PJ Media: 8 Reasons Why Today's Occupiers Are Tomorrow's Tea Partiers

Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by moarxenu, Apr 27, 2012.

  1. moarxenu Member

    PJ Media has just published a long and thought-provoking article, 8 Reasons Why Today Occupiers Are Tomorrow's Tea Partiers

    Something creepy is happening in Minnesota. A dialogue has begun between the Tea Party and Occupy movements. Stranger still, it may be leading somewhere.
    Facilitating the discussion is an organization called the Caux Round Table. Global Executive Director Steve Young seems hell-bent on bridging the divide between the two movements.
    Young is the author of Moral Capitalism, a tome outlining the Caux Round Table’s vision for “reconciling private interest with the public good.” In speaking to Young and perusing his book, it is apparent that he is adept at speaking any political language, in sounding conservative to conservatives and progressive to progressives. This is not deception or pandering. Young simply aspires to operate above the political fray, and genuinely believes in consensus between perceived extremes.
    Although he has never said it, Young and his organization appear to be communitarian, evangelists of “the third way” once evoked by President Bill Clinton. Communitarians seek a synthesis of capitalism and communism, an imagined happy middle ground where people can pursue their dreams in a market smartly regulated to ensure that the poor and under-privileged don’t slip through the cracks. Young’s book synopsis explains:
    Author Stephen Young argues that “brute capitalism” — profit-seeking regardless of effects — must give way to moral capitalism to attain widespread monetary and moral well-being.
    You get the idea.
    Seeing the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street as two sides of the same coin, Young and the Caux Round Table have reached out to activists from each movement to debate the role of government and deliberate a proposed “joint statement of common principles.” This author is among those representing the Tea Party in that process, and has been afforded the opportunity to engage Occupiers in moderated forums.

    Here are eight reasons why today’s Occupiers may become tomorrow’s Tea Partiers.
    8 ) The Futility of Protest Without Power

    7 ) The Futility of a Movement Without Focus

    6 ) Revolution Is a Poor Alternative to Participation


    4 ) No One Will Ever Care About You More Than You

    3 ) Ownership Has Its Privileges

    2 ) There’s a Legitimate Case for Not Trusting Anybody Over 30


    Just figuring that out, are you?

    1 ) The Wisdom of Age


    The perception that Occupiers are committed socialists is not entirely accurate. Certainly, when socialist concepts are concretized, many object to the results.
    Where Occupiers and Tea Partiers see eye-to-eye is in protest of cronyism. The difference is that Occupiers tend to see cronyism as a product of capitalism, while Tea Partiers tend to recognize it as an abandonment of capitalism. An Occupy blogger offers a glimmer of hope:
    I have some reservations about whether the maldistribution of wealth and power can be attributed to capitalism as such. It also appears that not all participants in the Occupy movements are against capitalism. And finally, I’m not sure that replacing capitalism with some other form of economic organization is either possible, or necessary to address the problems raised by the movement.
    That’s halfway to an epiphany. The only way to maldistribute wealth is to maldistribute power. And the only entity capable of that is government. Once Occupiers come to that realization, they’ll find compatriots among the Tea Party.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Anonymous Member

    Caux? Lol!
  3. Anonymous Member

    Only a government stooge would say that.
    Revolution IS active participation.
    It's all in how it's carried out.
  4. Anonymous Member

  5. adhocrat Member

    The article was interesting, but the Caux sounds like a nightmare of idiocy. A bunch of Fortune 500 types who love Keynes is not exactly a group that will create good policy decisions.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Anonymous Member

    Also, cocks.
    • Like Like x 2
  7. grebe Member

    Can we just shoot the people who talk about stooges and theories instead of actual problems and the few things we might do to reduce those problems?
  8. Anonymous Member


    no need
  9. cafanon Member

    I have been waiting for a long time for Occupy/Tea Party conversation. I hope it only gets more serious, because the two groups...if they see their aims are not too far apart, could only benefit from each other. That said, my issue with the Tea Party is that they are right....for the wrong reasons.

    I'll start with the ideological "socialism" and "capitalism" dichotomy. Capitalism has been a great system. Its greatest achievement, in my opinion, was wresting ownership of the means of production away from hereditary oligarchs/monarchs and into the hands of the private citizen. "private ownership" as far as I understand it, was very scarce in the Western world prior to capitalism's adoption. That said there is at least one huge flaw in it as a system.

    -0- Capitalism is a system whose (in my opinion at least) primary principle is growth, and growth needs resources to sustain it, as well as ethics to keep it truly competitive. When Adam Smith wrote wealth of nations, he made one flawed assumption: that we would always have sufficient resources to sustain growth. Who can blame him? The New World had been recently "discovered." But the reality is we live in a world of finite resources, and the growth necessary to sustain capitalism cannot be anything more than a delusion until our usage of resources becomes sustainable. Hence the logical necessity for environmental regulations, as all of our resources come from the environment.
    - Furthermore, one of the primary things imho that allowed capitalism to flourish in 20th century America was the protestant ethic that culturally prevailed...there were limits to what people, and therefore corporations governed by people would do. There were people of course who pushed the boundaries... but at least there was some ethic in place. The modern "its good if it makes profit" ethic that seems to pervade our modern economy isn't an ethic at all, and infringes on every other ethical principle...including civic freedom (check out the entertainment industries' pushing for SOPA for just one example). Free market =/= Free Country just because the word free is in both of them.

    Its great that the Tea Party wants to limit federal government influence, but so long as you advocate government regulating civic issues such as abortion/birth control, but call government regulation of corporate behavior "socialism" and demonize the EPA... the sheer hypocrisy will make it hard for me to take you seriously.

    -0- Now, what makes discussing socialism tough is that is so ill-defined to the average american and often cognitively associated with USSR/Cuba/North Korea etc. So, I'll operationally define it as the system where the means of production/distribution are given to the "people" vis-a-vis the government. While on paper this sounds is inherently doomed in my opinion if the government is not accountable to the people. This undoes everything the adoption of Capitalism achieved in awarding private ownership...which I firmly believe is an essential piece to civic freedom. This is where I start to adamantly agree with the Tea Parties instistance on limiting the power of the Federal Government and believe it becomes an essential missing piece to Occupy.

    Logically speaking, the thought that a strong Federal Government can somehow account for the needs of 311 million people simultaneously is purely absurd. So the Tea Parties aversion toward "universal healthcare" is totally reasonable...even though it puts them at odds with many Occupiers and makes them exceedingly vulnerable to co-opt from PAC's funded overwhelmingly by health insurance companies.

    Now to respond to the articles statement about power and occupy's aversion to it... particularly involving candidates...You can't put politicians into an exceedingly corrupt system and expect the system to change just because you put them there.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. adhocrat Member

    A proposition. Let's see if he supports his thesis
    OK, while I don't see this above as being the reason to support 'capitalism' it did indeed help to do as you suggest.
    Now here is where I have to object on several points.
    First, our main resource in between the ears.

    A free market doesn't care about growth per se, it wants production. That is to say, it wants productive people who make useful items, plows, socks, iPods, whatever people want to buy to give their life more purpose or pleasure, or to use the technical term, utility. Having stuff gives us utility.

    The very word 'economy' suggests that your assertion, that growth is the sine non qua of capitalism, is suspect.
    The way to make a profit is to use the resources you have in the most miserly fashion you can for the purpose. That means preserving as much as you can, ie, the end result of freedom is to use the least resources for the best value, ie, more bang for the buck.

    Also, see the bet that Julian Simon made with Paul Erlich, and see that the free market drives down the actual costs of raw materials, meaning they are MORE plentiful than before. The government has been predicting the end of oil since a few years after it was first discovered in 1859. Instead, it got cheaper and cheaper in real terms.

    That work ethic included a strong preference to individual responsibility and community help. That changed in the late 1800s with the coming of socialist thought in its modern form. that spirit of making it on your own terms is still in all people, but when it is called "rugged individualism" and mocked, then of course it goes in hiding. When the intellectual climate turns back, the spirit will return.
    Profits mean you are using resources in the most economical fashion. Losing money means those resources are being wasted. Think of it this way: Happiness is to living as profit is to business, it's a signal that we are doinitrite

    Also, calling what we have a free market is to mislabel this mixed economy. There are no areas of life left unregulated. Google "lemonade stand arrests" to see how deep this infection goes.
    Private property is the key.
    Also, where you say “government is not accountable to the people” another way of saying the same thing is “Some people are not accountable to the rest of the people.”

    The thought that any one can decide for another is absurd, yet that is the ethos we currently live with. We are about to have 9 people decide health care for those 311M people. That is not what I would call democratic.
    P. Zimbardo makes the case that a bad system will always produce bad actors. The system of government is inherently corrupt. It cannot be reformed, it needs to be thrown out and a new methods tried.
  11. failboat Member

    Empirically, free markets have cared about growth. They have also favored mechanization in the manufacture of useful items.
    The term 'economy' figures prominently in the phrase 'economy of scale,' which free markets have empirically supported, to the end result that industries and GDP's have grown.
    The way to make a profit is to take in more revenue than your expenses. The end result of freedom has not, empirically, been the use of the least resources for the best value.

    A free market by definition has no controls to prevent monopolization of a raw material. The monopolizer of that material can prevent it from being more plentiful, and can set its price. A free market has no controls to force the monopolizer's compliance.

    Once again, profit means that your revenues are greater than your expenses. The proper use of resources alone doesn't determine profitability. You can lose money while using resources in the most economical fashion. You can make a profit while being a profligate waster.
  12. adhocrat Member

    Failboat, I can tell you've never studied economics, but boy you've got the fallacies down pat.

    You call the mixed market a free market, then say free markets are bad. What you are complaining about without realizing it is the mixed market but you think it's the free market because state paid school teachers propagandists have been telling you that lie all your life.

    Good jerb though learning all the propaganda.
  13. grebe Member

    Adhocrat, how about "relatively free market," meaning a bit more free than, say, North Korea's market, or the old USSR's market?

    I'm picking extreme examples of centralized control over prices to make a point: although we can't point to a large economy devoid of central control, we can order the large economies we see according to degrees of central control. We can say, "free market" if we mean "relatively free in relation to other examples," even if we cannot say, "a large market with zero central control."
  14. adhocrat Member

    Well, if you look at the US from 1820 to 1910, the price of a basket of goods fell by 35%, that is, a basket of goods that cost $100 dollars (in silver) cost $64 of silver 90 years later. That is what a free market does.

    A 'semi' free market with the Fed means that the price of that basket of goods is now thousands of fiat dollars (not backed by silver).

    So the US government has stolen about 97% of the value of the dollar over the past 100 years. That is the antithesis of a free market.

    Grebe, we can't really mix 'free' with anything and remain with 'free'. The glass of water is poison with even one drop of arsenic. So a little bit of poison is still poison, and it renders the rest suspect.
  15. grebe Member

    So adhocrat, you are saying that the US Federal government did not impact the trading of goods and services within the US between 1820 and 1910?

    It is the dose which makes the poison, adhocrat. Rat poison (warfarin) in low dose in some people can save lives.
  16. failboat Member

    Presuming to tell people what they are complaining about is tantamount to being able to read their minds. Can you read my fucking mind? Do you have OT powers?

    You said it yourself. The thought that you can decide for ME what I am complaining about is ABSURD.

    How about this? If you disagree with me about the definition of "free" vs. "mixed" markets, you provide a proper definition for both, and avoid insulting anyone's education. You could also show me how what I was complaining about were "mixed" markets, rather than "free" ones.

    It's also a failure that you don't describe how a totally free market would remedy the problems that I brought up about your wild assertions regarding them. You simply say "mixed market, not free," and move on, without dealing with monopolization, or mechanization, or growth. What remedies would a completely free market have against these phenomena? I'm hearing crickets.

    How about you acknowledge that you were wrong about the definition of the word "profit?" Seriously, we have a dissonance here on the meaning of this English word. Please, go look it up in a dictionary. If we can't agree on the definition of a simple word, whose meaning has significant consequences for economic theory and philosophy, then we probably can't have a serious discussion. Feel free to insult my education all you want over this point. It will only confirm my own perceptions of yours.
  17. failboat Member

    - Paracelsus

    I can't wait to see what Adhocrat has to say in response to this...
  18. adhocrat Member

    I was wrong about the poison, but I would still prefer pure water to water with unknown contaminants in it.

    The government of 1820 was nothing like it is today. There were no barriers to entry, no laws telling you couldn't set up a lemonade stand, no bureaucrats forcing you to license your business, spend thousands of dollars and months of time to start a new business. And there was no income tax to steal your profits away. So to compare the relatively free market of the 19th century to the highly mixed economy of today is to compare apples to oranges. The mostly free economy produced the largest increase in the standard of living seen in history We are now squandering that legacy in order to create more government which then makes bombs to kill people with. That isn't exactly the way we should want to go.

    The government of the 19th century did courts, military and law, the exact things that a minarchist (libertarian) wants. I could live with such. But to equate 1820 with 2012 is absurd.

    The people didn't want to be told what to do. That took many decades of public education to propagandize that freedom away. In fact, a classical liberal of the Jeffersonian stripe is what is called a libertarian today. But read about modern compulsory education (John Gatto is a good starting point) to learn than modern schools were set up in order to keep the population controlled. This is not my take, but the very words used by those who set up compulsory education. We are the products of that deliberate dumbing down of the populace.

    Your statement about profits is the same as a musician telling me the song is in E diminished major minor. It makes no sense. This isn't meant to be a dig at you, it is just that the statement makes no sense, so I can't answer it.

    And yes, i could have explained what I think you mean. But I doubt that you are willing to read a three page treatise on the subject, so I will just point you to any good economic text book to explain what economists mean by the word 'profit.'

    Economist talk about wages, rent, interest and profit.

    The short version is that profits are the excess income you receive over doing the next best job. So if Bill Gates were to be forced to find a job, the difference between what he could earn as a manager versus what he earns as MS chairman are his profits. Since MS is not in a free market, the government props up his profits at the expense of every consumer of MS products.

    But this is opportunity costs, and that seems a bit too technical for most people. But it is like complaining about engineering being too technical, it's in the nature of the beast.

    So, Failboat, a challenge: Find out why economist say that profits fall to zero in a free market. That is to say, that in a mature industry in a free market, profits are zero.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. failboat Member

    Since you've agreed to disagree with me about profits, let's move on. I guess you couldn't find a dictionary.

    What remedies does a market free from external controls have against monopolization, mechanization, and growth?

    Additionally, what remedies does a market free from external controls have against the tragedy of the commons? Air and water are commons that, despite your most magickal free-market wand, will not be parcelled into privatized rights. They need to be protected for us all, and that requires controls on certain economic activities.

    Please respond.

    You, um, still didn't define "free market," for me, so I'm not going to complete this challenge without some agreement on this concept. If you agree with the phrases "a market free from external controls," and grebe's "large market with zero central control," then please say so. If you have a different definition, please briefly give it. It should take you a sentence or less, not a rambling diatribe about the 19th century and lemonade stands.
  20. grebe Member

    OMG full circle.

    Nothing to do with you, adhocrat. Nothing to do with this thread. Just a note to myself to file away.

    The troll who made noises about fair gaming me, before I started coming here, was a big John Gatto fan.

    You know who promotes the "less government regulation" meme more than you adhocrat? The Rupert Murdoch empire and the American Religious Right --rich people who be scammin us mostly.

    Somehow "state" and "government" got branded "evil" in your world, adhocrat. I think that's unfortunate. We the people need some entity capable of setting and upholding rules of fair play. That organization has to be tougher than entities like the Rupert Murdoch empire, China, the Russian Mafia, and others who would want to ruin us for their own gain or just for the lulz.
  21. adhocrat Member

    Grebe, please, no guilt by association. I loathe Murdoch, and his rhetoric is right wing, not libertarian.
    As for religion, I am an atheist, so I cannot ever agree to a god.

    As for all the various issues, I say one thing. Our system rests on theft. That makes it an immoral system. I know you will tell me that taxes are 'voluntary' or that they are the dues we pay for living in a geogrpahical area, but those are nonsense, as a few moments thought would tell you, if the government propaganda didn't blind you to certain obvious realities, such as our tax money is used to murder innocent people in foreign countries,

    How long do you think it will be before the President is openly murdering US citizens?
    Oh, wait, he already did.
    SO, i gotta tell you, with the president himself ordering the murder of US citizens, I don't feel all that safe. SO whether any other system is better or worse, the current one is a horror.
  22. Anonymous Member

    If only we can somehow get people over this common (mis-?)conception. As soon as you consolidate power, it seems, corruption happens. In both perception and effect.

    In a 100% free market, this power moves from a government (for the people, by the people [on paper, anyway,]) to an autocratic corporation that's mastered the playing field it of which it was borne (it must have, otherwise it would have failed) that answers to itself.

    To me, a publically-supported government (uncorrupted) seems like it would be less abusive than a handful of CEO's pretty much at the top. I don't know, though. Didn't a bunch of people write a shit-ton of speculative fiction about this stuff?

    I would want somebody with the power to arrest teh purveyor of poisoned drink made of the endangered lemon, too.
  23. adhocrat Member

    Of course. Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely. And when that power has the monopoly use of force, then you've just created a dictatorship. If one man can dictate to another the rules then one man is indeed a dictator, his word is law.

    Power diffused throughout the people is the proper means of handling power, Don't concentrate it in the hands of a few. That's what government does, it gathers up all the power of the people and hands the reins to one person, who we then hope and pray will lead us right.
    No one can ever be trusted with that much power, yet we insist on giving it to them and hoping.
    Sheer insanity.

    Either we are adults who can decide for ourselves, or we are children who need to be led. The government says you are a child who needs a father to guide you through life. I say you are an adult who can make decisions for yourself without daddy holding your hand.
  24. failboat Member

    Wordclear "dictatorship." The term as a form of government is very specific. Governments that do not conform to certain very specific conditions are not dictatorships. Countries with civilian governments, elected in free democratic elections, that strive for equal justice before the law, are not considered dictatorships. If you'd like to argue otherwise, you have several pages of treatise to write.

    The second sentence is just as flawed. Employers dictate rules to employees that affect their health and livelihood; they're dictators, and your free markets are full of them. Some crosswalks are now equipped with speakers, that 'dictate' when it is safe to walk - they're dictators! Here's a dictator:


    Legislators who've never enforced a law in their lives, but spend a good portion of their working hours reading aloud - dictating - the contents of legislation. They're dictators! I could hire a legal secretary to read to me scrolls of laws. I'd be his dictator because I'm employing him. He'd be a dictator too.

  25. adhocrat Member

    You are equivocating. And in public!
    You word clear the difference between voluntary and forced.
    Between legislative fiat and voluntary agreement.

    One situation is voluntary, the other is at the point of a gun.
    That isn't a hard concept to understand. So if you redefine the terms to suit your purpose, then sure, you can prove anything.

    Just to be clear, if a politicians passes a law, that is a dictate, if I am told to work 9 to 5, that is a dictate, but I only HAVE to obey one of those dictates.
    It's almost embarrassing to have to point this distinction out to you. Voluntary versus forced is not a hard concept to understand. That you are having such a hard time with the concept is telling.
  26. failboat Member

    Legislative fiat by duly elected representatives of the people, whom the people elected in free and fair elections, is voluntary agreement. If the fiat should be onerous, new legislators can be voted in by the people at the next election, to reform or repeal faulty legislation. That is not dictatorship

    Private police who are paid by private parties can elicit my involuntary agreement, at the point of a gun. That's a little more like dictatorship.
  27. adhocrat Member

    if you really think your vote counts well I think you're a fool.
    And even if my vote did make a difference, waiting three years to unelect an evil representative isn't exactly a point in favor of voting. I want him out when he is shown to have lied, not when the next election cycle rolls around.
    Which is why private companies can never be the problem people think they would be. They don't have a monopoly on the use of violence and I can take my business elsewhere.

    Let me repeat that:
    No private person or company would have a monopoly on the use of violence. So if someone is using violence against us there is no moral ambiguity. We know that person is wrong, by the simple fact they used violence against us. That moral clarity is impossible when there is a monopoly of violence in the hands of a sub group.

    Again with the equivocating. Private means private, it doesn't have the power of the state behind it. There would be no moral uncertainty as there is when a monopoly force goes rogue.
    What you described is criminal activity. Why is it not criminal when the government does it? It's the same action, yet you claim one is good and the other bad. You should try to resolve that contradiction.

    It's odd to me that to prevent a possible future problem(private violence) your solution is to create an immediate and real problem (government violence).
  28. failboat Member

    Not everyone is moral. Not everyone will spend their money for moral private police.

    Of the two bolded statements, the 2nd one is not a logical result of the 1st. There is moral ambiguity when one party uses violence to protect his livelihood from another non-violent party, as in the case of inadvertent trespass, destruction of property, or theft for sustenance. There would be moral ambiguity when private persons or companies both lay claim to the same property, and each hires their own police to enforce their claims.

    There is still moral uncertainty when all parties are private; I've pointed out several examples.

    I argue that there is more potential for criminal activity if all policing were private.

    It is not criminal when a government has a monopoly on violence if the government is duly elected in free and fair elections, with due legislative and judicial processes to govern the use of force; and strives to ensure equal protection before the law. Contradiction resolved.

    Private violence is not a possible future problem, it's also an immediate and real problem.
  29. adhocrat Member

    Uh, so you accept that Obama can start a war on his own, without congress. That Obama can cause American citizens to be murdered, and since we elected him, it's OK.

    Sorry, no, never, not a chance in hell is that moral.

    It is in fact openly and wantonly criminal behavior, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it. Our vote means nothing since he has already shown that he will ignore the law if it suits his purpose. And even if we vote for the other guy, we'll get more of the same. Obama is no better than Bush. Both openly defy the Constitution. Yet they are applauded for it.

    So, the group of people who have government power take our money through taxes, promise to build roads and keep us safe, but then they use a lot of that money to go overseas to kill a bunch of people who then learn to loathe and despise the US. And since we elected our leaders, that is A-OK with you.

    This is what you want me to accept as necessary to our survival. I say they are making our survival infinitely more difficult by using my money to create terror in foreign lands.
  30. cafanon Member

    Okay dude, I hate Obama as much as the next guy (despite having been an avid supporter of his in '09), but like the Tea Party... you are indicting him...once again.... for the wrong reasons. Congress has not declared war since WWII, that means Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and countless other acts of war, have not been sanctioned by Congress as per the constitutional process for declaring war and have been done by presidents authority as "commander in chief" for quite some time. A precedent set up by Theodore Roosevelt. Obama and the so called "left-wing" are far from alone in this, so indicting him for it while ignoring the equally right wing usage of such tactics is unforgivably hypocritical...once again.

    If you are going to indict Obama...there are plenty of logically consistent reasons.... signing a bill that allows for the indefinite detention of American Citizens without trial, completely pulling a 180 on his pro-human rights stance in obstinately refusing in close Gitmo despite a bullshit Nobel Prize, authorizing Homeland to co-ordinate the suppression of free speech protests with at least 12 cities.... and the list goes on.
  31. adhocrat Member

    So, I agree with you, I was using Obama as the current example, But the rot goes back far longer, since government itself is the source of the rot. See The Lucifer Effect for details.

    I may not have stressed it, but I did say that I consider Bush equally guilty, and I agree that all those things you mentioned are valid reasons. My point is: This is what government does, that it is government that creates the moral hazards that we all see but don't quite get to the core reasons.

    You take it back 100 years, to TR. So think, for the past 100 years, our government has acted in a criminal manner.
    Take a look at Matthew C Perry, and realize that the US Navy were the terrorists in 1854.

    (Short sarcastic summary: Perry sails in a Japanese harbor, says "Come out and play." The Japanese say "go away." Perry said "I didn't make myself clear. Come out and play or I will kill you." The Japanese said "Oh, since you put it that way, sure, we'll come out and play.")

    I was convinced to vote for Obama, not that it mattered much to me. I don't like Cain, the LP candidate was a joke, Obama was at least hopeful. But I wasn't at all disappointed in his performance because I didn't expect anything better. Cynical, perhaps, or just an acknowledgement of history.
  32. failboat Member

    adhocrat, I thought we were talking about dictatorships and free markets. If you'd like to argue that Obama's powers are dictatorial in nature, do so. If you'd like to argue that his actions are criminal, that's fine too. Criminality in office is not the same as dictatorship.

    Since we were arguing about dictatorship, I'll take the fact that you dropped this argument to mean you accept that Obama is not a dictator.

    I'm not here to argue over criminality with you, so if you'd like to continue indicting crimes of the president's office, make sure you get all the presidents. If criminality of elected officials is your concern, the remedy is "impeachment," rather than "revolution."

    This statement was meant to apply to the DOMESTIC monopoly on violence that governments have, not to foreign violence.

    In the wide world, other nations have their own militaries, and the U.S. does not have a monopoly on violence in Russia or North Korea or anywhere else where a government has its own standing army.
  33. adhocrat Member

    If one person can control another's life, then that person has power over that person. That is what I consider dictatorial, one orders, the other obeys. All government are dictatorial in that sense, since there is no negotiating with the people it affects, only an edict and an order. You will argue that our vote means it is not a dictate, but that is a false argument, since the dictate come from someone I didn't vote for and would never vote for. I would have no remedy in the moment from that edict. Either obey or suffer the too gruesome consequences. And yet you say this is somehow a voluntary system.
    Impeachment comes from the other politicians, sort of like asking the fox to guard the henhouse. What I say is the problem, you offer as a solution. Yikes
    OK, then what you are saying that the government arrogates a right to themselves THAT WE DON"T HAVE. In other words, you and I cannot initiate the use of force, but the government asserts the right to do so, but the governments rights are derived from ours, and the government gets it legitimacy from the people.
    So, how is it the government can initiate the use of force and the people they derive their mandate from do not have that right?

    There is no way to resolve that contradiction without appeal to special privileges, yet power are derived from the people.

    A dictatorship is not always bad. Benevolent dictators have existed. But it is not freedom, it is someone else telling us what we can and cannot do. A simple example, the local council banned plastic bags. We had no choice, they didn't ask San Jose to vote, they simply banned them. That was a dictate.

    So you seem to be arguing about how many dictates make a dictator.

    I say one, you obviously have a much higher number.

    I think the last two presidents, Bush II and Obama, have shown the course the US is on, namely a fascistic empire.The fact that Obama looks, feels, smells and acts like Bush, I think any notion of a difference between the two parties is purely cosmetic.
    (fascism=mercantilism=crony capitalism= corporate capitalism)
  34. failboat Member

    Hey, as Cafanon pointed out, ideally Congress should be voting to declare war, not the President.

    Congress holds the pursestrings and can choose to fund or de-fund the military. Whether or not Congress should have declared war officially becomes less important, since Congress can choose to end war with every annual budget, by de-funding the military.

    We come back to elections. and whether or not representative democracy is a logical system. Dictates are the result of ANY government as you said, except for the "pure" democracy, in which Everyone gets to vote on Everything. Do you have time to vote 1000 times a day? If we want to have democratic government and the rule of law, and social services and infrastructure, we need elected representatives to establish the institutions of civilization, levy taxes, and so on. Dictates that result don't make the elected officials who issue them dictators; the election process and the legislative process both ensure that the mandates of government come from duly elected representatives of the people, and follow due legislative process.

    There's a new Congress every 2 years; we could kick out the whole House and 1/3 of the Senate every 2 years. That's how you get your change. Impeachment, like I pointed out, is also a viable option. If the politicians in office won't do any impeaching, elect ones who will.

    Revolution is treason. Do you want to get your followers executed or put away for life? That's the course for which you advocate.

    If you think your vote doesn't count, stop being butt-hurt about it and go change enough opinions that your ideology's vote matters. Run for office. You have free speech. I don't see Obama stopping you from changing the minds of as many people as you'd like. I don't see the government stopping you from gathering the votes of as many people as you can convince, or enlisting others to help fund and further your political cause. You might think your vote doesn't matter, but it does when you back it up with a lifetime of advocacy. You might think you have no power to change this government, but no one has barred you from running for office. The fact that you have these options is proof that we do not live under a dictatorship.
  35. adhocrat Member

    And I say no one should be able to declare war absent an attack on the geographical place known as the United States of America.
    The Constitution says only Congress can declare war, yet as has been pointed out, the last declaration of war came in 1942. So every war since then has been an unconstitutional exercise in dictatorial powers.

    which of course neatly sidesteps how they got the purse whose strings the control. And it also side step reality, since Congress has shown itself to be craven and unwilling to assert the powers given them by the Constitution.

    Do you understand that we already vote tens or scores or hundreds of times every day, with our pocketbooks?
    See, you are assuming that what is good is democracy, yet the problems with democracy are well understood and insoluble.

    I am not advocating revolution in the sense of a violent overthrow of a government. That is such an obvious contradiction to what I advocate, even you can see the absurdity of someone who wants peace advocating war.
    I do want to point out the obvious and serious contradictions in the current system. This means showing the emperor has no clothes.

    I cannot initiate the use of force. You cannot do it either.
    So where does the power for the government to do this come from?
  36. failboat Member

    US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11; and Article II, section 2


    And a government's power to initiate force doesn't make it a dictatorship.
  37. adhocrat Member

    sure, the US government has the right to declare war.
    But it doesn't have the right to initiate a war of aggression.

    You equivocate, again. I say no one can initiate the use of force, you then come back and say we have the right of self defense.

    I totally agree, but it did not address my point, which is that initiating the use of force is something none of us has the right to do, so our government cannot have that right, since their rights are derived form our rights.
  38. adhocrat Member

    Actually, that would make it a criminal organization. Initiating the use of force is a crime by definition.

    If you say it isn't, give an example where the initiation of the use of force is moral (and no equivocating, no self defense disguised as initiating force))
  39. PresidentShaw Member

    Nice article, its about time that moderates that aren't too caught up in polarized finger pointing speak up.
  40. failboat Member

    There's nothing about self-defence in there, adhocrat, which means Congress DOES have the right to initiate a war of aggression. I'm not equivocating on this. I do not interpret this clause of the Constitution as "Congress can declare war in self-defense."

    I interpret it exactly as it reads. Congress has the power to declare war and make rules concerning the capture of territories. You'll notice that the clause is unconditional.

    I see you've also given up on the idea that our government is a dictatorship and decided to call it a criminal organization.

    I've already given you the remedy for criminality in government, and that is impeachment.

    I hereby declare victory.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins