CDZ If you . . .

[rightwinger]

“Needs” do not dictate moral policy, rights do. Unless, of course, you’re a Marxist. These men spoke of rights, which are immutable across all time and space.

Needs dictate what is done for the General Welfare

This is precisely the problem. The mind-controlled masses place needs above rights. They are very aware of perceived need, but would be hard-pressed to even describe what a right is. If they read the words of the founding fathers, they would understand human rights and we wouldn't be slipping into communism.

But since they rely on state education (or its private clones) and the dumbed-down culture to provide them with full extent of their knowledge, the forces infecting this country can penetrate their brains with a need mentality and manipulate them with ease. All they have to do is drum up a need, either by pulling on heartstrings, or creating/leveraging a threat, and people will hand themselves over on a platter in the name of comfort and/or security.

And these principles of human psychology have been known for thousands of years, being purposefully occulted throughout history; either by hiding them directly, or (in the modern age) by diverting attention away from them. They are routinely used by people who understand them against people who don't.

“If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
- Samuel Adams

Humans form communities and civilizations. That is what made us the most dominant species on earth. Those civilizations that manage to best serve the security and needs of its people dominate

 

[rightwinger]

If you are a democrat, what democratic policies do you disagree with?

If you are a republican, what republican policies do you disagree with?

I find it very curious how people can just tow the party line in every single instance? I am starting this thread to find out exactly how much do people disagree with the respective parties? Do they disagree with them about any of their stances or policies? Are you always in COMPLETE agreement with your party, no matter their policies or their ways of going about getting what they want? Perhaps there are some tactics that your party uses that you might disagree with? I started this in the CDC because I actually want some answers instead of our usual battering of one another's views and party affiliations.

Thanks for your input.

I am not a Republican, however I am firmly on the right, so I'll reply anyway.

I don't agree with the fact that they seek to expand the government.

I don't agree with their support of regulations.

I don't agree with their support of subsidies.

I don't agree with their attempts to police the world, however I do agree with striking back when attacked.

I don't agree with the fact that they're so willing to make deals with the left.

They've also shown themselves to be supporters of Welfare programs, more spending, and have supported Social Security in the past, all of which I'm completely opposed to.

Republicans have also supported environmental protection programs, which I'm also strongly against.

I also don't agree with their support of a path to citizenship.

I don't agree with foreign aid in any capacity.

I don't agree with the Republican opposition to drugs, nor do I agree with what little opposition to Same Sex Marriage there is in the party.

Republicans also generally support SOME regulations on guns, which I do not.

Republicans support the existence of the Public School, which I do not.

I also don't agree with any policies regarding the LGBT community, whether supporting or opposing, and Republicans have supported both types.

I don't agree with the Republicans wanting Puerto Rico to be a state.

Basically, I barely support them over the left, only because I support even less that the left does, especially now that they've doubled down on everything I disagree with.

Sounds borderline anarchist

What would you say the duties of A government are?

Meet the needs of its people as determined by the people

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I'm an Independent but align more with GOP and definitely support President Trump. I do not agree with spending 25 billion (which will be 100 billion+) to build a Southern border wall. I don't know if it's a GOP policy but I am for getting Pot changed to a schedule 2 drug and legalizing it. The Opiate industry has killed enough people and destroyed enough lives.

Why do you think people should be able to interact with that particular substance without being violently kidnapped and thrown in a cage?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Humans form communities and civilizations. That is what made us the most dominant species on earth. Those civilizations that manage to best serve the security and needs of its people dominate

Well, there’s nothing like domination to prove one’s quality. Nothing you said here has anything to do with governmental authority. Community, civilization, security and meeting the needs of the people are not intrinsically linked to violent coercion.

In fact, each and every one of these are diminished by it. Organization is required, but voluntary organizations abound and thrive in the complete absence of the threat of violence.

Never mind the fact that they’re actually moral, which apparently is a matter for no consideration at all from your perspective.

 

[candycorn]

I'm an Independent but align more with GOP and definitely support President Trump. I do not agree with spending 25 billion (which will be 100 billion+) to build a Southern border wall. I don't know if it's a GOP policy but I am for getting Pot changed to a schedule 2 drug and legalizing it. The Opiate industry has killed enough people and destroyed enough lives.

FYI: This is why there are national conventions every 4 years--the party Platform is the "official" standings of the Political Party.

This isn't for you....

but it would be helpful if those who voted for Democrats looked up what their party stands for...and it would be greatly helpful if a Republican did the same.

You'd probably consider yourself more independent regardless of where you start at.

 

[rightwinger]

Humans form communities and civilizations. That is what made us the most dominant species on earth. Those civilizations that manage to best serve the security and needs of its people dominate

Well, there’s nothing like domination to prove one’s quality. Nothing you said here has anything to do with governmental authority. Community, civilization, security and meeting the needs of the people are not intrinsically linked to violent coercion.

In fact, each and every one of these are diminished by it. Organization is required, but voluntary organizations abound and thrive in the complete absence of the threat of violence.

Never mind the fact that they’re actually moral, which apparently is a matter for no consideration at all from your perspective.

Communities and civilizations do not survive without a government. They need leadership, organization, direction

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Communities and civilizations do not survive without a government. They need leadership, organization, direction

And again, a false equivalency is being made. Leadership, organization and direction are not intrinsically linked with coercive violence. In fact, leadership cannot be coercive, or it is domination. Leaders inspire compliance; tyrants demand it.

There is a common misunderstanding about what government actually is. Its only defining characteristic is the fallacious "right" to punish those who do not meet its demands. The "right" to coerce. No such right exists, but that's the claim. Remove that, and what's left is just an organizational body like any other - a corporation, a little league team, a militia, a charity.

 

[Mac1958]

Communities and civilizations do not survive without a government. They need leadership, organization, direction

And again, a false equivalency is being made. Leadership, organization and direction are not intrinsically linked with coercive violence. In fact, leadership cannot be coercive, or it is domination. Leaders inspire compliance; tyrants demand it.

There is a common misunderstanding about what government actually is. Its only defining characteristic is the fallacious "right" to punish those who do not meet its demands. The "right" to coerce. No such right exists, but that's the claim. Remove that, and what's left is just an organizational body like any other - a corporation, a little league team, a militia, a charity.

What exactly would you like to see in America? What is your ideal?

Lay it out for us, specifically. Then we can use it as context going forward here.
.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

What exactly would you like to see in America? What is your ideal?

Lay it out for us, specifically. Then we can use it as context going forward here.
.

I would like to see a rise in the cultural consciousness. I would like to see the overwhelming majority demonstrate the will to earnestly embrace reason, and the courage to thoroughly commit to morality. I would like to see people shake off indoctrinated mind control in favor of lucid perception, and to see the truth and practicality of natural law.

This will necessarily result in the removal of support for coercive methodologies, in favor of rational discourse and true cooperative organization. An understanding and appreciation of fundamental human rights will see immoral solutions to life's challenges immediately removed from the table. The necessity for moral solutions will birth invention we cannot possibly fathom from our current perspective.

"When one is asked to speculate on the unknown, one should not anticipate pragmatic answers." - Dr. Dimitrios, Blood Beach (1981)

For this reason, there is no "system" being suggested other than this core commitment to moral rationality (and the willingness to physically defend against aggressors who do not make this same commitment). Free creativity will render the truest and highest expression of man's potential, and this may not look the same in every place, at every time. I imagine things would not change much at first... free-market capitalism will likely be embraced for some time (possibly hundreds of years), before the logic and benefits of a gift economy become ubiquitously apparent. Just my speculation.

In any case, there is no centralized body capable of addressing the needs and desires of all people everywhere through a unified system (again, not from our current level of consciousness). Precisely what will be devised is anyone's guess, and everyone's responsibility. In the absence of an immoral government (non) solution to every problem, man's imagination will awaken from its half-slumber and humanity will move into the next phase of our social evolution.

 

[Mac1958]

What exactly would you like to see in America? What is your ideal?

Lay it out for us, specifically. Then we can use it as context going forward here.
.

I would like to see a rise in the cultural consciousness. I would like to see the overwhelming majority demonstrate the will to earnestly embrace reason, and the courage to thoroughly commit to morality. I would like to see people shake off indoctrinated mind control in favor of lucid perception, and to see the truth and practicality of natural law.

This will necessarily result in the removal of support for coercive methodologies, in favor of rational discourse and true cooperative organization. An understanding and appreciation of fundamental human rights will see immoral solutions to life's challenges immediately removed from the table. The necessity for moral solutions will birth invention we cannot possibly fathom from our current perspective.

"When one is asked to speculate on the unknown, one should not anticipate pragmatic answers." - Dr. Dimitrios, Blood Beach (1981)

For this reason, there is no "system" being suggested other than this core commitment to moral rationality (and the willingness to physically defend against aggressors who do not make this same commitment). Free creativity will render the truest and highest expression of man's potential, and this may not look the same in every place, at every time. I imagine things would not change much at first... free-market capitalism will likely be embraced for some time (possibly hundreds of years), before the logic and benefits of a gift economy become ubiquitously apparent. Just my speculation.

In any case, there is no centralized body capable of addressing the needs and desires of all people everywhere through a unified system (again, not from our current level of consciousness). Precisely what will be devised is anyone's guess, and everyone's responsibility. In the absence of an immoral government (non) solution to every problem, man's imagination will awaken from its half-slumber and humanity will move into the next phase of our social evolution.

Safe to say, then, that you have neither a specific plan nor a concrete vision for what this would look like, and that if we were somehow able to commit to a "moral rationality", such a commitment would naturally lead us to a better place, of some kind?
.

 

[rightwinger]

Communities and civilizations do not survive without a government. They need leadership, organization, direction

And again, a false equivalency is being made. Leadership, organization and direction are not intrinsically linked with coercive violence. In fact, leadership cannot be coercive, or it is domination. Leaders inspire compliance; tyrants demand it.

There is a common misunderstanding about what government actually is. Its only defining characteristic is the fallacious "right" to punish those who do not meet its demands. The "right" to coerce. No such right exists, but that's the claim. Remove that, and what's left is just an organizational body like any other - a corporation, a little league team, a militia, a charity.

Any society has its miscreants.
We rely upon our government to deal with them. Eye for an eye Justice did not work

 

[Brian Blackwell]

What exactly would you like to see in America? What is your ideal?

Lay it out for us, specifically. Then we can use it as context going forward here.
.

I would like to see a rise in the cultural consciousness. I would like to see the overwhelming majority demonstrate the will to earnestly embrace reason, and the courage to thoroughly commit to morality. I would like to see people shake off indoctrinated mind control in favor of lucid perception, and to see the truth and practicality of natural law.

This will necessarily result in the removal of support for coercive methodologies, in favor of rational discourse and true cooperative organization. An understanding and appreciation of fundamental human rights will see immoral solutions to life's challenges immediately removed from the table. The necessity for moral solutions will birth invention we cannot possibly fathom from our current perspective.

"When one is asked to speculate on the unknown, one should not anticipate pragmatic answers." - Dr. Dimitrios, Blood Beach (1981)

For this reason, there is no "system" being suggested other than this core commitment to moral rationality (and the willingness to physically defend against aggressors who do not make this same commitment). Free creativity will render the truest and highest expression of man's potential, and this may not look the same in every place, at every time. I imagine things would not change much at first... free-market capitalism will likely be embraced for some time (possibly hundreds of years), before the logic and benefits of a gift economy become ubiquitously apparent. Just my speculation.

In any case, there is no centralized body capable of addressing the needs and desires of all people everywhere through a unified system (again, not from our current level of consciousness). Precisely what will be devised is anyone's guess, and everyone's responsibility. In the absence of an immoral government (non) solution to every problem, man's imagination will awaken from its half-slumber and humanity will move into the next phase of our social evolution.

Safe to say, then, that you have neither a specific plan nor a concrete vision for what this would look like, and that if we were somehow able to commit to a "moral rationality", such a commitment would naturally lead us to a better place, of some kind?
.

Well, would a thorough understanding and conformity of action with scientific findings "lead us to a better place of some kind?"

Any time you act in accordance with reality, you're better off than if you didn't. Right now, we're not. So yes, despite not knowing what 325 million people (or 8 billion worldwide, as per the ultimate goal) would decide to do with true freedom, I know that if we get there via an understanding of natural moral law, it will be better.

If you understand my descriptions of what morality is, and how it works, there could be no denying this. However, anarchy itself is no guarantee of peace and prosperity. It must come via a rise a consciousness, not the mere overthrow of an established institution.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Communities and civilizations do not survive without a government. They need leadership, organization, direction

And again, a false equivalency is being made. Leadership, organization and direction are not intrinsically linked with coercive violence. In fact, leadership cannot be coercive, or it is domination. Leaders inspire compliance; tyrants demand it.

There is a common misunderstanding about what government actually is. Its only defining characteristic is the fallacious "right" to punish those who do not meet its demands. The "right" to coerce. No such right exists, but that's the claim. Remove that, and what's left is just an organizational body like any other - a corporation, a little league team, a militia, a charity.

Any society has its miscreants.
We rely upon our government to deal with them. Eye for an eye Justice did not work

Any person who erroneously believes that he can abdicate personal responsibility for his own protection becomes the slave of his protector.

Defense is what protects rights. You cannot "rely" on anyone else to do this, though you can cooperate for group defense. Government is not cooperation. They claim a monopoly on the use of physical force against other human beings.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

If you are a democrat, what democratic policies do you disagree with?

If you are a republican, what republican policies do you disagree with?

I find it very curious how people can just tow the party line in every single instance? I am starting this thread to find out exactly how much do people disagree with the respective parties? Do they disagree with them about any of their stances or policies? Are you always in COMPLETE agreement with your party, no matter their policies or their ways of going about getting what they want? Perhaps there are some tactics that your party uses that you might disagree with? I started this in the CDC because I actually want some answers instead of our usual battering of one another's views and party affiliations.

Thanks for your input.

I am not a Republican, however I am firmly on the right, so I'll reply anyway.

I don't agree with the fact that they seek to expand the government.

I don't agree with their support of regulations.

I don't agree with their support of subsidies.

I don't agree with their attempts to police the world, however I do agree with striking back when attacked.

I don't agree with the fact that they're so willing to make deals with the left.

They've also shown themselves to be supporters of Welfare programs, more spending, and have supported Social Security in the past, all of which I'm completely opposed to.

Republicans have also supported environmental protection programs, which I'm also strongly against.

I also don't agree with their support of a path to citizenship.

I don't agree with foreign aid in any capacity.

I don't agree with the Republican opposition to drugs, nor do I agree with what little opposition to Same Sex Marriage there is in the party.

Republicans also generally support SOME regulations on guns, which I do not.

Republicans support the existence of the Public School, which I do not.

I also don't agree with any policies regarding the LGBT community, whether supporting or opposing, and Republicans have supported both types.

I don't agree with the Republicans wanting Puerto Rico to be a state.

Basically, I barely support them over the left, only because I support even less that the left does, especially now that they've doubled down on everything I disagree with.

Sounds borderline anarchist

What would you say the duties of A government are?

Meet the needs of its people as determined by the people

Rather broad and open-ended answer. I was more asking for something clear and concise rather than something that you can interpret any way you want.

 

[MarathonMike]

I'm an Independent but align more with GOP and definitely support President Trump. I do not agree with spending 25 billion (which will be 100 billion+) to build a Southern border wall. I don't know if it's a GOP policy but I am for getting Pot changed to a schedule 2 drug and legalizing it. The Opiate industry has killed enough people and destroyed enough lives.

Why do you think people should be able to interact with that particular substance without being violently kidnapped and thrown in a cage?

I assume you mean Pot not Opiates. My opinion is based on years of studying the subject of drugs and the drug industry and my personal knowledge with people I know with terrible chronic pain and depression. I believe Pot is a far superior solution for them than Opiates. I do not believe as you infer that Pot is addictive. I also know that it does not have the devastating characteristic of requiring you to use more and more to get the same result as is the case with Opiates.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I'm an Independent but align more with GOP and definitely support President Trump. I do not agree with spending 25 billion (which will be 100 billion+) to build a Southern border wall. I don't know if it's a GOP policy but I am for getting Pot changed to a schedule 2 drug and legalizing it. The Opiate industry has killed enough people and destroyed enough lives.

Why do you think people should be able to interact with that particular substance without being violently kidnapped and thrown in a cage?

I assume you mean Pot not Opiates. My opinion is based on years of studying the subject of drugs and the drug industry and my personal knowledge with people I know with terrible chronic pain and depression. I believe Pot is a far superior solution for them than Opiates. I do not believe as you infer that Pot is addictive. I also know that it does not have the devastating characteristic of requiring you to use more and more to get the same result as is the case with Opiates.

Oh no, I know that pot is not addictive, and yes, opiates are really hard to break. So the reason you think pot usage should not be met with abduction is because it's not particularly dangerous and can even be helpful?

 

[rightwinger]

Communities and civilizations do not survive without a government. They need leadership, organization, direction

And again, a false equivalency is being made. Leadership, organization and direction are not intrinsically linked with coercive violence. In fact, leadership cannot be coercive, or it is domination. Leaders inspire compliance; tyrants demand it.

There is a common misunderstanding about what government actually is. Its only defining characteristic is the fallacious "right" to punish those who do not meet its demands. The "right" to coerce. No such right exists, but that's the claim. Remove that, and what's left is just an organizational body like any other - a corporation, a little league team, a militia, a charity.

Any society has its miscreants.
We rely upon our government to deal with them. Eye for an eye Justice did not work

Any person who erroneously believes that he can abdicate personal responsibility for his own protection becomes the slave of his protector.

Defense is what protects rights. You cannot "rely" on anyone else to do this, though you can cooperate for group defense. Government is not cooperation. They claim a monopoly on the use of physical force against other human beings.

People do it all the time

We abdicate to society to provide our justice. It is called a civilized society

 

[rightwinger]

If you are a democrat, what democratic policies do you disagree with?

If you are a republican, what republican policies do you disagree with?

I find it very curious how people can just tow the party line in every single instance? I am starting this thread to find out exactly how much do people disagree with the respective parties? Do they disagree with them about any of their stances or policies? Are you always in COMPLETE agreement with your party, no matter their policies or their ways of going about getting what they want? Perhaps there are some tactics that your party uses that you might disagree with? I started this in the CDC because I actually want some answers instead of our usual battering of one another's views and party affiliations.

Thanks for your input.

I am not a Republican, however I am firmly on the right, so I'll reply anyway.

I don't agree with the fact that they seek to expand the government.

I don't agree with their support of regulations.

I don't agree with their support of subsidies.

I don't agree with their attempts to police the world, however I do agree with striking back when attacked.

I don't agree with the fact that they're so willing to make deals with the left.

They've also shown themselves to be supporters of Welfare programs, more spending, and have supported Social Security in the past, all of which I'm completely opposed to.

Republicans have also supported environmental protection programs, which I'm also strongly against.

I also don't agree with their support of a path to citizenship.

I don't agree with foreign aid in any capacity.

I don't agree with the Republican opposition to drugs, nor do I agree with what little opposition to Same Sex Marriage there is in the party.

Republicans also generally support SOME regulations on guns, which I do not.

Republicans support the existence of the Public School, which I do not.

I also don't agree with any policies regarding the LGBT community, whether supporting or opposing, and Republicans have supported both types.

I don't agree with the Republicans wanting Puerto Rico to be a state.

Basically, I barely support them over the left, only because I support even less that the left does, especially now that they've doubled down on everything I disagree with.

Sounds borderline anarchist

What would you say the duties of A government are?

Meet the needs of its people as determined by the people

Rather broad and open-ended answer. I was more asking for something clear and concise rather than something that you can interpret any way you want.

A government of the people, for the people and by the people. Thanks Abe

We elect government to do things that are not practical or possible to do on our own. We function better as a part of a society than as individuals looking out for ourselves

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Communities and civilizations do not survive without a government. They need leadership, organization, direction

And again, a false equivalency is being made. Leadership, organization and direction are not intrinsically linked with coercive violence. In fact, leadership cannot be coercive, or it is domination. Leaders inspire compliance; tyrants demand it.

There is a common misunderstanding about what government actually is. Its only defining characteristic is the fallacious "right" to punish those who do not meet its demands. The "right" to coerce. No such right exists, but that's the claim. Remove that, and what's left is just an organizational body like any other - a corporation, a little league team, a militia, a charity.

Any society has its miscreants.
We rely upon our government to deal with them. Eye for an eye Justice did not work

Any person who erroneously believes that he can abdicate personal responsibility for his own protection becomes the slave of his protector.

Defense is what protects rights. You cannot "rely" on anyone else to do this, though you can cooperate for group defense. Government is not cooperation. They claim a monopoly on the use of physical force against other human beings.

People do it all the time

We abdicate to society to provide our justice. It is called a civilized society

People pretend they can abdicate a lot of responsibilities - it’s called shirking your duty - what’s that prove? People also pretend external authority exists, and (spoiler alert) that’s no more real than the Easter Bunny.

The people of Stalinist Russia abdicated their responsibility and how’d that work out? We’re back to the founding fathers again... go read Thomas Paine’s “Crisis” to learn what it means to be self-responsible. Learn from these men why the militia is “necessary to the security of a free State”. Why standing armies - including militarized police - were repeatedly and vehemently cited as an intolerable danger.

I’m sorry, but this is a child’s mentality - Daddy save me! Yeah, until Daddy turns the back of his hand to you, and then what are you going to do? Get on a cattle car and hope for the best. You act like it can’t happen, when it has happened over and over and over again. And that’s the price for ignorance of natural law.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I am not a Republican, however I am firmly on the right, so I'll reply anyway.

I don't agree with the fact that they seek to expand the government.

I don't agree with their support of regulations.

I don't agree with their support of subsidies.

I don't agree with their attempts to police the world, however I do agree with striking back when attacked.

I don't agree with the fact that they're so willing to make deals with the left.

They've also shown themselves to be supporters of Welfare programs, more spending, and have supported Social Security in the past, all of which I'm completely opposed to.

Republicans have also supported environmental protection programs, which I'm also strongly against.

I also don't agree with their support of a path to citizenship.

I don't agree with foreign aid in any capacity.

I don't agree with the Republican opposition to drugs, nor do I agree with what little opposition to Same Sex Marriage there is in the party.

Republicans also generally support SOME regulations on guns, which I do not.

Republicans support the existence of the Public School, which I do not.

I also don't agree with any policies regarding the LGBT community, whether supporting or opposing, and Republicans have supported both types.

I don't agree with the Republicans wanting Puerto Rico to be a state.

Basically, I barely support them over the left, only because I support even less that the left does, especially now that they've doubled down on everything I disagree with.

Sounds borderline anarchist

What would you say the duties of A government are?

Meet the needs of its people as determined by the people

Rather broad and open-ended answer. I was more asking for something clear and concise rather than something that you can interpret any way you want.

A government of the people, for the people and by the people. Thanks Abe

We elect government to do things that are not practical or possible to do on our own. We function better as a part of a society than as individuals looking out for ourselves

The government is simply a group of people, there's nothing they can do that the people can't do on their own.

Electing officials simply means that the majority is oppressing the minority through the use of government. The government simply uses the masses as an excuse to further infringe on the rights of the people. Hence the government being allowed to steal money from working individuals as if they are their belongings.

Not exactly accurate, and even if it was, what you're referring to as a society is simply the government forcing its will on us. Not incentivizing, but forcing individuals to relinquish their money to be redistributed where the government sees fit. Without the government, the people would have more money to help people in need if they so chose, and there would be fewer people in need to start with.