Tacit consent etc.

[hatzel]

Okay, so over on the main boards, a discussion about...something, terrorist dirty bombs, I believe, managed to get pulled down to talking about whether voting constitutes supporting the actions of the state and all that. I thought the idea of tacit consent, what does and doesn't constitute tacit consent, whether it even matters, all that stuff, deserved a thread of its own. I thought this would be a good place, though, because it was Locke's ideas of tacit consent which instantly jumped out at me. That is, consent merely by taking advantage of the various systems the state offers you, by walking down a highway, using money (which is of course just worthless pieces of paper without the state to guarantee it as legal tender) and, centrally, owning and inheriting property, if it is the laws of the state which are supposed to protect your property rights. All this without going into the direct consent given to the government by participating in the election, irrespective of whether or not your preferred candidate wins. I've posted it here because many consider Locke the father of modern capitalism, so it might be interesting if the likes of Bud might have an input :p

I suggested on the other thread that the act of paying taxes to the state constitutes the giving of tacit consent, by (in)directly funding its various operations, and that therefore, one should consider oneself under a moral obligation to participate in elections (if one pays taxes, that is :)), so as to at least try to have some influence over how your money is spent, even if that means picking the lesser of two evils, but what do others think about this?

So that's the topic. Tacit consent, civil disobedience and participating in elections. Let's get it on! :thumbup1:

[RGacky3]

all of the talk of voting being giving "tacid concent" is meaningless and just symbolic, whether or not you vote does not change your realtionship to the state or institutionalized power one bit, not for a second.

THe same with paying taxes.

I personally don't vote, but for people that do, by all means, it does'nt make you any more or less complicit in state power, if you think it will make a difference, i.e. make life better or lead toward better conditions to make a change, then by all means.

But not voting and thinking that it somehow makes a difference by "not giving consent" is rediculous, the institutionalized powers don't need your consent.

[ComradeMan]

In some countries it is obligatory to vote- but you can spoil your vote too in protest. I believe in most countries voting is voluntary however.

Paying taxes is obligatory, you have no choice and you are coerced into this state organised theft with the threat of a heavy and lengthy jail term in most places (that's if you're not rich enough to have a creative accountant and a good offshore bank! ;))

I think that's where there's a fundamental difference.

I'd say tacit consent is more down to the apathy of a lot of people to get involved in politics or speak up further to which when people vote for a party because it's the lesser of two evils but won't vote for a smaller party or independent candidate because "they'll never win anyway"- of course, this depends on the system of whatever country you're in.

[Bud Struggle]

Well here in the USA you CAN vote for anyone that has similar values as you. (I imagine it's the same in the UK.) They may not be on the ballot, but you can vote for the Socialist Workers Party or similar organizations if you so choose. So there is actually no excuse for not doing what you think is right.

As for paying taxes--there's no choice there so you're not giving aproval to anything.

[hatzel]

Oh, c'mon! What's all this about taxes being obligatory?! :laugh: You all need to read more about civil disobedience :rolleyes:

But seriously, if we assume that one pays taxes to the state, and that the state will spend that money doing whatever it wants, is it not a moral obligation for us to vote, to at least try to have some say in how the money we throw into the treasury is spent? Even if that say comes down to just picking whether we want a Big Mac or a Whopper :blink: Or is total apathy a justifiable position? Almost as if we went into a clothes shop, emptied our wallet into the till and openly declared 'I don't care what I buy, just pick whatever costs this much and I'll buy it', rather than at least entrusting the decision of what you will end up buying to the best-dressed cashier :thumbup1:

[Quail]

But seriously, if we assume that one pays taxes to the state, and that the state will spend that money doing whatever it wants, is it not a moral obligation for us to vote, to at least try to have some say in how the money we throw into the treasury is spent? Even if that say comes down to just picking whether we want a Big Mac or a Whopper :blink: Or is total apathy a justifiable position? Almost as if we went into a clothes shop, emptied our wallet into the till and openly declared 'I don't care what I buy, just pick whatever costs this much and I'll buy it', rather than at least entrusting the decision of what you will end up buying to the best-dressed cashier :thumbup1:
Surely that depends on whether or not you believe that your vote can actually change anything or have any impact. I didn't vote in the last general election because I don't think that voting one way or the other is really going to make a lot of difference. If you think that voting does make a difference, then by all means go for it.

[hatzel]

I consider it to make minimal difference (but wasn't in the country to vote in the last election, and couldn't be bothered to organise any alternative system for that minimal difference :rolleyes: Just waling across the street, like I'd usually have to, is easy enough for me. I'll sacrifice 5 minutes of my day for it), particularly given how it all turned out in the end anyway. But the issue revolves around whether one specifically eschews the whole system of elections and voting. I'd assume that your decision not to vote came more from the realisation (fair enough) that it's not going to make any difference, rather than some kind of strict aversion to voting per se, on the back of voting being some kind of cooperation in the state's actions. Might be wrong, though.

In truth, our electoral system is hardly conductive to the idea of a vote being worth anything. Had we lived in some other country, we might have a somewhat different outlook on the situation :)

[Bud Struggle]

Surely that depends on whether or not you believe that your vote can actually change anything or have any impact. I didn't vote in the last general election because I don't think that voting one way or the other is really going to make a lot of difference. If you think that voting does make a difference, then by all means go for it.

You know, if everyone that thought their vote didn't matter did vote--it would have mattered, alot.

[hatzel]

If absolutely nobody votes, everybody could have had the deciding vote :) But seriously, Bud, here in Britain, it makes very little difference. A party could get 49.99999% of the votes, but they won't get a single seat if another party gets 50.00001%. Remembering that most areas are pretty staunch one way or the other (you know, 80% backing one party or whatever), it's only in a few areas where you stand any chance of meaning anything, and still that's usually just between Labour and Tory. Smaller parties have no chance, this isn't continental Europe, I tell you! :crying:

[Skooma Addict]

You know, if everyone that thought their vote didn't matter did vote--it would have mattered, alot.

And in the end my single vote still wouldn't have mattered.

[hatzel]

That being the problem with our democratic system. Thus the option is to either remain within said system, attempting to make the most of it, or to remove oneself from said system, which could open up some crossover with civil disobedience and non-cooperation :)

[Lt. Ferret]

Getting off the grid is a good start.

[ComradeMan]

Getting off the grid is a good start.

Perhaps in some places like the US or Canada that is a possibility, but it's not really possible in a place like the Netherlands or Italy etc.- Not so easy to go "In to the Wild"... although quite honestly sometimes I wish I could...:crying:

[hatzel]

Which grid? The power grid? That's becoming increasingly feasible nowadays, with advances in solar power etc. :) I think developments in such renewable energy would be pretty important for the establishment of autonomous communes 'parallel' to the capitalist system...

[Lt. Ferret]

Move to Appalachia ;)

My wife and I had a serious discussion when I filed my taxes because I finally put her name on it, she has always been able to avoid being on as many forms as possible, and all her income was always under the table. She's a bit of a minarchist and prefers making her own clothes to buying them, we used to have a bit of a Victory garden as well but since we moved to this place we havent pursued such a thing.

[Bud Struggle]

And in the end my single vote still wouldn't have mattered.

One vote never matters. But imagine if all the Leftist actually did vote for a leftist candidate. That's what the Tea Partiers did. A couple of guys energized a base and made some difference. Maybre not a lot bot they are out there.

We had a Leftist (Socialista) running for Governor of Florida--the guy with NO MEDIA got 10% of the vote. He got no support from anyone--Even RevLeft--that was a pretty good showing. (Actually he got support from the Budster!)

You Communists need more of the old American Capitalist "get the job done" attitude if you are going to succeed.

[Revolution starts with U]

Voting is a form of tacit consent. But barring the threat of revolution, not voting is giving far more consent.
Your vote at least tempers the government somewhat. If no leftists voted, we wouldn't have even gotten this shitty healthcare obama is offering, let alone real healthcare.

[#FF0000]

One vote never matters. But imagine if all the Leftist actually did vote for a leftist candidate. That's what the Tea Partiers did. A couple of guys energized a base and made some difference. Maybre not a lot bot they are out there.

We had a Leftist (Socialista) running for Governor of Florida--the guy with NO MEDIA got 10% of the vote. He got no support from anyone--Even RevLeft--that was a pretty good showing. (Actually he got support from the Budster!)

You Communists need more of the old American Capitalist "get the job done" attitude if you are going to succeed.

You can't vote socialism into place, though. That is the thing. It's not that "OUR VOTE DON'T MATTER HARUMPH" it's that the ballot is a "Get Out Of Having To Care Free" card and there are more useful things you can do as opposed to voting.

[ComradeMan]

You can't vote socialism into place, though. That is the thing. It's not that "OUR VOTE DON'T MATTER HARUMPH" it's that the ballot is a "Get Out Of Having To Care Free" card and there are more useful things you can do as opposed to voting.

Allende?

[#FF0000]

Allende?

Not socialist. :mellow:

[ComradeMan]

Not socialist. :mellow:

:confused: Elected Marxist president?

What's your definition of socialist?

[#FF0000]

:confused: Elected Marxist president?

What's your definition of socialist?

I'm sure he thought of himself as a socialist and wanted working class revolution and all that, but Chile under him wasn't socialist. There is more to socialism than nationalization of industry and collectivizing of agriculture.

[Revolution starts with U]

Not voting, to me, would be like finally getting worker control of the factory and saying "cool. I'll just let the administration decide what to do."
What good is democracy if people don't use it?

[ComradeMan]

I'm sure he thought of himself as a socialist and wanted working class revolution and all that, but Chile under him wasn't socialist. There is more to socialism than nationalization of industry and collectivizing of agriculture.

Well... he didn't really have such a fortunate run of things did he, nor all the time he needed.

However, your definition does exclude everywhere practically.

[#FF0000]

Well... he didn't really have such a fortunate run of things did he, nor all the time he needed.

However, your definition does exclude everywhere practically.

Yeah, because p. much every "socialist" government has been a state-capitalist one, Allende's Chile included.

[Bud Struggle]

Yeah, because p. much every "socialist" government has been a state-capitalist one, Allende's Chile included.


Are you saying you Commies may have a Plan "B"?

:D

[#FF0000]

Are you saying you Commies may have a Plan "B"?

:D

What do you mean? The plan's the same as it always one. Legitimate working class revolution, and legitimate working class rule. Unfortunately, many have lost the plot at this point.

[Palingenisis]

Yeah, because p. much every "socialist" government has been a state-capitalist one, Allende's Chile included.

Allende's Chile wasnt even state capitalist.

[Bud Struggle]

What do you mean? The plan's the same as it always one. Legitimate working class revolution, and legitimate working class rule. Unfortunately, many have lost the plot at this point.

OK, well Plan "A" seemed to be totalitarian regimes. So now you are opting for Plan "B"?

Fine with me. But don't pretend Plan "A" never happened.

[hatzel]

Bud, c'mooooon, don't be silly! :glare:

[#FF0000]

OK, well Plan "A" seemed to be totalitarian regimes. So now you are opting for Plan "B"?

Fine with me. But don't pretend Plan "A" never happened.

Yeah, every communist thought "yeah bro totalitarian regimes are the way to go"

What, you never heard of Kronstadt?

Don't pretend Marxist-Leninism is all there is to Leftist thought.

[Bud Struggle]

Yeah, every communist thought "yeah bro totalitarian regimes are the way to go"

What, you never heard of Kronstadt?

Don't pretend Marxist-Leninists are all there is to Leftist thought.

Funny how it worked out that way, though.

Really, you need to figure out a way to make people forget all of that and THEN advance your agenda.

ComradeMan's seems to be headed in that direction but it looks like you really don't appreciate his approch. Makinging Communism reasonable in the 21st Century isn't my cross to bear--but I think you all are being unduly harsh on someone who may have a reasonable plan.

[Revolution starts with U]

I would like to know why you think that, other than that Comrade likes you....

I want bullet points, cuz I think you're just patting yourself on the back again.

[#FF0000]

Funny how it worked out that way, though.

So, what are you saying here?


ComradeMan's seems to be headed in that direction but it looks like you really don't appreciate his approch. Makinging Communism reasonable in the 21st Century isn't my cross to bear--but I think you all are being unduly harsh on someone who may have a reasonable plan.I think he's wrong on some things and not wrong on others. I'm not pulling punches when he's wrong, though.

[RGacky3]

You all need to read more about civil disobedience http://www.revleft.com/vb/tacit-consent-etc-t149545/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif


Civil disobedience only makes sense if it has an effect, if not its just useless symbolism to make your self feel good.


You know, if everyone that thought their vote didn't matter did vote--it would have mattered, alot.

Not really, case in point ..... Obama, Money runs America Bud.


Well here in the USA you CAN vote for anyone that has similar values as you. (I imagine it's the same in the UK.) They may not be on the ballot, but you can vote for the Socialist Workers Party or similar organizations if you so choose. So there is actually no excuse for not doing what you think is right.



You really have a hairy fairy view of how American politics works bud, I suggest you watch the Golden Rule documentary about the investment theory of politics.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ComradeMan http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2013185#post2013185)
Allende?
Not socialist. :mellow:

Yes he was.


Hell, in many countries democracy IS meaningfull, just not in the US. Bolivia is more democratic than the US, much of Latin America is more democratic, Brazil is more democratic. Most of Europe is more democratic, democracy in America is a joke beyond jokes.

But yeah, sometimes voting helps, sometimes it does'nt.

In the US however the only thing thats gonna work is lots of direct action, thats what usually works in other countries though, but its harder in the US due to the economic powers that be.

[RGacky3]

ComradeMan's seems to be headed in that direction but it looks like you really don't appreciate his approch. Makinging Communism reasonable in the 21st Century isn't my cross to bear--but I think you all are being unduly harsh on someone who may have a reasonable plan.

Allready been done and is being done, travel around the world you'll find much more people that call themselves socialist than call themselves Capitalists.


I'm sure he thought of himself as a socialist and wanted working class revolution and all that, but Chile under him wasn't socialist. There is more to socialism than nationalization of industry and collectivizing of agriculture.

If your gonna be so anal about the definition of socialism we might as well just give up, heading in the right direction is positive.

Chile under Allende was more socialist than the USSR was post WW1, simply due to the fact it had a functioning democracy.

[#FF0000]

Yes he was.

I didn't realize the aim of socialism was to make a country's economy and industry competitive on the world market.

[Bud Struggle]

You really have a hairy fairy view of how American politics works bud, I suggest you watch the Golden Rule documentary about the investment theory of politics.

I just watched part of a campaign of a guy trying to become govenor of Florida. The banned member Atlee got me on to him. Brian Moore. No coverage by the press...HATED by fellow Communists (he was on the Democratic ticket!) and from nowhere he got 10% of the vote.

THAT guy's willing to make a difference. I think you guys are just posers compared to him.

[#FF0000]

I just watched part of a campaign of a guy trying to become govenor of Florida. The banned member Atlee got me on to him. Brian Moore. No coverage by the press...HATED by fellow Communists (he was on the Democratic ticket!) and from nowhere he got 10% of the vote.

THAT guy's willing to make a difference. I think you guys are just posers compared to him.

Brian Moore? You mean the guy who got the boot from the SPUSA for trying to take dictatorial control of the Florida branch and ignoring the democratic process within the party?

Figures. You're a style over substance guy, it seems.

[RGacky3]

I didn't realize the aim of socialism was to make a country's economy and industry competitive on the world market.

the aim of socialism is an economy by and for the people, in whatever context, in Chile it was in the context of a global capitalist economy.


THAT guy's willing to make a difference. I think you guys are just posers compared to him.

Except he never will make a difference, the people making a difference are on the street on the shop floors, the squatters, and so on.

I bet in the USSR there was some anti-communist guy trying to run for election every time, because he believed that the soviet union could be changed by playing by the rules too.

BTW, as much as I respect Brian Moores effort, I honestly don't think he's the best example of a socialist in America, he's not the most elequantly spoken guy.

The fight in the US must be an economic fight because thats where the power is, unfortunately the democratic system in the US is about as relevant to public policy as the Soviets were in the USSR.

[Palingenisis]

Brian Moore? You mean the guy who got the boot from the SPUSA for trying to take dictatorial control of the Florida branch and ignoring the democratic process within the party?

Figures. You're a style over substance guy, it seems.

He also supported Pat Buchanann or however you spell his name at one point.

[#FF0000]

He also supported Pat Buchanann or however you spell his name at one point.

Moore?

He also made a complete fool of himself on the Colbert Report. On national television. Representing the SPUSA.

[Palingenisis]

Yup him.

"He volunteered for independents John B. Anderson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Anderson) in 1980 presidential election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980) and Ralph Nader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader) in 2004 and supported Reform Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America) candidate Pat Buchanan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan) in the 2000 presidential election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000) because Buchanan "was for fair trade over free trade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade). He had some progressive positions that I thought would be helpful to the common man."[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Moore_%28politician%29#cite_note-indy_weekly-0)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Moore_(politician)

I googled him when Bud mentioned him.

[hatzel]

THAT guy's willing to make a difference. I think you guys are just posers compared to him.

I don't know if you're right, but it wouldn't surprise me. Talking of the second half here. I understand that this is just an internet forum, as I'm sure you are, so we're not necessarily supposed to be making a difference here by chatting to one another. On the other hand...well, I don't know what kind of 'activity' levels people have in the real world. It's not something I'd ask people, it's a personal issue, and I won't want them to compromise themselves or anything like that, but I don't think any of us would be particularly surprised if we found that the majority did pretty much nothing for the movement, perhaps some showed up to the odd protest. But then what? There are definitely plenty of people on here who take an active roll in their organisation (that is to say they sell newspaper or hand out flyers), and I can only assume that there are some who actually write articles, essays, posters, and take an active roll in organising and trying to make a difference. Though I agree that you might be right; the vast majority might just be posers.

I'm not putting people in hierarchies or trying to diss anybody or anything like that, you know. But I don't necessarily believe that the best way to stop being such a poser is to be the guy you were talking about, but I have respect for him for trying, as I have respect for the aforementioned Allende who may or may not have been socialist, for putting in the effort. But then I have the same respect for an isolated individual who writes a flyer about an issue close to their heart, prints out a few dozen copies and hands them out. In fact, I may have more respect for the latter than I do for the former, even though the impact they have is almost insignificant compared to the impacts these public figures have. But still, any of these people, even those who might not go about things in the best way, have infinitely more respect from me than somebody who just sits on RevLeft talking about socialism (/ arguing with people :rolleyes:), but doesn't think to put any effort into furthering it, no matter how small and insignificant that effort may seem :)

[Bud Struggle]

Brian Moore? You mean the guy who got the boot from the SPUSA for trying to take dictatorial control of the Florida branch and ignoring the democratic process within the party?

Figures. You're a style over substance guy, it seems.

Do you really think I give a hoot over internal politics of the SPUSA--in FLORIDA? the whole Party's only 7 guys, two women and a dog.

Hell, you were a part of the dictorial takeover of RevLeft--and
I still love you. ;)

Moore was the best and the brightest the Commies had to offer.


Moore?

He also made a complete fool of himself on the Colbert Report. On national television. Representing the SPUSA. And you wouldn't do the same?

[#FF0000]

Moore was the best and the brightest the Commies had to offer. The guy who choked when Stephen Colbert asked him if "socialism meant he had to give up all his stuff"?

Bud, I get the feeling that you don't know what you're talking about.


And you wouldn't do the same? Oh, people would probably be like "Man he looked so uncomfortable being on national TV and stuttered and stuff" but I wouldn't go deer in headlights after answering other easy questions when I get asked the easiest question on the planet.

[Bud Struggle]

The guy who choked when Stephen Colbert asked him if "socialism meant he had to give up all his stuff"?

Bud, I get the feeling that you don't know what you're talking about.

Oh, people would probably be like "Man he looked so uncomfortable being on national TV and stuttered and stuff" but I wouldn't go deer in headlights after answering other easy questions when I get asked the easiest question on the planet.

Dude--you can't even wake up in time to go to class. He's out there doing something.

(H

[#FF0000]

Dude--you can't even wake up in time to go to class. He's out there doing something.

(H

lol

But no, really, "going out an doing something" doesn't mean anything to me when you're horrendously wrong about almost everything.

Not to mention that Moore strikes me as the type who is entirely about promoting himself. I don't think he's a socialist, to be honest. I think he's just some vague populist.

[Bud Struggle]

Seriously, It's not like you Commies have the best and the brightest going for you. You really have to support those that work in your direction.

(Didn't mean to get on your case Best Mod.)

[#FF0000]

Seriously, It's not like you Commies have the best and the brightest going for you.Bud, how would you know?

You really have to support those that work in your direction.Brian Moore is a fool, though.


(Didn't mean to get on your case Best Mod.)

I can appreciate a sick burn bro

[Bud Struggle]

[/B]Bud, how would you know? Ever watch Commie youtubes? (Ever see Bobkkindles? :D :D :D not that's he's here to defend himself.)


Brian Moore is a fool. He's not that bad in person. He TRIED. and he made a good play. And hey--I followed him because he was the only game in town.

[#FF0000]

Ever watch Commie youtubes? (Ever see Bobkkindles? :D :D :D not that's he's here to defend himself.)

I did and I don't see why people get on his case. I thought he was p. good in that video even though I disagree with him a bunch,


He's not that bad in person. He TRIED. and he made a good play. And hey--I followed him because he was the only game in town.

So did Stalin and so was Stalin.

Bud, I don't know, maybe you should look into some other groups or something. The PSL wastes their time with running candidates all the time. Or, maybe, look into the International Communist Current, or folks like Loren Goldner, or Slavoj Zizek, or something.

I mean I don't know what to tell you. You're telling me Brian Moore is the brightest that the socialists have to offer, which is flatly wrong. You don't know who else the socialists have got, and I think you're aware of that fact. You must be.

[Bud Struggle]

I mean I don't know what to tell you. You're telling me Brian Moore is the brightest that the socialists have to offer, which is flatly wrong. You don't sknow who else the socialists have got, and I think you're aware of that fact. You must be.

so who else ran in florida that got 10% of the vote? Nobody Are people smarter than Moore.--yea. But he hit the long ball and they never got up to bat.

Showing up means a lot.

[#FF0000]

The PSL ran a candidate that got 40 something.

But who cares? You can't get socialism by the ballot anyway.

Then again I don't think anyone is arguing that and y'all think it's good as an advertisement for socialism or whatever.

I don't know about that either.

[RGacky3]

Moore was the best and the brightest the Commies had to offer.


No he's not, you've got tons and tons more brighter leftists around, the most respected intellectual worldwide is an Anarchist.


so who else ran in florida that got 10% of the vote? Nobody Are people smarter than Moore.--yea. But he hit the long ball and they never got up to bat.

Showing up means a lot

Not for ellection, that does'nt mean a lot.

BTW, the fact that Moore got 10%, even though, he's not the brightest around, what does that say?

If a well spoken socialist started to make a difference .... well .... look what happened to Debs.

[hatzel]

Hmm...I feel my last post started curling in on itself and didn't go anywhere, so I'll retreat and regroup and come in for a second go...

I understand where Bud is coming from. Admittedly, talk of somebody's opinion and political objectives is totally subjective, so we shouldn't get caught up in hitting on Moore for his 'manifesto' or whatever, because everybody's going to prefer a different thing. The point, though, is that one should probably have a certain level of respect for Moore, as he got off his butt and tried to do something. Maybe we don't like what he tried to do, but surely he deserves more respect than he would have if he had just sat at home all day reading about communism and thinking about communism without taking any active steps to further the movement. I mean, get over his opinions and his intentions, but Bud would surely agree that he deserves more respect for trying to realise these ideas, rather than just sitting at home saying 'somebody should do this'...even the finest mind, the Messiah of communism, would be pointless if he just sat around thinking without any doing :)

Where I fall out with Bud is over the suggestion that Moore (or anybody else doing what Moore did) is the best the left can offer, the model we should all try to adhere to. As I said, I have a lot more respect for somebody who is so concerned by an event or an idea that he writes a flyer about it, prints up hundred or so, and then goes out on the street handing it out. Not somebody who is just given flyers by their organisation, here I mean an individual, himself writing, printing and distributing the flyers. Even if what he writes on this flyer is stupid, even if it's Moore making the flyer, he surely deserves a great amount of respect.

Maybe I'm trying to say that an individual can slip onto a scale somewhere, where 0 is the least respect for their actions, and 10 the most respect. If somebody doesn't do anything at all, surely he's nigh-on zero. If he does what Moore did, he might be on 3, 5, 7, depends what you think. And then there's the guy I mentioned, who might be a 9. But some might call him a 3, they might think his actions are pointless, a drop in the ocean, whatever. And only after that should we start thinking about ideas. Because somebody who gets no respect for their actions could have magnificent ideas, but I feel that Bud is talking about ranking people according to their actions, whilst a few seem to be concentrating more on the extent to which they agree with his ideas. I don't know what his ideas are, I don't know the guy, but I'd rather somebody with somewhat shit ideas did something than somebody with brilliant ideas did nothing, because at least the first shows some form of dedication to something. Even if we don't agree with what he's showing dedication to, even if we think his ideas are misguided or whatever, the mere fact that he did something to further them means that he probably deserves a bit more respect than he would if he'd just sat at home.

My, do I ramble sometimes. I didn't have to write half of that :laugh: And maybe I've misunderstood and Bud actually is suggesting that Moore has the finest mind communism has ever hand, that he should write a load of essays and everybody should follow them, but I'm assuming we're really discussing activity vs. inactivity :)

[RGacky3]

The point, though, is that one should probably have a certain level of respect for Moore, as he got off his butt and tried to do something. Maybe we don't like what he tried to do, but surely he deserves more respect than he would have if he had just sat at home all day reading about communism and thinking about communism without taking any active steps to further the movement. I mean, get over his opinions and his intentions, but Bud would surely agree that he deserves more respect for trying to realise these ideas, rather than just sitting at home saying 'somebody should do this'...even the finest mind, the Messiah of communism, would be pointless if he just sat around thinking without any doing :)


Yeah, but we are judging him based on what he does, which is pretty useless imo, but opinions and intentions DO matter, no one here says its better to do nothing, so I don't know what your arguing against.


but I'm assuming we're really discussing activity vs. inactivity

Who is on the side of inactivity???

[Bud Struggle]

No he's not, you've got tons and tons more brighter leftists around, the most respected intellectual worldwide is an Anarchist. I'm not saying that brighter Commies don't exist--but those people don't seem to run for office.




Not for ellection, that does'nt mean a lot.

BTW, the fact that Moore got 10%, even though, he's not the brightest around, what does that say? He actually had a pretty good campaign here in Florida--considering he had no money.


If a well spoken socialist started to make a difference .... well .... look what happened to Debs. We're getting out the Time Machine again. :rolleyes:

[hatzel]

Who is on the side of inactivity???

Well, Bud did start all this by saying...


THAT guy's willing to make a difference. I think you guys are just posers compared to him.

...so I assumed that this was saying that he's active and we're inactive. Because we just pose...whilst he does stuff...:rolleyes: Nobody's on the side of inactivity, but as far as I can tell, Bud mentioned this guy in the first place because he's active trying to make a difference, whilst we just sit around on our butts complaining about stuff :)

[RGacky3]

I'm not saying that brighter Commies don't exist--but those people don't seem to run for office.


Some do, some win, most don't because there are much better ways to make a difference.


He actually had a pretty good campaign here in Florida--considering he had no money.


WHat I meant was it says that socialism, i.e. the conepts within it, are poopular ones.

BUt look good for him, I got nothing against it, I just don't think he's that bright, nor do I think he's really effective, nor a socialist that people should look up to.


We're getting out the Time Machine again.

The way politics works has'nt really changed, except money is much much more a factor.


Well, Bud did start all this by saying...


See theres where you need to stop, when has bud said anything of substance here?


Bud mentioned this guy in the first place because he's active trying to make a difference, whilst we just sit around on our butts complaining about stuff :)

Is that what we do?

[hatzel]

See theres where you need to stop, when has bud said anything of substance here?

:laugh:


Is that what we do?


Hmm...some of us, no doubt...:rolleyes:

[RGacky3]

Hmm...some of us, no doubt...:rolleyes:

Since theres no way of knowing who does what, its kind of a pointless argument saying "at least he does something."

[hatzel]

I admit Bud's overgeneralising just a little bit here (:rolleyes:), but I feel his argument stemmed from the assumption that we're all posers, or just show up to a protest or two, whilst this guy might make a more tangible difference.

Admittedly I still haven't bothered to look this Moore fellow up, so I don't know what he did, or anything at all about him, but I think it remains that Bud considers that he was taking steps to make a tangible difference. Of course some people on this forum do, too, which is where the Bud-argument is slightly flawed, because he's blanket-condemning us all as posers, when really it's only 30% / 50% / 70% of RevLefters who don't do anything. I'd be inclined to believe that it's a depressingly high percentage, actually, particularly if one doesn't count "well, I once went to a march with a few thousand other people" as being active, making a difference. I dunno. That isn't to say I think all these inactive RevLefters should aim to emulate Moore, which Bud seems to think, but he raises a good point...kind of...or, he raises a point about active involvement in the socialist movement, whatever that means :)

[Bud Struggle]

I admit Bud's overgeneralising just a little bit here (:rolleyes:), but I feel his argument stemmed from the assumption that we're all posers, or just show up to a protest or two, whilst this guy might make a more tangible difference.

Admittedly I still haven't bothered to look this Moore fellow up, so I don't know what he did, or anything at all about him, but I think it remains that Bud considers that he was taking steps to make a tangible difference. Of course some people on this forum do, too, which is where the Bud-argument is slightly flawed, because he's blanket-condemning us all as posers, when really it's only 30% / 50% / 70% of RevLefters who don't do anything. I'd be inclined to believe that it's a depressingly high percentage, actually, particularly if one doesn't count "well, I once went to a march with a few thousand other people" as being active, making a difference. I dunno. That isn't to say I think all these inactive RevLefters should aim to emulate Moore, which Bud seems to think, but he raises a good point...kind of...or, he raises a point about active involvement in the socialist movement, whatever that means :)

Oh, it's and excellent point. :p

:D

[hatzel]

Perhaps the greatest point in the history of RevLeft. I'm not entirely sure what it is, but for a social democrat like yourself, I can see the appeal of a Moore-like figure. Of course the revolutionary socialists knocking about are never going to acknowledge that appeal, though :rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

Since theres no way of knowing who does what, its kind of a pointless argument saying "at least he does something."

Well it's pretty obvious that hardly anyone does anything. I'm not pointing fingers ant anyone in particular, but look--there's a reasonablly Socialist guy trying to do something useful and look at the response I've gotten about him by a bunch of people that are "supposed" to be Socialist themselves. This whole thread is about how Brian Moore sucks. And well maybe he's not perfect, but he's better than that guy who eventually won the race, Rick Scott a billionaire who bought the election and is now in the process of reducing the wages and benefits of all the civil servants.

On the other hand the Tea Parties weren't always sanguine with each and every issue of each and every person that took up their cause, BUT they rallied round the banner and got some of their people elected. Good for them!

You want to have a Revolution and you can't even support someone that is on your side.

If you want to know why the left always looses you don't need all of your corporation conspiracy theories--all you have to do is read this thread.

[RGacky3]

Well it's pretty obvious that hardly anyone does anything.

No ... Its not obvious, I, as well as many others, have done and do quite a bit to support progessive causes.


This whole thread is about how Brian Moore sucks. And well maybe he's not perfect, but he's better than that guy who eventually won the race, Rick Scott a billionaire who bought the election and is now in the process of reducing the wages and benefits of all the civil servants.


Yeah of coarse, but I'd much rather someone else be running, someone more articulate and smart, and, and I'd also thing most peoples efforts are worth much more organizing workers and communities than running for office.

No ones saying it wouuld not be good if he one, we are saying he's kind of a clown.


On the other hand the Tea Parties weren't always sanguine with each and every issue of each and every person that took up their cause, BUT they rallied round the banner and got some of their people elected. Good for them!


Actually yes they do, except remember who they really are, Freedomworks, chamber of commerce, Cock Brothers and so on.


You want to have a Revolution and you can't even support someone that is on your side.


We support plenty of people on our side (not just people running for office, but unions, community action groups and so on), but we don't blindy follow anyone that calls him self a socialist, thats what happened in the USSR, thats what Leninists do.


If you want to know why the left always looses you don't need all of your corporation conspiracy theories--all you have to do is read this thread.

No Bud, thats not why.

As for corporation conspiracy theories .... I don't know whats conspiratorial about it, you can SEE lobbyists.

[RGacky3]

he raises a point about active involvement in the socialist movement, whatever that means :)

But its not really a valid point, if that were the case we can find a news paper of anyone doing anything and say "SEE he's better than you guys, because you guys probably don't do as much as HE does."

[hatzel]

And well maybe he's not perfect, but he's better than that guy who eventually won the race, Rick Scott a billionaire who bought the election and is now in the process of reducing the wages and benefits of all the civil servants.

I think that's the important issue here. As Best Mod said, communism can't be brought in with reform, through bourgeois democracy, but that doesn't necessarily mean that this Moore guy didn't constitute the lesser of two evils. It's possible that the dogmatism blinds that. Perhaps he and his election manifesto would have achieved more respect around here if he'd been a Democrat or whatever, so that he wouldn't have to run counter to the whole 'communism can't be implemented through reform, aaaaah, social democrats, evilevilevil!' thing...:rolleyes:

But I don't know if his manifesto was any good, actually...I'm taking your word for it that it was better than this Rick Scott guy's :)

[RGacky3]

Perhaps he and his election manifesto would have achieved more respect around here if he'd been a Democrat or whatever, so that he wouldn't have to run counter to the whole 'communism can't be implemented through reform, aaaaah, social democrats, evilevilevil!' thing...:rolleyes:


I can only speak for myself, but I am definately not one of those anti-social democrats.

I think Bernie Sanders is wonderful, and I loved Russ Feingold (not a socialist, but was right on basically every legislation), even people like Anthony Weiner and Paul Defazio got my respect, I've got nothing against using both reformism and revolution.

But this Moore guy just does'nt cut it. Sorry.

I'm not an all or nothing guy, but it has to be something of substance, it has to be enough.

[RGacky3]

Hell, I even support recent actions by the AFL-CIO to fight systemic problems.

[Bud Struggle]

Hell, I even support recent actions by the AFL-CIO to fight systemic problems.


Gack sometimes I think you are being financed by the Koch brothers. You are almost a cartoon figure of what pro-union person should be and the best part is that you really don't even know the difference between winning and loosing.

You should learn from the AFL-CIO and just get used to being beaten. ;)

[RGacky3]

You are almost a cartoon figure of what pro-union person should be and the best part is that you really don't even know the difference between winning and loosing.


Your saying this based on what?

What did Moore win for socialism?


You should learn from the AFL-CIO and just get used to being beaten.

I would'nt be talking about winning and loosing, its not the countries with strong unions that have their economies and middle classes collapsing, its hte US.

[Bud Struggle]

No ... Its not obvious, I, as well as many others, have done and do quite a bit to support progessive causes. Then at least in the USA you don't seem to be getting very far...either with or without a Revolution.


Yeah of coarse, but I'd much rather someone else be running, someone more articulate and smart, and, and I'd also thing most peoples efforts are worth much more organizing workers and communities than running for office. WalMart does a better job or "organizing" its workers than any union has done. And since the overall union membership of the US has gone down from 30% to 10% I would say that across the board the Corporation are better at getting what they want than unions. Unions are like the Model T--there's still a few around but they are mostly in dying industries.


No ones saying it wouuld not be good if he one, we are saying he's kind of a clown. He's a Socialist in America.


Actually yes they do, except remember who they really are, Freedomworks, chamber of commerce, Cock Brothers and so on. They get elected--Socialists don't.


We support plenty of people on our side (not just people running for office, but unions, community action groups and so on), . And a good job you are doing of it. :)




No Bud, thats not why.

As for corporation conspiracy theories .... I don't know whats conspiratorial about it, you can SEE lobbyists. Unions have lobbiests too. Community action groups have lobbiests. Lots of groups have lobbiests. You have all of your theories about secret influences on the government. But maybe, you just don't have a product people are very interested on.

Sorry Gack, for the most part--workers in the USA aren't interested in your unions.

[RGacky3]

Then at least in the USA you don't seem to be getting very far...either with or without a Revolution.


Well, personally I've gotten some stuff done.

But yeah, The US plutocracy is one of the most repressive to workers around.


WalMart does a better job or "organizing" its workers than any union has done.

Wage slavery .... Thats not organizing thats exploiting.


And since the overall union membership of the US has gone down from 30% to 10% I would say that across the board the Corporation are better at getting what they want than unions. Unions are like the Model T--there's still a few around but they are mostly in dying industries.


Again, yeah, the totalitarian economic structure of the US has been effective at destroying democratic economic institutions in the US.


He's a Socialist in America.



.... And ....


They get elected--Socialists don't.



Progressives get elected, but I don't know what your arguing, if your arguing that money runs the US politics then I agree.


And a good job you are doing of it. :)


Just because you don't see the battles does'nt mean they arn't happening outside of your suburb.


Unions have lobbiests too. Community action groups have lobbiests. Lots of groups have lobbiests. You have all of your theories about secret influences on the government. But maybe, you just don't have a product people are very interested on.


Union lobbyists have billions and billions of less economic influence than corporations do, so thats kind of a silly point.

Its not secret, who writes the bills? Who pays the campains, theres nothing secret about it.


Sorry Gack, for the most part--workers in the USA aren't interested in your unions.

Not because they don't want a say, but because in the US union activists get fired and black listed. Because the United States has a totalitarian economic structures.

But again, IF you were correct (which you arnt), your just saying that Americans are kind of dumb, for believing in a clearly failed model.

[#FF0000]

Sorry Gack, for the most part--workers in the USA aren't interested in your unions.

This actually isn't true. Unions are more popular than people think, but it's incredibly difficult to get one started and businesses go all-out spending money on anti-union propaganda when there's an actual vote.

[Bud Struggle]

This actually isn't true. Unions are more popular than people think, but it's incredibly difficult to get one started and businesses go all-out spending money on anti-union propaganda when there's an actual vote.

If people thought unions were doing a good job then they would support them. If they though there was a real benefit in unions they would vote them in.

Unions on the whole deserve the reputation they have in America--here's an exmple of how unions spread bad will. In a business I used to have dealings with they has a union and the business hires extra people over summer mostly HS kids and college kids to fill in when peoiple take vacations. They require the kids to pay a substantial "union initiation fee" when they start work--and if they come back next year to work at the same job--they have to pay that fee again and again.

The union is making literally hundreds of kids that might otherwise be at least medium on the subject--really hate them. That's one example, there are lots more.

[#FF0000]

If people thought unions were doing a good job then they would support them. If they though there was a real benefit in unions they would vote them in.

It is not that simple by a long shot.

[RGacky3]

If people thought unions were doing a good job then they would support them. If they though there was a real benefit in unions they would vote them in.


Do you purposely ignore the context or do you actually not see it?

[Bud Struggle]

Do you purposely ignore the context or do you actually not see it?

I guess it's similar to the way you think progressives are forging ahead even though they are loosing elections to the Tea Party and Republicans. :D

[#FF0000]

I guess it's similar to the way you think progressives are forging ahead even though they are loosing elections to the Tea Party and Republicans. :D

While I agree Gack is delusional to an extent, it has literally nothing to do with who is winning elections and who is not.

[RGacky3]

I guess it's similar to the way you think progressives are forging ahead even though they are loosing elections to the Tea Party and Republicans.

Most of the democratic loosers were the blue dogs, btw, electoral battles are a very small part of the overall battle.

But anyway, your just ignoring the context of the situation unions have to work in, and you try and change the subject because your purposely ignoring the context.

[RGacky3]

While I agree Gack is delusional to an extent

Really, Buds the guy that thinks Americas reputation in the middle east is just fine, and that the US economy is just fine, and the guy that does'nt trust polls, rather just trusts what he feels is true.

[hatzel]

Polls are nothing but propaganda with numbers...:rolleyes:

[#FF0000]

Really, Buds the guy that thinks Americas reputation in the middle east is just fine,

But this is actually kind of true. Kind of.

[RGacky3]

Polls are nothing but propaganda with numbers...:rolleyes:


So then whats a better way to determine public opinion .... elections?


But this is actually kind of true. Kind of.

Your saying people in the middle east feel like American foreign policy is just fine?

[#FF0000]

Your saying people in the middle east feel like American foreign policy is just fine?

No. People in the Middle East don't mind American people. They might not like the government or our foreign policy. It depends on what you mean by "America's reputation in the Middle East is bad"

[RGacky3]

No. People in the Middle East don't mind American people. They might not like the government or our foreign policy. It depends on what you mean by "America's reputation in the Middle East is bad"

I mean the reputation of the "america" that effects them, i.e. foreign policy.

[Bud Struggle]

I mean the reputation of the "america" that effects them, i.e. foreign policy.

The protesters in Egypt are starting to cry that America isn't doing enough to help them. :(

[RGacky3]

where is that? From what I've heard they are pissed at the US for holding up Mubarak for 30 years.

[#FF0000]

The protesters in Egypt are starting to cry that America isn't doing enough to help them. :(

Gonna have to cite this or something. Sounds like this is one of those things that might have some truth to it but you're skewing it.

[Bud Struggle]

Gonna have to cite this or something. Sounds like this is one of those things that might have some truth to it but you're skewing it.

From the LA Times (Gack's old hometown newspaper):

Reporting from Cairo — An undercurrent of anger against the United States appears to be building here because of what many see as the Obama administration's overly cautious response to the demands of protesters for the resignation of longtime U.S. ally President Hosni Mubarak.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/01/world/la-fg-egypt-anti-american-20110201

[Lord Testicles]

Well here in the USA you CAN vote for anyone that has similar values as you. (I imagine it's the same in the UK.)

If too many people try and vote in Britain, the electoral system breaks and people get turned away from the ballot box because the magic time of 10pm is approaching.

[RGacky3]

From the LA Times (Gack's old hometown newspaper):

Reporting from Cairo — An undercurrent of anger against the United States appears to be building here because of what many see as the Obama administration's overly cautious response to the demands of protesters for the resignation of longtime U.S. ally President Hosni Mubarak.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb...rican-20110201 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/01/world/la-fg-egypt-anti-american-20110201)

Thats not asking for help, thats being legitimately pissed for continuing to financiall support and back a dictator. They arn't asking for help, but when the US comes out and says "yeah .... we don't know, maybe Mubarak can stay," I'd be pretty pissed too, because they know what that means, the US will continue to fund him.

From the article :


"If America really cares about democracy, why aren't they behind us?" asked Samir, who spent Sunday night in Tahrir Square with hundreds of other protesters. "The U.S. went to Iraq and Afghanistan because they said they wanted to bring democracy, but their policies are unfair. If America keeps backing this regime and not the revolution, the people in Egypt will be very angry."

[#FF0000]

From the LA Times (Gack's old hometown newspaper):

Reporting from Cairo — An undercurrent of anger against the United States appears to be building here because of what many see as the Obama administration's overly cautious response to the demands of protesters for the resignation of longtime U.S. ally President Hosni Mubarak.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/01/world/la-fg-egypt-anti-american-20110201

Yeah, exactly like I said, you skewed it. I'd say they're more angry because the US is supposed to be all "lol frredom n dremockarcy" but the government is supporting a dictator.

[Bud Struggle]

Yeah, exactly like I said, you skewed it. I'd say they're more angry because the US is supposed to be all "lol frredom n dremockarcy" but the government is supporting a dictator.

Here's what I said:


The protesters in Egypt are starting to cry that America isn't doing enough to help them. :( Same thing--but either way it's all about "what American can do for them not what they can do for America." :)

[#FF0000]

Considering we kept a pretty brutal dictator in power for 30 years, I think it's beyond fair for them to feel the US government owes them. Especially when all they ask is that they stay true to their supposed ideals.

[Bud Struggle]

Considering we kept a pretty brutal dictator in power for 30 years, I think it's beyond fair for them to feel the US government owes them. Especially when all they ask is that they stay true to their supposed ideals.

It's pretty obvious they could have removed Mubarak any time they so chose.

People have to take responsibility for their own countries and how always wait on what America does or says.

[#FF0000]

Man, I hope I'm not being unreasonable but this statement:


Same thing--but either way it's all about "what American can do for them not what they can do for America." http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif really strikes me as kind of disgusting or callous or something. Like, do you realize that we've been supporting Mubarak because he represents the interests of the American government in the region? And because of this realpolitik, our government has looked the other way when it comes to the horrendous crimes his regime, and supplying him all the while with all the weapons and money he needed. Some of which, by the way, was almost certainly used to execute or torture people.

And now that Egyptians are stepping up against the regime, yeah, I would imagine they're mighty upset that a country like America, that would drop a cool trillion to bring other countries democracy by fire, would suddenly get cold feet when it comes to just dropping support of a dictator.


Same thing--but either way it's all about "what American can do for them not what they can do for America." http://www.revleft.com/vb/../../revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif Christ.

[#FF0000]

It's pretty obvious they could have removed Mubarak any time they so chose.

People have to take responsibility for their own countries and how always wait on what America does or says. Bud, you know this isn't really my style, especially when I'm talking to a guy who I don't think it all that bad and who I have a simple disagreement with,

But you're being a fucking idiot, here.

EDIT: I mean, do you realize Mubarak's had people killed in the past? And that Suleiman himself has been present for the torture of Egyptian dissidents as well as the torture of whoever the CIA pointed out to him? Do you realize that Egypt was a country where you could've been arrested just for public criticism of the country?

Would you say "You could have gotten rid of Mubarak at any time" to an Egyptian person's face? Really, Bud?

[RGacky3]

Same thing--but either way it's all about "what American can do for them not what they can do for America." :)

What the hell?

No its not, they want America to stop screwing them over, and if the US is gonna comment, they don't want the US to be hypocritical.


It's pretty obvious they could have removed Mubarak any time they so chose.

People have to take responsibility for their own countries and how always wait on what America does or says.

Yeah, setting up a nationwide uprising is easy.

No one waits on what America does or says out of choice, the US IMPOSES their will, no one wants it, this is why people don't like the US.

[Chris]

Voting, and running for election, is one tool I doubt leftists should forsake easily. Elections are when many normally politically apathetic proletarians become more attentive. It is a good way to spread propaganda, and if we do get some socialists in they can do some limited good.
Not every victory has to be full scale revolution, and leftists should fight for every small victory. Like an old Worker's Party politician (when they were still communist) said: "A parliamentary seat is good for one thing... Spreading propaganda and class consciousness."

[RGacky3]

and if we do get some socialists in they can do some limited good.


I got to agree, just look at how much good Bernie Sanders has done in the senate, he did'nt defeat the tax cut bill, but his philibuster was a media bomb.


Not every victory has to be full scale revolution, and leftists should fight for every small victory.

I totally agree, a small winning strike is a revolutionary victory, defeating an eviction or defeating a forclosure, stopping immigrant abuse, any of that stuff is a mini revolution that should be praised.

[not your usual suspect]

Tacit consent? Surely an explicit objection (for example: writing to newspapers, politicians etc. saying how everything is shit; protesting; outlining your objections to friends, colleagues and anyone else who is willing to listen) outweighs any "tacit consent"?

Anyway, the whole idea of tacit consent is bullshit. If I don't like the country I'm in, I should leave? And go where? There is no where for a freedom lover to go any more (sure in the 19th Century there were plenty of attempts, particularly in South America, to start socialist colonies, but where would one go now?). Governments control and dominate the world. One attempt during the 70s (I think) by a group of capitalist libertarians to found a "libertarian" state on an atoll in the Pacific, resulted in said atoll being invaded and annexed by Tonga. So we can't just leave.

Another example used is using money or highways or schools, or taking advantage of the police when in need. So, we can't leave, and we have to live. If we are poor (and the vast majority of us are), we can't own property. We have to live by the rules imposed on us, we have to rent, have a job, buy food, and so on. We are forced to do so, because there is no other way to survive (a choice between starvation and wage slavery is not a choice, but a threat!).

And even if we can and do "opt-out", we still can't opt-out. Own land? Pay property taxes. Don't pay taxes? Be removed from land forcibly, and have the land sold off. Attempt to continue to use land? Be repeatedly removed, and eventually imprisoned for violating a court order, or killed because you were defending yourself. So, we can't just hide away in some communist commune, as we have to generate money to be able to pay taxes, even if we take absolutely no advantage of the things those taxes pay for.

But more than that, why should we hide away from the rest of society because some liberal theorist makes up some bullshit about tacit consent for why the government rules us? Why shouldn't we take advantage of the things being offered by society? If we are forced to play by the rules imposed on us, why not exploit those rules for our own benefit? Free health care (where applicable), having the fire department put out our fires, use the roads paid for by our taxes (which were taken from us by force), and even take unemployment benefits. Our very lives can be stolen from us if we so much as say the wrong thing at the wrong time (contempt of court), let alone try and live in a free manner. By using the benefits, the debt owed to us by the state, and by capitalism, is paid back slightly. But it can never be paid back in full while the state an capitalism still exists!

I do not consent! I do not consent to be "kept in sight, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, estimated, valued, censured, commanded," "registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished" or any of the other things that governments do.

PS another look, along similar lines: www . independent.org/blog/index.php?p=6334. A commenter at that place mentioned that simply by voting, you are implicitly consenting to the election of whomever is elected. I agree, and say it is better to not vote, and reject them all than to vote and legitimize the system.
Another commenter makes up a story and concludes:
... that just because you tolerate aggression doesn’t mean you consent to it, or that it isn’t an injustice. ... PS you really hate new posters or those with few posts don't you?
To be able to post links or images your post count must be 25 or greater. You currently have 10 posts. What does this actually achieve? Especially as you are fucking well checking every single post before it goes live anyway!? Oh, and even with "Automatically parse links in text" unticked, I've got to fuck up the link. You guys are so smartz.

[Lt. Ferret]

move out to a midwestern state if you live in america where land costs 50 bucks an acre.

why should anyone accommodate you? who the fuck are you?

[RGacky3]

move out to a midwestern state if you live in america where land costs 50 bucks an acre.

why should anyone accommodate you? who the fuck are you?


Hmm, I wonder why all poor people hav'nt done that .... there must be a reason, can you think of any?

[Lt. Ferret]

they did during the dust bowl. went to california. and people are fleeing states like california and new york in droves. mostly going to texas.

[RGacky3]

they did during the dust bowl. went to california. and people are fleeing states like california and new york in droves. mostly going to texas.


But you do realize that that is not a solution right?

[not your usual suspect]

move out to a midwestern state if you live in america where land costs 50 bucks an acre.

why should anyone accommodate you? who the fuck are you?

So, so. Did you read the bit where I said you can't opt-out? You cannot move to Fuckoff KS, or Wherethefuck CO and never have to deal with the federal government ever again (let alone the various state and local authorities that hang about).

Not only that, why should someone have to leave their home just so that they can have less bureaucracy to deal with? Leave their friends, family, bars, restaurants, scenic vistas etc.?
I'm not asking for anyone to accommodate me, all I'm asking is to be left alone, and for everyone else to be likewise free. To not have a government looking over my shoulder, and hauling me off to court if I so much as posses the wrong drug (let alone use it!). To not have my labor stolen from me, though I might get a pittance in exchange.

Even if I do go to some back-of-nowhere place, I can't opt out, and I can't live a free life. So, why should I move?

[RGacky3]

Lt Ferrets argument is much less valid than the leftist response to Libertarians "You don't like taxes? Move to Somalia asshole." Thats actually a MUCH more thought through and intelligent response to "Your poor? Just move, its your own fault."