Metsfanmax wrote:Why do people view their representative government as a force that's out to get them?
A so-called "representative government" doesn't represent the up-to 49% of people who chose not to empower it. Therefore, the west's so-called "representative governments" should be more accurately called "58% representative government" - or whatever is the percentage mandate du jour.
Everything is more defensible if you hijack the language before you define it. "Representative government" = "Ministry of Peace."
By the simple act of voting, you imply consent to the legitimacy of the system, regardless of which candidates win. It's incredibly irrational and illogical to legitimize a system by taking a civic part in it, and then turn around and complain that it is no longer a legitimate system once the system does something you don't like.
That's an absolutely correct and an excellent point, Mets, and I can't disagree with it.
I believe people should not vote in a system which they don't view as legitimate. Some of my close friends, who are American citizens and have the option to vote, do not. But, yes, if you do vote you can't criticize the foundational existence of the system of governance. (Though certainly you can criticize the method of its operation if disagreement with that aspect is incumbent on the correct operation that system's supposed cycle of competitive-idea elections.)
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
hairy potter wrote:
2 - who says i'm not part of the circle that run the system?
By your choice of verbiage, use of nomenclature and style of speech over the whole of your comments it can be reasonably assumed you are not. Just an anonymous, checker-on-the-board sycophant.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have gone before it (to paraphrase Churchill)
before you criticise the government, just remember who it is that operates the legal system. it is the legal system of a country that ensures you aren't subject to the gun law of gangsters, don't get ripped off by corporations and that protects every legal and civil right that you hold so dear.
People are beginning to see that the first requisite to success in life is to be a good animal - Herbert Spencer
owenshooter wrote:go ahead and report me, you will get nowhere...-0
hairy potter wrote:
2 - who says i'm not part of the circle that run the system?
By your choice of verbiage, use of nomenclature and style of speech over the whole of your comments it can be reasonably assumed you are not. Just an anonymous, checker-on-the-board sycophant.
books, covers, blah blah
People are beginning to see that the first requisite to success in life is to be a good animal - Herbert Spencer
owenshooter wrote:go ahead and report me, you will get nowhere...-0
Metsfanmax wrote:Why do people view their representative government as a force that's out to get them?
A so-called "representative government" doesn't represent the up-to 49% of people who chose not to empower it. Therefore, the west's so-called "representative governments" should be more accurately called "58% representative government" - or whatever is the percentage mandate du jour.
Everything is more defensible if you hijack the language before you define it. "Representative government" = "Ministry of Peace."
By the simple act of voting, you imply consent to the legitimacy of the system, regardless of which candidates win. It's incredibly irrational and illogical to legitimize a system by taking a civic part in it, and then turn around and complain that it is no longer a legitimate system once the system does something you don't like.
That's an absolutely correct and an excellent point, Mets, and I can't disagree with it.
I believe people should not vote in a system which they don't view as legitimate. Some of my close friends, who are American citizens and have the option to vote, do not. But, yes, if you do vote you can't criticize the foundational existence of the system of governance. (Though certainly you can criticize the method of its operation if disagreement with that aspect is incumbent on the correct operation that system's supposed cycle of competitive-idea elections.)
I see your point there. My only problem with the statement is that the system is rigged in such a way where the less people who vote/pay attention actually curropts the system further.
I would juxtapose the act of paying taxes over the act of voting. You can choose not to participate in the system with a vote. You cannot choose to disassociate from the system when the system takes 40+% of your earnings
saxitoxin wrote:For the third time, you receive value in excess of what you put in. So do welfare recipients. You are a welfare recipient.
I like cheese.
David Cameron likes cheese.
I am therefore David Cameron.
I don't think you understand how logical fallacies work. "A" for effort, though.
Mets - I'll hand this one off to you.
by definition, every single person in the world is a welfare recipient. anybody with a police service to protect them is in receipt of a government's welfare. you need to distinguish, and i am distinguishing beween people who pay their taxes (namely income tax) and people who don't.
People are beginning to see that the first requisite to success in life is to be a good animal - Herbert Spencer
owenshooter wrote:go ahead and report me, you will get nowhere...-0
Metsfanmax wrote:Why do people view their representative government as a force that's out to get them?
A so-called "representative government" doesn't represent the up-to 49% of people who chose not to empower it. Therefore, the west's so-called "representative governments" should be more accurately called "58% representative government" - or whatever is the percentage mandate du jour.
Everything is more defensible if you hijack the language before you define it. "Representative government" = "Ministry of Peace."
By the simple act of voting, you imply consent to the legitimacy of the system, regardless of which candidates win. It's incredibly irrational and illogical to legitimize a system by taking a civic part in it, and then turn around and complain that it is no longer a legitimate system once the system does something you don't like.
That's an absolutely correct and an excellent point, Mets, and I can't disagree with it.
I believe people should not vote in a system which they don't view as legitimate. Some of my close friends, who are American citizens and have the option to vote, do not. But, yes, if you do vote you can't criticize the foundational existence of the system of governance. (Though certainly you can criticize the method of its operation if disagreement with that aspect is incumbent on the correct operation that system's supposed cycle of competitive-idea elections.)
I see your point there. My only problem with the statement is that the system is rigged in such a way where the less people who vote/pay attention actually curropts the system further.
I agree with you 100%, Scott. The Insect has arranged things to favor it no matter what course any potential opposition is likely to pursue.
But, I also have to agree with Mets 100%. By simply voting you are giving legitimacy to it. In Chad - in 2006 - the main opposition parties boycotted the election, refused to run candidates and encouraged their supporters not to vote. The election being organized was clearly rigged. The boycott has weakened Idriss' government by removing the stamp of legitimacy that might have existed in the event of full electoral participation.
The American version of The Insect, apparently, is smarter than the Chadian version since it controls both the majority and opposition parties. No one is going to notice if the Libertarian or Green Party boycotts the 2010 election. They would if either the Democrat or Republican parties did but neither will because they're two branches of the same party that look different on the surface. Just like Taco Bell and KFC are two subsidiaries of the same company, even if they do have different logos and serve different food.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
hairy potter wrote:to make the people truly free, they must be freed from reliance on the state.
hairy potter wrote:
before you criticise the government, just remember who it is that ...
If I still had a license I'd have you involuntarily committed for a schizophrenic disorder right now.
i'm glad to see that you've been paying attention
happily, my first comment was partially just a trojan horse to air my views on people who sit on benefits and do nothing to earn them. it was a justification for sweeping the rug from under them and leaving them to starve.
and as i mentioned earlier, you either accept that you are partially reliant on someone, somewhere, all of the time (the farmer growing your crops, the little asian child making your jacket) or you go live in a cave and grow your own food. luckily, i have no qualms with relying on the state to protect my liberties and have no need to rely on the state for my material security.
Last edited by hairy potter on Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
People are beginning to see that the first requisite to success in life is to be a good animal - Herbert Spencer
owenshooter wrote:go ahead and report me, you will get nowhere...-0
hairy potter wrote: have no need to rely on the state for my material security.
The first liberty is life. The state pulled you out of your mother's vagina and nurses you to this day, as you have stated elsewhere. You are reliant on the state, regardless as to whether the notion of you being a welfare recipient fits with the Weltanschauung that has been drilled into your head or not.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
VAT payments total half the sum of all income tax payments. people paying only VAT are paying substantially less than someone who pays income tax as well.
saxitoxin wrote:For the fourth time, you receive value in excess of what you put in. So do welfare recipients. You are a welfare recipient.
that was based on my not paying the 50% tax rate. if it would make you feel better, my father does and i am technically still a dependant child of his.
People are beginning to see that the first requisite to success in life is to be a good animal - Herbert Spencer
owenshooter wrote:go ahead and report me, you will get nowhere...-0
VAT payments total half the sum of all income tax payments. people paying only VAT are paying substantially less than someone who pays income tax as well.
For the fifth time, you receive value in excess of what you put in. So do welfare recipients. You are a welfare recipient.
hairy potter wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:For the fourth time, you receive value in excess of what you put in. So do welfare recipients. You are a welfare recipient.
that was based on my not paying the 50% tax rate. if it would make you feel better, my father does and i am technically still a dependant child of his.
That doesn't surprise me. It sounds like you're dependent on a lot.
Last edited by saxitoxin on Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
saxitoxin wrote:You are reliant on the state, regardless as to whether the notion of you being a welfare recipient fits with the Weltanschauung that has been drilled into your head or not.
i never said i wasn't reliant on the state. in fact, in that post that you so selectively quoted i actually said very specifically that i rely on the state to protect my safety and civil liberties.
i have been talking specifically about people who really on state benefits, benefits that i believe people should either be made to work for or have taken away from them. none of what you said negates that point.
People are beginning to see that the first requisite to success in life is to be a good animal - Herbert Spencer
owenshooter wrote:go ahead and report me, you will get nowhere...-0
hairy potter wrote:that was based on my not paying the 50% tax rate. if it would make you feel better, my father does and i am technically still a dependant child of his.
Well that's a little embarrassing for you ...
I think I'm just going to leave that one there.
i'm a student, i wouldn't expect to be anything other than a dependant child. i'm allowed to talk about taxes because this year i'm working as part of my degree, and so am paying tax
People are beginning to see that the first requisite to success in life is to be a good animal - Herbert Spencer
owenshooter wrote:go ahead and report me, you will get nowhere...-0
saxitoxin wrote:You are reliant on the state, regardless as to whether the notion of you being a welfare recipient fits with the Weltanschauung that has been drilled into your head or not.
i never said i wasn't reliant on the state. in fact, in that post that you so selectively quoted i actually said very specifically that i rely on the state to protect my safety and civil liberties.
i have been talking specifically about people who really on state benefits
such as yourself
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
saxitoxin wrote:You are reliant on the state, regardless as to whether the notion of you being a welfare recipient fits with the Weltanschauung that has been drilled into your head or not.
i never said i wasn't reliant on the state. in fact, in that post that you so selectively quoted i actually said very specifically that i rely on the state to protect my safety and civil liberties.
i have been talking specifically about people who really on state benefits
such as yourself
you really must stop quoting me so selectively. just words after that part of my post, i said that people should be made to work for their benefits. i work for mine, by having a job and paying tax. they do no such thing, and so do nothing to earn their benefits.
People are beginning to see that the first requisite to success in life is to be a good animal - Herbert Spencer
owenshooter wrote:go ahead and report me, you will get nowhere...-0
saxitoxin wrote:
A so-called "representative government" doesn't represent the up-to 49% of people who chose not to empower it. Therefore, the west's so-called "representative governments" should be more accurately called "58% representative government" - or whatever is the percentage mandate du jour.
Everything is more defensible if you hijack the language before you define it. "Representative government" = "Ministry of Peace."
By the simple act of voting, you imply consent to the legitimacy of the system, regardless of which candidates win. It's incredibly irrational and illogical to legitimize a system by taking a civic part in it, and then turn around and complain that it is no longer a legitimate system once the system does something you don't like.
That's an absolutely correct and an excellent point, Mets, and I can't disagree with it.
I believe people should not vote in a system which they don't view as legitimate. Some of my close friends, who are American citizens and have the option to vote, do not. But, yes, if you do vote you can't criticize the foundational existence of the system of governance. (Though certainly you can criticize the method of its operation if disagreement with that aspect is incumbent on the correct operation that system's supposed cycle of competitive-idea elections.)
I see your point there. My only problem with the statement is that the system is rigged in such a way where the less people who vote/pay attention actually curropts the system further.
I agree with you 100%, Scott. The Insect has arranged things to favor it no matter what course any potential opposition is likely to pursue.
But, I also have to agree with Mets 100%. By simply voting you are giving legitimacy to it. In Chad - in 2006 - the main opposition parties boycotted the election, refused to run candidates and encouraged their supporters not to vote. The election being organized was clearly rigged. The boycott has weakened Idriss' government by removing the stamp of legitimacy that might have existed in the event of full electoral participation.
The American version of The Insect, apparently, is smarter than the Chadian version since it controls both the majority and opposition parties. No one is going to notice if the Libertarian or Green Party boycotts the 2010 election. They would if either the Democrat or Republican parties did but neither will because they're two branches of the same party that look different on the surface. Just like Taco Bell and KFC are two subsidiaries of the same company, even if they do have different logos and serve different food.
