of giving more power to the federal government. If this wasn't their intention, then they would've never ratified the U.S. Constitution and just kept the Articles of the Confederation.

frannkzappa

and look where that lead us...

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="BMD004"]Right. But I am comparing to other countries around the world at the time. They wanted the federal government to be small with the states holding more power.

BMD004

and look where that lead us...

The greatness of America was caused by a few lucky moments.

for instance you can thank the technocratic cabinet of FDR and WW2 for the economy.

the middle class (as amazing as it is) was a byproduct of the abundance of land, it had nothing to do with government.

everything America has achieved is in spite of states.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="BMD004"]Right. But I am comparing to other countries around the world at the time. They wanted the federal government to be small with the states holding more power.

BMD004

and look where that lead us...

The middle class has largely been helped out by government programs.  Where would they be with out labor laws and social security? 

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]For some reason, I'm surprised to hear that you're a communist.br0kenrabbit

I am, but not in the way most people think of communism.

I'm fond of small tribal societies where everyone is held accountable for their actions by the community. Won't work? Starve. Get a girl pregnant? Buddy, you ain't going nowhere. Grab that shovel and start providing. Lie a lot? Well, now everyone knows and there's now weight to soiling your good name.

Obviously to pull this off would require technological regression (you can't exactly make the complex parts necessary for a modern world in a tribal society) but not only am I okay with this, but I feel it's coming anyway through one method or another.

I believe a persons first moral obligation is to those around him, so go figure I'd assosiate with communist ideas and ideals.

Ah, well I'm not for the ideal of a tribal society, but I'm an anarcho-communist. That's kind of close although given your discription there are some major differences.

This is my overarching mentality: We are to be a free people whose freedom does not harm the freedom of others.

The result of such a mentality carries itself into defending free people whose rights would be taken by others whether by crime, political means, or even abortion meaning the unborn have a right to the freedom of life thus making abortion illegal). The purpose of government is to protect freedoms thus allowing the people to pursue their own forms of education, economic status, and individual goals. Government is therefore to be restricted in areas that would endanger personal pursuits that do not endanger the personal pursuits of others. This means people have a right to holding firmly to any ideology, creed, or religion that does not endanger the personal freedoms of others. This means no religion or secular institution has a right to enforce any ideology through means of the government. The government is designed to protect freedoms, not enforce ideologies.

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]For some reason, I'm surprised to hear that you're a communist.ghoklebutter

I am, but not in the way most people think of communism.

I'm fond of small tribal societies where everyone is held accountable for their actions by the community. Won't work? Starve. Get a girl pregnant? Buddy, you ain't going nowhere. Grab that shovel and start providing. Lie a lot? Well, now everyone knows and there's now weight to soiling your good name.

Obviously to pull this off would require technological regression (you can't exactly make the complex parts necessary for a modern world in a tribal society) but not only am I okay with this, but I feel it's coming anyway through one method or another.

I believe a persons first moral obligation is to those around him, so go figure I'd assosiate with communist ideas and ideals.

Ah, well I'm not for the ideal of a tribal society, but my kind of communism comes pretty close in some ways (although I'm not in agreement with the whole "work or starve" idea). I'm an anarcho-communist.

never have so many vomit inducing words been said in one post.

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

I am, but not in the way most people think of communism.

I'm fond of small tribal societies where everyone is held accountable for their actions by the community. Won't work? Starve. Get a girl pregnant? Buddy, you ain't going nowhere. Grab that shovel and start providing. Lie a lot? Well, now everyone knows and there's now weight to soiling your good name.

Obviously to pull this off would require technological regression (you can't exactly make the complex parts necessary for a modern world in a tribal society) but not only am I okay with this, but I feel it's coming anyway through one method or another.

I believe a persons first moral obligation is to those around him, so go figure I'd assosiate with communist ideas and ideals.

 

frannkzappa

Ah, well I'm not for the ideal of a tribal society, but my kind of communism comes pretty close in some ways (although I'm not in agreement with the whole "work or starve" idea). I'm an anarcho-communist.

never have so many vomit inducing words been said in one post.

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

What's to stop the states from enacting 'freedom' restricting laws if the federal government is stripped of power?

frannkzappa

Now personally, I'd like the state I live in to have a lot of freedom, and less government help. People in other states may feel differently about how much government they want.

But with 50 states, there would be 50 different experiments going on. And it is easier to enact change at the state level than the federal level.

the state government system is one of the many reasons that the constitution should amount to little more than toilet paper.

Eh, when push comes to shove, the Feds usually get their way.

Which is technically SCOTUS' interpretation of the constitution (aka - the only one that matters)

Ah, well I'm not for the ideal of a tribal society, but I'm an anarcho-communist. That's kind of close although given your discription there are some major differences.

ghoklebutter

Sonofabitch...I got logged out when I posted.

Anyway...I like the intimacy of tribal societies. Not just holding people accountable, but genuinely being involved with the community on a personal level.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

Ah, well I'm not for the ideal of a tribal society, but my kind of communism comes pretty close in some ways (although I'm not in agreement with the whole "work or starve" idea). I'm an anarcho-communist.

ghoklebutter

never have so many vomit inducing words been said in one post.

i can't think of anything worse.

i would equate the implementation of those ideas with genocide.

It's communism in the communal sense. There would be no money, simply the community providing for each other on a needs basis.

Ever hear of a barn-raising? Stuff like that.

Definitely an agrarian existence.

br0kenrabbit

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

never have so many vomit inducing words been said in one post.

frannkzappa

i can't think of anything worse.

i would equate the implementation of those ideas with genocide.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="BMD004"]The states should have more power, because that is how this country was intended to be. The constitution was written with the intention of keeping the federal government small, and giving the power to the individual states.

Now personally, I'd like the state I live in to have a lot of freedom, and less government help. People in other states may feel differently about how much government they want.

But with 50 states, there would be 50 different experiments going on. And it is easier to enact change at the state level than the federal level.

coolbeans90

the state government system is one of the many reasons that the constitution should amount to little more than toilet paper.

Eh, when push comes to shove, the Feds usually get their way.

thank jefferson(that hypocritical sunofabitch), jackson, lincoln and FDR (among a few others) for that.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"] =S ok then

ghoklebutter

i can't think of anything worse.

i would equate the implementation of those ideas with genocide.

i included your quote too.

i would equate the implementation of those ideas with genocide.

frannkzappa

I feel pretty much the same about capitalism: profit from the poor.

agrarian, tribal, communal, anarchy?

i can't think of anything worse.

i would equate the implementation of those ideas with genocide.

frannkzappa

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]agrarian, tribal, communal, anarchy?

i can't think of anything worse.

i would equate the implementation of those ideas with genocide.

frannkzappa

i included your quote too.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

i would equate the implementation of those ideas with genocide.

br0kenrabbit

I feel pretty much the same about capitalism: profit from the poor.

i am not fond of capitalism either.

I still have a hard time mentally distinguishing communal living from big-C communism.foxhound_fox

Basically I'm suggesting no authority beyond the local community. Marx certainly suggested something similar, but his ideas were still far more reaching and grand in scope.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

the state government system is one of the many reasons that the constitution should amount to little more than toilet paper.

frannkzappa

Eh, when push comes to shove, the Feds usually get their way.

thank jefferson(you hypocritical sunofabitch), jackson, lincoln and FDR (among a few others) for that.

And SCOTUS.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"] I'm not an agrarian or tribalist. I'm just an anarcho-communist. I'm very much keen on the idea of modern post-industrial anarchy.ghoklebutter

i included your quote too.

i never said you said those things i was talking to both brokenrabbit(who you quoted) as well as you.

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

and look where that lead us...

frannkzappa

The greatness of America was caused by a few lucky moments.

for instance you can thank the technocratic cabinet of FDR and WW2 for the economy.

the middle class (as amazing as it is) was a byproduct of the abundance of land, it had nothing to do with government.

everything America has achieved is in spite of states.

But you and I are so far apart on that issue, and it's a whole different discussion.

And the creation of the middle class is a "byproduct of the abundance of land"? Explain that to me.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Eh, when push comes to shove, the Feds usually get their way.

coolbeans90

thank jefferson(you hypocritical sunofabitch), jackson, lincoln and FDR (among a few others) for that.

And SCOTUS.

definitely the best and most technocratic part of the fed.